Bill would require hands-free cell phones while driving

By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published January 12, 2009 at 6 p.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

January 12, 2009

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Scott writes:

Standby for American Try & Talk (AT&T), Verizon, etc. to start buying off State legislators. This is what they pull in every State that tries to implement this law.

BTW, I'm all for this law!

Scott
January 12, 2009

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

scootertrash writes:

Why just adult drivers, not teenagers? They are the worst offenders.
January 12, 2009

6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Scott writes:

Scootertrash,

According to the article "teenagers" would be banned from using a shoe phone while driving.

Scott
January 12, 2009

6:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Astro1 writes:

All for it. I'm tired of nearly being hit because some gabby guy or ratchet-jawing dudette can't put that damned phone down for twenty minutes, or pull of the roadway to talk.

Colorado legislature - BRING IT ON!
January 12, 2009

6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

albarta writes:

Typical do gooder big government taking away your freedoms because of the actions of a few. We all get to pay for it. Only a matter of time before hands free devices then get banned as well. Just like breathalyzers on cars. They won't be just for those convicted of DUI related offenses, but instead everyone will have to suffer because of the actions of a few. They have already introduced such legislation in NY and NM. MADD and other advocacy groups have become nothing more than political tools for those who think they can dictate to the rest of us what is good for us. It is a slow but certain journey to socialism. Wake up people!
January 12, 2009

7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jkl writes:

Will there be other bills that ban drivers from eating, drinking water, tuning the radio, reaching into back seat, reading maps, etc? Point is we already have laws that cover reckless driving. If an officer or patrolman observes someone driving carelessly because of cell phone use, pull them over. The laws are on the books...enforce them.
January 12, 2009

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Keith43 writes:

You're wrong on this one albarta! Based upon your premise, we should do away with speed limits. I've seen too many idiot drivers with cell phones glued to their ear, who haven't got a clue as to what they're doing. And I've read of too many deaths of people who were victims of cell phone users. I say, it's about time! This bill is long past due!
January 12, 2009

7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

leavemealone writes:

Whatever....cell phones are just the most politically correct issue & excuse to write another law.
January 12, 2009

7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

This is a necessary law. Talking on a cell phone, endangering lives is not a fundamental right.
January 12, 2009

7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

44roger writes:

Should have been passed years ago.
January 12, 2009

7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

halc3 writes:

Yeah, let's turn into the nanny state. Completely. I now have to wear my seat belt, now no phone conversations. You people love laws. Rules. Regulations. If I'm driving questionably, I thought there were already laws for that.

What's next.... no scratching yourself, no lipstick, no blowing your nose, no drinking water, no listening to music deemed inappropriate, hands must be displayed at viewable levels, no tilting your head beyond the approved angles, no impure thoughts?

I think we need a law for each potential threat. More laws please.
January 12, 2009

7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

Hey JKL and others...

Why don't you tell the parents of Erica Forney that the maximum penalties for reckless driving, a fine and the loss of a few points off her driver's license, is sufficient punishment for the woman who killed their daughter?

The purpose of the law isn't to punish people for a behavior that studies show has become a major factor in accidents, but to discourage that behavior and prevent accidents.

As for the rants about eating, changing CD's, etc..yes those are all distractions that can contribute to accidents, but they are, in general, momentary in nature.

Cell phone conversations, however, have been shown to be a distraction from driving concentration for extended lengths of time.

In case you weren't aware, several studies have found that people talking on cell phones have response times to adverse siutations that are slow, if not slower, as people driving under the influence of alcohol.

And that brings up another issue...the whiners complaining about this being another law taking away your freedoms. Driving is not a right. That's why you have to be licensed and insured to do it.
We have a wide variety of traffic laws, including prohibitions against drunk driving, to encourage safer behaviors and prevent accidents.

I applaud the state legislature for finally addressing this issue.

Two years ago, I was in an accident caused by a woman talking on her cell phone. I've been writing my legislators ever since and asking them if it would take someone dying for them to take action, so they could name their law after that poor victim.

It did.

Her name was Erika Forney.
January 12, 2009

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

js1 writes:

How about a law that designates special drivers license(s)? Take a test - prove you can talk and drive. Take another test prove you can talk on a hand-held and drive. Get your special designation to so do in either case. This would help the economy and make our streets safer for all.
January 12, 2009

8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

I'm all for this law. And I will also be a fan of the one that bans texting while driving, which will follow this law in a few months.
January 12, 2009

9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

According to albarta, the road to socialism is paved with taking away your "right" to drive drunk!
January 12, 2009

9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

SovereignAmericanForum writes:

Let's look at yet another "brilliant" officials rationale for the bills they are working to get passed. Why has Rep. Levy chosen this bill and believes it to be good policy? Simple: Rep. Levy has said that "she's noticed that drivers talking on cell phones don't always stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and seem unaware of their speed." Maybe many people will agree with this. But for me, all it conjures up is an image of Rep. Levy doing her own "patrol work" along major roads and intersections in order to observe the driving behavior of people driving with cell phones. Has she done her homework and can show us statistics on how many drivers she noticed with cell phones who "did not seem aware of their speed?" Can someone please explicitly define that? What is it to "seem aware of one's speed?"
If Rep. Levy has not been parked near major intersections for these observations, then they must have been made while she too was engaged in the act of driving and was concentrating on the behavior of other drivers around her, no doubt trying to create new legislation to help these other people drive and be "more aware." It must have been difficult for Rep. Levy to make these assessments from her own moving vehicle while also being equally responsible and "aware" of her own speed.

www.SovereignAmericanForum.com

This bill will lead to profiling of teens and furthermore, to young adults who may look like teens. What a waste of a bill and of taxpayer money should it pass.
January 12, 2009

9:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Barbarosa writes:

This is long overdue. So is legislation banning texting while driving. In fact, I'm not so sure I'd oppose a bill banning hands-free cell phone use also. Anyone who opposes this law either works for a wireless company, hasn't spent much time behind the wheel lately, or is just a hopeless fruitcake who would probably be happier living in a heavily-armed compound in Montana with all the other like-minded fruitcakes.
January 12, 2009

9:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

ironlace writes:

State Leaders, please pass this law.
January 12, 2009

9:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

SovereignAmericanForum

***Can someone please explicitly define that? What is it to "seem aware of one's speed?" ***

How about a person driving on I-225 doing around 40 miles a hour in a 65 mile a hour zone, straddling the two far left lane's center line, talking on his phone. Or maybe it would be the lady I saw STOPPED in the center lane on Arapahoe road getting ready to turn onto Jordan road, talking on her phone. I would only be guessing but it appeared see was getting directions on which way she should turn, she did turn after I passed her. By the way we had a green light.

For the record I watch what the drivers are doing around me, it is called defensive driving skills. I have seen far too many stupids things done by drivers while talking on the phone. Maybe if more drivers would watch the road instead of concentrating on their phone conversations, the roads would be safer and my insurance wouldn't cost as much.

Ban them all, cell phone usage, texting, and so called hands-free, they all distract the driver from doing what you they are suppose to be doing, driving safely.
January 12, 2009

9:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

brentmeister writes:

why not just ban driving all together??

The truth is that while cell phone usage has risen dramatically over the last decade, the number of single vehicle, multi vehicle, and vehicle pedestrian accidents (and fatalities) have surprisingly decreased. Go figure...

Liberals, stop feeling, and start thinking

http://www.bts.gov/publications/natio...

And driving is not a privilege, Just because cars had not been invented in 1787, doesn't mean it's not a right. If you pay taxes for the roads, then it's your right to use them. I have to register to vote (a supposed right), I need a license to carry a gun (another supposed right...for a few more days).
January 12, 2009

9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikemont writes:

This is akin to wanting to ban air travel after a child dies in a plane accident. How many planes DIDN'T crash that same day?

Yes, SOME people shouldn't drive and use cell phones, shouldn't drive while eating, shouldn't drive with kids in the back ... some people shouldn't drive ... period.

Banning the privilege of using a cell phone while driving for EVERYONE because of a statistically small increase in accidents caused by irresponsible drivers is another step in decreasing personal liberties for all in the false hope of eliminating all risk.

Sadly, children will still be killed in vehicle accidents. Next time it may be the result of a spilled beverage. When that inevitably happens, will we ban drinking hot, cold, ALL drinks in the car for drivers AND passengers (you never know)?
January 12, 2009

9:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

realsoccer49 writes:

Just an FYI, this would only be a secondary offense and not something you could get pulled over for most likely. And for those of us who can text without looking, doing it while driving is just like changing a radio station, except much easier. However, I do think that using hands-free only would be a good idea. I mean, bluetooth headsets come with most phones now and if they don't, they are fairly inexpensive. But I don't really think that banning it altogether would be the right solution. I would agree that people do pretty dumb things while driving and talking on the phone, but anyone I have seen using a bluetooth set hasn't done anything that would cause someone harm.

I really hope that this isn't the beginning of a series of laws that are pushed by special interest groups in order to keep us all "safe". This one is probably necessary, but many that other groups are pushing are not and are only in their interest. Can't wait to see what the U.S. is like in 30 years....
January 12, 2009

10:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

cdmdenver writes:

INSURANCE CO.PAYOUTS$-PEOPLE USING CELL PHONE

While driving! Yeah its time to get these young people and
soccer moms who have their cell phone fused to their ears
and looking like their driving in outerspace.
Yeah, a Good Law-PASS IT!
January 12, 2009

10:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

squeakywheel writes:

I'm not usually for stricter laws, but there are far too many people who abuse the cell phone while driving. I usually notice them going far too slow, tying up traffic behind them. They think that by driving more slowly, they are being safe enough to talk on the phone, but these folks have it plastered to their ear, which takes one hand off the wheel and diminishes their capacity to react quickly to a dangerous situation.

Hang up and drive people!

And yes the actions of the few ruin it for everybody, however in this case, what are they ruining... your right to talk on your cell phone while driving? I bet those complaining here are some of the people I notice on the road, if you catch my drift.
January 12, 2009

10:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mt writes:

I give up. Maybe it is time for me to just live on life support and let the lawmakers decide when i should or should not breath. Come on people, quit letting the MAN tell you how to live and take away your rights. A few small factions want to pass a few small laws, next thing you know you can't go to the restroom without permission.
January 12, 2009

10:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikemont writes:

"I bet those complaining here are some of the people I notice on the road, if you catch my drift."

I'll bet some of those in favor of this law are simply incapable of multitasking and assume others are as well, if you catch MY drift.
January 13, 2009

4:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

gylizard1 writes:

I must admit..I have been known to talk on a cell phone and drive..but never ever came close to an accident because of this. However..it is a bit of a distraction..and that is all it takes to cause an accident..not notice that kid that is running out in the street to chase a ball..whatever. I think it makes sense to ban cell phone usage while driving. I look around town here in Grand Junction and sometimes it seems that EVERYONE is on their cellphone! It has gotten out of hand. I try to avoid using it..but sometimes the phone rings and I answer it. It does make sense to pull over and make your phone call..or answer it while you are pulled over. I was just curious..would that still be considered "using your cell phone while driving"..even though you are pulled over? Technically..you are still behind the wheel. The death of Erica Forney was a tragedy no doubt about it..and if we can prevent another such death by enacting this law..then go for it. What blows my mind is these kids that are all texting while driving..now THAT is really dangerous..we had a young woman in GJ killed this past year who was doing just that and lost her life as a result. There is a time and place of phone usage..driving isnt the time..or the place.
January 13, 2009

4:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

happymike44 writes:

I wonder if this would be in any kind of debate if people weren't using common sense when driving.
Like to thank the woman behind the wheel of the Lexus who swerved at me while on the phone.
Remember if you leave your lane of travel then you were distracted and that makes you more dangerous then a drunk driver.
I pulled alongside of you and you never once motioned I'm sorry you acted like or maybe you didn't know I was there.
People please hang up the phone and drive the life you save may be your own.
January 13, 2009

4:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ike writes:

My company requires and provides a total hands free device in our company vehicles and we are still encouraged to pull over when we use it. Hooks into the vehicle's audio system, has voice command capability and a 3 watt booster. Like it so well that one was purchased for my wife's car and installed so no need to worry when she is chattering away.

Total cost was $300.00; cheap compared to a child's life or the enormous guilt that is included with needlessly killing someone. Pass the law!
January 13, 2009

6:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

brentmeister writes:

Makes me long for the days of accident free traffic before the days of cellphones.

PEOPLE - The accident (and fatality) rates have DECREASED since the introduction of cell phones. Check out the NTSB statistics. Would those in favor of this please reference objective evidence? All I see is one little girl was killed and the "police believe the driver was talking on a cell phone".

http://www.bts.gov/publications/natio...
January 13, 2009

6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

People with handicapped plates should be banned from driving. My husband was hit by one recently.(sarcasm) Why doesn't the insurance people sell rider policies for people who want to drive while using cell phones? They will ask if you have a pitbull when writing a home policy.
The worst offenders? A handicapped illegal putting on make-up while eating a taco and talking on the phone. I hate that. (joke)
January 13, 2009

6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

keeperchris writes:

jkl wrote:
Point is we already have laws that cover reckless driving. If an officer or patrolman observes someone driving carelessly because of cell phone use, pull them over. The laws are on the books...enforce them.

I couldn't agree more. Cell phone use is just one of many distractions.

By the way, I just started using my bluetooth speakerphone in the car yesterday, and I feel WAY LESS safe driving that way, it is a mental distraction way more than a physical distraction. I probably will go back to hand held conversations.
January 13, 2009

7:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

The_KIMN_Chicken writes:

I'm all for it, you morons aren't capable of having this privledge without killing someone unjustly.
January 13, 2009

7:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

gatengreen writes:

How about truckers using their CB radios? I don't see any differrence.
January 13, 2009

7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Denverboy1 writes:

For some reason when people talk on there phones and drive they are not paying attention to road rules....There turn lights become inoperative..there ability to observe traffic flow is hindered ...I know because I'm one of the drivers . One hand is on the wheel and he other is holding my phone....No spare...for any situation.... I lived in Chicago a few years back...they passed this law there...I noticed a real difference in attitude when people were not talking on there phone or used a headset...Yet we do have laws that already cover
this situation and wonder if we need more laws on the books....
January 13, 2009

7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

I have never felt comfortable using a cell phone while driving so I don't. Its that simple. I have seen too many distracted drivers in my years of driving. Their rights to use cell phones, put on lipstick, read, shave or look for things they've dropped end when they put others at risk. I approve of this bill.
January 13, 2009

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

gregu710 writes:

Sadly, even if the law is passed, it will not make any difference. I'm not speaking from pessimism, but from experience. In Connecticut, cell phone use has been banned for about 3-4 years now (with the exception of hands free), but one would not know that from driving. There is no fewer percentage of drivers on cell phones while driving, than any other place I've lived or visited. Every single day I see people pass both State and Local police while talking on normal cell phones in plain view. From what I've seen it is only used if there is an accident to furhter solidify the charges against the offending driver (and increase the fine of course). I HATE people yapping on cell phones while driving, and will typically pull over to talk or just ignore the call. Hands-free has already been shown to be no better in several studies, because it is not the act of holding the phone in your hand that is the distraction or problem, it is the involvement in the conversation that causes drivers to be inattentive. It's no different than being in a normal phone conversation or a face to face discussion, your attention is not on what is going on around you, it's on the discussion you're having. As a motorcycle rider, I pay especially close attention to the acts of other drivers, my life depends on it more so than being in a car (due to the lower protection factor of riding, defensive driving and being keenly aware of your surroundings is even more important), and notice many more details than in the "cocoon" of my car, and 8 out of 10 times when I see someone doing something incredibly stupid, or not paying attention while driving, it's with a phone glued to their ear trying to juggle the steering wheel, the phone and the conversation. I would be all for a nationwide ban on cell phone use, or even the implementation of a signal blocker if the vehicle were in motion (if such a device were available), but passing the law will be pointless if there is no meaningful enforcement as has been the case so far in most other states where bans have been implemented.
January 13, 2009

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

SPL writes:

As a motorcyclist, a regular car driver and a someone who used to race track back in the UK, I'm an extremely defensive driver. I can spot a mile off when someone is on their cell phone - usually verified when I end up passing them because they're doing 15 under or have wandered into the bike lane.

Despite my experience, I'm not egotistical enough to believe I can drive and hold a phone conversation at the same time - I just pull over into a side street, but then when is a call ever that important really? What did you do 6,7, 8 years ago when cell phone usage was uncommon?

I'm all for a total ban on people using a cell phone whilst driving, not just public service drivers and youngsters (it's mostly adults at fault). At least then I'll have less chance of getting mangled by an idiot driving a 6000 pound truck as they talk about their evening plans.

This isn't an issue of "rights" as some people make out, it's not the withdrawal of "freedoms" or any indication of Colorado becoming a nanny state - it's about common sense and safety. If you can't see that then I hope that in your selfishness you are either the person who manages to kill someone when taking your all important call, or someone kills a member of your family doing the same.
January 13, 2009

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sixtysixdeuce writes:

I've got a better idea:

Lets pass a bill that disolves the legislature.

Seriously, we have too many laws already. Have you ever seen the C.R.S. in their entirety??? Thousands upon thousands of pages.

Our legislators are trying to justify their jobs, and we're all paying for it.

This is coming from someone who doesn't own a cell phone. Why? Because I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. We're nearing an Orwellian nightmare in this country; it's time to pull our heads out of the sand while we still have the right to do so.

Just because proposed legislation doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean you should look at it apathetically.
January 13, 2009

7:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

2coolvk writes:

Texting may be just as bad. How many times have you been behind somebody who for no reason is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit or barely moving from a stop light and as you get around them notice they are looking down and texting? I have noticed how much this slows down traffic flow.
January 13, 2009

7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

This bill needs to be stopped. Yes people on cell phones are 4 times more likely to have accidents, but studies (use google, easy to find) have shown hand free sets don't reduce the rate. The only reason to have a hand free only law is provide a source revenue for an industry. This bill does nothing for public safely, only the pocket books of select businesses. Ban all cell phone use except in the case of calling 911, or none at all. Anything else is just politicians providing income for donors.
January 13, 2009

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

The bill really would ban texting. And I think that is the real intent. Lets face it, texting is one of the more dangerous things that a driver can do in a car. How can anyone drive, pay attention to traffic, and text at the same time? You can't. The bill is not trying to keep you from talking on your phone, it just is trying to make you keep both hands on the wheel. Using a bluetooth or other ear device does not hinder your use of your hands. How many times do you see teenagers texting while driving? I see it every day. Kids use texting more than they use the phone as a phone. I for one would vote for the bill. If is saves one life, it is worth it. That life might even be your own.
January 13, 2009

8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

Yes beergut, and studies have shown that studies can show anything you want them too.
January 13, 2009

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

toocool writes:

As you read in the article we have the law here in California. Our horror story was a gal driving out of an alley in Oceanside while blabbing on her cell phone made a sharp turn after exiting the alley, made a high speed 90 degree right turn into a beauty parlor, crashing thru the front window ending up crashing through the back wall of the building. She still had the phone in her hand when the patrons piled through the bricks.
January 13, 2009

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

glowrock writes:

California has this law already on the books, and it's a PRIMARY offense from what I understand. I'm personally all for it, even though having just moved out here from Colorado, I do have a tendency to want to pick up the phone while driving once in a while! :)

Anything that keeps drivers from being as distracted is a very good thing.
January 13, 2009

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

06concept writes:

I agree with this law as well. I get cut off by so many yaking women daily it is not funny.
January 13, 2009

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

timeandagain writes:

This is simply the Bluetooth lobby looking to sell earphones and speaker phones!! (And fruitcake Boulderites that have nothing better to do!)
January 13, 2009

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

bobby_b writes:

You have to be a complete idiot not to be able to drive and talk at the same time. Unfortunately, there are a ton of idiots on the road, so the ban is needed. (Or else they need to drastically increase the requirements to get a driver's license and stop giving them to any moron who can identify a stop sign and pay the fee!)
January 13, 2009

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

jersey writes:

Passing the law is great and is one thing. Enforcing it is a different matter all together. How many people are pulled over on a regular basis for not wearing a seatbelt in full view of some officers? Too numerous to count.
January 13, 2009

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

Shaupeen:

It's not the hand being busy or unavailable; it's the mind being busy and not fully available that the problem. Allowing people to talk on the phone hands free doesn't free up the mind. I am for a cell phone ban while driving, but this doesn't do that. It targets only one group of them, and they don't drive any worse than those on their blue tooth. Of course I am also for not putting on make up when driving, it's the only time somebody ran a red light and hit me.
January 13, 2009

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

timeandagain
I disagree. So, do you think texting while driving is safe?
January 13, 2009

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Allseasonsfan writes:

zivo24 has it right. Look at the post.

My company prohibits the use of cell phones without handsfree while driving a company vehicle. It is a firing offense.

For those who disagree with this proposed law, you are the problem. You are oblivious to those around you and the effects you have on your surroundings. or you just don't care. All driving laws need to change. Fix the deficits by dramatically increasing the fines. That goes with talking on your cell phone. The law is no good unless the punishment is enough to change behavior. Money is what everyone understands and is motivated by it. If you can't pay the fine.....work it off.
January 13, 2009

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

The best way to deal with a person who is texting while driving is to get in front of them and slam on the brakes. Just be ready for the collision and make sure it's not an illegal, the insurance claim and susequent lawsuit can pay for your kid's education.
January 13, 2009

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Macita183 writes:

My question is how are they going to enforce it since a police officer would have to catch the driver talking on the phone. As with speeding, most people slow down when they see a cop in the distance. With a phone people could throw it down long before the cop could see that they had been using it and unless the cop is watching passing cars with binoculars it would be hard to see who was talking on a phone unless they were right next to the car.
While I agree that many people should not be talking on the phone while driving my biggest concern comes from the enforcement.
January 13, 2009

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

Just because drinking and driving is illegal, doesn't mean it does anything to actually prevent DUI's.

Passing this law will just give the police one more excuse for writing a ticket.

I can see it now...you get pulled over for speeding and the officer says "Sir, have you been texting this evening? Please step out of the car so I can verify your phone history. I have probable cause to search because your phone is sitting open on the console, which lends me to believe that you may have been texting while driving. You won't allow me to check your phone history? Sorry, you are under arrest and your license will be suspended for one year."
January 13, 2009

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

KING writes:

Based on the comments here, most people in favor of the ban cite some sort of bad driving as their reason, but the truth of the matter is driving recklessly is ALREADY a crime. Thus, if a police officer thinks that a person is driving poorly and talking on the phone, they can cite them for that... We dont need another pointless law....

just say no to cell phone bans.
January 13, 2009

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Save us from ourselves oh wise government. Heaven forbid that we have any personal responsibility!
January 13, 2009

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

mikemont writes:

"I bet those complaining here are some of the people I notice on the road, if you catch my drift."

I'll bet some of those in favor of this law are simply incapable of multitasking and assume others are as well, if you catch MY drift
***********************************************************************

No, Mike..I'm in favor of this law because I was slammed into by a woman who instead of paying attention to traffic and road signs was focused on her cell phone.

I actually saw it in her hand as she hit me. She was steering with her left hand and had her right hand on the top of the steering wheel and was either scrolling through her phone book or texting.

I had some whiplash aches and pains for a few days and lost use of my vehicle for two weeks. More importantly, when I go to trade it in or sell it..the fact that it was in an accident automatically reduces it's value...so I'll be paying for her selfishness again.

This was not my first or last bad experience with a driver talking on their phone. I've had several close calls with people cutting me off, turning in front of me, going through red lights and stop signs without stopping. I can't even count the time driving down major streets in my central Denver neighborhood that I've had the car next to or directly in front of me straddling the lanes..only to discover it's someone talking on their phone.

It's about safety, Mike. It's about preventing accidents. It's about preventing injuries and deaths.

There is NOTHING that anyone has to talk about that is more important than their own safety or the safety of other people on the road...and if there is something that is dire...pull off the road!

We have laws against drunk driving because studies and statistics showed the drivers who are under the influence are a danger to other people on the road.

The same is being proven every day about drivers using cell phones.

Will a law stop everyone from doing it? Of course not. But it will give police and prosecutors something more than "reckless driving" to charge them with when they take someone else's life.

Reckless driving is a fine and some points off your license at best.

If someone you loved was killed by a driver who was paying more attention to their cell phone than to the road...would you be ok with them getting off with just a fine and the loss of a few points from their license?

If that's all the punishment there is, then what deterrent is there for them or anyone else to change their behavior?
January 13, 2009

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

We don't need more laws. As someone in an earlier post stated, "We already have careless/reckless driving laws."

Just invoke either of those when a motorist is observed talking a hand-held cell phone. This would allow judgement to be involved. For example if you were sitting in a parking lot, pulled over to the side of the road (wide enough shoulders only), etc. This would be an easy way to clean up what I see as a big problem.
January 13, 2009

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

Drowsy driving causes more than 100,000 police-reported crashes, 71,000 injuries and 1,550 deaths each year.

Hmmm....I wonder how we could pass a law to deal with these unnecessary and tragic deaths. There has to be a way that drivers could be pulled over and given a "sleepy test"....
January 13, 2009

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

Research studies have not found a significant difference between usage of hand held phone and hands free. Talking on a cell phone is just another distraction such as dealing with children, eating, and putting on makeup while driving. I agree that distractions cause accidents. I do not support this law because it will impose a burden without much benefit. I would support a broader law dealing with distractions. The law could impose fines for reckless driving caused by a distraction including cell phone usage, putting on makeup, eating, texting, and other distractions.
January 13, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

KING writes:

Based on the comments here, most people in favor of the ban cite some sort of bad driving as their reason, but the truth of the matter is driving recklessly is ALREADY a crime. Thus, if a police officer thinks that a person is driving poorly and talking on the phone, they can cite them for that... We dont need another pointless law....

just say no to cell phone bans.
*****************************************************************

Ok, King...

Why then have laws against drunk driving, speed limits anywhere including school and hospital zones, etc.

Following your logic...we'll just wrap everything up under "reckless driving"...and then we'll let the police make judgement calls about whether what you're doing was wreckless or not...and then the courts will be even more backlogged with cases.

And the best part, again following your scenario..there will be no real deterrents for the most dangerous behaviors.

In case you didn't read my post....

I was in an accident with a woman who crashed into me because she was on her cell phone instead of paying attention to traffic signals.

She was charged with reckless driving.

I went to her "trial". She received a $200 fine and 4 points off her license.

The woman who was talking on her cell phone and drove into the bike line and killed 9 year old Erica Forney...the most they may be able to charge her with is..again...reckless driving.

What you're not getting is that the use of cell phones while driving is infinitely more common than any other driving distraction or hindrance (being drunk, eating, changing the radio station, etc).

Numerous studies show that cell phones have increasingly become a major factor in the cause of accidents.

I can't understand for the life of me why anyone with a lick of common sense would be opposed to enacting laws to restrict behaviors that place other people's lives in danger.
January 13, 2009

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

"The woman who was talking on her cell phone and drove into the bike line and killed 9 year old Erica Forney...the most they may be able to charge her with is..again...reckless driving."

With the new law they'll be able to tack on talking on a cellphone while driving with a $100 fine. Does that make you feel better, or Erica any less dead?

How about raising the standard for obtaining a driver's license instead
January 13, 2009

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

There is a huge difference between reckless driving, and careless driving resulting in death. Quite a few years in prison I believe.
January 13, 2009

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

mountainman1 writes:

This law is ridiculous! There are already laws that prohibit distracted driving. This is just a way for this lady to get her name in the paper. Stop encouraging her and check out this blog: http://alldenver.blogspot.com/2009/01...
January 13, 2009

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

c4l2a0 writes:

"There is a huge difference between reckless driving, and careless driving resulting in death. Quite a few years in prison I believe"

But now there'll be another $100 fine that will make everything all better
January 13, 2009

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

I disagree beergut. A bluetooth ear piece allows drivers to keep both hands on the wheel (or one on the wheel and the other for shifting) and completely frees the driver up from having to squeeze the phone between their ear and shoulder. When someone has to cradle their phone in such a manner, they are not able to look both ways at an intersection, check their blindspot before changing lanes, or many other important driving-related actions that are necessary. That alone makes the law worth passing.

Not sure if we'll be able to do anything about the applying of make-up while driving.
January 13, 2009

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

TheDenverB writes:

great law.

if people weren't such idiots while on the phone in their car, it wouldn't be an issue...
but sadly, it is.

i just nearly got in a wreck about 30 minutes ago with some woman who didn't see her lane merged into mine because she was too busy talking on her phone (and with her hands) in her suburban.
January 13, 2009

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Shaupeen,

I have to agree with Beergut. That does not usually happen, but I definately agree with him on this thread. :-)

The physical "holding" of the phone does raise complications, I agree, but the bulk of distraction is in the ear.....concentrating on the conversation.......... Beergut also referenced studies that have shown this to be true.

Any passing of this legislation will be "feelgood" at any rate. Another law with no teeth. Those with the teeth are already in place.................
January 13, 2009

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

I just noticed in the article that Sen. Ted Harvey thinks that a ban on cell phones while driving "goes too far".

Interesting.

This is the same Ted Harvey who is arguably the most extreme pro-life supporter in the senate.

Ted Harvey doesn't think laws restricting women from making decisions about their own reproductive health go too far...but he thinks a law that might deter an unncessary behavior and prevent accidents like the one that killed a 9 year old girl...go too far.

Ted Harvey - self-serving hypocrite extraordinaire.
January 13, 2009

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

HankReardon writes:

If I crash while using my navigational device, is that wreckless driving? ;)
Just wondering, I don't own a car or a cellphone. Once again, out of the loop.
January 13, 2009

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

zivo24 writes:
"I just noticed in the article that Sen. Ted Harvey thinks that a ban on cell phones while driving "goes too far".
Interesting.
This is the same Ted Harvey who is arguably the most extreme pro-life supporter in the senate.
Ted Harvey doesn't think laws restricting women from making decisions about their own reproductive health go too far...but he thinks a law that might deter an unncessary behavior and prevent accidents like the one that killed a 9 year old girl...go too far.
Ted Harvey - self-serving hypocrite extraordinaire."

Since you take the opposite position that makes you the same kind of hypocrite extraordinaire, just a different polarity.
January 13, 2009

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

Stranger things have happened, COLib! I disagree with both of you on this, but to each his own. I'm not a big fan of nanny-laws (completely against the mandatory seatbelt or helmet law, even though I wear both) but I think this one is different. IMO, nanny laws are ones that only apply to the one person making the choice, and cell phone use while driving can affect many other people, not just the person having the conversation. Just my understanding.

Anyone know if this will be a primary or secondary offense?
January 13, 2009

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Triumph writes:

I'm all for this law. It seems that most people who drive and talk on the phone can't chew gum and walk either. Lately most of the near accidents I almost had involved people on their cell phones.
This is also true for most of the slow pokes I get behind. When I finally get around them out of fustration they are on the cell in their own little world.
January 13, 2009

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Shaupeen

I guess I should clarify. I am AGAINST the Nanny laws as you have put forth. I agree with you on those points.

My disagreement were on whether or not a "handsfree" unit is less distracting than a handheld version while driving. Yes the physical nature is definately a factor, but the distractions are being seen as more mental than a physical distraction.......... That is why I have given up my handsfree while driving. I dont answer the phone unless I am in the parking lot or stopped in a safe area with my seatbelt safely out of my way and not obstructing my movement :-)
January 13, 2009

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

No cell phones while driving. Period!! Head set or not.
January 13, 2009

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

I think it's a stupid proposal. For those who have problems concentrating on the road while driving, there's already "careless driving" and the driver can get ticketed for it. Yet, distractions like applying makeup while driving, eating while driving, playing with the stereo while driving, talking to a passenger while driving..... aren't up for proposals for being banned. I've read examples of cell phone users, but here's one that beats all of them. I was behind a woman last week doing 30 mph in a 40 mph zone and traffic in front of her took off while behind her it was almost bumper to bumper. Her visor was down and the rear view mirror was adjusted to face her, not the road behind (common in vehicles driven by women). She had both hands off the steering wheel and eyes on the mirror while going slow and weaving in the lane. She should've received a careless driving ticket for it, just like a driver doing something similar while driving.

I think this is feel good legislation, because it's possible those that are on call 24x7 may cause accidents trying to pull over to answer their phone, and it doesn't address any other distraction while driving except talking on a cell phone. I also don't know of any natural born ability that emergency responders, police or firefighters have that make them fully capable of doing it while the rest of us can't. Maybe it's just another way to make law enforcement responsible for generating revenue.

Dumb law, and Harvey's right......... it goes too far. "Careless driving" tickets are applicable for those who shouldn't use a cell phone while driving.
January 13, 2009

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

brentmeister writes:

The libs are ignoring the facts (imagine that) that all vehicle accidents and fatalities have FALLEN significantly since the introduction of cell phones!!! Stop feeling and start thinking.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/natio...

c4l2a0...maybe talking on the phone would keep people awake. Works for me
January 13, 2009

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

lastdance writes:

OK, someone crashed into me a year ago because they were changing the radio station. The driver was cited with careless driving. I guess I should have went as far as I could to get a law passed that bans radios in cars because him getting ticketed and being held accountable wasn’t enough

A garbage truck that has one of those arms that picks up the actual can from the curb malfunctioned and caused the arm to scrape my car while passing. Guess I should have pushed for a law banning that from ever happening again because the company being held liable from a legal standpoint just isn’t enough

I understand the concept of trying to save lives but what I fail to understand is how anyone can claim that it is cell phones and ONLY cell phones that is causing people to get in these accidents WHILE using there phone. In other words, who or what can guarantee that the same person wouldn't have been in accident regardless of phone use? You put a idiot in a suit and they are just a well dressed idiot. A careless driver will find another distraction once you take away the cell phones. You can be injured at anytime anywhere and last time I checked if you kill someone while driving, they don’t have “go free” clause that says you will not be liable because you were using your phone or eating a burrito while driving with your knees
January 13, 2009

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

zivo...... from your post at 11:24, your logic would dictate that nobody drive on the road. After all, people's lives are placed in danger once that vehicle's on the road. Whether anything happens or not is not in question, it's just the fact a moving vehicle can be dangerous to others.
January 13, 2009

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

I understand what you're saying, COLib. I feel the mental distraction of talking on the phone while driving is the same as having someone in the car with you and having a conversation with them. And yes, both can be distracting, but so can listening to the radio. I would argue that the physical distraction is a greater threat to the other motorists, which is why I support efforts to pass this bill.

Having said that, this bill won't get rid of the idiot who stopped in the fast lane of Parker Road to make a left turn, completely oblivious to the center lane. Not sure if anything will get rid of those people--except surface to surface missiles.
January 13, 2009

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

I say pass a law prohibiting single parents from driving with a child in the car, especially a mini-van full of children. How distracting is a group of toddlers in a mini-van with only one adult present who should be focused solely on the road? These parents are a danger to the rest of us on the road.

If we allow the elderly to drive, I should at least be allowed to drive with my cell phone in one hand, a Big Mac in the other, steering with my knee, all while under the influence of marijuana.

I'd still be a better driver than an elderly person (probably even better than most drivers out there.)
January 13, 2009

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Barbarosa writes:

Is it just me, or do the left-wing kooks who think there's too much government and the right-wing kooks who think there's too much government have something in common on this one? Heh. Guess it's a good thing for the rest of us that they cancel each other out on most every other issue.
January 13, 2009

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Timberline writes:

Whatever brings your revenue back up, right Ritter? Just the other day he was talking about new ways to to get more cash. The biggest problem is the idoits who text while driving.

If you think this is bad, in NJ they tried to ban smoking while driving.
January 13, 2009

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

mountainman1
Its not a law. It is a proposed bill. Read before you write.
January 13, 2009

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

Marshdale
So with your reasoning with no head sets, no one should talk to anyone in the car either? Come on. Its the same difference.
January 13, 2009

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

Barbarosa: I'm a "left-wing kook" when it comes to social issues, but I'm a "right-wing kook" when it comes to big government. Sorry to debunk your theory...

And I'm not a kook when it comes time to vote. I am a human being that relies on logic and reason instead of emotion and bias.
January 13, 2009

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

johnson writes:

I used to drive a school bus in a small town. Invariably, whenever someone ran my stop signs they were on a cell phone. Apparently, the cell phone kept them from seeing a six ton bright yellow vehicle with flashing lights and stop signs. MythBusters did a show proving that cell phone use while driving was at least as dangerous as drinking and driving.
January 13, 2009

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

brent, I see the stats, but what you fail to see is that such a change could be caused by many things. Since the beginning of the timeline you reference, airbags have become standard, testing of crashes has improved, and materials have been advanced to save lives. All of this would cause a tremendous fluctuation in the number of fatalities--much greater than the influence of cell phones over such a period.

As I said before, statistics can be used to show that statistics can show anything.
January 13, 2009

1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mountainman1 writes:

Elkman, are you seriously hanging around here arguing the difference between a proposed bill vs. a law? Please take your civics lesson elsewhere. Btw, if you want to argue semantics, then you should make sure your argument makes sense. You say this is a "proposed" bill? No. It's just a bill. And a bill is a proposed law. So when I say "this law is ridiculous" I think anyone with a basic understanding of how a bill becomes a law would know I'm talking about the law which this bill represents if it was to be ratified. Obviously, you lack this basic understanding.
Isn't there a children's section on this website?
January 13, 2009

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Not_Alike94 writes:

I think the phone in a hand is not the problem, but rather the driver. It doesn't matter if they hold the phone, if they aren't paying attention. They could be holding a cigarette, changing a cd, eating a burger, trying to see what the kid(s) are doing in the backseat,etc. If they aren't paying attention to the surroundings, then an accident can occur. I think a conversation can be destracting.

Bus drivers of the call-a-ride have to have a cell phone in order to pick up and drop off passengers, how would this law work for them?
January 13, 2009

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

I would vote for a law such as this (even though we won't be able to), yet I would still use my phone if I had to. I would definitely be on the look-out for the fuzz...Who cares what the law says, I'll do what I want!
January 13, 2009

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

elkman writes:

mountainman1
Tush, Tush, got your panites in a wad because you are mistaken? Sorry you cannot take a little lesson in "law" vs "bill".
No, I do not need a lesson in civics, especially from someone like you. By the way, this is the childrens' section.
January 13, 2009

5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ricochet writes:

While you all are ranting about cell phones and their use, please consider this: Driving is multi-tasking in and of itself. Driving is 100% of the time.

Yes, I do occasionally talk on my cell phone but if in a situation like heavy traffic I allow voice mail to pick up the call. The phone is for MY convenience not for those calling me. I have different tones for those who do call me the most and I often choose to return the call at a later time.

I don't care for bluetooth because I don't have the option to allow a call to go to voicemail. I must answer the call whether I want to or not.

Also, people are just plain ignorant when driving...following too closely considering weather conditions, not having the vehicle in a lower gear on icy/snow packed streets, speeding/weaving in and out of traffic to get to the same red light where I am also stopping. Cell phone use is just one more thing to add to the list of stupid things to do while driving.

The train wreck in California was caused by a person texting while driving. How many people died because of his inattention and missing a signal?
January 13, 2009

6:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

brentmeister writes:

Shaupeen - The safety mechanisms you mentioned would indeed prevent injuries and fatalities, but the numbers (look at any objective data urban/rural, single vehicle/multi vehicle, etc.) show a drastic decline in overall accidents in spite of the pervasive use of cell phones, population growth, an aging population, the increase in speeds in most states, and even a booming population of illegals. Face it people, there's never been a safer time in history with regards to traffic accidents (and with technology, to survive an accident)
January 13, 2009

7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

True that, brent.
January 13, 2009

8:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

cfarmer writes:

When are we in this nation, going to be responsible for our actions! Do not blame cell phones for idiotic actions. I am getting very tired of " If it saved one live would it be worth it."
January 14, 2009

7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sixtysixdeuce writes:

"brentmeister writes:

The libs are ignoring the facts (imagine that) that all vehicle accidents and fatalities have FALLEN significantly since the introduction of cell phones!!! Stop feeling and start thinking."

Correlation does not equal causation. The lower rate of accidents and fatalities is a result of improvements in roads and leaps and bounds in vehicle technology/safety.

I am 100% opposed to this law, but the suggestion that a distraction like a cell phone is reducing accidents is just plain wrong.
January 14, 2009

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

Why on Earth do cell phones get all the headlines? What about the guy who crashes his truck because the Big Mac he was shoving into has face dripped sauce on his shirt and he was busy trying to lick it off? What about the Woman who multitasks by applying her makeup during her morning commute? I saw a guy yesterday actually reading a book while driving on the highway at 70 mph. A few weeks ago I saw a Woman on I-25, driving, with her left foot sticking out the window. Not really sure WHAT she was doing. Anyone ever seen the antics perpetrated by someone behind the wheel who just dropped a lit cigarette in his lap? How about a Dad turned around backwards in the driver's seat so he could yell at his kids in the backseat?

What we need are stiffer penalties for careless driving and more enforcement of the laws that already exist.

Home › News › Local News

Bill would require hands-free cell phones while driving

By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published January 12, 2009 at 6 p.m.

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs