California Using Mobile Phone in a car Fine.

[csv8]

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Section 23123.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

23123.5.
(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.
(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device.
(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01120120AB1536

My Comment : proves its all about revenue , in Australia..

[Streets]

It's also a $20 fine for not wearing a seatbelt. Hardly a deterrent.

When it comes to using mobile phones while driving I'm happy for the penalty to be severe.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by Streets

When it comes to using mobile phones while driving I'm happy for the penalty to be severe.

Agreed

[NickyN]

Originally Posted by Streets

It's also a $20 fine for not wearing a seatbelt. Hardly a deterrent.

When it comes to using mobile phones while driving I'm happy for the penalty to be severe.

Agreed. But seat belt penalties and other fines like using a mobile while driving differ from state to state. I think Cali is one of the lowest as far as fines are concerned.

I think the penalty needs to be higher to be an effective deterrent. It's just a huge problem everywhere and in every state.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by NickyN

Agreed. But seat belt penalties and other fines like using a mobile while driving differ from state to state. I think Cali is one of the lowest as far as fines are concerned.

I think the penalty needs to be higher to be an effective deterrent. It's just a huge problem everywhere and in every state.

Its $237 and 3 points here in Victoria and people still do it, and they will continue to do so.

Really its just a it won't happen to me thing.

I don't talk on the phone when driving, I don't even pull over to answer it either, if its important they'll leave a message, I'll check my phone when I get to my destination.

But that doesn't mean that I'm not distracted, given I'm switching between 10 presets on my radio when ads come on, between radio/cd or sometimes trying to drink something.

[Angeldust]

CB radio's in cars used to be common,, would they be illegal to use now like mobile phones are?

[Jastel]

It should be illegal, no problem, but the Australian fines are waaaay excessive.
I have driven over there with them and seen the problems.
Most people are using them to navigate as well, this doesnt seem illegal under that wording, but in Australia it is.

I was happy with the old laws, if you were driving "Badly" becasue of the phone, get a ticket. Same for eating smoking CD changing etc, this law covered ALL bases, not a specific law for a phone and a virtual free pass for all other attention sapping gadgets/food/kids/pets etc.

As a taxi driver I push buttons all day long on meters, data screens and CB's etc (same as a single officer police car, yes they do exist) and this is not technically illegal but when it affects your driving you can get a ticket for inattention at minimum or whatever other law you broke as well.

If you hit a person because you were on a phone, big fine. Hit somebody while putting lipstick on, small fine. Why the difference?

Phones are a separate category because it is easy to prove you were using one, they just check the call logs either on the phone or subpeona the telcos. In Australia you dont need to be calling someone you just have touch the phone, now they do GPS and music etc it just gives them more reasons for issuing tickets as more people touch the phones for non calling purposes.

[xxx000]

mobiles involve a two way conversation whereas a CB is one way at a time

the two way conversation part has been shown to be dangerous when driving hence why mobile use can involve fines

[TC200six]

It's hard to believe you could still use a phone while driving in California up until mid-2008.

I know this because I was there at the time the law was implemented. Those large electronic signs along the highway had "Hands free - It's the law". Even the TV news bulletins were reporting the rise in bluetooth car kit thefts the day before the law came into affect.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by csv8

My Comment : proves its all about revenue , in Australia..

if it was only a $20 fine a lot of people would say who cares I'll take the risk there needs to be a deterrent. I think mobile uses should be treated like drink driving. , you want to talk on the phone? well walk for a while and think about it.
loss of licence would stop the majority of people for doing what is often as dangerous or more dangerous than drunk driving
drink drive = stupid
use mobile while driving = stupid
so act stupid, learn to walk

[NickyN]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

if it was only a $20 fine a lot of people would say who cares I'll take the risk there needs to be a deterrent. I think mobile uses should be treated like drink driving. , you want to talk on the phone? well walk for a while and think about it.
loss of licence would stop the majority of people for doing what is often as dangerous or more dangerous than drunk driving
drink drive = stupid
use mobile while driving = stupid
so act stupid, learn to walk

There's that saying right? You can't cure stupid.

The individual user needs to take responsibility. Fines are deterrents, sure, but the bottom line is the individual has to assume responsibility and that's sorely lacking.

Loss of license should be deterrent enough but the truth is there are lots of people who drive without their license. Worse are the drivers without auto insurance. I feel sorry for the drivers who end up in an accident with these drivers....no license and no insurance. The driver who abides by the law and has a driver's license and auto insurance ends up the loser....cuz the other guy can't pay for damages.

[MITCHAY]

I honestly don't know why people need to be glued to the phones and for those who need to use them can't get a hands free kit. A lot of new cars have it built in too.

As for seatbelts, lol I don't even know why there should be fines for no seat belts. I would have thought self preservation would be enough. I don't even think about putting it on it is just second nature.

The obvious exception being when having kids or disabled people as passengers who are not able to protect themselves (and it should be a huge fine) but for $20 why even bother writing up the ticket.

[cs123]

I think iPods are just as dangerous.....

[wulos]

Let's NOT take this thread down a right vs wrong, us vs them, enforecement vs revenue raising track.
Rather people just read the article & move onwards.

[irish2]

I don't mean to inflame the situation but I often see cars wandering the road on multiple lane highways and always see either one of two things. They are well under the speed limit and their mind is wandering, or they are using a mobile phone. Most of the time both types become agitated when I want to do the speed limit in the right hand lane.

[XR Martin]

The fine means nothing, however it does give the Police (another) 'probable cause' to pull over the motorist so they can also look for drugs, guns, alcohol, illegals etc
(unlike here, there you have to be actually breaking the law to be pulled over)

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by csv8

My Comment : proves its all about revenue , in Australia..

How so?? The fines in Australia are obviously still not high enough as every time I drive somewhere I see people talking on mobile phones while driving. The fine is supposed to be a deterrent and it obviously is not deterring a lot people, so may be they need to up them even more.

I would not care less if a mobile phone fine was 5K and having your vehicle impounded for three month, does not affect my life in any way as I don't use my phone while driving, simple really.

Not sure why you are worried about what the fine is, unless you use your phone while driving will not affect your life in any way. I say the higher the better, as it might save me getting hit by a driver talking on his/her phone.

[LTDHO]

IMO no driver should use a phone whilst in control of a vehicle?

Harsh? Yeah maybe.

I've seen to many times that people ring friends (on hands free) for a chat and then run red lights, change lanes without looking, even go the long way. They simply were not concentrating on anything other than the conversation.

I personally don't make calls, if I receive one I end it quick and/or offer to call back later.

[mash again]

I have just read the law several times. It doesnt say you cant talk on a mobile, it only references text based messages, so its quite different to our law.

[SPArKy_Dave]

Originally Posted by mash again

I have just read the law several times. It doesnt say you cant talk on a mobile, it only references text based messages, so its quite different to our law.

Right you are, it seems............... Hmmmmmmmm.