Don't get me wrong, there are alot of good drivers under the age of 18. But there are far more bad drivers. Drivers who need experience to learn how to react in different situations. There is a reason that most accidents are caused by people of that age group, even more than senior citizens (too lazy to look up actual statistics but I'm sure it is common knowledge) Their rights as a whole should be limited. It is not unfair, it is for the safety of all drivers on the road. As for school zone, I understand the need for parents to use their cellphones, but the safety of kids are involved here. Around the time school starts and school ends there are ALOT of kids walking around. You need to be focused on the road, focused on your speed, focused on the kids, the other cars. Cellphone usage does take away from. Handsfree is a good route to go imo.
The studies show that the distraction/danger of a cell phone comes from the talking part and the focus on the conversation, not the use of a hand vs. hands-free.
and plus who the hell drives with both hands anyway..... one hand is plenty, hell 2 fingers well do the trick.
What next? They would ban you from talking to somebody in the passenger seat? Because that is pretty much the same thing if you have a handsfree kit.
I tend to agree. I don't know all the science behind it, but I think there's something to the idea that you're talking to someone NOT in the car that creates a bigger distraction because your focus drifts away from the car. But the laws pushing hands-free vs. handsets are primarily politically motivated - they don't increase safety except to the extent that people who don't have hands-free options stop using cell phones while driving entirely. But the people that do have hands-free access are just as dangerous as before.
Damn.. you people are making it such a big deal... School zones are not even half a mile sometimes.. usually less in most places... so what's all the complaining about? I agree with the hands free thing... I mean... if you have like a speaker hands free thing and/or a bluetooth headset... there's no way in hell you're going to get stopped...
I am fine with #1 and #2, but why are they trying to passing #3. That seems irrelevant with the major issues that they are trying to address.
a little late chiming in on this.... that requirement is really old. Professional tinters have been required to put the sticker between the tint and glass for years..that is why when you buy your own tint, it normally comes with the sticker so you can put it on yourself. I used to do vehicle inspections and we had to check the tint level to ensure it wasnt too dark.
I know this is an "end case' but my father in law was in 2 car caravan and the first car got in an accident. The guy in the back seat was not wearing a seat belt. He launched into the front seat occupant and even though the guy in the front seat was wearing a belt, the impetus from the guy in the back caused him to go forward into the windshield and he (guy in front seat) was killed.
#3 just makes sense. As for #1 and #2.....well revenues are down in the recession. The county has to make its money somehow. So why not write excessive tickets.
This is hilarious. People incessantly b**** about people driving while talking on a cell phone. Then, when they make a law about people driving while on a cell phone, they b**** about the law. Wow.
There's still plenty argument left .. On the law and those generalizations you mentioned You say "Technically you're not a teen when you're in college." You can very much be considered a teen while in college. There is a very tiny % of 17 year olds in college who's parents wanted to put their kids on the fast track. An 18 year old with a beer in his hand in front of police officer all of a sudden isnt an adult anymore, he's an underage teen drinker. Its just all confusing and hard to enforce. 13 to do this, 14 to do that, 15 to do this... 16 for that, 17 for this... Its not just during school. Most schools there's a big 3 month summer chunk of NO school. That means 16-17 year olds with alot of energy and all the time in the world to do whatever at any time. Were police ever trying to bust underage drivers with the existing laws? Did they ever consider that problem enough to enforce to begin with? Its just a law to make parents feel more secure about the community and put a threat out to the 17 and unders. I suppose thats benefit enough. Its been mentioned that there's allowable exceptions to curfews. Then good, common sense within the policies is about all we can ask for...
i dont see the big deal all of these laws are already in place in california and have been for a while especially the seat belt one. the cellphone/texting one were put into place in the last 1-2 years. its really not as bad as it sounds i prefered to use hands free in the car anyway. I'll occasionally text on the surface street if its important otherwise never text when driving anyway
