Bluetooth / Private Smoking Ban (Aka California Sucks)

[Danoff]

Well, my city (near Pasadena CA), has officially banned the use of bluetooth and any other wireless handsfree devices (including built-in car bluetooth) for use while driving for anyone under the age of 18 (regardless of parental permission or supervision). Straight-up cell phone usage, of course, is already illegal. Cops are authorized to pull over any vehicle in which they suspect a minor of using a hands free device. I assume this means they'll also be pulling over some adults that look underage.

In related news, my city has also banned smoking in a car that also contains a child. This is a law aimed to protect children from the unknown-but-presumed-harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

I see almost no reason to suspect that eventually bluetooth devices will be illegal for adults as well (aside from the fact that everyone has them and will be upset). There is no principled argument that was used to ban handsfree devices for minors that cannot also be used to ban them for adults. For example:

"Some underage drivers will be safe, but others are still new to the road and are learning how to drive safely. This distraction will put others in danger."

similarly

"Some adult drivers will be safe, but others are still new to the road (because some people learn to drive as adults) and are learning how to drive safely. This distraction will put others in danger."

Likewise, I see very few principled arguments to differentiate smoking in your own car with your child present from smoking in your own home with your child present. I see both of these laws as a step towards an all-out ban on mobile phones (and CB radios) while driving and smoking anywhere.

Edit: California is like the anti-freedom state. Economic freedom? No no no. Social freedom? Why no, not that either.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Soon, everyone will be sectioned off from the driver who shall have a pod that only allows them to hear the car and emergency sirens, and see the traffic around them.

There will be no air.

 

[Flerbizky]

But a 16 year old can still put a stereo the size of small apartment in his car and drive with that thing turned to 11 all day...

That's hardly going to make it easier to focus on driving, let alone hear a siren..

 

[Danoff]

But a 16 year old can still put a stereo the size of small apartment in his car and drive with that thing turned to 11 all day...

That's hardly going to make it easier to focus on driving, let alone hear a siren..

You're right. They'll be outlawing car stereos next.

 

[mustangGT90210]

You're right. They'll be outlawing car stereos next.

NONONONONO!!
That is wrong. Life is starting to become a bit too "Big Brother-ish."
It's as bad as OnStar having the ability to call the cops from your car and tell them your speed at any given moment.
I'm glad I don't live in California, Though I'd still love a GT/CS Mustang GT​

 

[Solid Fro]

Do you know how many police officers drive around while talking on their cell phones and looking down at their dashboard computers?

 

[MagpieRacer]

And bus drivers, who also dont wear seatbelts.

 

[Zrow]

It's stupid nanny-state bull****. Christ this kind of stuff bothers me.

 

[Blackbird.]

Personally I think a 16 year old can drive a lot better than a old(er) person can. Ok well maybe a few than i'd like to think because most 16 year olds are capable of driving safely they just choose to drive stupid. I for one consider myself a rather safe driver, of course I have my moments where I have punched the throttle just for the feeling of acceleration. It's just a urge that I can't resist when i'm driving a somewhat powerful vehicle. But this is all irrelevent to me because I refuse to use my phone while driving but at the most i'll answer a txt at a stoplight.

 

[Kent]

Well, my city (near Pasadena CA), has officially banned the use of bluetooth and any other wireless handsfree devices (including built-in car bluetooth) for use while driving for anyone under the age of 18 (regardless of parental permission or supervision). Straight-up cell phone usage, of course, is already illegal. Cops are authorized to pull over any vehicle in which they suspect a minor of using a hands free device. I assume this means they'll also be pulling over some adults that look underage.

In related news, my city has also banned smoking in a car that also contains a child. This is a law aimed to protect children from the unknown-but-presumed-harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

I see almost no reason to suspect that eventually bluetooth devices will be illegal for adults as well (aside from the fact that everyone has them and will be upset). There is no principled argument that was used to ban handsfree devices for minors that cannot also be used to ban them for adults. For example:

"Some underage drivers will be safe, but others are still new to the road and are learning how to drive safely. This distraction will put others in danger."

similarly

"Some adult drivers will be safe, but others are still new to the road (because some people learn to drive as adults) and are learning how to drive safely. This distraction will put others in danger."

Likewise, I see very few principled arguments to differentiate smoking in your own car with your child present from smoking in your own home with your child present. I see both of these laws as a step towards an all-out ban on mobile phones (and CB radios) while driving and smoking anywhere.

Edit: California is like the anti-freedom state. Economic freedom? No no no. Social freedom? Why no, not that either.

Can't help but wonder how long this will last.
Fact of the matter is, you can only strip so many freedoms before people get upset. Of course, that also applies to all the companies stressing their bluetooth products built into the cars they sell.
Basically, I agree with the thread title (cali sucks).

 

[Gashlycrumb]

So what exactly is the rationale behind only banning a small segment of the population. Can't someone take them to the human rights commission for ageist behavior?

 

[Keef]

The next time I see an under-18 female celebrity photographed in OK! magazine using a hands-free bluetooth device in her car I shall immediately trek to California with 3 of my buddies, and we'll all take turns fornicating with her, resulting in an unfortunate pregnancy, and then nobody will know the father is.

This operation will be conducted after she leaves a club and is very drunk to ensure she doesn't remember what we look like or who we are.

Flawless.

 

[Pupik]

You're right. They'll be outlawing car stereos next.

Not a terrible idea, actually; as long as the output is 110-120 decibels, it isn't safe. And it sucks hearing them at 2am in the morning.

Do you know how many police officers drive around while talking on their cell phones and looking down at their dashboard computers?

I stopped wondering why cop-car accidents make the local news.

 

[a6m5]

So, does this mean the Ford's Sync system won't fly in California?

On the cell phone while driving thing, that needs to happen everywhere, no matter the driver's age. Am I alone in that cell phone drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers? On hands free - bluetooth stuff, I'm not sure.

Usually, they are the ones that look like they are going to hit some one else, but I did come close to killing one. She turned right on a red, and when I caught up with her, this lady was still smiling & chatting away.

 

[JCE]

Well, my city (near Pasadena CA), has officially banned the use of bluetooth and any other wireless handsfree devices (including built-in car bluetooth) for use while driving for anyone under the age of 18 (regardless of parental permission or supervision). Straight-up cell phone usage, of course, is already illegal. Cops are authorized to pull over any vehicle in which they suspect a minor of using a hands free device. I assume this means they'll also be pulling over some adults that look underage.

Good, and actually I'd completely remove all ability for anyone under 18 to even touch a steering sheel. Its quite obvious that teenagers--and anyone under 21 for that matter--as a group cannot drive safely. The statistics prove it as well as the insurance rates. Hey teenie bopper, you want to drive a car? Prepare to spend 100's of hours in training both inside and outside of the classroom.

This is another example of why: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1991...oryZ6161QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This car was purchased used for my 16yr old daughter who drove it twice and crashed it into a tree looking for her cell phone. You just gotta love teenagers!

I'd ban the mother from driving too for buying her the car.

But a 16 year old can still put a stereo the size of small apartment in his car and drive with that thing turned to 11 all day...

That's hardly going to make it easier to focus on driving, let alone hear a siren..

This brings me to another point, ANYONE with a loud enough stereo that someone else in another car can hear said stereo WHILE THEIR WINDOWS ARE UP should be ticketed for disturbing the peace.

Personally I think a 16 year old can drive a lot better than a old(er) person can. Ok well maybe a few than i'd like to think because most 16 year olds are capable of driving safely they just choose to drive stupid. I for one consider myself a rather safe driver, of course I have my moments where I have punched the throttle just for the feeling of acceleration. It's just a urge that I can't resist when i'm driving a somewhat powerful vehicle. But this is all irrelevent to me because I refuse to use my phone while driving but at the most i'll answer a txt at a stoplight.

The fact that you ARE 16 should automatically negate your opinion. I mean lets dissect what you just said--and I'll finish the statement with what will happen in a scenario.

"I for one consider myself a rather safe driver, of course I have my moments where I have punched the throttle just for the feeling of acceleration. But, unfortunately I lost control of my car and slammed it into a tree totalling it."

OR

"I for one consider myself a rather safe driver, of course I have my moments where I have punched the throttle just for the feeling of acceleration when I accidently lost control and hit another car with a family inside--I hope the kid will be ok."

OR

"It's just a urge that I can't resist when i'm driving a somewhat powerful vehicle. Is a great feeling, but I've lost control a couple of times trying to show off and hit the curb. Having to buy new rims isn't cheap."

OR

"It's just a urge that I can't resist when i'm driving a somewhat powerful vehicle. Me and my friends like to 'drift' on the street for fun, but we didn't see that car turning and the three of us hit that car sending the driver and her passenger to the hospital. "

OR

"It's just a urge that I can't resist when i'm driving a somewhat powerful vehicle. But, yesterday a cop stopped me and gave me a fat ticket and told me that if it happend again I would lose my license and my car."

You see my point? I'm not saying YOU do those scenarios--but teenagers across the country do. Those are tame scenarios, there are well documented tragedies by teenagers and their driving antics. It happens locally all the time--racing teenagers killing someone or themselves.

While I think elderly drivers are as unsafe as teenagers--for different reasons--teenagers are the worst driving group there is. And it is because of one tiny flaw in their brains--maturity with experience. A 16 yearold person is stlll growing and maturing--they have very little life experience and very little ESTABLISHED judgement. Yes there are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part MOST teenagers are very dangerous drivers. Its just a fact. If teenagers are allowed to drive they do not need distractions of anykind. This includes but isn't limited to, passengers other than parents or instructors, radio, phone conversations, or doing make-up for you girls out there.

And you need to not "punch" the throttle unless it is in emergency situations. There are ZERO reasons why you or anyone needs to give a vehicle more than 1/3 throttle on public roads. You want a speed sensation? Sign up for a track day or drag strip and have at it.

 

[Danoff]

So, does this mean the Ford's Sync system won't fly in California?

Not for underage drivers.

On the cell phone while driving thing, that needs to happen everywhere, no matter the driver's age. Am I alone in that cell phone drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers?

Do you have any real evidence to back a statement like that up? Or are you just going off on them because you've seen people drive badly while on the cell phone?

I've seen people drive badly while reading, doing makeup, taking off their jacket, changing the radio station, smoking, and drinking a soda. Should each of those things be illegal? Or should we just make driving recklessly illegal? Wait just a minute!!! Driving recklessly already IS illegal! *gasp*

If you make cell phones illegal to use, you should make all of the above illegal - hell just skip the middleman and outlaw driving.

 

[FoolKiller]

In related news, my city has also banned smoking in a car that also contains a child. This is a law aimed to protect children from the unknown-but-presumed-harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

Are they going to look through garbage cans for Happy Meal boxes too, since that is proven to increase obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.

 

[Year.Zero]

"officially banned [...] any other wireless handsfree devices"

Wait—so if a teenager is driving around and witnesses an armed robbery on the street, and they report it with their Bluetooth wireless headset, they could be charged?

And if they don't, they're charged with failing to report a crime?

 

[Danoff]

Wait—so if a teenager is driving around and witnesses an armed robbery on the street, and they report it with their Bluetooth wireless headset, they could be charged?

And if they don't, they're charged with failing to report a crime?

I wasn't aware that there was a law requiring people to report crimes in CA (I could be mistaken). But if someone is following them in the car behind, they have to pull off the road and stop in order to call the police.

 

[Flerbizky]

Wait—so if a teenager is driving around and witnesses an armed robbery on the street, and they report it with their Bluetooth wireless headset, they could be charged?

And if they don't, they're charged with failing to report a crime?

I actually called the cops, from my cellphone, no handsfree device, reporting a drunk driver. And told the cop I spoke to, after reporting license plate, car make and model, that I had to get off the phone because I was talking while driving. That gave a "haha - Good on ya" from the other end..

I was never caught and never charged btw...

That anecdote still doesn't make CAs laws anymore understandable though...

 

[a6m5]

Do you have any real evidence to back a statement like that up? Or are you just going off on them because you've seen people drive badly while on the cell phone?

I've seen people drive badly while reading, doing makeup, taking off their jacket, changing the radio station, smoking, and drinking a soda. Should each of those things be illegal? Or should we just make driving recklessly illegal? Wait just a minute!!! Driving recklessly already IS illegal! *gasp*

If you make cell phones illegal to use, you should make all of the above illegal - hell just skip the middleman and outlaw driving.

One arm driver versus a driver with two arms, what do you think? And do you change your radio stations for 5 minutes straight? or take your jacket off, put it on, take it off, put it on? Smoking, I can't say from experience. Drinking soda, I do that all the time, but unless it starts whispering me in my ears or I have to push small buttons to dispense me a drink, I think I'll be OK.

On "evidence", I think I've seen like million "studies"(OK, not really a million, and maybe they are more like tests) done by local and national media Missing turns, knocking down cones, etc. I doubt this will be good enough "evidence", but I'm just a ignorant dude, going off on people.

Edit: I googled, and I did come up with a couple:
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

 

[Year.Zero]

I wasn't aware that there was a law requiring people to report crimes in CA (I could be mistaken). But if someone is following them in the car behind, they have to pull off the road and stop in order to call the police.

I thought it was a standard law across most states? I know it is in Canada, and New York at least.

 

[Duke]

Personally I think a 16 year old can drive a lot better than a old(er) person can.

I'm not going to worry about the original post since I don't live in the PRC, but I'm going to jump on this with both feet.

Your average 16-year-old can NOT drive better than an older person - at least not a person under age 65 with all his/her faculties intact who was a good driver to begin with. After that, driving ability does goes downhill in a statistically significant number of cases. But there's a reason that teenagers are far and away the most expensive drivers to insure - they wreck far and away more cars.

Quick reactions can only make up for a certain amount of experience - after that, it's easy to get in over your head very quickly.

 

[Danoff]

One arm driver versus a driver with two arms, what do you think? And do you change your radio stations for 5 minutes straight? or take your jacket off, put it on, take it off, put it on? Smoking, I can't say from experience. Drinking soda, I do that all the time, but unless it starts whispering me in my ears or I have to push small buttons to dispense me a drink, I think I'll be OK.

You either didn't see the principled argument, or are choosing not to see it. I'm not sure which.

 

[a6m5]

You either didn't see the principled argument, or are choosing not to see it. I'm not sure which.

You asked me for "evidence", so I did my best. You compared cell phone driving to other things people do while they are driving, so I tried to show you how you are comparing apples and oranges.

Driving one handed while being distracted, and this easily goes on for minutes straight at a time. I think at least the hands free calling should be mandatory. And obviously, this is where you are against more regulation or law. We might as well go back to the trans fat thread.

 

[FoolKiller]

You asked me for "evidence", so I did my best. You compared cell phone driving to other things people do while they are driving, so I tried to show you how you are comparing apples and oranges.

Driving one handed while being distracted, and this easily goes on for minutes straight at a time. I think at least the hands free calling should be mandatory. And obviously, this is where you are against more regulation or law. We might as well go back to the trans fat thread.

Can all of the things Danoff listed cause an accident? Yes. Why? Because accidents happen due to a moment of inattention. Yes, a cell phone means you have many back-to-back moments but none of those moments are any less dangerous than the few moments to remove a jacket, take a drink, play with the radio, singing along with a song, or flicking ashes out a window/into an ashtray.


And of course, the new law is banning a handsfree kit, so in this specific case they are even banning using two hands while talking. Funny, considering that I do that whenever my wife is in the car too. So, should they ban passengers too?

 

[GT40 MKII]

if that crap happens here my mom will be screwed, my mom runs the local taxi and she has a bluetooth headset for her phone so she dont have to take her hands off the wheel which IMHO is one heck of an idea. so i think that is one of the dumbest laws ive seen

 

[Touring Mars]

And of course, the new law is banning a handsfree kit, so in this specific case they are even banning using two hands while talking. Funny, considering that I do that whenever my wife is in the car too. So, should they ban passengers too?

This is why I don't understand why hands-free kits are being banned either. How is talking on a hands-free kit any more distracting than talking to the other people in your car? Seems like a rather pointless exercise...

I agree fully that talking on a hands-free kit does cause distraction and will inevitably cause some accidents as a result, but I'd be interested to see how much more of a distraction it is than a real person yabbering away at you from the back seat. Imagine giving Danoff a lift, for example

Speaking as someone who almost shuffled off this mortal coil as a result of my friend deciding on what CD to play next while driving me, his sister, her husband and their baby to a wedding, I honestly can't see the logic behind banning phone use but allowing Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac CD's...

 

[a6m5]

Can all of the things Danoff listed cause an accident? Yes. Why? Because accidents happen due to a moment of inattention. Yes, a cell phone means you have many back-to-back moments but none of those moments are any less dangerous than the few moments to remove a jacket, take a drink, play with the radio, singing along with a song, or flicking ashes out a window/into an ashtray.

I don't see it as a back-to-back, but continuous for minutes straight. And again, apples and oranges. Birds flying by my car, or me picking my nose can also distract me, but it's not quite the samething. Who plays with radio for five minutes straight? Not very many, and singing along is hands free. Smoking, I don't have experience with, but that one is tricky.

Edit: I just remembered something else(in my defense!). How often have your passenger pointed out the turn you were supposed to make, etc.? Having a conversation with someone might distract you, but it also means that you have another set of eyes looking out the car. I think it has some merit.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see it as a back-to-back, but continuous for minutes straight. And again, apples and oranges. Birds flying by my car, or me picking my nose can also distract me, but it's not quite the samething. Who plays with radio for five minutes straight? Not very many, and singing along is hands free. Smoking, I don't have experience with, but that one is tricky.

If you look away for just a second to flip teh radio station and a five-year-old kid runs in front of your car did it matter if you weren't looking away the rest of the time? No, accidents happen due to seconds of distractions. What you were doing before and after those seconds is inconsequential, so any distraction for no matter how long is the cause of an accident. All apples, all red delicious, just some are bigger.

Edit: I just remembered something else(in my defense!). How often have your passenger pointed out the turn you were supposed to make, etc.? Having a conversation with someone might distract you, but it also means that you have another set of eyes looking out the car. I think it has some merit.

99% of those cases they pointed because I didn't know I was supposed to make the turn because it was a new direction for me. Why, are so easily distracted by passengers that you often miss turns you know you should make? Good thing that wasn't a kid coming from a side they couldn't see or while they were looking at you.