CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Put your cell phone down and drive — or face the penalties
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
Drivers 18 and over must use a hands-free device when using cell phones while driving after new statewide laws take effect Tuesday. Drivers under 18 are banned from talking on a cell phone, even with a hands-free device.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - For Sara Baldwin, zipping down the freeway at 70 mph doesn’t get in the way of a friendly phone chat — or even a text message.
The Oakland resident says it breaks up her long commute, which involves shuttling her fiancé to work in San Francisco before arriving at her job in Daly City. The 30-year-old human resources manager says she has no illusions that it’s safe, but old habits die hard — she’s been driving with a phone to her ear for 10 years.
“It’s bad, but I still do it,” she said. “I think being forced into safety will be a good thing.”
On Tuesday, a pair of cell phone laws in California will change the relationship between chatty motorists such as Baldwin and their mobile phones. Adults will be required to use a hands-free device. Those under 18 will be barred from chatting, though an exception will be made for all drivers on private property or during an emergency.
On June 19, a Senate bill was introduced that would ban motorists from typing text messages and e-mails while driving.
“Obviously it’s going to be an adjustment for a lot of people,” acknowledged California Highway Patrol spokeswoman Fran Clader. Still, neither the CHP nor Bay Area police departments will be extending a grace period to drivers struggling to change their ways.
The fine for first-time offenders is $20 plus fees — an amount criticized by some for being too lenient. Each additional offense is $50 plus fees, though with additional penalty assessments and court fees, that number could triple, Clader said.
By comparison, motorists in Washington, where a similar law also is going into effect Tuesday, will receive $124 tickets. But while California drivers can be pulled over for holding cell phones to their ears, Washington motorists can only receive a hand-held cell phone ticket as a secondary violation after being caught for another offense, such as speeding.
“To be honest, the fee isn’t a deterrent for me,” Baldwin said. “I just don’t want to be pulled over by the police, because if they get me for talking on a cell phone, will they get me for speeding and a couple other things?”
While the ding will show up on a motorist’s driving record, the California Department of Motor Vehicles will not assign a violation point to licenses — a point conceded to opponents of the bills during negotiations, the laws’ author, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, said.
Still, Simitian called the law “a common-sense approach to public safety” and pointed to a new study by the Public Policy Institute of California that predicted the law, despite its low fines, would save 300 lives per year.
The study examined cell phone ownership and traffic fatality rates in California, and analyzed the results of similar hands-free laws in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and the District of Columbia.
Comments from Examiner Readers
3:10 PM MST on Thu., Sep. 11, 2008 re: "Put your cell phone down and drive — or face the penalties"
Report as inappropriate
2:21 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Law works best in bad weather, study contends"
Report as inappropriate
1:43 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Law works best in bad weather, study contends"
Report as inappropriate
1:30 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Put your cell phone down and drive — or face the penalties"
Report as inappropriate
1:10 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Law works best in bad weather, study contends"
Report as inappropriate
1:04 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Law works best in bad weather, study contends"
Report as inappropriate
9:50 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Law works best in bad weather, study contends"
Report as inappropriate
5:08 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008
re: "Put your cell phone down and drive — or face the penalties"
Report as inappropriate
6:20 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008
re: "County seeking a bridge between cyclists, safety"
Report as inappropriate
12:47 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "County seeking a bridge between cyclists, safety"
Report as inappropriate
5:14 PM MST on Thu., Feb. 21, 2008
re: "Crime-fighting plan focuses on Annapolis"
Report as inappropriate
3:05 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 16, 2008
re: "Pedestrian-related deaths jumped in 2007"
Report as inappropriate
4:55 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008
re: "Pedestrian-related deaths jumped in 2007"
Report as inappropriate
12:07 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008
re: "Pedestrian-related deaths jumped in 2007"
Report as inappropriate
6:19 PM MST on Sat., Jan. 26, 2008
re: "Woman hit by bus may have broken both legs"
Report as inappropriate
1:16 PM MST on Sat., Jan. 26, 2008
re: "Woman hit by bus may have broken both legs"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Interesting, this law was a result of lobbying by the company that owns the rights to "Bluetooth". Most people don;t realize this and think it is to "promote public safety". Probably just as many people crash reaching for things in their cars as they do talking on the phone.
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I found out from a friend that the $25 dollar fine is not that but the first fine is actually going to be $50, second going to be $100 (which will actually be $150 in fine), etc.
8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mumia said:
You can't tame elephants when driving, but unfortunatly nobody does it. You can't launch a space shuttle while driving, but unfortunately nobody does it. Bay Area Taxpayer trots out the usual irrelvant comparisons that irresponsible narcissists always use: specious and irrelevant comparisons to unrelated issues. The only area where this individual and this individuals ilk come close to truth is in lamenting the laughable 25.00 ticket. I agree; it should be 250.00. And it should be a 2,500,000.00 if you kill all of your girlfirends on graduation night while texting in your SUV.
6 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bay Area Taxpayer said:
Okay, okay, I'll put down down my cell phone and pick up my new Norelco shaver ... works great in 101 traffic !!!
8 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bay Area Taxpayer said:
You can't drink beer in an open can while driving ... but unfortunately people do it all the time. You can't smoke dope in a car ... but unfotunately people do it all the time. Most cities in California are bankrupt or nearlly bankrupt so writing a ticket for like $25 is just another way to raise money courtesy of the California taxpayer/driver. A ticket is just another tax to pay. How about eating a sandwich while driving ? How about having a heated argument about something while driving ? Those should also be ticket infractions. Whenever you complain about not having enough cops on patrol to take care of crime you're always given the excuse "that all officers are busy out there with more serious crimes instead of barking dogs, vandalism, etc." Tomorrow just wait, every officer available will be on overtime (if needed)just to write tickets so as to fill their cities coffers to the brim with this easy money !!! Who will be assigned more serious crimes like mismanaging city funds
12 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Stop whining all you cell babies, get over it, its the law July 1, 2008. Get used to it.
8 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Brussels Belgium's not L.A. the average street allows for two cars abreast (1 car one way 1 car the other) however, I saw a woman yakking her mouth away on her cell driving a SUV and she didn't even realize she was going thru a red light doing abt 20 mph she was moving her head, laughing and just kept on going, this one I heard from a bartender who told me one of his customer complaining his wife wrecked the car as he explained she said it wasn't her fault as she was lighting a cigarette while talking to her cell, she ran into a parked car...
8 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Danno said:
The legislatures are intruding more and more into the smallest details of life. I would suggest the best form of protest for this law is to get a wooden block or other object that looks like a cell phone and hold it to your ear if a traffic patrol car nears. Keep them guessing about whether motorists have actual cell phones or some other object in their ear.
10 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Interesting read-- some quibbles-- narrow lanes actually represent a case where the cyclist is better off not trying to share. The issue is more the perception of safety, rather than actual safety. The article perpetuates the fear that cyclists will be rear ended. The real advantage is that automobile drivers can tune out
7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gladwyn d'Souza said:
The energy output between autos and bikes are orders of magnitude apart. Its much easier for autos to have to go miles between connections. Yet the county planning agency in CCAG has managed to turn the energy matrix on its head. By making low energy modes like bicycles, walking face hardship through the wall of 101 county planning has built in congestion, pollution, and driving as the only alternative with our tax dollars. Ralston 101 is just the most recent example where cyclists are penalized today for infrastructure promised in the unforseeable future as the state faces budget cuts. The 2000 interchange downgrade for bicyclist in favor of the planned bike bridge over 101 is now 8 years unrealized and the $7M is like a big pollution cloud hazing up the future. The funding available means the buildout of connected streets for bikes and peds won't happen for another 325 years when the planet will be much the worse off for bad plannng witho our tax dollars today.
8 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
yo'malley can bring fat over paid pat jessamy to prosecute and lenny 'bankruptcy" hamm as police chief. the criminals would laugh themselves to death.
94 agree | 97 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Another NON ISSUE hitting the newspaper. In 2000, there were 32 deaths. Last year, 24, the exact same amount as in 2003. What is the issue?
113 agree | 107 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hey 1:16, senior citizens don't run. If they could, they wouldn't be hit so often by drivers who are going too fast and not paying attention. Sure, a lot of pedestrians behave badly or just aren't as cautious as they should be, but anyone who drives a two-ton projectile should take this into account and imagine their own grandmother trying to cross the street.
116 agree | 104 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
do these reports also reflect the amount of people stepping out with out looking the very second the light turns green and walking against traffic lights and my personal favorite stepping out in traffic to see if a bus is coming and i swear 6 people will step out in 5 minutes to see if the same bus is coming i drive in the city and have had all these close calls with pedestrians and bycycle riders it is sometimes ridiculous to se what these people do . cell phone talkinfg and being unaware isthe same as a driver unaware when there on the phone and then there are ipods so now they are dear and unaware what the hell its not just the autos at fault but SF being what it is we always go that way try that walking against a light in VEGAS you will surely be run down and it is usually the pedestrians fault remember being a kid look both ways DUH ITS ONLY LESS THAN 5 SECONDS OUT OF A LIFE CHANGING SITUATION
124 agree | 126 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Seven said:
Umm, how much more accountable would you like to make this pedestrian?
126 agree | 130 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
And this is why pedestrians need to be held accountable for their actions as well. I'm a pedestrian, and you'd never see me running out into traffic like an idiot.
128 agree | 116 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree