Town Square

Post a New Topic

PA police ticket 15 drivers for cell-phone talking

Original post made on Jul 2, 2008

In the first day that a new state law went into effect prohibiting drivers from using their hands to talk on their cell phones, Palo Alto police ticketed 15 drivers Tuesday for violating the new law, which requires hands-free use of cell phones.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 9:08 AM

Comments (46)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Silent Observer
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:24 am

I find it interesting that a Palo Alto police officer was observed yesterday talking on their cell phone while driving. Did he have to put his phone down to write the tickets? Doesn't the law apply to the police as well?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Silent Observer is Wrong
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:54 am

Police don't use cell phones, they use microphones attached to their shoulder. While driving they don't use cell phones because they have their radios on and they must be listening to them at all times. Occasionally they lift their mounted radio microphone up to talk into it for Police communications only.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred Flintstone
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

First of all, Police use cell phones CONSTANTLY to do their jobs. Secondly, they're used to doing 10 things at once anyway. Thirdly, the average cop is 100x the driver of the average motorist.

The biggest problem with cell phone use while driving is that there are too many people that can barely operate a motor vehicle without any distractions. Add in ANY distraction, and they forget how to drive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FYI
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:42 am

Just for those who don't know...Emergency personnel (ie police officers) are exempt from the cell phone law during the course of their duties. There are many reasons why an officer may need to use a cell phone instead of their radio for work duties. This is just one of the reasons they have been made exempt.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:45 am

There is an emergency service exception to the cell phone law due to the nature of emergency service work. Check the full text of the law at Web Link - do a search for 23123 in the Vehicle Code. The exception is sub section (d).

So in answer to your question (Silent Observer), police are allowed to use a cell phone while driving.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Silent Observer
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 2, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Dear "Silent Observer is Wrong" .... The police officer was talking on a cell phone. I was wondering if they were exempt and apparently they are.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2008 at 1:37 pm

15? It's clear that the Palo Alto police are not actively enforcing this law. If a driver does something that draws attention, and he's talking without a hands free device, then they might receive a ticket.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:22 pm

I observe on a daily basis drivers who wouldn't qualify for a driver's license anywhere else in the world. They have no clue about how to handle their car, how to be an integral part of the road, obeying many basic road rules like right of way, stopping at a stop signs and red lights is a complete mystery to them, observing and driving around bicycles is a complete unknown to them. To those so called drivers, being aware of other vehicles is what nuclear physics are to me. The fact that many of the same awful drivers also use cell phones while driving, with or without their hands, chills my blood. Drivers should be prohibited from using cell phones while driving, period. You need to use one? Pull off the road, stop the car and dial away.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Jul 2, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Jake,

Agree 100%. Now, if we would only make the driver's test a real "Driver's test" graded on a curve that would pass only the top 75%, it would do wonders:

1) Synergistically reduce congestion far more than a simple 25% reduction in volume would... We're talking about removing the worst 25%

2) Increase usage of public transport to the point it could be self-sufficient.

3) Increase bicycle usage.

4) Reduce our carbon footprint synergistically for the same reasons as #1, and perhaps even more. Perhaps this is my bias, but I see a correlation between gas-guzzlers (especially older ones) and incompetent drivers.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Feelbad
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 2, 2008 at 8:48 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JP
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Jake and Casual observer: You have hit the nail on the head. Believe me, I am no racist but what I don't get is why the DMV has drivig tests in about 5 different languages (or more) when the road signs are all in plain English. I was a traffic officer for a police dept. I won't mention and I liked to ask people when I pulled them over "do you remember when you took the driving test, what the manual said about..(insert violation here). 10 out of 10 times the people's response was "no". We need stricter tests, that is my two cents on that.

To answer your other questions, even though the law excepts police officers from this new law, most agencies, including the one I work for, have implemented a policy which states that we must also follow this law and not talk on the phone while driving. I completely agree with this, I mean we are supposed to set an example right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Donald
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jul 2, 2008 at 11:51 pm

The DMV tried a harder test a couple of years ago, but so many people failed it that they were pressured to drop it. Many politicians feel that driving is necessary and that restricting it to competent people would damage our economy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

A few weeks ago, the car in front of me made a sudden left turn, without any signaling, a very common occurrence in PA and elsewhere, very nearly causing a very bad collision. I managed to get the driver to pull over and asked him politely if he remembered that he was supposed to use his turn signal when making a turn, especially with oncoming traffic as well as unsuspecting traffic behind him. He didn't seem to have any clue on the purpose and location of his turn signals. And of course, he held a cell phone in his hand. So yes, if we are to survive, we need smart politician like Joe Simitian to regulate certain aspect of our lives-the alternative is too scary to even contemplate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Raise-The-Minimum-Age
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 3, 2008 at 10:05 am

There is very little data that proves that cell phone use causes accidents. The CHP does keep records about accidents, which is forwarded to it from all of the police departments in the state. But there is little in this data that suggests that cell phone use was the primary cause of accidents. The data only has a field that says that a cell phone was in use at the time of the accident.

For single vehicle accidents, the driver is on his/her honor to tell the investigating officer whether or not that a cell phone was in use at the time.

Drinking and speeding are the primary causes of fatal accidents, statewide and nationally. Cell phone use is not remotely linked to fatal accidents, and generally involved in only a small number of accidents--and only as a secondary influence.

Simitian is way out of line with this law. It's just another example of Simitian's never-ending attempts to impose "nanny government" on California. If Simitian really wanted to do something to make the roads safer, he would get the minimum age for a driver's license raised to 18 or 19. Sixteen is just young for safe driving practices to be absorbed and practiced.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2008 at 11:58 am

I strongly agree that the driving age should be increased or other restrictions should be put on teenage drivers.

I have twice entered Joe Simitian's outta be a law contest to introduce the L plates for learner drivers that the UK and Ireland have had for a long time and R plates for Rookie drivers, those who have had their licences for less than a year. These stick on logos would help us identify those drivers who are young and inexperienced and we would be able to give them a wide berth or forgive any small infringements they make. Also, it would make them realise that just because they have their licences, they cannot be considered good or experienced drivers and may make them behave a little more cautiously altogether.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA Resident
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 3, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I was hit by a Palo Alto police officer who was driving while talking on a cell phone. He pulled out of a parking spot in front of the post office, pedal to the metal, and banged into my car as I was making a right turn.

Of course the cop (from Menlo Park) who wrote up the accident made it my fault, saying I had turned right from the wrong lane -- when there is no right turn lane at that intersection. I had no legal recourse until the accident report was corrected, which it finally was more than 2 years after the incident, thanks to my insurance company.

I recently had a third orthopedic surgery as a result of this accident. I've had to pay for everything -- repairs to my car and body -- out of my own pocket.

I think hands-free should also apply to cops unless it's an emergency.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ken
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 3, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Many drivers are lousy drivers even when all their attention is focused on the road. Drivers who use a cellphone while driving are not fully focused even if they are good drivers, that's the nature of the human brain. The notion that there's no data proving that cellphone cause accidents is absurd. The legal driving age should definitely be raised to 18-19, the way it is everywhere else in the world. However, many terrible drivers are adults who just shouldn't be allowed to drive and a solution must be found for them as well. A car is a deadly weapon and not everybody should be allowed to posses one. Drunk driving should be punished much more severely than it is. Any driver caught with an alcohol blood level acceding the legal limit, even if an accident hadn't occurred, should be charged with attempted homicide and the car he/she were driving confiscated:if that won't reduce drunk driving, nothing will


 +   Like this comment
Posted by george
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jul 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

State law permits police to use a cell phone while driving. But beginning July 1 Palo Alto police must use a speaker phone mounted on the dash board of every patrol car.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Donald
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jul 3, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Absence of data is not data for absence. As stated above, the data has not been collected from real crashes in a way that is useful. The lack of data in crash reports does not exonerate cell phone use, it just means there is no data. There have been a number of controlled studies of the impact on cell phone use on simulated driving, and the results are clear: talking on the phone is extremely dangerous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Raise-The-Minimum-Age
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm

> talking on the phone is extremely dangerous.

Simulations do not prove reality. While there have been any number of studies about cell phone use while driving, there has been very little evidence to prove the assumptions from accident data.

AND--if the accident rate does not go down with the "hands free" law, this will be proof of the lack of substance to these studies.

Oh .. and what about "talking" itself? Talking (even without a cell phone) while driving has to be a distraction. Maybe its time to go the full nine yards and outlaw any talking by the driver while the vehicle is in motion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of another community
on Jul 4, 2008 at 5:21 am

I visit Palo Alto numerous times per year on business. I am glad to see that people IN Palo Alto actually think the drivers there are as bad as I think they are. It seems that some drivers in Palo Alto are clueless to what is going on around them and are using the vehicle as a shelter to the outside world while they are attempting to reach their destination. No signals, no right of way allowance and what kills me the most, going to slow for the posted limit. This causes problems with traffic flow and congestion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gerald
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

Cars are a potentially deadly weapon. I can't imagine a fighter pilot calling his wife to discuss the kids school progress while getting ready to fire a missile on an enemy target. Any activity that distracts a driver should be discouraged. Conversations inside a car can be distracting, but are practically impossible to ban, but cellphone use can be seen from the outside. The freedom to behave as one pleases is great as long as that behavior doesn't endanger the lives of others. If drinking alcohol while driving is illegal, there's no reason for cellphone use while driving to be legal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Banner
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2008 at 8:55 am

"Conversations inside a car can be distracting, but are practically impossible to ban,"
Kids in the back seat are infinitely more distracting. Let's ban them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Raise-The-Minimum-Age
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 4, 2008 at 9:08 am

> there's no reason for cellphone use while driving to be legal

Most laws in the US are linked to solving some problem--rather than expression the capriciousness of the lawmakers. A small number of accidents (yearly) have been linked to cell phone use (distracting the driver). But few fatal accidents have been linked to cell phone use. Drinking, driver inexperience, and excessive speed are the three main contributors to fatal accidents. Very notable fatal accidents have occurred when people have taken their eyes off the road to change a tape in the cassette player, or to try to put out a cigarette ash that had fallen on the driver's clothes.

Virtually none of the causes of fatal accidents have been outlawed--such as prohibiting the installation of cassette players in vehicles, or smoking while driving. So, given the low accident rate associated with cell phones--this law tends to be less linked to saving lives, or actually reducing accidents, as it is in demonstrating the capriciousness of the maker of the law.
If, after a couple of years, the accident rate does not diminish significantly (like 10-20%), then this law should be rescinded.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 4, 2008 at 11:25 am

" So, given the low accident rate associated with cell phones--this law tends to be less linked to saving lives, or actually reducing accidents, as it is in demonstrating the capriciousness of the maker of the law.

If, after a couple of years, the accident rate does not diminish significantly (like 10-20%), then this law should be rescinded."

The logic you use is astoundingly bad. It's impossible to create a database for accidents caused by cellphone use. For example, A driver loses concentration as a result of cellphone use, doesn't notoce the light changes to red, collides with another car. Very likely, the phone will fly out of his hand. If he's unconscious when the police arrives, they'd have no idea he was using a cellphone, and the cause of the collision would never be entered into any database as the use of a cellphone. If he's conscious when the police arrives, he's extremely unlikely to admit he was distracted by his phone. People like you, even if they saw a driver clearly getting distracted by a cellphone use and running a red light, for example, would claim that he was going to run the red light anyway and there's no proof that he did it as a result of cellphone use. Your arguments are intellectually on the same level as those of the Flat Earth Society:'since you've never actually been to space, you don't really know that the Earth isn't flat, so don't tell us the Earth is round, since you have no proof'. Deniers of climate change are just the same. Unless you show them a video(although they'd claim it was forged anyway)of carbon emission gases warming up the atmosphere and melting the polar ice, they'd claim that there was no data proving global warming.
There very well could be a reduction of the overall rate of car accidents AND an increase in accidents attributed to cellphone use while driving. Cars have become progressively safer. Sensors can detect a problem and self brake the car before the driver is even aware of the problems. Brake systems become better and better. Headlights are much better now and make night driving significantly safer, my Lexus can detect an object on the road and self-brake even if I can't see it. Road signs are designed to be easier to read while driving and increase safe driving. All the aforementioned are likely to reduce accidents at the same time cellphone use are likely to increase them. The overall accident rate is not necessarily related to cellphone use, since the improvements in vehicle safety design has very likely decreased accidents rate at a higher rate that cellphones have increased them. Anybody who ever used a cellphone while driving knows that it's distracting and dangerous, far more than changing a a cd.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gerald
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 4, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Raise-the minimum-age(not a bad idea)-" A small number of accidents (yearly) have been linked to cell phone use (distracting the driver)"
I don't know how you came to this utterly wrong conclusion. Like one of the posters correctly stated, there's no data about distraction due to cellphone use, only personal experience and common sense, which is definitely on Joe Simititan's side. Thing of a 32 years old man who suddenly drops dead of a heart attack. He has spent his life eating fast food high in saturated fats and sugar and had never exercised. His death will not go into a any database as a death caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. A lobbyist for the fast food industry could claim that there's no clear linkage:maybe it was genetic, maybe it was a chronic condition- after all, a few professional athletes in great shape suddenly dropped dead of heart failure over the years. Since there's no data of the longevity of that man had he led a healthy lifestyle, we can't link his eating habits to his death, would say the fast food lobbyist. This is of course nonsense, since overall, excluding some exceptions, a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition increase life expectancy without any doubt. Comparing phone use to changing a cassette is also highly misleading. Although accidents will occasionally occur because of changing a cassette or using a car cigarette lighter, phone conversations are not mindless automatic acts, they involve cerebral exertions, mental give and take, occasional adversity, surprise, anger, happiness, the need to make instant decision(an important client called all upset, how do we keep the account, etc). It's very difficult to keep focus on the road while using a cellphone and it is always, always, distracting.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by alex
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2008 at 6:56 pm

I for one will have my hand next to my ear, talking to myself every time I see police. I encourage everyone to do so.

I don't talk on a cell phone in a car, but I oppose any law prohibiting it for obvious reasons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Jul 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm

There are quite a number of studies that detail the pernicious effects about the effects of cell phone use while driving. Here's just one of many: Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by dave
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 4, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Thank you Peter for the web link reporting a study on cell phone use. All posters should read it. Although it is long, one can skim a bit and pick up the conclusions at the end.

In short, talking on a cell phone is distracting and can lead to an accident. I'll accept a one or two percent reduction in accidents if it prevents someone being killed or injured.

It should be emphasized that keeping your full attention on the road while driving is your best chance of avoiding an accident.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by alex
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2008 at 6:57 am

Thank you Dave. I'm sure every time you consider driving your car you weigh your contribution to the statistical death rate. If everyone did that we'd save many lives every year. What a way to live!

Keep that brilliant strategy up and you'll end up stuck at home, wearing a helmet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ban cars
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2008 at 7:38 am

The best way to lower deaths from car accidents is to ban cars. If you really care about people, start writing your legislators now and begging them to ban cars.

There oughta be a law!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Raise-The-Minimum-Age
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 5, 2008 at 7:45 am

> It's impossible to create a database for accidents caused
> by cellphone use.

Really?

The CHP maintains a comprehensive database of all accidents in California.

Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System:
Web Link

There are at least two fields in this data that reflect whether a cell phone was in use, or not, at the time of an accident. Of course, drivers have the opportunity to lie to the investigating officers about whether they were using their cell phone at the time. The police could subpoena the cell phone records (if they needed to), so the police could eventually find out if the owners cell phone was in use at the time of the accident.

As stated previously, drinking and speeding are generally the two contributor factors which top the list of reasons for vehicular accidents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Raise-The-Minimum-Age
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 5, 2008 at 7:48 am

> I don't know how you came to this utterly wrong conclusion (about
> cell phone related accidents).

It came from reviewing the accident data for the state of California for a ten-year period. This information is available from the CHP.

The "conclusion" is not "utterly wrong" .. it is an easily demonstrated fact.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 5, 2008 at 10:58 am

Interestingly, London taxi cabs have been so designed that passengers always sit in the back, luggage goes beside the driver (at least used to) and there is a window with a sliding door for necessary passenger/driver communication. Otherwise the passengers do not get the opportunity to distract the drivers with communication. Also, I have seen many buses with signs telling passengers not to talk to drivers unless it is essential.

This shows that for professional drivers there is some understanding that they can be distracted by passengers even talking amongst themselves and being cut off from these distractions leaves the driver to be able to concentrate on driving in a busy city environment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by alex
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2008 at 11:37 am

Hands-free cell phones have not been shown to make a significant impact in the small effect that cell phones have been shown to have.

I'm sure you could lower the death rate if you made everyone drink a cup of coffee before driving too.

You know, we send our children to die in wars to (at least ostensibly) protect our freedoms. The least we can do is to take much, much lower risks in order to preserve our freedoms. Yes, this means people will die for our many little freedoms. That's what freedom is about.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Raise-The-Minimum-Age
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 5, 2008 at 12:46 pm

> Otherwise the passengers do not get the opportunity to
> distract the drivers with communication.

In other countries, cabs did not gave this partition (until the need for bullet-proof glass became a necessity). Unless a comparison between cab accidents can be provided, with a high correlation of driver distraction and accidents -- what's your point?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 5, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Cheers for the PA police to write the 15 tickets. Here is to many more.

As a cyclist (and a driver too of course)I have seen up close and too personally the effects of inattention by drivers of two ton vehicles talking on the phone and driving. Hands free or not. But one-handed is the worst; I was almost broadsided by a driver making a right turn in an SUV steering with one hand (the other holding a phone) and almost not making it through the turn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Palo Alto Cyclist.
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Why only 15?

Police may be exempt, but they are still expected to use good judgement and common sense. Call the police and complain if you see a cop behaving badly in your neighborhood. Don't be a jerk about it, and do NOT call 911 for non-emergencies, but DO let them know if they have a problem with an employee. Stick to the facts and be very clear about what you saw and the time and place that you saw it. If a cop is going 45 MPH in a 25 zone (I've seen it on Middlefield) they can very easily figure out if the guy was on his way to a robbery in progress or just coffee at the starbucks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mo
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm

> Cheers for the PA police to write the 15 tickets.
> Here is to many more.

Better they spend their time writing up speeders and people running red lights ..


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dave
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 5, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Alex, making smarmy remarks about taking driving seriously doesn't contribute to a reasoned discussion. We all take risks every time we get up in the morning. Why not take sensible precautions to reduce the chance of becoming a statistic on the road? In society there is a continual risk/reward balance for every action we take.

Abolish a safety law? Too many drivers run red lights or speed in spite of the law. That doesn't mean the laws against red light running and speeding should be abolished.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by A-Nation-of-Laws--Not-Lawyers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2008 at 7:45 am

> That doesn't mean the laws against red light running and
> speeding should be abolished.

Absolutely not! But the issue here is whether there is any real "safety" to be gained from abolishing non-cell phone use. While some "studies" have been tossed on the table to justify prohibiting cell phone use while driving (and in fact Simitian used a "study" to justify his law), actual accident data was not cited by Simitian from California when he pushed this law through the legislature. Nor did he include a "sunset" provision in this law, which would require that the accident rate go down over a period of time to justify this intrusion on our personal freedom in perpetuity.

If the accident rate were to go down--fine. If not--then how is this intrusion really increasing anyone's "safety"? Certainly cassettes and CDs such go too--not to mention reading material (such as maps) from being in the front seat with the driver.

If there aren't clear problems to be solved, with clear solutions that lead to clear results--then the "law" becomes arbitrary and ultimately abusive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by andres
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 6, 2008 at 8:31 am

I don't need to read any data about the effects of cellphone use on driving-I see it whenever I step out of the house. Drivers who barley even look at the road, weaving between lanes, missing stop sign and red lights, not noticing cyclists, unaware that a car is backing out of a driveway, unaware that a child cycling to school is swerving on to the road because a parked car is blocking the bike lane, etc. It's not enough to say that not all those cases end up in accidents and deaths-some do and some are miraculously avoided. There's no need for one person to die because of cellphone use while driving.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by J.C.
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm

> I don't need to read any data about the effects of
> cellphone use on driving

> There's no need for one person to die because of cellphone
> use while driving.

And how many people have died because of cell phone use while driving?

Is it more than those who have died because of brain cancer from using cell phones when not driving?

Maybe we should be considering the total ban on cell phones themselves?





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pat Markevitch
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I was driving down my street on the day this law first went into effect and was almost hit by a car. The driver was too distracted with putting in his Bluetooth piece to notice that he was serving into oncoming traffic. Go figure.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Donald
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jul 6, 2008 at 7:56 pm

To those who want cause and effect strictly proven for this issue: it will never happen. There are too many uncontrolled variables that can affect the crash rate one way or another to be able to isolate the effect of one alone in the way that you are demanding. For example, with gas prices on the rise and more people taking mass transit and driving slower, I expect that crash rates and fatalities will drop just at the same time this law is taking effect. If the state had infinite money to conduct the best study ever, then we might be able to tease out all of these other causes and effects. We don't have that much money and it wouldn't be worth it. Just hang up and pay attention to the road. It makes sense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2008 at 10:11 pm

As someone with over 30 years' driving experience, I can say that they have been several occasions while driving that I consider myself lucky and quick to have avoided an accident due to either another driver doing something stupid or perhaps even me not taking enough attention. I can safely say that on each one of these occasions I am very glad that I was not using a cellphone as I don't know if these would have been avoided accidents but accidents or some description. I know that on these occasions when I have had to have my wits about me, I wouldn't have had as many wits if I had been on the phone.

I am personally glad about the new law and rather than talk on my phone, I am choosing not to use the phone at all rather than use a handsfree device. I will not call anyone, or answer my phone. If an incoming call is that important, they will leave a message or call back. If I really feel the need to make an urgent call, I will find somewhere safe to pull over and then make a call.

I survived without a phone for most of my driving experience and I can go back to that again without any problems.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,416 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,681 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,619 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,318 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 863 views