So if you have a bluetooth headset it's illegal to even use that while driving if your under 18?

How can they tell if your talking with a headset, or if you just have it in your ear?

But how will we know where to score the excellent drugs and great parties?

California, the King of the Nanny States, marches on...

No part of your life may be untouched by legislation.

If you live out side California, please urge your congress person to help OUST California from the union. They are no longer a free state, but an occupied territory.

Why stop at 18? Hang up and f'ing drive ppl

Why stop at teenagers?

@jwissick: So you don't want the state to protect you from dangerous drivers? Good luck with your anarchist paradise.

There are multiple studies suggesting that talking on your cell phone, hands-free or otherwise, impairs your driving ability as much as, if not more so than, being drunk. I find that hardly surprising, seeing how oblivious cell phone talkers are to their surroundings, even those who complain about other lound talkers.

Look, its really about what type of person you are. If the teenie bopper blond is going to crash her car while talking on her cell phone about something that happened in 4th period, then she is going to crash her car while she is changing the radio... Or just crash her car.

Yeah, that'll work. We've banned cell phones while driving in Chicago and every other car has an idiot driving while on the phone. And they don't stop at stop signs or stop lights, they are clueless.

/hands-free is OK, but do these idiots use hands-free? NO! That would require you to spend $1 at the dollar store to get one!

@jwissick:

You obviously don't walk much. Walk around your neighborhood for a while and see how clueless people are on cellphones.

/They probably said the same thing about drunk drivers - that dang nanny state is prohibiting me from driving drunk!

Personally I think it should be illegal for anyone to drive and hold a phone to their head. I see people do some dangerous crazy shit while holding the wheel with one hand and a cell phone with the other. The one I saw the other day had the person holding a cell to their left ear while holding the phone with their right hand and making a wide, too-fast, right-hand turn with their left hand. !!

Forgot to add, though, that hands-free is relatively better although you can still get caught up in your conversation and not pay attention all the time.

Too bad we just can't ban teenagers all together. Or at least make it if they break a traffic law they go back to a restricted permit for six months and keep pushing it back each time until their 18. As for everybody else, I'd love to see people spending a night in jail for running red lights or driving recklessly.

Although, I'm ruefully impressed when I saw a cellie driver, smoking while sipping coffee, all at once. Too bad it was a guy or he could have gone for a four-shot: makeup application.

Why don't we just go ahead and make it illegal to hold a conversation with a passanger while your at it. Oh wait, they already limit how many people a teen can have in the car -_-

Reverse Agism, the only legal bigotry still left.

I think the point of limiting teens is that they are new at driving and take risks at the same time, so not allowing them to have another distraction is helpful. In Washington, teens are not allowed to have passengers in the car unless it's a family member over 21 until they are 18. (I think it's 18...not sure now that I think about it.) After the law went into effect teen driving deaths went way down.

What about to talking to a passenger who's on a cellphone, relay-style?

What about talking to a passenger who's talking to another passenger?

What about dictating a letter to a passenger?

What a rediculous ordinance.

Personally, I think it would help if they would stop handing out driver's licenses as prizes in cereal boxes. Considering most people don't know their state driving laws to begin with, and then don't pay attention to what's going on around them on the road, the last thing they need is another distraction - no matter what the age.

If my phone rings while I'm driving, I will not answer it. If there's someone with me, I'll ask them to answer for me and tell the caller that I'll call them when I arrive at my destination. The only time I'll use it is if I'm lost, and then I pull over.

That being said, I was told recently that in Katy, Texas (an outer-lying area of Houston), it is illegal for teens to text while driving. It's amazing to me that it's even necessary to make that kind of law. But it wasn't too long ago that 4 teens were killed in an accident (in Houston) because the girl driving was texting someone and not paying attention to the road.

The only problem I see with a law like this is, how the hell do you go about enforcing it?

There's been a fair bit of buzz here on LA public radio about this bill (find an interview with the bill's author here, and while I sincerely doubt Simitian is plotting to ban cell use in cars altogether, I sure as hell wouldn't mind. And why stop with teens? I've seen way too many supposed adults composing emails on their Crackberrys while cruising down the freeway. And I was rear-ended by a woman chatting on her phone.

PS, fact check: The hands-free requirement goes into effect July of 2008.

Umm... If you can't be pulled over for it then how will it be enforced?

Please, please, please follow JWISSICK's advice and petition your state's politicians to have California kicked out of the Union. We would love it. We have the fifth largest economy in the world so I'm sure we would be OK.

Without the Red State ball and chain we could really make some progress. The greatest innovations tend to come from California, the best foods on Earth are grown here and the best wines in the world (along with those from OUR friends, the French) come from here. We could legalize medical marijuana (oh wait, we did do that but the Feds keep big Pharma happy by fighting us). Our weather is great, we have mountains, coastline, deserts and the hottest women on the planet earth. And the hot women you do have will end up here anyway. It's inevitable.

Don't think we Californians take the idea of being kicked out of the Union as a threat. You need us WAY more than we need you. But don't worry: we'll never leave because unlike our brethren in the southern states we are faithful and would never secede. We know you couldn't make it without us.

BTW, banning cellphone use among teenagers is a GREAT idea. It's about time.

Everybody knows that this is not an age issue whatsoever. The lawmakers just don't want to inconvenience themselves by making it all ages.

I bet if you look up vehicle related deaths per age group, the teen group is the highest. Thus, they require the shortest leashes.

@MystiMel: If you look funny at the cop and he pulls you over, THEN he can bust you for the cellphone. As long as you're chatting away on your cellphone, staying perfectly centered in the lane, at precisely the proper speed limit, etc etc, you're fine.

It means they can't use that as an excuse for pulling you over. Which doesn't mean a whole lot. Side effects, such as blindly changing lanes while chatting up your girlfriends on the makeup of the day, will give the cop a reason.

They really need to bump this up to everyone. As it is we have a distraction fine from the Governator (IIRC) that covers eating, cellphones, and Hellspawn, but I've never heard of the cops enforcing it.
So I guess that makes it:
0-17: don't even talk to yourself or you're risking a fine
18+: handsfree or fine or *gasp* landline

@EtherealStrife: I guess the distraction thing is local (Orange County and possibly Los Angeles County?). All I'm seeing is the July 2008 date, and my PD friend was saying Jan 2007. Hrmm.

Okay, so if I crash while not using a cell phone and OnStar calls to check on me, am I still technically 'driving' and therefore breaking the law?

I'm so confused...

Turn off the cell phone and drive.

I can understand if this applies to all people who are within their probationary period. It seems unfair to say only teenagers. In NY I know plenty of people who don't get their license until much later, and they're just as dangerous on the road.

OK, I really don't understand all the cell phone bologna. Back when the first AM radios were starting to be put into cars, the same exact arguments were made then. Yes, there were some that wrecked due to changing radio channels, but the worries were unfounded. Just like cell phone worries will be 50 years from now. This is just P.C. police out of control!!

yeah, I'm always surprised when my sister calls me from her car in CA. When I see people on the road here in NY on their phone it makes me mad. :(

@Kezzerxir: Maybe that's why they've decided not to pull people over for phone use alone?

@MystiMel: It gets enforced when the cop has to pull someone over for reckless driving and it turns out to be because they were on a cell phone.

Personally, I think it would help if they would stop handing out driver's licenses as prizes in cereal boxes. Considering most people don't know their state driving laws to begin with...
@allthatsevil: Exactly! Why aren't the laws on the test? The only law I can remember that might have been on the driver's test was that I live in a right on red state.

Why can't there just be a law against multi-tasking while driving? Why specify cell phone use as opposed to eating or putting on make-up while driving? All these things distract drivers so why should there have to be a separate law for each?

The fact that you're even on the phone means you're not concentrating...

I'm sure the families of people killed by someone on the phone will tell you that.

The fact that you CAN'T be pulled over for it... just makes it completely pointless

No-cell phones while driving has been in effect in NY state for quite some time. It's good to see some other states are finally catching up.

@cde: Really CDE? Have you ever been around a teenage driver? Unlike members of different genders, races, and/or sexual orientations, teenagers have in fact proven themselves to be worse drivers (as a whole). This infringes on my right (and yes, I use that word hesitantly... let's say privilege instead) to drive in a relatively safe environment. Our existing method of regulating this on a case-by-case basis, i.e. issuing drivers licenses, doesn't seem to be doing a great job, does it?

@oncewascool: This is a difference in degree, not kind. Changing a radio station takes five seconds. A phone conversation can last the entire time a driver is in the car. We have precedent for this - blood alcohol limits. And more practically, there are more cars on the road now, and people drive faster

@Chicago7: Talking on the a cell while driving is "banned" in D.C. too. Or, well, it's supposed to be. For about two months, they actually pulled people over for it, but I haven't heard of someone getting pulled over for about a year now.

Best part? At least 10% of the time, the person you see driving and chatting on a hand-held cell is a cop. Not sure if they're allowed for some reason, or if they are just flouting the law because they can!

@oncewascool: "This is just P.C. police out of control!!"

Ah yes, this is one of my favorite non-arguments, along with "stop being a hater" and "if you hate America so much...".

If you can point out a study that shows that using the radio slows down a driver's reaction time and impairs judgment to a level comparable with drunk driving, then you'd have a point.

That's cool. Now I'll have a free hand to eat my yogurt...

I don't think that outlawing cell phones is going to end cell phone related accidents. I'm not sure it's even going to decrease them by much. It's illegal to drink and drive yet I still managed to have two former classmates killed by drunks this year.

@spinachdip: Stop being a hater!

Just kidding ^_^ I tend to agree.

You'll have to pry my cellphone out of my cold, dead hand (after I crash into a tree).

@HeyHermano: I don't think that outlawing cell phones is going to end cell phone related accidents.

First, my condolences on the loss of your friends. One of mine was also killed by a drunk driver last year. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say "all cell phone-related accidents." Is a regulation that ends, say, 50% of them useless then? All legislation is (ideally) based on a balancing of costs and benefits. The bill does not have to be 100% effective for it to be worthwhile.

@deserthiker:
Typical nonsensical rap by a California resident who honestly believes the bull squeeze coming out of his/her mouth.
Yeah. We NEED California more than it needs us.
Right. The best foods, wine, and *ahem* women come from there.
I've been there twice. Both times, I was bitterly dissapointed by the way people behaved and the low quality of their food.
But it IS an interesting idea.
I mean, the US could save billions of dollars in earmarks and budgetary spending usually reserved for California. The remaining 49 states could cut off all ties and destroy the economy of the state. California could finally become the USSC and fulfill the political leaderships dreams of creating a communist state! How wonderful.
When the movie business drops off because exports are frozen to the remaining United States, the industry will leave like many other industries have left. Music companies would flee the state as would nearly every manufacturer, further damaging the infrastructure of the left coast.
What a tragedy!
Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Nicole Ritchie could be the first leaders, teaming with nancy pelosi in ensuring the reeducation camps are successful in furthering the cause of worshipping celebrities.
Slowly, with the coastline eroding and the frequent earthquakes and wildfires, the state will go bankrupt without the federal government to bail it out. There would be an almost immediate energy crisis (remember a few years ago when you guys went dark?) and without a federal pipeline to the petroleum industry, California would dry up and have to sign exclusive deals with Sean Penn's best bud Cesar Chavez. Chavez would be more than happy to make an investment in California and then would use his influence to destroy any news operation that dared to criticize his ideas or policies.
Yeah. We need California more than California needs the rest of the United States.
Do us all a favor and close your mouth, engage your brain, THEN share your ideas.
The only food I get from California is Strawberries. But, oddly enough, other places grow them too.
The only wine I get from California is, well I don't buy much California wine. Italy, Spain, and Australia get most of that business.
Um, what do I really have that has anything to do with California? Not much. And I live in Chicago.
Time to smarten up, youngster. People like you are too immature to realize the impact on your state if you were to no longer to be a part of the US.
I know, it's sort of old school to remember history and stuff.
But at some point, you would thing that you may have heard the old wisdom:
Together we stand, divided we fall.
"What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to." ~Hansell B. Duckett

@HeyHermano: Of course it's not going to end ALL cell phone related accidents. Did you know that we have laws against killing other people, yet people are killed EVERY YEAR? By your logic, we should repeal laws against murder and manslaughter because they don't work. Utter silliness.

But cracking down on drunk driving works - between 1982 and 2002, deaths caused by drunk drivers dropped by more than a half.

@Rectilinear Propagation: "Why can't there just be a law against multi-tasking while driving? Why specify cell phone use as opposed to eating or putting on make-up while driving? All these things distract drivers so why should there have to be a separate law for each?"

If a driver caused an accident though multi-tasking, then that's not going to be looked kindly upon by authorities. But cell phones are way more interactive and engaging than other distractions, including changing the radio and talking to passengers.

Well, it is trendy to complain about cell phone users because it is a relatively new phenomenon. But this is one of the rare times the chicken littles are actually right and the cynics are wrong. I don't think people realize exactly how brain consuming a phone conversation is.

@deserthiker: Actually, I third your nomination, come to think. The only question is how we'll be able to keep the danged illegal immigrants from - well - the Red States - out.

The great thing is that I'll bet California, with its wacky, progressive policies, ends up with higher GNP growth rates. We're wacky, but wacky's usually good for business longer term. (Shorter term, perhaps no: Enron!)

PS: OLD people. For all that's holy, target OLD drivers. The end. Geezus.

I would love to see this in all states and have the cops enforce it. I sit at red lights and watch as almost every person that drives by is talking on a cell phone paying no attention to the road and it drives me nuts.

@jwissick: Occupied by whom? "We the people"???

PPS: LiLo, Paris, and that ilk? Non-Californians. If we were our own country, they'd be your problem. Along with Fredo, Turdblossom and the Chimp. Keep 'em!

PPPS: Don't buy our products. Go ahead. Spite your nose. Ha ha ha.

PPPS: Instant MFN status, insta-visa status for the Blue States (yummy blogger types definately honorary Californians)

PPPPS: Killa, if you've visited California and had crappy food, that merely shows you have no taste. One would have to REALLY go out of your way to find bad food here. That's a remarkable indictment of what kind of person you are, if so.

@killavanilla:

As a former 26-year resident of CA, I can't say I agree with everything you said (almost all of the produce there is better than what I get here in New York, and I do have friends there). Regarding the people in general, though, well, lets just say I was blown away by how nice everyone in Chicago was when I visited last year (best example - My cell was dead, and I asked a guy outside Wrigley if I could put his battery in my phone to make a single, quick call - and he offered to trade the batteries for good!). Lastly, Paris isn't totally ours; NYC is at least partially responsible for that.

@trai_dep: Unfortunately, old people vote, in droves, cause they have nothing better to do.