Posted on 10/01/2007 7:09:08 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
It's hard to believe it has been two years that you've been ignoring the statewide ban on hand-held cell phones while driving.
Time flies for scofflaws.
OK, so maybe you bought one of the hands-free devices, but how often do you actually use it?
Dave Olenoski climbed out of his pickup truck outside the post office in downtown Shelton on Friday morning wearing a hands-free earpiece, which he's used since shortly after the law took effect two years ago.
He said it's hard to avoid using mobile phones. "You can't do away with cell phones completely in this day and age," the 51-year-old Shelton contractor said.
Enforcement of the law this year is on track to more than triple the number of drivers caught in 2006, according to statistics compiled by the state Judicial Branch.
More than 16,000 drivers had cases adjudicated in Superior Courts throughout the state between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year.
Still, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of drivers continue to ignore the law or pretend it doesn't exist.
A recent poll, conducted by a leading maker of hands-free communications equipment, found that only 2 percent of drivers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have been caught violating the law, while at any given time 30 percent or more may be using hand-held phones.
Even motorists with hands-free technology often don't use it, the poll indicates. Connecticut lawmakers — whose regular drives to the Capitol provide field research on the issue as they witness the misbehavior of fellow motorists — seem flummoxed by the general disregard of the prohibition against drivers using hand-held communications devices.
They don't know whether to leave the current $100 fine in place, raise it to negatively reinforce bad-driver habits, or even reduce it on the theory that police would step up enforcement if motorists faced lower fines.
"We are seeing more and more drivers violating the law," Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, said last week.
Roy, whose multiyear effort to ban hand-held devices finally won approval in the spring of 2005, said Connecticut's roadside signage program should be improved along with enforcement.
"We're continuing our efforts at education," Roy said. "I am coming up with some locations where we can put signs that would help tell the motoring public that we do have this law."
While the state Department of Transportation has installed signs at the borders announcing the cell-phone regulations, Roy thinks more must be done.
"What I would like to do is put them on the exits at the rest stops," Roy said. "People are going slower at that point and more people would be able to read them without buzzing by."
Roy said his latest encounter with a distracted driver occurred recently on Interstate 91 as he drove to the Capitol.
"A guy on a phone zipped by me and I saw him on the phone and he pulled back in front of me — I was in the middle lane — and all of a sudden he realized he was getting close to the guy in front of him and he started to go into the left lane, not seeing a guy coming up in the left-hand lane," Roy recalled. "He ended up fishtailing a bit. He straightened out, but it was so unnecessary. If he had been paying attention to what he was doing, we would have all been safer."
Roy said that police officials have told him that if the $100 fines were reduced, there would be greater enforcement.
"They could even set up checks like they do for seat belts," Roy said. "As one officer said, the seatbelt is a $37 fine. He said, 'I have no problem giving out a $37 fine. If the cell phone were $50, I'd have no problem handing out a $50 fine.' "
Earlier this year, Rep. Thomas J. Drew, D-Fairfield, led an effort to increase the penalties, but it failed.
"If you raise it to $250, like we were looking at, you're taking food off someone's table," Roy said. "I don't think law enforcement feels that $250 is commensurate with what the infraction is."
Last month, Milford police conducted a two-week blitz on drivers using hand-held cell phones, netting about 400 infractions. Under the legislation, first-time offenders can avoid the fine by purchasing hands-free equipment and submitting the receipts to state prosecutors within 30 days.
The state Department of Motor Vehicles reported last week that there are 2,426,278 valid drivers licenses; 2,177,567 registered passenger vehicles and a total of 2,997,050 vehicles, including trucks and buses. The total number of mobile phones is harder to gauge because of the various competing companies and technologies. [note: evil capitalist competing companies]
While the state Judicial Branch reported that more than 9,800 people statewide were caught for violating the law during calendar-year 2006, this year, between Jan. 1 and June 30, 16,231 cases were brought to court, indicating a sharp increase in enforcement.
Of the 16,231 drivers cited, 8,585 were let off the hook after producing evidence that they purchased hands-free devices.
Those found guilty during the first six months of this year totaled 6,833, including 27 bus drivers and 16 drivers under the age of 18, who are prohibited from using any communications devices.
Drew said last week that he's not sure which direction lawmakers should proceed, but something must be done to curb dangerous behavior on state roads.
"The people are really just blatantly ignoring it and eventually someone's going to be very seriously hurt," Drew said." We have to continue doing what we can to eliminate that unnecessary risk."
He said many fellow lawmakers were opposed to raising the fine.
"Whatever causes people to drive more safely and use hands-free devices, I support," Drew said. "I'm not sure how to actually do that. The key is to get the cooperation and support of the police."
Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, D-Milford, another lawmaker who logs thousands of miles a year driving to and from the Capitol, said last week that highway dangers go beyond hand-held phones.
"People are on the phone or eating or playing with their radio tuners," Slossberg said. "There are a lot of distracted drivers."
She agrees with Roy that more education would help, too.
"We have a lot of out-of-state drivers and if you drive behind them they're always on their phones," Slossberg said. "Even though we have some postings that say this is the law in the state of Connecticut, it's just not being enforced."
A recent poll conducted for Parrot Inc., which makes Bluetooth equipment, found that Connecticut drivers are more aware of the law than those who live in New York and New Jersey, which have similar laws.
Connecticut drivers say they use cell phones about 30 percent of the time when driving.
The three-state July survey of 900 drivers found that more than 70 percent of tri-state drivers who use a cell phone while behind the wheel have hands-free equipment, but still use their hand-held equipment almost 40 percent of the time.
The poll — of people 18 and over who own cell phones — also found that women drivers and men and woman between the ages of 18 and 34 are most likely to use hand-held equipment on the road.
Rep. Chris Caruso, D-Bridgeport, didn't own a cell phone until his recent challenge for the Democratic mayoral nomination necessitated it. He bought a hands-free Bluetooth device. "I don't like the Bluetooth," he said last week. Caruso said he has less concern about hand-held cell phone use on highways than he does along the hectic streets of his hometown.
"In Bridgeport, the law is totally ignored," Caruso said. "People are driving through intersections, running stop signs, you name it."
Like many drivers, Olenoski, the Shelton contractor, said he's not surprised that when he sees erratic behavior on streets and highways, it turns out that the driver was using a hand-held phone.
"You know, you're driving behind someone who's swerving, who almost loses control and when you pass them you see they're holding a cell phone," Olenoski said. "Keeping the cell phone to minimal use is a good thing."
You think they'll start confiscating cell phones? Or handing out taxpayer-funded hands-free electronics with every driver's license?
Creating a law targeting cell phones is a farce. Cell phones are just one of of many distractions that can cause an accident.
Sorry, but the biggest distraction does not come from holding the phone, it comes from engaging in a conversation and diverting your attention, not your hand, away from the task of driving the car. Hand-held phones are targeted because they can be observed when assembling anecdotal evidence as does Olenoski in the quote above. Wave a magic wand to make all hand-held phones disappear and be surprised when the accident rate doesn't appreciably diminish.
I'm stunned.
Like so many other laws in the northeast, the public ignores the ones that are ridiculous.
CT has so many laws that they guarantee that if law enforcement stops someone they can write them up - always!
I got stopped in attempt to write up a seat belt infraction based on a supposed reflection any officer saw from the side of the road. When another black+white pulled me over he found my belt on. Idiot wrote me a warning anyway.
Get out of the northeast! I am writing from sunny Florida - I left CT behind a year ago. Get out while you can!
There is never a need to ban cell phones while driving. Motorists who drive recklessly, regardless of cause, be it using a cell phone, texting, eating or whatever, can already be cited under existing reckless driving laws.
It's also worth noting that a driver talking on a cell phone does not present a problem to other motorists until he/she does something that is already a violation of one or more motor vehicle laws (e.g., driving into the back of a stopped vehicle, failing to keep to the right on a multi-lane roadway, etc.).
Will be the first to introduce legislation banning talking, smoking etc while driving.
Here’s what I think: some people have the judgement and skills to use a cellphone, even a hand-held one, safely while driving. Professional drivers have used CBs and two-way radios while driving for many years, and I don’t recall those ever being mentioned as a big problem. Get cops off the side of the road running radar traps, and get them out there on the roads pulling people over for poor driving - unsafe lane changes, following too closely, wandering in (and often out of) their lane, etc. And make sure all those police cars are camera’ed up so they have evidence of what people were pulled over for.
Oh, sorry, I was in my fantasy land where the purpose of police traffic enforcement is to actually improve road safety, rather than just to generate revenue and get easy speeding convictions. Also where the solution to every problem isn’t a new law, but actually enforcing the existing ones.
idiotic.
Not a SINGLE PSA to use hands free.
You would think the makers would be front and center for that one.
Fines about revenue.
I stopped watching that show when they kept doing PC confirmed or busted when there are hard science studies that contradict the program.
they are as credible as a DNC push pole.
consider how PILOTS with HUNDREDS of lives use radios.
consider how FIGHTER pilots with weapons systems use radios.
This is a group think hystrionics.
Just like targeting cigarettes was a farce?
It's not about safety, it's ALL about money. They see it as a revenue stream and will go after it.
Never saw a “DNC push pole”. Do their women use them or their faggot men? LOL
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I agree with the Mythbusters findings. In the last two years I have had a dramatic increase of near accidents with other drivers talking on cell phones, mostly women. They will drive up to a stop sign talking on their phone, stop, look straight at me and then pull out into the intersection. Lane changes are also an experience with cell talkers. I have often wondered what women did during the pre-cell history of our country? They can drive to the store talking on the phone, get out of the car and walk into the store talking on the phone, conduct their shopping while talking on the phone, check out on the phone, and walk to the car talking on the phone!!!!
And of course there are the never ending calls while an employee is at work. I have a good friend I would never hire because his wife calls him about ten times a day.
As to pilots and police talking on radios while driving or flying, it takes them a long time to get good at it and their respective systems talk in somewhat of a coded shorthand. Experienced pilots anticipate what controllers are going to say. Rookie pilots and cops do have problems.
There are no records indicating what percentage of accidents are the result of cell phones but I am willing to bet it would be higher than we all think.
Yup, I was around back then. Of course, that led to a bra shortage which was not such a bad thing, especially for us guys.
I just don’t know what is in the female genes that they gotta be talking all the time on the telephone?
LOL ... one of life’s great mysteries!
My observation is that most people driving while talking on a cell phone are, in fact, driving in an unsafe manner. They are endangering themselves and others.
Drive. Or talk on a cell phone.
Do not do both.
By your reasoning, there should be no law against driving while falling-down drunk. I assume that is your position.
Let me ask you if you would want your family driving on a road filled with falling-down drunks on cell phones, all of whom do “not present a problem to other motorists until he/she does something that is already a violation of one or more motor vehicle laws.”?
I’m not in favor of having laws against using cell phones when driving. . .BUT, if I’m ever hit by someone who was talking on their phone, they’ll be digging it out of their hind parts.
When liberal laws fail, as they always do, liberals always ask for more of the same laws that failed.
I've posted numerous times on threads related to drunk driving -- making the case that most "preventative" laws that outlaw behaviour because of what MIGHT HAPPEN as a result of that behaviour are absolutely useless and have no place in a free nation.
A law against drunk driving is really no different than a law against owning a gun. It's no coincidence that nanny-state leftists (from either political party) are generally the ones who most strongly favor both of these.
Query redux.
Let me ask you if you would want your family driving on a road filled with falling-down drunks on cell phones, all of whom do “not present a problem to other motorists until he/she does something that is already a violation of one or more motor vehicle laws.”?
Personally, I try to avoid roads with any tractor trailer trucks on them, because they might jackknife.
I think the point is rather: WHO is deciding which behaviors should be illegal?
I would have no problem with that (since it appears my answer wasn’t clear enough). In fact, I have always taken it upon myself to drive as if every other moron on the road is drunk, and jabbering on a cell phone.
I hear you now.
“I think the point is rather: WHO is deciding which behaviors should be illegal?”
I think that would be the legislature, the people we elect to make our laws.
A I think that would be the legislature, the people we elect to make our laws.
Precisely. The people's representatives in this state are not listening to the majority of the "scofflaw" people.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.