California Cell Phone Fines

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:57 pm

$20 for first offense if caught by the police for hand held use of a cell phone and $50 for the second offense. Not a stiff enough penalty. Should be $3,000 first offense and the death penalty for second offense. Talk about a totally ignored law. I almost got creamed again by some idiot using a cell while diving fast on the freeway. This is getting to be a common occurrence. It's an easy law to avoid anyway since I can't recall the last time I have seen a police car.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:14 pm

I agree I'm constantly looking at the person behind me when I come to a stop to see if they are on their damn cell phone.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:33 am

Lon;1355672 wrote: Should be $3,000 first offense and the death penalty for second offense.What's missing is sufficient publicity bringing home the consequences of careless inattentive driving. Do Californians still take local paper newsprint? A few pages each week dedicated to uncensored crash photos, with descriptions of what the prat at the wheel was doing during has last few seconds on earth, might change behaviours.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 am

spot;1355676 wrote: What's missing is sufficient publicity bringing home the consequences of careless inattentive driving. Do Californians still take local paper newsprint? A few pages each week dedicated to uncensored crash photos, with descriptions of what the prat at the wheel was doing during has last few seconds on earth, might change behaviours.

If only they just killed themselves

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:51 am

CARLA;1355673 wrote: I agree I'm constantly looking at the person behind me when I come to a stop to see if they are on their damn cell phone.I've done that, then I realized that I was the one driving distracted, not them, and so I got on with my life. We've got too many Big Brother laws on the books as it is.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:18 am

Accountable;1355682 wrote: I've done that, then I realized that I was the one driving distracted, not them, and so I got on with my life. We've got too many Big Brother laws on the books as it is.

How on earth is it a big brother law to prosecute some ******** for driving a car without paying attention where they are going? Maybe if you got hit by one of these idiots you might feel a bit differently.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:00 am

Accountable;1355682 wrote: I've done that, then I realized that I was the one driving distracted, not them, and so I got on with my life. We've got too many Big Brother laws on the books as it is.

So I imagine you consider seat belt use enforcement another unbearable Big Brother law as well?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:09 am

I'm as wired as anyone, maybe more but the minute I get in my car its no phone, bluetooth, hands free devices they are all a distraction. The only thing any driver should be doing is paying attention to front, back and sides of his car nothing else. I think stiffer punishment is necessary or deaths from cell phone use will be has high as deaths from drinking and driving.

Yes I understand fines won't stop the worst offenders but if your driving privileges are taken away because of it you might wake up. Senseless death from DUI'S and CELL PHONES use I get livid just thinking about it. If a member of my family gets killed by one of these idiots you can count on it I will beat them to death with their damn phone and the bottle of booze they have in their car, or just run them down like they did my family member. I have no tolerance for this people none.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:10 am

You could almost get killed in the Supermarket as well as your car as grocery shoppers cruise up and down the aisles, blindly pushing their carts with cell phones stuck to their ear.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:20 am

Lon;1355691 wrote: You could almost get killed in the Supermarket as well as your car as grocery shoppers cruise up and down the aisles, blindly pushing their carts with cell phones stuck to their ear.

That bugs the crap out of me, you hear these idiots talking to their spouses asking if they should get 1 or 2% milk, apparently because they're too stupid to remember what they just used on their cereal that morning. GAH!

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:46 am

Some one needs to invent a device that would work like a TV Remote Control. We point it at the cell phone abuser and it sends out an ear splitting shreek to their cell, or causes involuntary release of their bladder and bowels.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:47 am

Accountable;1355682 wrote: I've done that, then I realized that I was the one driving distracted, not them, and so I got on with my life. We've got too many Big Brother laws on the books as it is.

Society has a choice. Either it deters people from driving dangerously by fining them when, for example, they speak or text on a cellphone while the vehicle they're driving is in motion, or it deters them by prosecuting the hell out of the survivors of crashes. We do the latter in England, it's routine for the police to examine the phone records of all cellphones found in crashed cars to see when they were last used. Cellphone-using crash-drivers only go to jail if they've killed other road users in the process though. The vast majority of cell-phone use by drivers merely adds to the risk on the roads without resulting in a crash.

Is sentencing meant to deter? If it is then those sentences should be identical to those passed on murderers. They're not. The alternative to adequately sentencing the actual killers is to prosecute all the dangerous behaviour rather than the consequence. Doing neither results in the considerable additional risk which well-behaved road users face.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:06 am

LOL.. makes me nuts as well. They do the same thing at banks while at the counter with a teller. I love it when the teller asks them to get off the phone and to step out of line till they are done talking. RUDE, RUDE, RUDE behavior ..

That bugs the crap out of me, you hear these idiots talking to their spouses asking if they should get 1 or 2% milk, apparently because they're too stupid to remember what they just used on their cereal that morning. GAH!

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:52 pm

And they have separate laws for texting while driving-just make one law that says cell phone use while driving is not allowed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:58 pm

gmc;1355686 wrote: How on earth is it a big brother law to prosecute some ******** for driving a car without paying attention where they are going? Maybe if you got hit by one of these idiots you might feel a bit differently.So then I suppose you support laws to punish people for

Eating while driving

Drinking while driving

Applying makeup while driving

Carrying on a conversation while driving

Listening to music or anything else over the radio or recorded media while driving

Referring to an electronic navigator (garmin, etc) while driving

Reading billboards or other advertising while driving

Looking at street address numbers while driving

Maybe we should make laws prohibiting billboards, street signs, or pedestrians wearing provocative clothing.

SnoozeAgain;1355689 wrote: So I imagine you consider seat belt use enforcement another unbearable Big Brother law as well?Protecting an individual from himself is an overreach of government responsibility, yes.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:09 pm

spot;1355694 wrote: Society has a choice. Either it deters people from driving dangerously by fining them when, for example, they speak or text on a cellphone while the vehicle they're driving is in motion, or it deters them by prosecuting the hell out of the survivors of crashes. We do the latter in England, it's routine for the police to examine the phone records of all cellphones found in crashed cars to see when they were last used. That makes sense. I would support such a policy. It's too inconvenient to do that here, though. Much easier to assume everyone is guilty and move on from there.

It's the new American Way.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:14 pm

[

Protecting an individual from himself is an overreach of government responsibility, yes.

Could you not say that about all traffic laws then?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:19 pm

SnoozeAgain;1355692 wrote: That bugs the crap out of me, you hear these idiots talking to their spouses asking if they should get 1 or 2% milk, apparently because they're too stupid to remember what they just used on their cereal that morning. GAH!My beloved and I used to go grocery shopping together. We'd discuss what we wanted to eat this week, is this toilet paper that much better than this one, ribs are on sales - wanna have a BBQ this weekend?, stuff like that. Now my job is closer to the base commissary than the house is, so I stop by on the way home. We still have that same conversation, except that it's on the phone as I wander the aisles alone with my earpiece and she walks beside me virtually. It's nice.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:21 pm

Lon;1355716 wrote: [

Protecting an individual from himself is an overreach of government responsibility, yes.[/QUOTE

Could you not say that about all traffic laws then?
Of course not. Most traffic laws ensure smooth safe traffic flow. How is putting up a stop sign protecting me from myself?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:34 pm

Accountable;1355717 wrote: My beloved and I used to go grocery shopping together. We'd discuss what we wanted to eat this week, is this toilet paper that much better than this one, ribs are on sales - wanna have a BBQ this weekend?, stuff like that. Now my job is closer to the base commissary than the house is, so I stop by on the way home. We still have that same conversation, except that it's on the phone as I wander the aisles alone with my earpiece and she walks beside me virtually. It's nice.

If you have the ear piece then I assume you are hands free when pushing your cart. No problem. It's the distraction that comes from holding a cell to one's ear and the total inattention to other people around you that causes problems, and there is no question about there being problems. Idiot's in the movies is another irritating use of cell's despite theaters posting on screen a no no.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:58 pm

Accountable;1355717 wrote: My beloved and I used to go grocery shopping together. We'd discuss what we wanted to eat this week, is this toilet paper that much better than this one, ribs are on sales - wanna have a BBQ this weekend?, stuff like that. Now my job is closer to the base commissary than the house is, so I stop by on the way home. We still have that same conversation, except that it's on the phone as I wander the aisles alone with my earpiece and she walks beside me virtually. It's nice.

It would be nicer if you two got up early on Saturday and went together. Having to navigate around some guy standing in a daze in the toilet paper aisle while he discusses the merits of single or double ply on his phone is really irritating.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:01 pm

No squeezing the Charmin now....................

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:15 pm

SnoozeAgain;1355722 wrote: It would be nicer if you two got up early on Saturday and went together. Having to navigate around some guy standing in a daze in the toilet paper aisle while he discusses the merits of single or double ply on his phone is really irritating.

chonsigirl;1355723 wrote: No squeezing the Charmin now....................
:wah: I'll squeeze Snoozie instead! :yh_hugs

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:10 am

Stupid bimbos putting on their makeup at 70 mph while steering with their knees should be pulled from the car beaten and gang raped. The problem with idiots is when their in cars they usually kill others or do great harm.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:05 am

To put this in context, 30,000 people die each year in the USA in traffic accidents. Or, from another perspective, a half million people have died horribly on Britain's roads since cars were legalized. Something should be done to reduce those figures. Well - not the half million, you can't really reduce that without time travel and a machine gun, but you get the idea.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:16 pm

I remember the time I passed a guy in a BMW convertible who was talking on his phone, smoking a cigarette, and steering with his knee. He was totally oblivious and just speeding down the road.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:55 pm

I remember the time I passed a guy in a BMW convertible who was talking on his phone, smoking a cigarette, and steering with his knee. He was totally oblivious and just speeding down the road.

The same sounds good to me. I've had too many close calls from these situations. It really makes me nervous too because of my truck. It's heavy and high off the ground, it will roll over a lot of vehicles I see out here. If this happens and I kill someone will I end up in jail?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:31 am

We should mandate tinted windows so that drivers won't be distracted by the unsafe activities of other drivers. It's unsafe.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:11 am

I find chauffeurs are a perfectly reasonable compromise.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:22 am

Sure, until you use the intercom to tell him where to drive.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:31 am

Accountable;1355713 wrote: So then I suppose you support laws to punish people for

Eating while driving

Drinking while driving

Applying makeup while driving

Carrying on a conversation while driving

Listening to music or anything else over the radio or recorded media while driving

Referring to an electronic navigator (garmin, etc) while driving

Reading billboards or other advertising while driving

Looking at street address numbers while driving

Maybe we should make laws prohibiting billboards, street signs, or pedestrians wearing provocative clothing.

Protecting an individual from himself is an overreach of government responsibility, yes.

Now you're just being silly. Unless of course you actually believe being on a phone doesn't distract you. It's the level of distraction it causes not the action itself that is the problem.

Do you fell the same way about drunk driving laws? Or do you drunkards should be allowed to drive so long as they don't kill anybody.

It's not about protecting the individual from himself it's about protecting others from a stupid act that has been shown time and time again to cause accidents. How often have you been passing a car swaying all over the motorway only to realise the erratic driving is because he was on the phone or nearly been hot because some tube is cornering one handed and wandered across to the wrong side of the road because they have lost control?

As to the others things you describe we have an offence called reckless driving you can be charged with of the police can prove your actions caused an accident. Very few accidents aren't caused by somebody or other. What do you say to someone that skids in to you on an icy road - It's OK it wasn't your fault for going too fast and losing control.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:43 am

gmc;1355828 wrote: Now you're just being silly. Unless of course you actually believe being on a phone doesn't distract you. It's the level of distraction it causes not the action itself that is the problem. Exactly. You're not going to claim that cell phones are more distracting than these other things, are you?? Why outlaw only the one?

gmc wrote:

It's not about protecting the individual from himself it's about protecting others from a stupid act that has been shown time and time again to cause accidents.Donlt confuse the issues. That comment was about seatbelts and helmets.

gmc wrote: As to the others things you describe we have an offence called reckless driving you can be charged with of the police can prove your actions caused an accident. Why is cell phone usage a special case?

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:30 pm

Acc, we don't have a different law for each of those offences. They, and driving while using a cellphone, are "driving without due care and attention" if I remember right. It's a blanket law, and the police periodically publicize what they consider automatically counts as without due care and attention. You make your objection that you don't want a multiplication of laws. There's none involved.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:39 pm

posted by accountable

Exactly. You're not going to claim that cell phones are more distracting than these other things, are you?? Why outlaw only the one?

Cell phones are a great deal more distracting than any of those actions that's why they need seperate legislation. There are plenty of studies to show that and also the result of police investigations where it has been a contributory factor - there are no doubt american studies and the like as well. Apart from that surely basic common sense tells you why concentrating on a phone call is more distracting than fiddling with a radio. As to the others you can be done for driving without due care and attention - nowadays our traffic cars have cameras so they can obtain the evidence needed for charging you if it's serious enough most times you'd get a warning. It's not as though they go around stopping people for the fun of it - you need to be doing something really stupid.

A member of my family crashed lighting a cigarette - he dropped it and in the ensuing panic he lost control. It's funny but it could have been serious.

Saw another near miss yesterday, builders van suddenly slowed and swerved in to the middle lane on the motorway forcing the car he'd just passed to jam on it's brakes, sure enough he'd answered the phone if the other driver had been the least bit dozy he'd have been sideswiped and since I was behind him if I'd been tailgating I'd have probably hit him as well. I hate bastards that use mobile phones while driving, I've lost count of the number of times I've had near misses you find yourself watching for erractic driving nine time out of ten the pillocks on the phone. Do you not drive very much in heavy traffic or something?

Donlt confuse the issues. That comment was about seatbelts and helmets.

You're right my mistake. Don't know about the US but if you have an accident and the injuries are due to not wearing a seat belt it's reflected in the insurance pay out - contributory stupidity.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:28 pm

Accountable;1355836 wrote: Exactly. You're not going to claim that cell phones are more distracting than these other things, are you?? Why outlaw only the one?

Donlt confuse the issues. That comment was about seatbelts and helmets.

Why is cell phone usage a special case?

I can tell you that cell phone usage is among the most distracting things that I personally have indulged in while driving.

I have missed turns, missed exits, almost collided with busses, trucks, taxis, and other vehicles, I have run red lights, stop signs, and nearly killed a child.

And that was while using "Hands-free" devices.

The attention level that talking in a cell phone can take is too distracting to be safe, unless you are on an open highway with little traffic. Like Kansas.

Trying to call someone or trying to look and see who is calling, can be deadly.

A friend who is a police officer says they believe that cell phones are as dangerous as driving while drunk, and image a drunk driver using a cell phone.

And we haven't even addressed texting.

I used to think nothing of it, but after several close calls, I decided I will not answer my phone or try to call anyone when I am driving.

Cell phones ought to be a special case IMHO

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:02 pm

There's no reason cell phones should be treated any differently than any other distraction. I myself get more distracted with other people's cell phone use than my own, which is the majority of examples in this thread. IMO, making it a special case is an overreaction to a new thing, nothing more. Banning cell phones is WAY over the line. The UK solution of using it as a factor in deciding fault/punishment for an accident is enough.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:47 pm

Well, if an accident results from any "distraction" it should of course fall under the current legislation.

I am OK with however the laws end up, I think. Like everything else we do, it still falls to personal responsibility.

Of course I can also relate several tales of being nearly run over,being run into,being run off the road, and being rear-ended by other drivers who were busy with their cell phones, which reinforces my opinion that there should be some sort of law that might at least reduce the chances of people being maimed killed by folks talking on their cell phone or texting while rocketing down the highway in a ton of steel and plastic.

OF course where I live, before they could enforce such a law, the police would have to stop talking on THEIR cell phones while driving.

IT would be much less easy to enforce a law that says you cannot drive while distracted, given that most drivers seem to be distracted, already, with any number of things.

But it is fairly obvious when the guy has his cell phone to his ear.

List of activities I know from personal experience to be distracting and which I have either tried or seen others doing while on the motorway.

Eating Tacos

eating cereal

reading newspaper

eating hamburger

correcting unruly children

adjusting child restraint (in back seat)

cleaning glasses

doing nails

doing eyelashes

applying rouge

Lighting a cigar/cigarette (with matches)

putting on a tie

putting on pants

getting into swimsuit

taking off swimsuit

coming/brushing hair

receiving sexual favors from a passenger

reading a magazine

looking for lost cigarette/cigar

Looking for cassette/CD for stereo

beating female passenger

beating children in back seat

trying to re-attach rear-view mirror.

trying to clean bug off windshield

Obviously, common sense would suggest that most of these activities should not be conducted while driving on a busy street or expressway.

And just as obviously, it would be difficult to make a legal solution that covers all of them.

However cell phone usage, I venture is a far more common activity these days than any or even all of the above, and therefore more easily dealt with by legislators.

I agree that yet another law that is difficult to enforce is hardly welcome.

But I will feel a bit safer knowing that I will be less likely to be run down by some dunderhead who is busy talking to his girlfriend on the phone.

Tough call.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:11 pm

:wah:Accountable;1355861 wrote: There's no reason cell phones should be treated any differently than any other distraction. I myself get more distracted with other people's cell phone use than my own, which is the majority of examples in this thread. IMO, making it a special case is an overreaction to a new thing, nothing more. Banning cell phones is WAY over the line. The UK solution of using it as a factor in deciding fault/punishment for an accident is enough.

Let's face it Acc------down where you live the only thing that your apt to run into is a road runner or armidillo, and they don't use cells.:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:30 pm

Lon;1355864 wrote: :wah:

Let's face it Acc------down where you live the only thing that your apt to run into is a road runner or armidillo, and they don't use cells.:wah:
F you very much for showing your ignorance. San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the USA with over 1.2 million people. I try not to give my opinion off the cuff.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:34 pm

Accountable;1355866 wrote: F you very much for showing your ignorance. San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the USA with over 1.2 million people. I try not to give my opinion off the cuff.

Lighten up sport--------I know Texas and San Antonio quite well.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:50 pm

Lon;1355868 wrote: Lighten up sport--------I know Texas and San Antonio quite well.
Next time you're in town eat a taco ... sport.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:10 pm

Alamo Cafe!!

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:15 pm

Accountable;1355869 wrote: Next time you're in town eat a taco ... sport.

I'll call Jacala's on my cell ahead of my arrival and order the special.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:13 am

Lon;1355873 wrote: I'll call Jacala's on my cell ahead of my arrival and order the special.

I hope you pull over and stop before doing so. :sneaky: