BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Glad to hear about the enforcement.

I still wish driving without a license or driving on a suspended license was treated with more seriousness...how about automatic confiscation/sale at auction of the vehicle, regardless of ownership? THAT's a penalty that will get people to sit up and take notice, and it places the responsibility on the owner to ensure legit drivers.

(Vehicles reported stolen would need to be an exception, but then the person driving would be looking at GTA as well as license violation...)

I'm thinking that the legal system does this draconian punishment for mildy alcohol-influenced driving - but then puts all kinds of destructive loopholes in.

1) Leaving the scene of an accident is less serious that being drunk and remaining at the scene. Another way to put that is that: It's illegal to remain at the scene if you have had a drink.

2) You can't fish without having a valid license in a visible place. Why is that different from driving? In rural areas they are quite afraid of being busted for DUI - the cops would all know their car, if they get a suspended license. Here in city? Drive well with a suspended license and it is unlikely that you will be noticed.

3) You car gives a signal to people around you when you brake or backup. Why not have your car give a highly visible signal when you exceed the speed limit? (Or a visible display of how fast you are going) The technology exist to make speeding impractical, but it is not used.

I have a friend who was quoted in the PG article about PA's proposed law as being against the idea of the law in principle. I am not entirely in agreement with either him or the bill as written.

Banning texting is sensible. Banning talking on the phone does not sound quite as sensible. How is talking on the phone any more distracting than talking with someone in the car, even hands-free? How is it worse than popping in/out a CD/tape or lighting a cigarette?

As cyclists, we are entitled to have all drivers (read: potential killers) attentive as they approach us. I just do not understand why one highly visible form of distraction is qualitatively worse than all the many others that have been out there forever.

And why a $142 ticket on the first offense?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/03/study-cell-phone-bans-dont-imp

However, the author of Traffic has cited studies that indicate there is something unique about talking on a cell phone that distracts from driving (unlike talking to someone in your car)

My experience with the California law, as it relates to cycling, has been entirely negative. Law of unintended consequences kicked in after the ban took affect. Instead of drivers buying handsfree devices and using them, many opt for simply pulling over when their phone rings, wherever they happen to be driving.

If I had to choose, I'd rather have a driver be distracted talking on their phone than have them blindly pull over to the side of the road (and park in a bike lane) without signaling or looking to see if there is a bike next to them. They seem far more worried about pulling over and answering the phone than signaling their intentions or considering if it is safe, or even legal, to change lanes and stop.

This happened right after the law took effect, and I still saw it on numerous occasions when I visited LA over the holidays just a month ago.

Any hands-free law should also come with an explicit stipulation that is not permissible to simply pull over and talk on the phone.

How is talking on the phone any more distracting than talking with someone in the car, even hands-free? How is it worse than popping in/out a CD/tape or lighting a cigarette?

I'm not exactly sure HOW talking with somone on the phone is different from talking to someone in the car, but studies have shown that it is indeed, very different.

Part of it is that someone who is in the car might stop talking about what they had for lunch and start talking about how YOU ARE GOING TO HIT THAT TRUCK! I think there is probably more to it than that. Paying attention to things that are not physically present.

IIRC, a study showed that "hands free" talking doesn't make much of a difference.

The stats of how many accideents happen when someon is fooling with the radio are frightening. I beleive there are places where loading and unloading CDs *is* illegal, hence some cars come standard with the player in the trunk. As far as cigarettes? I recall them being a risk, not sure how high.

All of these things are momentary distractions while the cell-phone talking is continuous.

I live in Oakland. When I see a driver do utterly inexplicable things, they usually have a cell phone to their ear. I assume that if they do not have the cell phone in hand, they probably are using hands free.

$142 dollars is about right, IMO, if you want the practice to end. If it were a $30 fine, folks would just take their chances.

Mick

My experience with the California law, as it relates to cycling, has been entirely negative. Law of unintended consequences kicked in after the ban took affect. Instead of drivers buying handsfree devices and using them, many opt for simply pulling over when their phone rings, wherever they happen to be driving

That would strike me as an excellent outcome.

Using hands free? Not so good - the problem is with attention, not with the hands.

Mick

Yea, excellent, until you pass your 50th parked car with emergency flashers blocking the bike lane. Then it kind of sucks. Getting run off the road would certainly ruin my day too.

Granted, there are laws against parking in no parking zones, and illegal lane changes, but they are more worried about the cell phone law.

I think this subject has been discussed before, and the general consensus is that talking on the phone while driving causes spatial problems, since you are speaking to someone who is not physically present.

I do share Stu's questions--we are on a slippery slope. What if I'm having a very deep philosophical discussion with my passenger? Should that be illegal, too?

I'm glad to hear that California is enforcing their law, but as I've said before, the single biggest measure the police could do to make our streets safer would be really enforce posted speed limits, traffic lights, and stop signs.

I think a lot of the vehicle laws are better enforced by the insurance companies rather than the police- If you're talking on the phone during an accident, the insurance company doesnt have to pay. Likewise if you are not wearing your seatbelt, or helmet, or driving more than 10mph over the speedlimit, etc. And if you leave the scene of an accident it's one year in jail automatic -no exceptions! I think it's dumb to ride a bicycle without a helmet too, and would extent these rules accordingly.

If that were only the case. A friend of mine was successfully sued by someone involved in an accident with him (both he and the other person were in cars). The other driver did not have INSURANCE or a LICENSE, but my friend's insurance company wouldn't fight the claim.