Which is more dangerous, a cell phone or a Shih Tzu?
Will someone please explain to me why a driver talking with a cell phone to his ear is any more distracted than a driver putting a hamburger in his mouth? Or eyeliner to her eyes? Or a Shih Tzu on his lap?
And, yet, on July 1, California began enforcing Vehicle Code 23123, which bans using a cellular phone while driving, unless said phone is being used in a hands-free manner.
There is no need to have VC 23123 on the books. The California vehicle code already has a codicil for “inattentive driving,” under which cell phones, hamburgers, eyeliners and lapdogs already fall.
The new law dishes out a $20 fine for the first violation and a $50 fine thereafter. There is talk that the law will be used to bolster evidence by insurance companies in assigning blame in accidents.
Look, I’m fed up with the oblivious Soccer Mom careening down the 405, nattering into her cell phone about little Madison’s latest escapade. Perhaps the self-important Corporate Blowhards are worse, especially when they slow to 50 mph so they can text-message the Smithers Widgets account spreadsheet from their BlackBerry.
Perhaps the most atrocious is when the driver is performing the right-hand-left-ear crossover with the phone, which means he has effectively tied himself in a knot. So much for evasive action or reaction time.
The California Highway Patrol estimates the new law will save 300 lives a year, not to mention prevent countless rear-end collisions.
Law took six years
Yet California and the 20-odd other states with similar laws lag the rest of the world in this idea. More than 45 countries, including Germany, France, England and Japan, have long required hands-free phones when behind the wheel. But it took six years for California to overcome intense lobbying by the cellular phone industry to pass this bill.
A small cottage industry in Bluetooth devices has cropped up in anticipation of vigilant coppers enforcing the law. I’ve tried a couple of the devices, and they work pretty well.
The new Motorola T505 speaker phone clips to the car’s visor and has decent fidelity. It even can link your BlackBerry’s library of music to your car’s stereo, cutting out when a call comes. Sticker price is $139.
Higher up the food chain is the Magellan Maestro 4250. At heart, it is a navigation unit with optional traffic display. But it also has a built-in Bluetooth speaker-mic with voice command. But the speaker tends to get distorted pretty easily. It also costs about $250.
Or you can just get a Ford vehicle with Sync, or any number of luxury brands that have Bluetooth-enabled audio systems.
‘Bluetool’
For a state as supposedly hip and progressive as California, though, I am astounded at the reluctance of its residents to go hands-free. A cheapo Bluetooth earpiece costs 39 bucks. Of course, then you look like an extra from the cast of “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” There’s even a derisive term for those folks: “Bluetool.”
But are cellular phones really the driving demon?
I have seen guys shaving, applying hair gel, playing Game Boy, typing into computers. And that eyeliner-applying hottie is no myth. I see it all the time. Nothing like having a pointed stick a half-inch from your eyeball, while battling rush hour.
All of those activities are just as distracting as a cell phone. This new law seems redundant, although if it perks up CHP enforcement of bad driving, then I’m all for it.
Maybe the law has as an underlying motive, to curb the self-involvement that plagues this state. Sure, Los Angeles is typecast as the land of helicopter parents driving their asexually named brats to the Montessori school named after a movie producer. But there’s a nugget of truth in every stereotype, right?
Perhaps, just once, it doesn’t have to be All About Me. Especially when there are lots of other cars and motorcycles around.
via: AutoNews - subscription required