As many Californians know by now, talking on the phone while driving is absolutely prohibited. Oh... that’s right, it’s not. Not completely anyway. If you’re lucky enough to be 18 or older then this law is for the most part, irrelevant to you. Talking on the cell phone while you’re going 50 or even 70 miles per hour is still a possibility, thanks to the wonderful contraption known as...a Bluetooth.
A thought that had crossed my mind initially was whether or not this cell phone law was just a scheme derived from companies, who manufacture Bluetooth devices, to get into the wallets of consumers. Remarkably enough the NPD Group just so happened to have a press release on July 23, 2008, (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080723a.html), explaining how "[s]ales of Bluetooth headset devices surged in the months prior to the new law going on the books." Also on that press release was an interesting quote from Ross Rubin, director of industry analysis for NPD, "[l]egislation has given a helping hand to hands-free technologies." Well they didn’t get a dime from me because it just so happens that this law also allows you to use the speaker phone option.
In most cases with the speaker phone you would still have to hold onto your phone and place it just inches away from your ear. This doesn’t make all that much of a difference then just simply using your phone.
Although it may seem unlikely, this law has more options as to what you can do versus what you can’t. The most shocking of these, and to my disbelief, is still having the option to text message. Text messaging has become just as popular as, if not more so, making calls from your phone.
It was a month ago or so when my eyes caught sight of a vehicle making slow zig-zag motions from one lane into another. Luckily there was minimal traffic. It was early in the evening so there was a probability that this was a potential drunk driver, but not exactly the case in this situation. It was an older man who looked as though he were in his mid to late 50s. He had been glancing up and then down, but his eyes were for the most part diverted from the road. The top of the cell phone finally made its appearance. Although this law doesn’t necessarily encourage you to use the text messaging option, it doesn’t really discourage you either.
A slap on the wrist is all you’ll receive if you dare break this law. A mere $20 for the first offense and some court fees. Not even a violation point on your license according to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Any offenses thereafter are $50, but yet again no violation points.
This law is not only pointless, it’s ineffective. It makes no sense having a law like this unless there are restrictions that could potentially make the roads even more safe from reckless drivers and would actually pertain to those who are 18 and over.
Why not make a cell phone law that would actually make sense? A law that would require people to turn off or leave their cell phones either at home or in the car before they step into a movie theatre. It’s bad enough having to sit through a movie you’ve been wanting to see with a baby screaming their lungs out just a few rows behind you, but to also have to hear somebody carrying a conversation with a person who isn’t physically present, is ridiculous.
We can all thank Senator Joe Simitian and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for providing the state of California with yet another pointless law to add to the list, right along with women not being able to drive in a house coat!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sometimes it is best to save the best for last, other times not.
I read through this column (while driving my car - just kidding) and when I got to the last few lines, I mentally skidded sideways.
Here it is: "yet another pointless law to add to the list, right along with women not being able to drive in a house coat!"
What law says women can't drive in a house coat? And, pardon my ignorance, what exactly is a 'house coat,' anyway.
The column has good information, but does a lot of bounding from cell phone to bluetooth devices to speakers phones to, well, eventually housecoats.
I think taking one of the issues, such as the boost in sales of hands-free devices, and expanding the whole conversation about handfree and texting, would have been more effective.
I liked the use of the example of the weaving car. In fact, it might have been an interesting way to start the column, followed by a discussion of what the law says you can and cannot do.
BTW, is it legal to put eye liner on while driving? I saw that the other day.
Reorganization, some tightening and keeping to one - maybe two - issues in the case would make for a stronger column.
Good first effort.
Post a Comment