Effective January 1, it became illegal to text (read, write, or send) while operating a motor vehicle in the State of California. It's just another "feel good" law that the State wants us to enforce to appease the same people who are behind the banning of cell phone use while driving. Don't get me wrong, I feel there should be stiff fines and punishment when you're found to be participating in activities that divert your attention from your driving but enforcement of this new texting law is borderline laughable. Why? Well, for one reason it's still lawful to use your GPS program on your phone (type addresses in, get routings to and from addresses, check traffic, do a search for a local business, etc...). So the State has told me, "Go out and cite people for texting while driving. Oh, but you'll first have to conduct a thorough roadside investigation to determine if they were truly writing, reading, or sending a text message or if they were actually just typing in a search for the closest Chinese restaurant - which is OK of course and you'll have to apologize for the stop and send them on their way which will result in yet another pissed off motorist whose travel has been unnecessarily interrupted".

And finally, what has the State done to remind drivers how important it is not to divert attention from their driving? They've posted, "DON'T TEXT WHILE DRIVING - IT'S THE LAW" on those huge LED signs along all of our freeways. What do you have to do in order to read those signs? Divert your attention from your driving. Brilliant.

It amazes me that so much time, effort and money is spent to get a law passed and in place for something that is common sense.

Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

I actually do it sometimes... It's not that hard and you can even do without looking at the screen if you memorize the keys.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 1): It amazes me that so much time, effort and money is spent to get a law passed and in place for something that is common sense.

Yes, but unfortunately, common sense is anything but common. If it were, you'd see less "stupid" instructions, like on Preperation H: "Not for internal use". Uh, hello?

Quoting Don81603 (Reply 4): Yes, but unfortunately, common sense is anything but common. If it were, you'd see less "stupid" instructions, like on Preperation H: "Not for internal use". Uh, hello?

So true, yesterday I noticed on the box containing a frozen pizza the notice that this product needs to be cooked before eating.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

Yeah, you'd think so but you'd be surprised how many people are just texting with a buddy while driving.

Quoting Itsjustme (Thread starter): They've posted, "DON'T TEXT WHILE DRIVING - IT'S THE LAW" on those huge LED signs along all of our freeways. What do you have to do in order to read those signs? Divert your attention from your driving. Brilliant.

I can see what you mean, but in terms of attention diversion, the LED signs are no different than any other signs on the road, including the more useful ones that tell you distances or such directions. If you think about it, the diversion such signs create is minimal and you're still within peripheral vision of the road, unlike when you look down at your phone to text or to fiddle around with your GPS.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

Alas people do it thought. We had recent 'death by dangerous driving' convictions where it was shown the responsible party was texting at the time of the crash. Unbelievable stupidity.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 1): It amazes me that so much time, effort and money is spent to get a law passed and in place for something that is common sense.

But yet you see plenty of teens on the road with either the phone to their ear or texting. I see it all the time here in Florida

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

In that case I am stark raving mad. I text while driving all the time, and I have yet to crash because of it. That being said, most US drivers can't drive properly even without any distractions..

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 9): In that case I am stark raving mad. I text while driving all the time, and I have yet to crash because of it. That being said, most US drivers can't drive properly even without any distractions..

Yet to crash....the thing is, even if you were driving carefully, if you happen to have an accident and somebody dies or gets badly hurt, and it can be demonstrated you were sending texts at the time, there's a fair chance you're going to jail. Don't risk it - you could simply be unlucky.

I was in SEA for New Years. Washington has a "no cell phones while driving" law. Guess what? I saw people on their cell phones while driving! Changing lanes without looking, over the speed limit, blinker on without changing lanes... the whole thing. Yes, I have texted while driving. A few times while in motion. The rest of the time, I wait for a red light. I say: Good for California! But, this means Oregon has to wait about 5 years to get the same laws. Our "no smoking in bars and restaurants" law started on Jan 1.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10): Don't risk it - you could simply be unlucky.

I have to quit anyways, I just got an iPhone...not nearly as easy to text one handed with  

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

You would. And yet people do it.

-Mir

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 8): But yet you see plenty of teens on the road with either the phone to their ear or texting.

Definitely not just limited to teens, although they may be some of the worst offenders.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 9): In that case I am stark raving mad. I text while driving all the time, and I have yet to crash because of it.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who drink and drive, and have yet to crash because of it. Not exactly a good argument.

I have no qualms about this law whatsoever. Some dude changed lanes into my girlfriend's car a couple months ago - he was on his Blackberry. Luckily, only very minor damage.

We have the same law of using your mobile phone while driving. It's quite simple, using your phone will distract you in some way even if you've not had a crash, you can't claim you're giving the road your full attention when using your phone can you?!

I don't understand what the big fuss is about, if it's really that important to send that text or make that call, is it that difficult just to pull over for a minute?  

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 12): I was in SEA for New Years. Washington has a "no cell phones while driving" law. Guess what? I saw people on their cell phones while driving!

Unfortunately our law is a secondary offense, meaning you can't be stopped solely for being on your phone. According to an article in the Times last week, after an initial drop when the law went into effect this summer, its pretty much being ignored now.

Quoting RGElectra80 (Reply 6): I can see what you mean, but in terms of attention diversion, the LED signs are no different than any other signs on the road, including the more useful ones that tell you distances or such directions. If you think about it, the diversion such signs create is minimal and you're still within peripheral vision of the road, unlike when you look down at your phone to text or to fiddle around with your GPS.

Fiddling around with one's GPS is still legal here but I get your point and it's a valid one. I just find the use of the LED signs to alert drivers that texting is now illegal amusingly ironic. We use the same highway information signs for Amber Alerts and they've been the cause of several injury and non-injury traffic collisions. Yes, they're a great way to get the word out there's been a child abducted but they display way too much information for a driver to absorb while doing 70 miles an hour. And the icing on the cake? There was talk of leasing the signs for commercial use (ie: ads) to generate income for our nearly bankrupt state.

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 15): I don't understand what the big fuss is about, if it's really that important to send that text or make that call, is it that difficult just to pull over for a minute?

You're employing way too much common sense. I can't think of an instance when making a cell phone call (calls to 9-1-1 are lawful while driving) or sending a text message can't wait until you (A) get to your destination or (B) can pull over and park.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 11): I have to quit anyways, I just got an iPhone...not nearly as easy to text one handed with Silly

Sounds like a very good idea.  

If you need to use your mobile, simply pull over for a few minutes to use your mobile. Is it really that difficult?

I for one, since rarely people, not just in the US but also around the world, do not use common sense when operating a cell phone, support that law.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

True, but I bet everyone on here has at least once has talked on the cell phone, dialed a number, fiddled with the radio, eaten something, applied makeup, or any number of other things that are equally distracting and dangerous whilst driving.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 17): We use the same highway information signs for Amber Alerts and they've been the cause of several injury and non-injury traffic collisions. Yes, they're a great way to get the word out there's been a child abducted but they display way too much information for a driver to absorb while doing 70 miles an hour.

You are absolutely right about that. Trying to memorize a car make, model, description, and license plate number while paying attention to driving at 70+ MPH is pretty ridiculous.

Have those Amber Alerts been proven effective at all? Just out of curiousity.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 9): I text while driving all the time, and I have yet to crash because of it.

Oh good.... then there is still time for you so sign your ORGAN DONOR CARD! 

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 21): Have those Amber Alerts been proven effective at all? Just out of curiousity.

Absolutely. The program has been credited with the successful recovery of near 200 children just in CA since the state commenced using the the program in 2002.

There is even talk of Congress or the Justice Department mandating its adoption nationwide.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 21): Have those Amber Alerts been proven effective at all? Just out of curiousity.

Yes, Amber Alerts in general have played a role in hundreds of successful rescues of abducted children country wide. However, I'm not aware of any cases where someone recognized a vehicle wanted in connection with an abduction after seeing the description displayed on a highway information sign. I've opted to have the information sent to my cell phone.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 1): It amazes me that so much time, effort and money is spent to get a law passed and in place for something that is common sense.

While I agree, it also seems to be common sense to not text while driving a passenger train. And yet that is what caused a Metrolink accident in the past several months. Common Sense is hysterically mis-named.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 12): The rest of the time, I wait for a red light.

Texting while sitting at a red light is also illegal in California as of Jan. 1, 2009. The police force's and the courts interpretation of the new state law: your vehicle is running and you're in the middle of traffic, so you need to be fully aware of your surroundings. Even if you're sitting at a stoplight for 2 minutes or stuck in non-moving traffic on the 405 expressway.

I think the proper term for these heavy-handed laws and the resulting police tactics is "government revenue enhancement".   

Texting while driving is incredibly easy to do, and before I swtiched to a touch screen, I did it all the time and never actually had to look at the phone. Though with a touch screen, it's pretty difficult to do one-handed, so I've stopped.

I'm strongly against all these ridiculous "no cell phone/texting" laws, but that's just me. They don't solve any problems, they just create revenue.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 26): I think the proper term for these heavy-handed laws and the resulting police tactics is "government revenue enhancement".

Yeah, a whopping 20 bucks plus fees. This law is anything but heavy-handed being that it's damn near impossible to enforce.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 28): Yeah, a whopping 20 bucks plus fees.

Which makes the cost of writing and prosecuting that ticket more than the cost of the ticket itself...excellent thinking. At least make it worthwhile for cops to write the ticket

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 28): Yeah, a whopping 20 bucks plus fees

Yep, and the fees will probably be much more than the actual ticket. Fees equal revenue...

I don't have a problem with this law, or banning texting either. I just spent 8hrs driving the interstates earlier today and the worst zigzagging drivers were always the ones messing with the phone or talking to somebody. And many times I've had to honk at these people before.

And yes, I have been guilty of doing these now illegal activities as well. BUT unlike 99% of all the other retards that do this, I at least use some common sense. If i need to use my phone, first and foremost I move over to the far right lane, and slow down to traffic flow and keep plenty of distance between me and the cars in front/back. I raise my phone in front of me in the windshield so I still have the road in view. And I make this as brief as possible. If it's something urgent or that may take a while I pull over. If everybody did this, this law wouldn't be necessary.

What SHOULD be illegal is driving in the left lane without passing. Today I had to pass more people in the right than on the left. It's annoying and dangerous if you're not careful. I wish AZ had tons those big signs that say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT", but I've only seen a couple. TX roads have those everywhere and people do obey them. Out here they don't give a rats ass so then you have both lanes blocked and can't pass anybody because people love to drive in formation out here. Retards   

[Edited 2009-01-04 20:46:40]

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 30): Yep, and the fees will probably be much more than the actual ticket. Fees equal revenue...

Yes, in this case, the fees are about triple the amount of the ticket. Even with the fees, however, the cost of the ticket is still under $100. When you factor in the cost to enforce the law, it could actually end up costing the State money. Again, this has nothing to do with generating revenue. It's just a feel good law to appease those who've yelled the loudest about cell phone use while driving.

[Edited 2009-01-04 21:11:06]

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 32): It's just a feel good law to appease those who've yelled the loudest about cell phone use while driving.

Absolutely. I think that it would be a much better use of traffic police resources to arrest drunk drivers or overly aggressive "crazy" drivers instead of ticketing law-abiding citizens for texting while sitting still in bumper to bumper traffic on the 5.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 30): Yep, and the fees will probably be much more than the actual ticket. Fees equal revenue...

The reverse is true with regard to our improper use of high-occupancy-vehicle lane law. In most areas, first time offenders are looking at a fine of $341 (plus fees of course but they're less than the cost of the cite). You wanna talk about a revenue generating traffic law, you have to look no further than this one.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 33): Absolutely. I think that it would be a much better use of traffic police resources to arrest drunk drivers or overly aggressive "crazy" drivers instead of ticketing law-abiding citizens for texting while sitting still in bumper to bumper traffic on the 5.

Sitting in stationary traffic is one thing. However, there have been cases where it has been demonstrated that people using phones at the wheel has directly contributed to a fatal accident. I think road deaths are a serious enough reason to look at the issue. One can easily complain about such laws being nothing better than revenue generation, but if you don't want to pay the fine, obey the law.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Surely you'd have to be stark raving mad even to think of composing a text message while driving?

Guilty as charged!

Quoting AirKas1 (Reply 3): I actually do it sometimes... It's not that hard and you can even do without looking at the screen if you memorize the keys.

same here, I can send messages without even looking at the phone! And thank god that eating, drinking etc behind the wheel is forbidden too :P

Dont text while driving, don't call / phone wile driving .... HELL, just plain and simple, DON'T USE YOUR CELL while driving!
"Don't be distracted" distracted are the words here ... simple as that. ... next time someone crashes mother and child while giving inputs to his navsat ... only to say "sorry, there's no law against using satnavs while driving"

Mario
LH526

Quoting LH526 (Reply 37): Dont text while driving, don't call / phone wile driving .... HELL, just plain and simple, DON'T USE YOUR CELL while driving! "Don't be distracted" distracted are the words here ... simple as that. ... next time someone crashes mother and child while giving inputs to his navsat ... only to say "sorry, there's no law against using satnavs while driving"

So right.   

For me, the thought of a stretch in prison if I am unlucky enough to have an accident whilst texting or phoning is more than enough to persuade me not to do it, and those are very real potential consequences of these actions.

This should be treated as reckless driving with a minimum fine and points and possible jail time. This punishment should increase exponentially upon subsequent violations. These people knowingly put other drivers at risk because they feel their two lines of text about who's johnson Sally slobbed last night is more important than someone's life. It is mainly the young and inexperienced driver who will be texting, which adds to the risk. If your destination is more important than relaying information, drive. If the information is more important than getting to the destination, wait until you have resolved the situation before driving.

The laws are all well and good, but what really makes the difference is enforcement. As far as I'm concerned, any use of a cell phone is dangerous. If it looks like someone is texting, cite them. They can submit text records from their cell phone provider in court if they feel the summons is unjust.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 39): As far as I'm concerned, any use of a cell phone is dangerous

Yes.

I have heard it said in tv programs that research shows talking on a mobile phone while driving is just as dangerous as drink-driving. I'll see if I can find something that refers.....

Quoting WellHung (Reply 39): If it looks like someone is texting, cite them. They can submit text records from their cell phone provider in court if they feel the summons is unjust.

That's a very dangerous course of enforcement you're suggesting. I'll explain why in a minute. First, let me say that until all cell phone use is made unlawful, I'm not going to write someone just because it looks like they've violated the law. If I'm not 100% sure, I either won't make the stop or, if I do and I'm not 100% certain a citation is warranted, you'll be sent on your way. Unfortunately, there are officers who love the "tell it to the judge" approach and, I'm sad to say their reason for doing so is quite often strictly for monetary gain. In 2007, Officer David Kanapsky of the Warren Michigan police department wrote close to 2.400 citations solely for stop sign violations. A vast majority of those cited took their case to court, insisting they had come to a complete stop and they were told by Kanapsky to "tell it to a judge". Warren police officers have it in their contract they get a minimum of 4 hours "show up time" when summoned to court on their day off (I'm not singling out Warren PD - every agency I'm familiar with, mine included has some sort of minimum show up time/pay policy in place). This means, if the officer shows up and leaves 15 minutes later, which happens quite often when a case is pled and someone forgets to notify the officer, he/she gets 4 hours of overtime pay. Officer Kanapsky racked up almost $22,000 in overtime pay just from court time in 2007. My point is, when you have a law that's written as vaguely as the "no texting" one is, the cost to enforce it can, and more than likely will far supersede any revenue it may generate. For example, let's say I stop Sam Saggyballs for texting while driving. He says he wasn't texting, he was typing in a search for Bertha's Rub n Tug in his GPS system on his phone and my response is, "here's your ticket, tell it to a judge". Sam does just that and I get summoned to court on my day off. My department's court time policy is identical to Warren's, meaning regardless of how much time I am in court, I get a minimum of 4 hours overtime pay. The ticket I've written Sam has a financial penalty of $92. By him contesting it in court, the tax payers are now paying a minimum of $196 just for me to show up. And let's say ol' Sammy's done his homework and brings his cell phone records with him and proves he was truly using his cell phone GPS when I stopped him and wasn't sending a text. The case is dismissed and the tax payers have just shelled out close to $200 for no reason. When you take into consideration the CHP wrote 42,000 cell phone violation tickets last year, you can see the potential for this law to pose a huge financial burden to the tax payers.

I love wishy-washy "laws" like this. Why not ban cell phone use while driving PERIOD? Easier to enforce, less grey area, fewer accidents, less road rage, only benefits as far as I can see.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 41): Officer Kanapsky racked up almost $22,000 in overtime pay just from court time in 2007.

I assume he was disciplined for this? Sounds like serious misconduct to me.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 42): Why not ban cell phone use while driving PERIOD? Easier to enforce, less grey area, fewer accidents, less road rage

It would seem to make much more sense to do this. And, most importantly, would likely lead to the greatest increase in road safety.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 31): What SHOULD be illegal is driving in the left lane without passing. Today I had to pass more people in the right than on the left. It's annoying and dangerous if you're not careful. I wish AZ had tons those big signs that say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT", but I've only seen a couple.

The bain of my life! I think I flash more people to get over on one 100 miles stretch of I-95 than I have ever done in four years in Britain....that is despite the signs noting, as you say, for slower traffic to keep right.      The best/worst I had was a guy doing 65 in the left lane the other day and after flashing twice for him to move over he just slammed on his brakes in the middle of the interstate, almost causing an accident. F'in idiot.

People don't realise that it is dangerous to just stay in the middle or left lane as for the person who then needs to 'undertake' (sorry but if you're doing 65 in the left lane and refuse to budge I'm undertaking you) as you have to make sure people aren't moving from the right lane into the middle, in addition to checking there is nobody in the middle lane. It also helps ease traffic congestion and makes best use of the road.

The standard of driving in America SUCKS. I was surprised how easy it was to get my license over here. I went to the test centre and the guy asked me to effectively drive around the block, I was done in about three minutes! Compare that to learning to drive in the UK where it takes people several months to get up to standard and the practical test is a rather nerve wracking affair lasting more than half an hour! If the driving test was harder then there'd be less traffic and those who were on the roads would be of a much higher standard.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 40): I have heard it said in tv programs that research shows talking on a mobile phone while driving is just as dangerous as drink-driving. I'll see if I can find something that refers.....

Mythbusters aren't exactly the most scientific gang out there but they tested whether cellphone driving was as dangerous as driving drunk and it was confirmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBus....80.93_.22Killer_Brace_Position.22
Having said that I don't think they were going to say that it isn't as dangerous for fear of giving cellphone use whilst driving an endorsement...

Quoting Fbgdavidson (Reply 44): Mythbusters aren't exactly the most scientific gang out there but they tested whether cellphone driving was as dangerous as driving drunk and it was confirmed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBus....80.93_.22Killer_Brace_Position.22 Having said that I don't think they were going to say that it isn't as dangerous for fear of giving cellphone use whilst driving an endorsement...

Thanks. I did a quick search and just found this article on the subject too......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...hones-as-bad-as-drink-driving.html

You can just imagine the kind of texts drivers could produce:

"TTYL--CRASHED NTO BLDG"

(Though indeed, there's nothing funny about people who have actually died while trying to text with one hand and steer with the other.)

Quoting Triebwerk (Reply 46): You can just imagine the kind of texts drivers could produce: "TTYL--CRASHED NTO BLDG"

The sad thing is that thats not very far from the truth. I'm on the road for about 12 hours when I work, mostly city driving. 99% of the people who run a red light or stop sign, don't stop for pedestrians, don't use signal lights, go down the wrong way on a one way street are people who are on their phones (either talking or texting). The other week, it was snowing. A lady in a Sunfire was chatting away on her phone, the light turns red and she slams on her brakes causing her to slide through the intersection at a 45 degree angle while she was still talking on her phone. She hit another car, stops and gets out and she's still on her phone! The scary thing is that the majority of cell phone users/drivers are in the same category as this. You can come out with study after study after study, but nothing will ever convince me more or otherwise then the shit I see on the the road everyday when I'm at work. It honestly scares the hell out of me.

Ban cell phones while driving ..... PERIOD!

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 43): I assume he was disciplined for this? Sounds like serious misconduct to me.

No, but he has since been ordered by that department's highest ranking command officer to cease writing stop sign violations due to creating a credibility issue for the entire department.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 40): I have heard it said in tv programs that research shows talking on a mobile phone while driving is just as dangerous as drink-driving.

I'm assuming you meant drunk driving. Sadly, until an anti-cell phone use group achieves the political clout MADD has, you won't see a cell phone ban anytime soon. And don't get me started on what a cash cow farce MADD has become.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 48): I'm assuming you meant drunk driving.

We call it drink-driving here, but yes - that is what I meant.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 48): due to creating a credibility issue for the entire department.

Amazing that creating such a situation that compromises the whole department is not worthy of disciplinary action.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 48): I'm assuming you meant drunk driving. Sadly, until an anti-cell phone use group achieves the political clout MADD has, you won't see a cell phone ban anytime soon. And don't get me started on what a cash cow farce MADD has become.

I know you have issues with the enforcability of the measures under discussion, but as a law enforcement official I assume you are personally against mobile phone use whilst driving? If not, why not? If so, what laws would you like to see and, similarly, which penalties?