# CA raises fines for using your phone while driving **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 7, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222 "2010-04-07T01:20:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/61 "2010-04-08T00:57:18Z")
Did he ask you out for… you know, coffee? ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/62 "2010-04-08T01:32:05Z")
That’s so cute. Driving w/ cell phone is $180 in NY. (Technically “up to” $100 + $80- in “mandatory fees.”) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/63 "2010-04-08T01:34:44Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > Not that I think people should use cell phones while driving (I don’t), but how are they more distracting than, say, a screaming toddler in the back or a boyfriend/girlfriend/friend/spouse arguing or debating with you in the passenger seat? _Why_ it’s more of a distraction is a separate question, but a multiplicity of empirical studies show that it _is_ more distracting than a normal converstion with someone else in the car. Bringing up arguments with passengers or wrangling toddlers is loading the question (the latter is a regular issue for me, and I simply pull over and stop until thing settle down), but even if those things are just as distracting and dangerous, that’s not an argument in favor of allowing people to yap on cell phones. Studies show that yapping on a cell phone while driving, even with a hands free device, impairs the driver just as much as being drunk. It may be that putting on makeup or combing one’s hair in the rear view mirror causes the same level of impairment, but how is that an argument in favor of driving drunk? I know everybody thinks THEY can talk and drive without just fine, just like drunk drivers always think they’re fine), but field tests show that most people have no idea how impaired their driving really is. They’re doing things like drifting over center lines and onto shoulders without even being aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/64 "2010-04-08T01:48:07Z")
> [@salinqmind](#): > > It seems drunken driving crashes have been overtaken by numb nuts who can’t only not detach the fucking phone from their ear but decide driving up over a steep hill would be an ideal time to text someone, with some terribly important information. I looked up the stats last week when a pick up truck almost hit me head on and didn’t slam on the brakes until I’d gone onto the shoulder and he was 1/2 in my lane… Last year drunk drivers were responsible for 12,000 fatal accidents in the US. “Distracted drivers,” most of whom were doing something to their phone, accounted for more than 6000 fatal crashes. If 12,000 fatal accidents is a huge deal, shouldn’t 6000 be too? I’d love to see a federal cell phone use while driving law, but I’d settle for laws in NH like the ones CA, NY, and ME have; it makes me angry that a ban was proposed in NH during 2009 this but eventually watered down to “no texting”. grrr. ---
**Author:** ![ataraxy22](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ataraxy22/32/307_2.png) [@ataraxy22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ataraxy22)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/65 "2010-04-08T02:00:09Z")
I hate nanny state laws. My sympathies lie entirely with the OP here. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/66 "2010-04-08T02:06:24Z")
> [@ataraxy22](#): > > I hate nanny state laws. My sympathies lie entirely with the OP here. Nanny state laws are, in my opinion, laws that do nothing but protect people from their own bad decisions. For example, i can get on board with the term when applied to something like wearing seatbelts, or wearing a motorcycle helmet. You want to go out and kill yourself? Good luck to you. But laws against talking on a cellphone while driving are designed to protect the rest of us from selfish assholes who think it’s more important to chat on the phone than to pay attention to the two ton hunk of metal that they’re piloting down the street. As **elfkin477** notes, distracted driving accounts for thousands of road deaths a year. Do you also think that laws against drunk driving are “nanny state laws”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/67 "2010-04-08T02:07:05Z")
> [@ataraxy22](#): > > I hate nanny state laws. My sympathies lie entirely with the OP here. “Nanny” laws protect individuals from themselves. This is a law that prevents behavior that endangers others. Can you give a cogent defense as to why peopl should be allowed to endager others on the road? Are drunk driving laws “nanny” laws too? ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/68 "2010-04-08T02:51:09Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Nanny state laws are, in my opinion, laws that do nothing but protect people from their own bad decisions. For example, i can get on board with the term when applied to something like wearing seatbelts, or wearing a motorcycle helmet. You want to go out and kill yourself? Good luck to you. Its also laws that prevent stupid people from hurting others which non stupid people don’t need because they either won’t do it, or won’t do it unsafely. Its also laws that are too invasive for their benefit. I’d count anti cell phone laws as both of those. Protip. When on a cell phone in a car, you can shut up and ignore the caller when doing something that requires your brains. Then when the situation is over, you can talk to them again. Just like talking to a passenger. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/69 "2010-04-08T03:03:37Z")
The empirical studies do not bear you out, and you are incorrect on your definition of “nanny state” laws. Holding stupid people accountable for dangerous behavior is not “nanny state.” By your logic, drunk driving laws are “nanny state” too. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/70 "2010-04-08T03:30:54Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > How many times have you run a red light or used a cell phone and not gotten caught. Is running red lights really that common? I mean speeding, yeah, almost everybody does that… but I don’t think most people run red lights! ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/71 "2010-04-08T05:06:50Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > Its also laws that prevent stupid people from hurting others which non stupid people don’t need because they either won’t do it, or won’t do it unsafely. Apart from being awfully constructed, this sentence is also not borne out by the evidence, to the tune of thousands of car crashes every year. > [@CutterJohn](#): > > Its also laws that are too invasive for their benefit. Obviously, that’s a matter of opinion. 6,000 fatal accidents occur each year in the United States as a result of distracted driving; it seems to me that this number is large enough to warrant some attention, especially when getting rid of some of the biggest distractions is, in itself, such a minor inconvenience. You say that the laws are too invasive for the benefit they provide. I’d turn it around and ask: how many phone calls do you make while driving that are _so_ important that they couldn’t be done at another time? And, if they are that important, are all your journeys so rushed that you can’t pull over for a few minutes to complete the call? The thing about this law is that the behavior its designed to reduce is, in most cases, so urgent that it can’t be postponed. > [@CutterJohn](#): > > Protip. When on a cell phone in a car, you can shut up and ignore the caller when doing something that requires your brains. Then when the situation is over, you can talk to them again. Just like talking to a passenger. And yet numerous studies suggest that people cannot, in fact, make such decisions consciously because we actually use our brain and our attention in different ways when we are using the phone while driving. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/72 "2010-04-08T06:43:48Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > That’s so cute. Driving w/ cell phone is $180 in NY. (Technically “up to” $100 + $80- in “mandatory fees.”) Yeah, right now it’s $20 for the first offense, $50 after. With court costs, it was over $200 for the first offense. You $180 isn’t all that different, so I don’t see how it’s cute. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/73 "2010-04-08T07:34:06Z")
When one gets a citation for touching the cell phone, can one ask the arresting officer to put the cell phone number on the ticket? That should put paid to any question of the cell phone bill being “hearsay.” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/74 "2010-04-08T07:38:58Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Yeah, right now it’s $20 for the first offense, $50 after. With court costs, it was over $200 for the first offense. You $180 isn’t all that different, so I don’t see how it’s cute. [Penalty assessments can be so lucrative, especially when your state is broke.](http://www.ocregister.com/news/fine-241024-state-base.html) (Click on the tab labeled “graphics.”) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/75 "2010-04-08T11:55:28Z")
> [@OpalCat](#): > > Is running red lights really that common? I mean speeding, yeah, almost everybody does that… but I don’t think most people run red lights! Most people don’t; however, I see people doing it almost every day during my commute. Typically a “pretending it’s still yellow and I can make it while I force the guy who now has a green arrow to wait a second or two for my dumb ass to get out of the way” offense than just barreling straight through a hard red. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/76 "2010-04-08T12:11:36Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > That’s so cute. Driving w/ cell phone is $180 in NY. (Technically “up to” $100 + $80- in “mandatory fees.”) Heck, it’s “up to” $500 here in Ontario! A quick check shows that first offenses seem to run in the $150 range, since the law was implemented this year. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/77 "2010-04-08T16:16:12Z")
Some interesting data from a study by the Feds: [http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a\_ws\_MX&javax.portlet.prp\_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a\_viewID=detail\_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=71052f9b8559a010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard](http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=71052f9b8559a010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard) > [@](#): > > • Drowsiness is a significant problem that increases a driver’s risk of a crash or near-crash by at least a factor of four. But drowsy driving may be significantly under-reported in police crash investigations. > • The most common distraction for drivers is the use of cell phones. However, the number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening. Dialing is more dangerous but occurs less often than talking or listening. > • Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a hand-held device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times. Interesting how reaching for something is worse than using a phone. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/78 "2010-04-08T16:19:46Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > When one gets a citation for touching the cell phone, can one ask the arresting officer to put the cell phone number on the ticket? > > That should put paid to any question of the cell phone bill being “hearsay.” They told me no, because any phone records can be faked and how do they know blah blah blah. I then asked what I could possibly bring and the cop said, 'I guess an actual rep from ATT. No wait, that’d be hearsay, too." Aye. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/79 "2010-04-08T16:52:59Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > They told me no, because any phone records can be faked and how do they know blah blah blah. I then asked what I could possibly bring and the cop said, 'I guess an actual rep from ATT. No wait, that’d be hearsay, too." Aye. No, there is a “business records” exception to the hearsay rule. It depends on what rep from ATT you bring. You would have to bring a rep who is familiar with the making of the phone records that you intend to introduce as evidence and can vouch, basically, that the records were made in the normal course of business at or near the time of the occurrences stated in the records. To get that person in court, you would have to subpoena the “person most knowledgeable” of the record keeping at ATT. So, if you get the cop to somehow make note of what phone you had in the car and you can match the phone to those records, then you might be able to defend yourself. Maybe you can call the police station while pulled over in your car so that phone number appears on your phone records at the time you were pulled over. Then, maybe, you can subpoena the police station tape of your call. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222/80 "2010-04-08T17:05:56Z")
If you want the police tape as evidence, then you would also need to subpoena someone from the police department who can vouch for the tape as a “public record” because you would have another hearsay problem with that tape if you didn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-raises-fines-for-using-your-phone-while-driving/535222.md?page=5)