This is a dumb nanny state law for two reasons.

First, it is unenforceable. Such laws been tried in other states and they don't work.

Second, it doesn't address the mental distraction problem. It is a way to pretend to be taking action while paying back the bribes from the lobbyists representing makers of hands-free equipment.

The real problem is the deficit of attention ones get when on heated discussion. It is not the same that to have the same discussion with someone else in the car. Because if you're about to rear-end someone, or to be flatten out by an 18-wheeler, the person with you will STFU and you will deal with the road, then go back to talking. On the phone, not so much.

ZAZ nailed it. Thread over before it began.

"It's stupid because we've gone over about seven different studies and each one of them says it's the conversation that distracts you, not holding the phone," he said

So then maybe we need to legislate ONE PERSON cars so people don't get distracted by conversing with others in the car? States have already concluded that outlawing "hands free" conversations would be impossible. Can you imagine the backlog of court cases as lines of people tell the judge "I was singing along with the oldies station" or "I was telling the bonehead in front of me how bad he drives?" Go ahead, cops, prove otherwise.

Well, here's the real problem. I don't see it so much as not having both hands on the wheel, since it's not so much different than driving with one hand while working the shifter in a manual. The real problem lies with dialing the phone. With a headset, you're still going ot have people looking away from the road and futzing with dialing. That is the real problem. NOT LOOKING AT THE farkING ROAD!

Anyways, I thought it was illegal to wear headphones while driving?

Talking on the phone is still a distraction. Shut up and drive or face consequences that may be far worse than any law.

Except text messaging on your phone is still perfectly legal. I see a lot more people swerving and nearly going off the road from that than from talking on the phone...

Morons on cellphones will still be morons on cellphones, just harder to detect.

A few weeks back I almost got obliterated by a woman in a white Tahoe. Traffic was accordioning near an exit...I slowed down and glanced in my rear-view and said Tahoe was coming at me balls-out, older woman yapping away into her headset.

I dove into the other lane (sorry old dude in the nice Caddy CTS, I know I tested the structural integrity of your drawers, but we didn't hit each other) and jammed the gas. I kept an eye on the side-view mirror and saw the nose of the Tahoe dip hard -- she ended up destroying the car AHEAD of where I was in line. She would have absolutely liquified me -- granted that extra 20 feet of stopping distance didn't make a HUGE difference, but she was still going hard when she hit.

The moral of the story: inattentive asshat drivers are still going to be inattentive asshat drivers, regardless of "feel-good" laws.

While the idea of these people getting extra fines is nice, it's still everyone's responsibility to assume that every other driver on the road is: high; drunk; on a cell phone; programming a GPS; playing Mario Kart on the dashboard screen; turning around to beat a child; getting/giving oral sex; eating a live lobster; reading "Ivanhoe"; learning to rhumba; actively trying to kill every other driver on the road.

/sorry, I'm at work on a Saturday and in a long-winded ranting mood

People who are bad drivers will just find some other reason to be bad drivers and blame that.

I've seen plenty of people do completely idiotic maneuvers on the road that would almost get anyone killed, and they had both hands on the wheel, nothing in their hands, no headsets, no distractions. Maybe it isn't about the distractions making people bad drivers. Maybe they are bad drivers because they are f*cking stupid and shouldn't be on the road.

/NJer driver

People who are bad drivers will just find some other reason to be bad drivers and blame that.

And that's why you have to take care interpreting statistics. For example, seat belt use propaganda tends to ignore the correlation between stupid driving tricks and not wearing a seat belt. After you've chugged a couple six packs you may not remember to buckle up.

Approves of headsets.

Subby, CA is not a nanny state. What are you talking about? I live here. We have some of the most libertarian and liberal courts in the nation. Ever been to San Francisco or Los Angeles? Unless you're killing somebody, the cops and the courts really don't care what you do. Just recently, some Fundie tried to outlaw salvia and a bunch of other currently-legal hallucinogens, and the state senate struck it down. So, no, I don't think we live in a nanny state at all.

Crosshair: ZAZ nailed it. Thread over before it began.

I HATE it when someone wins right off the bat.

so, you can't talk on the phone while driving in CA unless you look like a total tool talking crazy to your imaginary friend?

I'm moving to Sacramento today .... as soon as my flight leaves Philadelphia

So I'm really getting a kick out of these replies

TFA: State Sen. Joe Simitian, who authored the bill, disputes those studies and says keeping both hands on the wheel is always safer. He expects his law to save hundreds of lives.

State Sen. Joe Simitian is not a scientist, so on what grounds does he base is dispute and on what grounds does he base his expectations?

I was nearly clobbered by a woman who was talking on two cell phones at once and steering with her elbows.

If stopping this crap is nanny state, bring it on.

Works in DC, and I am glad for it. People are stupid enough drivers around here.

albo: so, you can't talk on the phone while driving in CA unless you look like a total tool talking crazy to your imaginary friend?

I'm driving right now, and am getting a kick out of these repl...

Can they please ban people at work talking on their cell phones in front of the coffee machine? Or, wandering aimlessly in the hallway?

People on cell phones are 30 percent stupider than normal.

/this law is also 30 percent stupider than normal

It's enforceable ... they give tickets for it all the time in Chicago. If you live in Bumfark, you don't have a dog in this fight, and don't worry about it, because low traffic areas would never consider passing this law.

But if you've ever driven down Lake Shore Drive, with lanes barely the width of the car you're in, you can see why this is a good idea.

Zaz, being from Boston I'm shocked you don't agree with this.

ZAZ: This is a dumb nanny state law for two reasons.

First, it is unenforceable. Such laws been tried in other states and they don't work.

Second, it doesn't address the mental distraction problem. It is a way to pretend to be taking action while paying back the bribes from the lobbyists representing makers of hands-free equipment.

Not entirely unenforcable. In NJ, local municipalities can tack on extra charges to the fine for talking on your cell phone. Some places end up costing you around $500. Even with light to moderate enforcement its a deterrant, at least in the suburbs where cops have less to do. With CA's $20 fine, I wouldn't be as concerned.

Nothing is ever going to be able to address mental distraction while driving. That's personal responsibility. What the law does do is hold people accountable for accidents when they are talking on their cell phone

On many occasions, I've noticed almost 50% of drivers taking on cellphones. With such a huge percentage of drivers talking on cellphones, one would think the total percentage of collisions would be observably higher. However, this is not the case.

Also, in every collision I've been in that wasn't my fault (i.e., all of them), the driver WASN'T talking on a cell phone. The three times I've had cars totaled by other drivers making stupid decisions, they were not on their cellphones at the time. I've never had my car rammed into by a driver on a cellphone.

I do a good deal of driving, and I see a lot of stupid and dangerous driving decisions made by people all the time. Yes, many times it's by people on cellphones. But half the time, it's by female drivers. And most of the time, it's by people not on cellphones.

CORRELATION != CAUSATION

These laws are about generating revenue. It's just another stealth tax.

Why do people use their cell phones as speaker phones and hold them up to their face instead of leaving it in regular mode and putting it up to their ear?

If you think hands free doesn't work (as long as it is put together and set up while at a light or prior to driving), then you also think you shouldn't have a conversation with any passengers. Maybe for some of you the parentheses hold too big a stipulation for your expectations of others.

rockman55: Subby, CA is not a nanny state. What are you talking about? I live here. We have some of the most libertarian and liberal courts in the nation. Ever been to San Francisco or Los Angeles? Unless you're killing somebody, the cops and the courts really don't care what you do. Just recently, some Fundie tried to outlaw salvia and a bunch of other currently-legal hallucinogens, and the state senate struck it down. So, no, I don't think we live in a nanny state at all.

Oh yeah? LAPD has a wild hair up their butts for....WAIT FOR IT, Jaywalkers! They LOVE to write that ticket. Drunk in public is another, you don't have to make a scene or do ANYTHING but walk around, too many cops with too much time on their hands.

Washington's law goes into affect on July 1, but our law actually makes some sense, as I understand it. Basically, it's not a crime to talk on your cell phone sans hands-free device, but it is a secondary offense if you get in a crash or are speeding.

/am I right or am I right?

It's stupid because it doesn't ban texting while driving, and also there have been some reports that the headsets aren't that helpful either. Just listening to the calls using a headset impairs drivers.

How is it California gets called the nanny state when you can buy beer and whiskey and vibrating rubber cockrings on Sunday in the supermarket there?

I bought one of these the other day with my new phone.

Got home, charged it and stuck it in my ear and drove off. Got half way around the block and had to keep readjusting the damn thing, then almost got hit by an ambulance coming from my right because my depth perception was all off because of a plugged ear...... You get the picture.

These were a dumb idea.

xtex: Except text messaging on your phone is still perfectly legal. I see a lot more people swerving and nearly going off the road from that than from talking on the phone...

I'd rather see someone talking rather than texting on the phone while driving and I hate distracted drivers. Perhaps make the penalties for texting while driving higher than talking on the phone while driving.

besides the obvious truths stated in the "post at the top of the thread", it's just plain short sighted. Cell phones weren't invented yesterday. They're not that hard to use and we're only going to get better at it each year.

I just got back from California yesterday and every reminder of this law just irritated me more and more. It's as short sighted as saying "these newfangled horseless carraiges are spooking the horses! We need to pass a law banning them from the roads!"

Thegreaser: my depth perception was all off because of a plugged ear

You're doing it wrong.

Thegreaser: my depth perception was all off because of a plugged ear

You can see out of your ears?!?!

It's enforceable ... they give tickets for it all the time in Chicago.

Approximately 0% of violations result in tickets. That makes the law unenforceable. It's even less enforceable than the speed limit, which has a ticket to violation ratio well under 1:1000.

useless politicians at it again. driving wihout both hands isn't the farking problem... it's the distraction of, you know, not paying attention to the road while engaged in coversation.

besides, it's not illegal to drive with one hand on the steering wheel.

Lots of issues with the California law:

First, you cannot have headphones on. Another Ca law makes it clear you cannot cover both ears, so only a single ear piece cell phone is allowed.

Second, texting while driving is still allowed, at least according to the DMV itself. However, the CHP has said it is not, and they will ticket for it, so go figure you will take your chances with the judge.

Third: THere are TWO laws, one for adults and one for those under 18. Interestingly enough, when compared, they cause problems for each other. The ADULT law specifically says wireless telephones, and that's it. So pagers, etc. are not telephones, so go ahead and use them. The under 18 law says all wireless communication devices, and even has a list of items. Pagers and wireless laptops are even included in that list. Again, good luck with the judge.

Fourth: The law states you can't use the phone while operating a motor vehicle. People feel that means they can pull over to the side of the road and talk, BUT, we must remember that legal precedent has been set in DUI cases that simply being IN a car is tantamount to operating it. You can be convicted of operating a vehicle under DUI laws for simply sitting in it in a parking lot with the keys in your possession, so why wouldn't that already established precedent be carried over?

Fifth: because of the stupid way the laws are written, a 17 year old driver can LEGALLY operate a laptop while driving, as long as he is NOT running the wireless data portion of it. So, cruising along and typing your term paper is considered by our legislature to be safe, cruising along and letting your laptop download songs is not.

Lastly, i believe these are all stupid laws, because we already have one on the books that allows police to ticket you for inattentive driving. We should just use that, no matter the reason you were not paying attention.

Several U.S. states and some two dozen countries around the world already have restrictions on mobile phones while driving

But it wasn't California so it means that no one else did it. California always does everything first.

Mr. Coffee Nerves

What happened afterwards? Did the cops just write a her a ticket? Just curious.

/This is one of my biggest pet peeeeaves.

Thegreaser: I bought one of these the other day with my new phone.

Got home, charged it and stuck it in my ear and drove off. Got half way around the block and had to keep readjusting the damn thing, then almost got hit by an ambulance coming from my right because my depth perception was all off because of a plugged ear...... You get the picture.

These were a dumb idea.

Here's an idea, assmunch: don't talk on the phone when you're driving. Face it: you're not important enough. Whatever it is can wait until you get where you're going. And if it can't -- then pull over.

I'm fairly certain that it's illegal (at least in Virginia) to operate a motor vehicle while wearing headphones...

I'm texting my reply to this thread as I drive, so I'm getting a kick ostliwekaanfrsdjhfjasfkjahsdfkhasd-------------

[connection terminated]

Actually, we have this law where I am from and it works fairly well.

I also think it is semi-reasonable. Talking on a phone can be distracting and that does increase the risk that people pose to other road users. I'm not convinced that there is that much risk, but it is certainly plausible.

At the same time forcing people to use phones hands free does not subject people to excessive scrutiny, nor excessively restrict their behavior.

I saw a guy nearly wipe out in traffic on a scooter because he was talking on his cell phone whilst riding.

wtf?!

I just got a jawbone and I'm trying to figure out how it works (I am not technologically literate. My husband got me a macbook in desperation). My only beef with the ear sets is the people who leave them in all day. There was a family out to dinner I saw yesterday, and the dad still had his attached to his head.

But anyway, I think it's a good law for this area. Way too many people on cell's while they drive.

zimbach 2008-06-28 11:20:34 AM: How is it California gets called the nanny state when you can buy beer and whiskey and vibrating rubber cockrings on Sunday in the supermarket there?

Try to name ten other stupid laws we could've passed that we DON'T have. Aw hell, try to name five.

They call us the nanny-state and we deserve it. There really can't be any serious question about it.

Thegreaser 2008-06-28 11:21:00 AM: I bought one of these the other day with my new phone. Got home, charged it and stuck it in my ear and drove off. Got half way around the block and had to keep readjusting the damn thing, then almost got hit by an ambulance coming from my right because my depth perception was all off because of a plugged ear...... You get the picture.

Having used one pretty much constantly for going on four years now, no, I'm afraid I don't.

Nothing scares the hell out of me like passing an enormous car or truck on the left, and halfway up realizing I'm in the blindspot of a woman holding a cell phone up to her left ear. I should mention to those who don't live in California, that there seems to be a law against using your DAMN BLINKER here when you change lanes. She's gonna say "hang on, hold that thought 'cause I gotta do a head check" before she swerves? C'mon.

I'm opposed to every nanny-state law on the books in this crazy state, just about, but this one makes good sense.

It nearly every state, it is illegal to drive while distracted. This should encompass using a cellphone, or doing anything else behind the wheel while driving.

Having a burger while driving? That's a ticket. Talking or texting on the cellphone (headset or otherwise)? Ticket. If you are behind the wheel, you should be driving. I understand that piloting your one-ton metal machine at 60 MPH has become routine, but your inattention can kill.

If you are behind the wheel, you should be driving. Period.

Thanks a lot, 5000000-free-minute cell phone yakkers. You have ruined things for those of us who only make BRIEF and IMPORTANT calls while driving. Now, I have to worry about keeping TWO devices charged daily and install a Borg implant before driving, or else pull over every time somebody calls.

And: Subby, CA is not a nanny state... Perhaps not, but it's quite on the road to getting there. Especially with its over-hyped primary-enforcement seat belt law. Plus, nanny legislators like Jenny Oropeza are trying their darnedest to pass zillions of little laws to micro-manage us. ("No smoking with kids in the car" (nevermind what happens in the house) became law this year, and "no mylar party balloons" and "no dogs on your lap while driving" have been floated recently.) And the good old DMV is five-and-tenning us to death with impunity.

To our benefit, though, the freeway speed limit is rarely enforced, and yes, I can still grow San Pedro cactus in my backyard without the fuzz on my ass.

Bottom line: You just can't legislate personal responsibility. That has to come from the inside.

A better law would be "nobody gets a license until their 21"