posted
In what I would call a crazy and amoral marketing stunt, an online retailer will Give you a $150 phone headset if you break the new CA or WA laws against driving and talking on the phone.
I believe the penalty for the first offense is $20, and for each successive offense is $50, so you could theoretically make a good living (while supplies last) by intentionally breaking the law and selling your ill-gotten gains.
Turns out that sometimes crime does pay.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does breaking this law and getting a ticket count as a moving violation?
Because if it does, your insurance company is going to have something to say about the profitability of this scheme.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AW: The violation doesn't give you any points on your license, but it does go on your driving record. I suppose it's up to your own insurance company how that may change your rates.
Maybe I can get my insurance company to buy me a Bluetooth earpiece as a prophylactic measure!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: In what I would call a crazy and amoral marketing stunt
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I believe the penalty for the first offense is $20, and for each successive offense is $50
But that's only the base fine.
quote:Q: What are the fines(s) if I’m convicted? A: The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. With the addition of penalty assessments, the fines can be more than triple the base fine amount.
posted
Man, that law makes me not want to move back home to CA.
I have no real opinion on the marketing stunt. But I do think that "crazy" and "amoral" are good fits for the cell phone law.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's a bit of an unfair representation of the program. If you drive and talk on your phone without a headset and get a ticket, they'll give you a headset so that it won't happen again. You can look at it as a reward, and some people may try to take advantage of it, but I think it is intended to work more as a deterrent from one becoming a repeat offender, in addition to getting some publicity for the company.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Two issues with the Utah study (I'm unfamiliar with the others):
1) They didn't compare cell phone use to similar conversations with a live passenger. Unless we want to outlaw talking while driving, that risk needs to be compared. I know for me cell phone use while driving is often a substitute for actually bringing another person with me. If it's no more dangerous, it shouldn't be any more illegal. Some of the studies cited in that article seem to bear this out - that it's the stimulation of cognitive centers of the brain that is the problem, not cell phone use in particular.
2) The test protocol, as I recall, involved asking the participants to solve math problems or otherwise posed problems which may or may not be analogous to the type of conversations which people tend to have while driving. Solving unfamiliar problems from a research assistant could be more taxing than chattering with your wife about how your day went or what to pick up for dinner on the way home.
There is no doubt that any supplemental activity is going to distract from driving to some extent, but we need to make some concessions to practicality and realistic assessments of risk.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I drive unsafely to California and then drive unsafely in California, do I still get the prize?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, I've been seeing less people talking on cell phones and driving. I thought they'd just ignore it. It is a moving violation, however. Perhaps they don't want points on their license.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: First of all, because I am generally disdainful of "for your own good" laws.
Second, because they haven't outlawed drinking a soda while driving. Or having a talkative passenger while driving. Or, drinking a soda while escorting a talkative passenger. It's arbitrary... no surprise, really, but I still don't like arbitrary, nonsensical laws.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Oddly enough, I've been seeing less people talking on cell phones and driving. I thought they'd just ignore it. It is a moving violation, however. Perhaps they don't want points on their license.
No points.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's arbitrary... no surprise, really, but I still don't like arbitrary, nonsensical laws.
Arbitrary I'll grant. Nonsensical, no.
I'm not a huge fan of the law (and I already use an earbud almost all the time anyway). But I'd hardly go so far as to say it makes living in California less desirable. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose it's not the law itself that makes living in California less desirable. The law is just a grim reminder of the differences between my home state and the state I've been living the past few years... Arizona.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: I wouldn't consider that a "for your own good" law, as much as a "for the good of everybody else near you when you're not paying adequate attention" law.
I wish they'd do away with all non-emergency cellphone use in cars. We did just fine without them 15 years ago. Pull over or have your passenger talk.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know with what reliability this comes, but I've heard that it is safer to talk to someone in your car than someone on a cell phone, because you concentrate harder on imagining the person you're talking to on a phone than on someone who is really sitting right next to you. And presumably also someone talking to you is sorta likely to yell Hey, let's stop talking, you're coming up to a traffic jam, or something along those lines.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree - having a passenger means also having an extra set of eyes, and visual or auditory cues from that person, whether it's a sharp glance, or a gasp, or "brake, now!" can help compensate for the distraction.
However, I'm not convinced that the studies referred to above are actually all that useful. I think the biggest problem is that they had people driving in simulators - which was probably the only safe way to do the test, so I understand why - but in a simulator, the person really doesn't have much incentive to concentrate on driving, not to mention there's probably a big difference in the amount and quality of sensory input compared to real driving. In one of the tests they were in an MRI machine at the same time...hardly a fair test of driving ability IMO.
I do think using cell phones while driving increases risk, but only by a small amount for most people...most people are smart enough to keep their eyes on the road and not get too absorbed in the conversation to still pay attention to the road. There are already laws against reckless driving, and I think the problems of following too close and changing lanes without signaling or checking blind spot are probably the cause of MANY times the number of accidents as cell phone usage. (Even if a cell phone is involved somehow those other factors could be just as responsible.) I'd like to see those problems solved before we start regulating marginal factors like cell phone usage.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First offense results in a $100 fine. Subsequent offenses can reach up to $190. At least, that is what it is where I live--which, last time I checked, is definitely in California.
Lucrative financial scheme, I think not.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 777: First offense results in a $100 fine. Subsequent offenses can reach up to $190. At least, that is what it is where I live--which, last time I checked, is definitely in California.
Not unless you have some local laws that affect the fine, in addition to the state law that went into effect two days ago.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
