Cagers don't drive anymore.

[Tony_K]

Hands free means hands free and a CF cannot be in your hands. If I see you typing away, great but if it's just in your hands you get a ticket either way.

 

Can you show me chapter and verse of the law where it says I'm not allowed to hold a cell phone in my hand?

 

For Bob and Russell,

A bit of fluff in the law that will clear the air... or completely cloud it.

You decide!

 

© For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be

writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads,

selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless

communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone

call.

 

So couldn't the principal simply change from text to phone dialing.

Oh boy here we go!

[John Bentall]

Here in England, you get charged with what the Crown Prosecution Service thinks will "stick".

It might be as minor as "driving without due care and attention" - max fine $700 + points on licence or "dangerous driving" - large fine + custodial sentence.

Either one of these offences could have resulted in the death of your loved one! Just for a text or a cell-phone call!

 

 

[upflying]

Hands free means hands free and a CF cannot be in your hands. If I see you typing away, great but if it's just in your hands you get a ticket either way.

 

Can you show me chapter and verse of the law where it says I'm not allowed to hold a cell phone in my hand?

Here's the law. "Hands-free" is emphasized.

23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a

wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and

configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in

that manner while driving.

(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a

base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty

dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

© This section does not apply to a person using a wireless

telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an

emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider,

fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services

professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized

emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and

scope of his or her duties.

(e) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or

transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.

(f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor

vehicle on private property.

(g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

 

[Jeepster]

(g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

So, as I understand this, it's not in effect till two years and seven months from now?

[upflying]

Sorry, here's the correct one.

23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a

wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and

configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in

that manner while driving.

(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a

base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty

dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.

© This section does not apply to a person using a wireless

telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an

emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider,

fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services

professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized

emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and

scope of his or her duties.

(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital

two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by

depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate

proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of

the following vehicles:

(1) (A) A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck

tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial

class A or class B driver's license to operate.

(B) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a

person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471.

(2) An implement of husbandry that is listed or described in

Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 36000) of Division 16.

(3) A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays

an identification plate as specified in Section 5014 and is listed in

Section 36101.

(4) A commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 260, that is

registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the

farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural

operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural

products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm.

(5) A tow truck, as defined in Section 615.

(f) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or

transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.

(g) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor

vehicle on private property.

(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008, and shall

remain in effect only until July 1, 2011, and, as of July 1, 2011,

is repealed.

 

[russell_bynum]

23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a

wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and

configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in

that manner while driving.

 

My phone is configured to allow hands-free talking and listening and will be used hands free while talking and listening.

 

 

That doesn't say anything about dialing, looking up contacts, checking my calendar, loading a new playlist, etc.

 

[Dave in Doodah]

I don't think cell phones per se are the problem. I agree that there has been a cultural shift that started with what was called the "Me" generation. People don't give a rat's @#$ about anyone else and this leads to doing what they want, when they want. Whether its talking on a cell phone in the car, or in the grocery store or in the movie theatre or while crossing the street. Yesterday I saw people on cell phones while jogging, riding bicycles, pushing a baby stroller, walking out of the house to get in the car, etc. But it isn't just cell phones, it's running red lights, not stopping for stop signs, ignoring speed limits, driving on the shoulder of the road to get around traffic or racing ahead of a line of cars to cut in front of someone. We've gotten to be a society of jerks.

 

+1000, Bill. The problem is not the technology, it's the people (nothing new here: guns don't kill people, people do - DUI convicts still pour the drinks into their own bloodstream - etc - etc - etc). And I don't think the government can, or should, attempt to legislate morality... this problem is much deeper than its symptom.

 

EDIT: That said, I also agree with Tim that those who get caught breaking the existing laws have waived their rights and should be dealt with accordingly and decisively....

[pmottaz]

Agree about the ped unawareness...snip...Unfortunately paying attention while driving or walking isn't required by law...Who has a responsibility to teach "paying attention"? Such virtues are taught by parents. Oopps I forgot, parents are no longer required to raise children.

 

The core of the problem with basically every driver out on the road today is that (s)he was never properly trained how to drive in the first place. In California, anyway, the bulk of the responsibility for training young drivers is borne by the parents. A teen driver only has to spend 6 hours with a driving instructor (and I question their ability to give any valuable instruction - at least from the feedback my son gave me about his "professional instruction"), the other 44 hours are to be handled by the parent. Therein lies the problem, the vast majority of parents have no driving skills beyond what they may have learned in drivers ed (likely) years ago. Few take the time to improve their skills by taking a driving school of some kind. So bad driving skills are past on to their kids and so it is just perpetuated ad nauseam. It's no frickin' wonder there are so many abominably bad drivers out there.

 

Until there is a total revamping of the way we train drivers, we're all at risk no matter what we are driving/riding. If we would only adopt some of the driver training methods/requirements that are used in Europe, things would be much more safe. My contribution to help alleviate some of the lack of training is by volunteering as an instructor at BMW CCA Car Control Clinics and at Teen Driver Survival Schools (put on in this area by the local BMW CCA and the SCCA). These schools help in correcting some of the bad habits (e.g. driver inattention), teach basic car handling skills in a safe environment and encourage the attendees to continually work on improving their skills through further schools (like track schools, autocross schools, etc).

 

I've just recently started riding again after a decades long break so in order to be consistant with what I teach in the schools, I'm taking the MSF course for my own riding improvement, in a week. Can't wait.

 

Pete

[margaret]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

Good thought