Oh come on... just go for it.... Death penalty!!

Yeah rich that's a great idea. Im so glad people like you aren't running the country. Moron.

Are you kidding half the cops I see go by are talking on their cell phones.

But they'll have you believe it's for official business.

Do cops need a search warrant to look at a driver's call log after an accident? Do they need one when pulling someone over for apparently calling or texting while driving? If not, that's how cops will know. It should be a routine part of every accident investigation.

The big fines and points mentioned above would be a good deterrent for all the 17-year-olds who violate the law every day, as well as those of us who are older.

LOL mine too, now that I think about it!

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html OH TOTALY like in 1975 when the US banned the sales of cars with FRONT drum brakes.

Or 1986 when they made new lighting and safety standards.

Or 1968 when they made dual stage master cylinders mandatory.

Or like this RIDICULOUS rule -

"Standard No. 203 - Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System - Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-1-81)
This standard specifies requirements for minimizing chest, neck, and facial injuries by providing steering systems that yield forward, cushioning the impact of the driver's chest by absorbing much of his or her impact energy in front-end crashes. Such systems are highly effective in reducing the likelihood of serious and fatal injuries."

Dan,

None of those safety improvements attempted to regulate people's behavior through a ban. It's still legal to purchase, register, and operate a car made in 1966 with front drum brakes, single stage master cylinders, no side marker lights/CHMSL, no airbags, no collapsable steering columns, no ABS, and no shoulder belts. The safety standards put forth by the NHTSA make the products safer; they don't change the behavior of the operator.

Bans do not work. If they did, we would not have any underage drinking, drug abuse, or violent crimes committed with a firearm in NJ, as well as no alcohol in the entire country. The only way to get people to stop doing something dangerous is to educate them. It's working with safe sex education, teen smoking, and firearms safety through programs like Eddie Eagle.

Damn straight.

If the damn commies would only let us have street sweepers in our SUVs, distracted driving would be a moot point.

I'm gonna downgrade from 4 wheel discs to drums, just to make a point.

I ain't no socialist.

That's a dangerous idea..."The Government can make the rules..." A cursory read of the Constitution should clear you up on why governement was established. Your comments sound like a typical 'womb-to-tomb' mentality of governement. I wonder how we would all get by if all the government busybodies weren't telling us all what to do.

Dear Paul,

The government does make the rules, no where in the constitution does it mention driving. Perhaps you should read up on that.

The government makes up rules, called the FMVSS, I'd suggest you read up on that too. They make the rules for cars sold here in the US. Tires, brakes, lighting standards, safety standards - yes, they make the rules. Sorry if you don't like it, you might want to go to a place like China where the government stays out of the rule making - that way you can have a car as awesome as this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcBoVgyKjH8&feature=related

Dan, you're missing Paul's point.

If the NJ test were the same as the German national test, 75% of residents would fail.

95% of the posters here.

Chris, I'm not missing his point. Obviously I'm some sort of 'Merika hating evil doer who wakes up each day and talks to Obama and the Occupy movement and plan my day around making his life more hellish.

Working a clutch in traffic would suck for people with leg injuries.

No, but the next update from the dealer for your MB might disable that button at speeds over say 10 mph.

We have enough police..Just get them off the DAMN PHONE while they are on patrol

Hands free is no different than you talking to your husband next to you. It's no different than your screaming children in the back seat. Stop being ignorant. Some people need to talk while driving. Some people need to do it for work. So stop being ignorant.

The law as described will "disable" the phone while in the driver's seat. This means newer cars would have a proximity sensor (as most already do) to know where you are in the car (i.e., driver's seat), and if the phone is active it might do something like - blank out the display, or disable the phone's radio (airplane mode).

More likely, it will throw the phone in airplane mode over speeds of 10 mph, knocking out the ability to use the phone while moving on a road. Your phones GPS "knows" where roads are, versus say a train, so this is quite doable already - intact there are apps on the market for teen drivers that do just this. That way no texting, or talking while driving.

Dan,

Bluetooth operates at distances of up to 30 feet. I could put my phone in the trunk and still operate it from my truck's stereo. A proximity sensor will not help.

So the proposed ban also covers passengers? They will not be allowed to talk on the phone while the car is moving? Wouldn't your "solution" require the phone itself to activate airplane mode? If the car had the ability to do it, it would be a violation of FCC rules. Hell, state prisons aren't even allowed to jam cell phones, only the federal government can do that. And if this technology is put into the phone, wouldn't that also mean that you could not talk on the phone while on a train or a bus? Couldn't this all be defeated by just using older cell phones, or wait for the hacker community to develop a crack to defeat it? It usually only takes them less than a month to jailbreak a new phone/new operating system.

Wouldn't it just be easier to educate people on the dangers of distracted driving and stop trying to protect people from themselves?

Dan, all well and good until I need to call for an emergency (I just saw a bus load of kids go off a cliff) oh wait i can't call because my phone is disabled. The lawyers for thos dead kids will LOVE that ban....Anyone who supports this has their head up their *** if you ask me....

How is the car going to distinguish who is driving and which cell phone to disable?
Example; Both my husband and I go out, he's driving and both our cells are programed into the hands free (car) system. I'm waiting for an important cell call, so maybe I should stay home because the car is going to disable both cells while we're driving? That's crazy. How will they stop him (the driver) from talking to the person who calls me on my cell?
See? I don't think this is going to work; either it will need to disable ALL cell phone calls while the car is in drive, (or whatever) or there will need to be a way to tell WHO is driving and whose cell needs to be disabled.

If not, I'm sure we can find a lawyer who can figure make it happen.

Which proves once again that just because they make a Law, doesn't mean all people will comply. Especially when they make a stupid nonsensical law like "Not allowed to talk on a HANDS FREE cell when driving". Seriously, that really is unenforceable and stupid.
I will always say I was "singing with the radio" if I'm ever stopped for suspicion of talking on my hands-free. Prove I wasn't....

I think its funny people think a car "only" weighs 2000 lbs. A full size SUV tips the scales at a hefty 5,000 lbs. Oh, and it handles like crap too.

Yeah Dan, many people have no concept of what they're driving. My 1990s American muscle car tips the scales at over 2 tons. That's why they feel they are safe driving and talking and texting, because they have no clue what kind fo weapon they are in control of.

Total deal, and while were at it - make EVERYONE retake the test every 10 years until the age of 65 - where it goes to two years..

I'm so sick of the Nanny State telling us what to do.

Time to get rid of all this socialism. We need to let everyone drive. I mean everyone.

Aren't a ten-year-old's reflexes faster than a Senior's? You bet.

Let's start by lowering the driving age to... when can they reach the pedals?

Yep, that's it. Reach the pedals, you can drive, cell in hand. Beer bottle too.

Damn nannies.

And no seatbelts. They impinge on my freedom to move really, really fast.

Agreed, the rule (law) is already in place. It should be enforced with a cold steel hand. Think of all the ticket money a township could rake in.

No, cops can - on the spot. - http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/what-does-your-phone-know-about-you-more-than-you-think/237786/

Dan- Very interesting article and information! I'm going to be looking into security for my phone, asap.

LOL Touche! Clamdigger, Touche!

Won't work.

You have to pass a test to get an amateur radio license.

Sorry, that's already been happening - google "Carrier IQ" - http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/13/is-the-fbi-using-carrier-iq-for-domestic-surveillance/

EZPass, Your Cell Phone, your Credit Card, Traffic Cameras, Parking Passes, the fact that Shop Rite scans my ID when I buy beer. - if you think you're free you've been duped.

the word is "converse"

Felix, normally I would agree on the liberties being taken away argument, but taking someone's life because you want to discuss something you could easily do earlier or later is certainly not a liberty,

What don't you get about hands free?

In my car, I don't even need to take my cell phone out of my pocket or purse. The call and answering controls are on my steering wheel and the caller information is on my radio... My actual cell phone could even be in the trunk! It really is a stupid law considering hands free is already the law.

I agree with you Linda, We are getting more and more communist as time goes on and it is us(the americans) that is allowing it to happen. We will no longer be the Land of the Free. New Jersey loves taking from there residents. (Always finding ways to squeese a dime form us)

NJ is a Republican majority / conservative state (unfortunately).
Stop with the ridiculous "left wing" blame game. Our Gov. is a (repulsive) republican as well. If this law gets passed, blame the RIGHT people... pun intended.

Get a motorcycle. Don't wear a helmet.

The Commies will thank you.

Uh...yeah John, that's like 5 days old that post.... I already admitted my error, already been called a "moron" by the so-called politically savvy (and rude) posters around here. A little late for the party.... Try to keep up ok?

...why would you want to eat or drink while driving? People are just too into their phones these days. Some need to have them surgically removed!

I am a volunteer Fire Policeman. I have seen people on cell phones being inattentive and I have seen people not using cell phones doing the same thing. It's the driver in each case, not focusing on the situation taking place around him. Let's not go backward into the 20th century. Let's focus on ways to improve the use of these devices for the pleasure and safety of all.

June,

I almost got wiped out this past Tuesday, and would you believe the woman had "choice words" for me because I interrupted her conversation by blowing my horn?

Agree, but you can educate them. Public service announcements that model proper cellphone handling while driving might help. That often means ignoring an incoming call or answering briefly by saying: "Can't talk, I'm in traffic." The driver that thinks s/he can use their gizmo safely while driving is probably the least safe.

But yeah, there will always be distractions. Educate, don't legislate. We all want to be safe.

I've often wondered if it's okay to use a cell phone at a traffic light as long as the vehicle is not in motion.

I believe in many areas its as long as the vehicle is running. I've known people to get seat belt tickets because they were sitting parked with the engine running.

Hey Bob, keep your hands off my hands free !!!! I don't want ANYBODY telling me how to use MY personal electronics I PAY for !!!!! What you consider common sense id just common stupid in my eyes. You want a ban? ban the cars then watch the traffic fatilities and deaths from lung cancer drop through the floor. IDIOT !!!!

DC, you stop the car and call 911 just like you did before you had a cell phone. And an alert about your daughters misfortune took less than a minute to convey, and is not like a 45 minute gossip fest that some drivers have on their cell phone. I am sure that you would agree that your focus went right to your daughters well being and not the child who was in the crosswalk before you (or whatever else was going on outside your car).

…and lest suppose your daughter's injury occurred on the school bus while the bus driver was on a cell phone. Yeah, I'm sure you would be very understanding.

I stand ... err... sit corrected. Ocean County is a Republican voting county... perhaps that's what I was thinking of. But You are (all) right, our legislature does have a majority of dems over repubs.
Still, don't blame this proposed idiotic law on "liberals" or "Left wingers" because all the democratic, or progressive, or "left wingers" I know are very much against nanny-state laws like this. This is simply one of those laws that's stupid all across the board, no matter which side initiated it, or votes for it.

Right after you explain why it seems to be getting blamed on "the libs".

Taken from the site you reference:

Talking on a cell phone causes nearly 25% of car accidents.

LOL Hey morons, what caused the other 75%????? ANSWER: Idiots worried about cell phone bans thats what !!!! Get a life and get out of mine...

Really, what freakin planet is that moron from??? Did she froget about Slime Corzine and all the Democratic damage he did here AND continues to do? NJ has been a Democrat Swamp for decades. Chrisite has only begun to drain the swamp, and let me tell you it's a BIGGGGGGGGGGG swamp to drain.

This "Moron" already admitted her mistake. What are you freakin 12 yrs old with the name calling?

In all fairness the Republican governor who raided the pension plan and all those who have done so since then are all nothing more then political hacks. They play the Democrat and Republican games with the voters and they get rich and we get poor, regardless of political party.

swamps smell even worse when you drain them

I laughed too..Some people should not try to talk politics..

Well said!!!! Its just another tool for government to get some additional revenue.

But do you wear your seat belt??

(I NEVER wore a seat belt... Up until 5 months ago that is- since I can't stand the "BINGing" sound every 30 seconds in my new car, and there is no way to fake out the alarm.)

The victims of this kinda stupidity and their next of kin?

Really a terrorist???? Calling my kids driving home to make sure they are OK makes me a terrorist??? You my friend are the WORST kind of slime to walk the Earth. Maybe you should move to the Middle East and experience real terrorism for yourself. Get a life loser....

It's customary to provide links when quoting statistics.

Bit of a streach with the terrorists comment. This boils down to commone sense. Hand held devices should never be allowed and hands free is no worse than talking to someone next to you in the car. The biggest problem we have is a lack of common sense with both drivers and our legislators. Many of the comments on here are a perfect example of that lack of common sense. No more automatic transmissions, some super blocking device that can distinguish driver from passenger, really people try using that thing between your ears and if we are lucky the legislature will as well.

WDNeedsHelp... You are an admitted law breaker. Just because you have not been in an accident yet, what justifies you breaking the laws here in NJ? What grants “you” immunity? There are a lot of people who drive around while intoxicated on drugs alcohol, etc. and are lucky enough not to have an accident or get caught, does that still make it right? Maybe I should enjoy happy hour cocktails on the road... What the hey! Is what you are admittedly doing right? NO! I hope you get caught and fined before you kill someone.

I do however admire you for being a good parent and checking on your kids, but PLEASE do it while not on the road. I’m sure your children need a good parent around. There is no need to put yourself and others in danger. Turn the tables and think about your child’s future if you were wiped out by a person who is texting while driving. My point is that I fear people who are distracted while driving. But they won't keep me off the road. Those people “terrorize” me. Hence my harsh use of the word (terrorist) because it does command attention. Remember the law is still the law. You need to obey the laws. No exception.

Sincerely,

The WORST kind of slime to walk the Earth who is a no life, but who loves life loser

WDneedshelp is a perfect handle. 6000 deaths not enough.Is there a particular raio of cell calls to deaths thats suitable for you? I just hope when make your urgent call to see how the kiddies are that they are not in an accident answering your call. Where does one apply to be exempt from laws protecting other people, including MY children? Then again I'm sure you could care less as long as your little slice of utopia is not infringed upon

Project Bluebeam Check out the following links:

From the Asbury Park Press 3,092 deaths in 2010 due to distracted drivers: http://www.app.com/article/20111208/NJNEWS18/312080094/More-drivers-texting-wheel-despite-state-bans

From Wikipedia 2,996 deaths at attack time : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

David Smith... I agree with you 100%. I used "terrorism" to grab attention and so that people understand the real problem. Texting and talking on a hand held while driving is not safe for the driver and others. It is just plain stupid behavior no matter what excuse you use.

This is NJ, the same state where people wanted to sue for being without power for a few hours after Hurricane Irene.

Yes, on busy roads with fast speeds and/or traffic (Rt 37. Rt 70, 571, 527, 30, 287, the Parkway, Turnpike, etc) it really can be difficult to pull over - safely. I think banning ** hands-free phones ** is beyond the pale of ridiculous.

Project, there is a difference between a few hours, a few days, and for some a few weeks.

Apparently. We have very important people here that need constant communication for world affairs

Lisa, simple if you don't want to be maimed or killed by a cell phone-talking maniac, stay off the road. Let me give another example to chew on:

I have owned a cell phone since 1990. I use one EVERYDAY in my car since I got my first Nokia handheld in July 1991. During those 4550 days I have not caused a single death, I have not caused a single injury, why hell I haven't even had a single close call. Why, BECAUSE I'M NOT AN IDIOT !!!!

You and your do-gooding pals want to ban a great technology because some moron who couldn't walk and chew gum to start with talked on a cell phone while driving and killed someone. Real intelligent assessment Lisa.

One other question, what are your plans for the driver who WASN'T talking on the cell phone, that drives like an idiot and kills someone? Wheres your bleeding heart then, what are you going to blame then. Lets ban people from driving cars, thats my solution, whats yours?

Hand held bad idea, hands free no worse than talking to the passenger. As with most things common sense and rational thought will win the day.

"Slammed into them while texting"

That is a horse of a different color. Texting is not the same as keeping your eyes on the road while talking on a hands-free phone, though I suppose there are those drivers who probably couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Possibly we can legislate that stupid people can't have a driver's license. That might solve the problem. We don't need any more government interference "for our own good".

Thanks for some sanity, Lisa.

Reading some of these comments makes me realize that we need not only an enhanced cell ban, but to link mental health testing to one's DL renewal.

They are the same idiots that people create teddy bear, candle, and balloon memorials for along our state's roads. Its never their fault, and they are always the victim.

Hey Dave, here's some more whine for ya, what about the lady who blasted me on my motorcycle? She wasn't talking on a cell phone, they weren't even invented for the masses yet. She wasn't eating a hoagie or putting on her makup. She was alone in the car, SHE WAS A MINDLESS IDIOT. She didn't have the brain power to wind a watch but some dunce at the State gave her a drivers license.

Ban IDIOTS, not cell phones and the world will be a much better place....

Oh and by the way Dave, if I did have a cell phone on me when I was hit I would have been able to call for help and not lay there for 45 minutes waiting for one of the gawkers driving by to finally call the police. Idiot.....

Aaah... so THAT'S what's wrong with you, WD.....

Ban NOTHING !!!! This is America folks and if I want to text on my phone, eat a pizza, tune my radio, lower my AC and brush my hair while driving MY car then I will. Lets ban idiots who want bans and make the world a better place....

Now lets say the woman was smoking a cigarette and dropped the lit butt between her leggs. Same scenario, different cause, your examples are mindless dribble....

Mindless Dribble? Sounds more like your posts WDNeedsHelp. I'm sure when you get rear ended by a person talking on a phone, or texting - you'll be the first to grab your neck and call a lawyer. and yes, has per your example of dropping a lit cig. - its also against the law - and the driver would be found at fault as per the NJ laws I posted above - but I guess since you did not read the links you would still pound your chest and call people terrorists.

http://www.texastriallawyers.com/blog/smoking-while-driving-is-distracted-driving/
(Link to clearly liberal Texas Law Site.. clearly, they are terrorists..!)

http://njsaferoads.com/phone_down_overview.html

Did you read the fact sheet? http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/fact_sheets/PED_Ban_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Yes, along with this ruling should come MANDATORY driver reduction every "X" number of years. Driving laws and rules change, they are updated - and the public should be retested to verify they get the main idea.

Your're right and those same 90 year olds also have cell phone privileges if they choose.

Damn oldsters. They want to drive *and* vote?

Unacceptable.

Soylent Green is what I say.

Granny might be stringy, but at least she'll be off the road.

Yes CBC. We have a lot of privileged people that are above the law. They can choose which ones they obey

Thanks CBC...great question.

And so far as the gentleman was who admitted that he breaks the law regularly...he better hope he never has an at fault accident, because lawyers are now normally checking out online for suits. An admission of guilt...with a name and a date? Stick him with a fork...he's done.

A totally logical comment. That being said I'm sure you are not in our legislature because they have no idea of that type of thinking. The only thing I would change is not returning the phone, consider it part of the fine. However, there is no reason make hands free devices illegal we don't drive is a totally silent bubble and there can be no legitimate argument that can distinguish between talking on a hands free device and talking to the person next to you or behind you. In fact, talking to a person behind you would be exactly the same thing.

Special K, logically there is no difference between hands free device and speaking to a person in your back seat. The rest of your comment is absolutely true.

Great idea, Chris.

In fact, in solidarity, I shall refuse to call the cops if I see a woman being raped.

I mean, fair is fair.

Yep.

CB radios.

Last time I saw one is use was 1981.

Other than that, great argument.

Hi Rick, there are hundreds of thousands of over the road and commercial truck drivers that still use CB's on a daily basis.

I have a handheld/portable unit I keep for long trips and emergency purposes.

Let's play the odds then... chances of being rear-ended by a professional long-distance trucker on his CB... one in a million.

Chances of being rear-ended by a teenager texting that she went all the way with Bill last night... one in - BAM!

Whatever you can do?

Sleep?

Masturbate?

Fire a shotgun?

This is the problem. Damn commie state... you can't masturbate in your sleep and fire a shotgun while you drive.

Nannies nannies everywhere...

sounds like you have taken matters into hand while driving ... i am sure it was just a small violation.

hello Diana, then they should ban the bimbos who put on that eye makeup while driving too. I bet you got you neck brace already in the car for when that accident happens, you just can't wait for that payday. If it ever does you better hope they have good ins. because if they don't you're gettin' nuttin' but a bunch of headaches.

Make sure you pay extra on your insurance for the limited tort option.

There is a sound ordnance in Brick, but it is rarely enforced. In most residential neighborhoods it is in effect 24/7.
http://www.ecode360.com/6900864

Laughter is about 60 decibels. The town sets the residential limit between 50 and 55.
If you have flash you can see the conversion chart From the National institution of health.
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/education/decibel/pages/decibel.aspx

Come on Mattie...Let's be serious here. I ride a motorcycle and many times a Motorcycle is much safer than a car. It is smaller and easier to handle out of some sticky situations that a car cannot. However, a crash usually causes more life threatening injuries....unless of cource you drive a smart car. The majority of Motorcycle drivers over a certain age are very safe.

Mattie do you know how ignorant you sound. You are lumping all bikers into one group. I am probably one of the safest drivers out there, weather in a car or on a bike. My point was the road should be safe for everyone and to think about that before deciding to be distracted while operating any vehicle. There are bad drivers no matter what vehicle is being driven. Being in a car surrounded by sheet metal is obviosly giving you a false sense of protection. The realization of just how many bad and or distracted drivers there are out there is really brought to light when you are on the road without that cage around.

Well said Mr Stewart. enough said....

Yes, Joe, you got my point exactly.... majority of motor cycle riders are very safe. the majority of (car) drivers are very safe too! So just because I don't believe there's anything wrong with talking on a hands free cell because the MAJORITY of us can absolutely handle that kind of "distraction" just fine, don't lump me in with "idiots" who can't.

Tailgunner... you missed the point. But you got to call me ignorant... so I guess you feel good about yourself now.

Know what they call cyclists in the ER?

Organ donors.

"Our" nose?

Sounds... socialist.

Awesome. You'll have lots of time to campaign against Obama if all your loved ones are turned to red road jelly by a teen texting something really important on her cell.

As Karl used to sort of say: Nimrods of the world, unite!

Right, because this is Obama's personal crusade... Banning hands-free cell talking in NJ. Yeah, it's one of his biggest campaign promises, isn't it?
Yeah, just the other day Obama said: "NO CELL PHONE TALKING IN NJ! There needs to be a LAW! and when I'm re-elected in 2012 my first priority will be to implement this law, against the wishes of all the SANE people of New Jersey...
and Chris Christie the Republican Governor of NJ will have to fight me tooth and nail to stop me!" uh-huh. Obama's fault...

Rick, you are my personal hero. thank you. I was about to respond as well. You said it much better then me. KILL TROLLS IN 2012!

Traffic and motor vehicles are left to the states by the federal govt. That's why there isn't a national driver's license or plates. So don't blame the president. Use your cell phone while driving to call or text-message "your" governor instead.

Correction Martin...."your" republican governor AND "your" democrat-controlled legislature. Neither can pass a bill without the other.

But a governor CAN veto a bill.... if he's against it and has the b*lls to stick to his guns. Not going to happen with Christie, he loves this stuff. Just like he loves effin' with the new Medical Marijuana regulations for the last 2 yrs - holding everything up.
I know two chemo patients myself who would have been helped a great deal by medical marijuana a year or so ago. But christie is playing games and setting up his friends in $$ making positions, first.
He could just as easily veto this stupid cell phone bill - if he wanted to.

Sure the governor can veto a bill.....and the dem majority can keep it from even coming to a vote.

....and how did we get on the topic of medical marijuana anyway? I thought we were talking about cell phone laws? Stay on topic please.

@ Shore Skeptic - this is already NJ law. When it becomes federal law, and part of the FMVSS, NJ has a choice.

Either allow no sales of cars in the state, OR force auto makers to make a model just for NJ so people can talk on the phone and drive - at which point such cars could not be sold out of state.

California does this all the time, given the size of the state they can pressure auto makers to make a car just for them. However, after a time, auto makers realized this was not cost effective and now all cars are 50 state legal. * (exception on a few diesel models). Hence the term "California Emissions" or "49 states car" in the industry.

Shore asked: "....and how did we get on the topic of medical marijuana anyway? I thought we were talking about cell phone laws? Stay on topic please."

Sorry, my personal involvment with cancer pts has made that topic important to me... I take any opportunity to remind voters what we're waiting for from Christie. (And we did kinda go off into the whole political process thing for a moment).

But Stay on Topic? OK, Mommy/Daddy, I'll try. :-)

Ok Randall...I gotta say this. For every senior out there driving slow, there are 10 soccer moms in mini vans sipping latte while talking on the cell phone and reaching into the back see to make sure junior isn't spilling his sippy cup. They speed, swerve, and cut people off. Factor in the afore mentoned twentysomethings and the contractor vans riding up your **, and thus the Jersey Shore isn't a nice place to drive.

@ Shore Skeptic - Like 100X!

http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/CellPhonesandDrivingReport.pdf

and

http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml

and

http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf

and the list goes on... and on.. and on..

IMHO this is not a law where "IMHO" comes into play. When deaths come into play IMHO leads to more deaths IMHO.

And your IMHO is why you don't make laws.

Certainly Mr. Malta's comments carry substantial merit. Police do have much more emergent matters to tend to. And that is why I am a supporter of the new technology being developed in Japan.

The real tragedy is that many motorists simply lack the maturity and concern for others to recognize that diverting their attention from the road when driving is both selfish and dangerous. This is what gave birth to red light and speed detection cameras.

Nonetheless, I am hopeful cellular phone usage is soon illegal. We did this to ourselves. The statistics are clear and the dangers are very, very real.

Just ask anyone whose loved ones have been injured or killed because some clown was too busy tending to a cellular communication rather than focusing on the road.

"And I'm sure when there are federal hearings about the new law for cars/phones going in place - there will be a mile long list of people who have had family injured or killed due to phone use in cars.

Meanwhile the people who are saying "I'm a great driver, this law does not apply to me!" will fall silent, as people here don't even seem to read the state links provided about the existing law."

I don't see the problem with using a hands free cell phone while driving. I do. I have no problems with it. At all.

The thing is that's not nearly as dramatic as a story about how someone you loved die in a car accident caused by someone texting on talking directly on a cell phone. The reality is that most people who use hands free devices don't get into accidents, any more than people do who fiddle with the radio. There are tons of people who follow the law in NJ and don't use a cell phone that isn't hooked up to a hands free device. They don't get into accidents. They also don't make the NEWS, so it's as if they and their non-accidents don't exist.

"America has become the land of "I'm louder and dumber then your - so I am RIGHT". "

Oh, for heaven's sake. Stop exaggerating. It's boring.

I think you just proved my point.

Dan, that is true but not everyone agrees that it is a privilege, many believe it is a right and considering the freedom of movement American's enjoy they have a reasonable argument.

David, while may may think that, its simply not true. Until the goverment bans walking along the Appalachian trail, taking a bus, riding a bike, horse, or a lawn tractor across country - its a privilege in all 50 states to able to drive a car. And what many people think does not make a law, unless you can get it amended to the constitution. At which point I'm sure someone would stand up and start shouting about illegal aliens, people on parole, and so on.

In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive.

“Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied.”

In order to legally drive, the state requires people to be of age and have a valid operator’s permit.

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

Case law also holds that the safety of the public can outweigh the ability of the individual to drive.

If someone has compiled a critical mass of moving violations or if the person drives drunk or high, the state holds that the person poses a threat to the people around him.

“In the wrong hands or with an inexperienced driver, a motor vehicle can become a weapon,” Woodhams said.

Dan, I believe I acknowledged that I just said some do not agree. We have a right to apply for a licence and maintain one as long as we obey the rules.

Well said.

As much as I hate that idea, its a really good one. BUT what about uninsured drivers?

Dan you simply can not make laws to cover every possible bad idea, bad habit, or bad driver. There are already known laws and penalties for uninsured drivers, won't matter how they got in an accident, just the fact they are on the road is enough.

Sure, uninsured drivers wouldn't be affected, but they would have much bigger problems if they were in an accident independent of cell phone use. You can't solve anything as complex as this 100%, but I'm all for the classic 80/20 rule. Something like this would solve 80% of the problem now with 20% of the effort of an all out ban.

Dan,

I haven't checked yet, but at least when I was in NY, part of a policy requirement was insurance for the uninsured, to cover you in case of an accident with an uninsured driver. I don't know if NJ requires the same.

Don't know if you are aiming that comment at me, Dan or not, but it's not about me thinking I'm entitled or that Im a safer driver than anyone else. but the facts are I really *can* talk and drive at the same time and Ive been driving since 1973. the only two accidents I was involved in were because people hit me and not my fault in any way. And both accidents were way before everyone had cell phones.
Im an excellent driver. my record proves it - not my imagination.

Dan, now don't take this the wrong way, but I'm getting the feeling you have a "dog in this race".
Are you a LEO? Are you working for someone (or the owner of a business) who would manufacture or otherwise profit from a new ban such as the one you're 1000% behind? You seem way more interested and adamant than the average driver who's merely pissy about cell phone users...

Well, I actually am "a safe and good driver," and in NJ, I am allowed to use a cellphone, as long as it's hands free. What's your problem? Why so totalitarian? Why do people who obey the law, like me, bother you so much?

I work with cars for a living, I teach how to repair cars on a college level in Philadelphia. I've enjoyed cars my whole life, the entire aspect is fascinating to me. I'm an ASE master tech, and hold several state certifications in regards to vehicle safety and emissions. I also enjoy computers, and I am a computer programer, so the two are naturally joined when you start talking about how people use modern technology in a vehicle. In short my job is to educate people about things. That's all I'm trying to do here.

I hold no stake at if/when this law passes. I'm just trying to correct peoples misconceptions of what and why such a law/federal ruling may be passed down soon. Many people have no concept of the current state rulings on things as well.

I get very passionate about trying to explain things to people, ask my students, its what I do. I'll use real world examples, facts, and humor to try to get my point across.

I've lived in Jersey my whole life. I have a wife and son. My wife has been hit two times in two years due to distracted drivers. One was an 18 wheeler who in 2008 totaled our car, the other was an older driver who blew a stop sign one block from our house and totaled our (now new from the previous accident) 2009 car.

Thankfully neither accident resulted in any personal injury, but it just reinforces my statement here.

@ Katy, no, its fine. The current hands free law is not a problem, however the mere act of even glancing down at your phone takes your eyes off the road.. is the problem.. as the studies I posted show.

A true voice integrated system is needed where the phone's screen is not visible and no tactile input is needed from the driver in regards to the phone. Some cars have this, most don't and if they do - the average person has no idea how to pair the phone to the car.

And, the 18 wheeler that rear ended my Wife on 676, was a professional driver, with over a million miles of road time. He was texting. The state trooper at the accident scene verified this with his account of the accident.

Thank you Dan for explaining your passion about this topic. I understand your perspective. But the reality is (and I think you really know this) you can't legislate away bad drivers, or distractions.
If it's not a cell phone distraction, it could be anything else- an animal crossing the road, the radio, a leg cramp, a purse sliding off the seat, kids playing along a street - anything can distract a driver for that horrible split second.

Dan, you said you have a young son. You're going to tell me when he's in the car you never, ever, EVER take your eyes off the road to see what he's doing? Never, ever?
The truth is that people have multitasked since cars were invented. No one drives in a car and does nothing BUT keep their eyes on the road and hands at the 10 and 2 o'clock positions ALL the time.
I know how the world should be, and your desire to have the govt make everything perfectly safe, all the time, for everyone, forever. But that isn't how the world is, or how the world will be. No law will make it so. It's simply unrealistic. So the best you can hope for is for people to follow the law and realize their limitations; i.e., that if you aren't a very good driver, you shouldn't be doing more than one thing at a time, and the one thing you should be focusing on is keeping your eyes on the road.
There aren't enough cops in the world to fulfill all the laws you want to enact, including the laws that exist NOW. More laws aren't going to change a thing, just annoy people (like me.) The conclusion isn't that we need more laws, the conclusion is that we should focus on enforcing the laws that exist now.
It's great you teach auto mechanics. I'm a little unclear, however, what special expertise that gives you regarding cell phone use in cars.

@ Katy,

I do glance back (VIA the vanity mirror) to see what he has in his hands, but I also tell him that if he needs anything (Food, juice, toy, whatever) that I'll get it at the next red light for him. He totally understands that.

And because of that distraction, I don't use the phone in the car - he's already a distraction. I'm hyper aware of my surroundings when he's in the car. I'll even go as far to move away from cars, or drivers I feel are just being unsafe, or not paying attention. He has to pay attention too. No DVD players, no iPads, you look out at the world and observe kid. *exception, on long road trips +3 hours the iPad is a nice treat.

My thinking is, the law will come down some day, or a technology will come along to make it safer. That's just how things are. I was only trying to show people the reasons for the law, or how it might be enacted. It won't even be a "law" as in people have to follow the rules. Like dipsticks in engines and transmissions, they will just be taken away from the public.

What makes me an expert? Nothing, other than that I read automotive technical journals, I am a member of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), and that I had to go to college in order to learn how to properly diagnose and repair a vehicle. Which is a lot more that most others do on this topic. I've only used links found online to reinforce my facts. So far I have yet to see others do so as well.

For example, - http://papers.sae.org/2009-01-0786

http://www.iihs.org/presentations/IIHS_2010-29-1.pdf

Please look at them, as I have to educate yourself on the matter.

Dan... Looking at the data in the graphs in the link to the PDF you sent, the research seems to show that there is no measurable impact from enacting a ban on hand-held cell phone use. In fact, the presentation actually states:
"Collision claim frequency has been unaffected by state bans on hand-held phone usage by drivers"

That would suggest to me that a federal government ban on usage may not be the best course of action. Perhaps an education campaign would be more effective than another tough to enforce law.

Very true, and its sad. And it points out that even with a ban in effect, not much changes. I totally agree the driving public needs to be seriously educated on the issue - which some say - it has been - but clearly its not working - and thus we will loose our toys.

Driving public is clueless on all sorts of things, take tires for example, the TPMS now in all new vehicles is a perfect example. We warned people for years about tire pressure and the drastic effects it has on MPG and how well a car handles - and it was not until the great Firestone/Ford Explorer fiasco where tire pressures were to blame for the treads blowing off the tires - and sending SUVs off to roll over into a ditch - did the Government have hearings and step in and make TPMS mandatory on all new cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire-pressure_monitoring_system

Its an example that people could have totally prevented by just checking tire pressure - but now added cost (to the maker and the customer) and "nanny" lights on the dash are the end result.

I suspect phones will go the same route, that's all I'm saying here.

I don't think cell phone blocking technology will go the same route as TPMS. It's a much more complicated issue. The devices necessary to make a technical solution work would be much more expensive than a simple TPMS and you would need to coordinate between cell phone manufacturer and car manufacturers. People will notice the price increases in their phone and their cars to make everything possible. Then you throw into the mix that the federal government doesn't have the right to ban driver cell phone use nation wide, each state must do it. Much like DUI standards, they can strongly encourage states to adopt legislation by withholding highway funds, but if Texas doesn't want to ban it, they don't have to. This just causes a real mess without pushing forward a real workable solution which is why I think government forcing on everything isn't the solution. We should be looking to the free market like the insurance companies to solve this one.

@ Ballot - True, its going to be complicated. Like I said before I think your idea is great even though I hate the idea of giving insurance companies more power.

Anthony, then don't use a hands free cellphone while you drive if it's beyond your abilities. That's the good thing about a free society; you don't have to do what other people do. But you don't get to tell others what to do when they are obeying the law that exists.

Anthony, how is talking on a hands free device different than talking to a passenger, especially if the person is behind the driver? Just curious.

David,
The data show that reaction time, peripheral vision, etc. are adversely affected when talking on a phone, handheld or hands free, in a way that occurs less when talking to a passenger. The data do not explain why, of course, but a plausible hypothesis could be that the brain, relying on only one sensory input (sound) has to focus more on that, while a person right next to you sees, hears, your gestures as well as the sound. Further, when a sudden road emergency appears, the driver has no need to explain/apologize to the passenger for sudden interruption of the conversation; there is a strong feeling of need to do that to a person on the phone who can't see what is happening. Regardless of reason, it's what happens.
As for why peripheral vision decreases, that's surprising, but maybe it's the same thing: the brain needing to focus strongly on the one sensory input. I have seen this phenomenon for myself when I have nearly been hit by cellphone drivers not seeing me when I was in plain view.
I don't recommend looking at your passenger as you talk, however!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXxE-1SiRw8&feature=colike

Anthony, I can see perhaps some of that happening if you were speaking to a passenger right next to you but it still doesn't explain talking to someone behind the driver. Maybe it has something to do with how the brain works as you suggest. Hands free still seems no worse than any of the other distractions drivers face. We just don't drive in a bubble with no distractions. Hand held phone use is just plain stupid, I actually yell at my kids when they know I'm commuting home and they call to ask some stupid question that could wait the 30 min it takes me to get home.

Sadly Herky, its not just NJ, its America. Common sense is not so common anymore.

Herky - Common sense can be taught, but its not something you learn in school. Its something you learn at home and if parents don't instill critical thinking and reasoning in children at an early age, they won't learn it as adults.

David you make a good point. When I drive, I assume that every driver is distracted or under the influence. Call it offensive driving with a good defense.

Gal, The fact that this guy was just as bad about obeying the laws doesn't excuse you using your phone while driving. To even complain about his behavior while freely disobeying the law only makes you and him hypocritical. Hope you don't hurt someone happily chatting away on your phone while driving and I hope the speed demon doesn't do the same while driving 30 mph over the speed limit.

DS - you are just a dude of a different color but a dude all the same.

There's no factual proof to support a ban on cell phones. The fraction of motor vehicles deaths as a percent of the US population is at an all time low since the1930's (NHTSA). This fact is also true for recent years in which cell phone use has risen in popularity.

Your arguement is based on 1) emotion - not facts 2) respect for the law and 3) respect for the legislators who wrote and passed the law - the same august body that made it illegal to pump your own gas!

The ban on cell phone use is without merit. This does not mean that drivers using phones will not crash. The safest option is not to drive.

Peace

Gal does that mean your argument is based on a lack of emotion and disrespect for the law? If so just pay your fines and try not to kill someone while your chatting away. I won't use a handheld device and I won't speed 30 mph over the speed limit. I guess that's why in 30 plus years of driving and close to 500,000 miles I have only one ticket and no accidents. Your claim that talking on a handheld device while driving does not distract the driver is just not true. As a fellow Lawrenceville driver I would prefer you don't take my life in your hands while you chat away. It seems to me you could care less over those you endanger and the glib manner in which you do so shows your immaturity. Only the young and dumb think nothing bad will ever happen to them.

He probably saw your erractic driving that you weren't even aware of before you stopped at the light. Every time someone is driving erratically or too slow, when you finally catch up to them, there is that stupid phone in their hand, breaking the law without a care in the world. Are you that important that you need to be in constant contact with someone 24 hours a day......I think not.

Real men follow laws. Aren't you past the bad girl stage yet? That explains a lot. By all means pump your own gas but how about you get a hands free set up. I'm sure a few less songs on your IPod won't kill you but talking on your phone may kill you or worse yet kill someone else. Time to grow up and act like an adult. I wonder if you took the time to look at some of the links on here about hand held devices. I guess facts have no merit. P.s. Your don't need to respect every law, few do, but you should follow them.

Drive safely and I wish everyone have a happy and holy Hanukkah and Christmas!

You too Gal, maybe you'll get a hands free device for Chrismas and or Hanukkah.

Que the Judeo-Christian bashers...

Joe in this case I would say it's exactly the kind of answer you got and for exactly the reason you gave. That analogy just hit the mark so hard it automatically required an insult from one so young and immature. When you can't intelligently prove your point you must go somewhere else with the discussion. The thing that concerns me more is the fact they know they are wrong and they just don't care. I do hope she knows something put on the Internet is always available and if involved in an accident with a cell phone her comments here may be used against her. Especially if she made these comments from a cell phone. Moreover, whats with the pumping your own gas comments? Who hasn't done that in New Jersey from time to time when the attendant is chatting on their cell phones?

They fiddled with the radio, put lipstick on, combed their hair, drank their coffee, ate their donuts, shaved, plucked eye brows, checked their teeth, chewed their nails, scrambled in their purse, dug into pockets, put on their ties, smoked cigarettes, ate candy, looked through their 8-tracks, then cassette tapes, then CDs, screamed at the kids in the back seat, held a little dog on their lap, looked around for toll change, asked their kids a hundred questions about school or homework, fiddled with the heat- or AC, tried to adjust the windshield wipers to just the right speed, ALL While Driving.

Pony Express, carrier pigeons, semaphore, telegraph...