Nevada: Cell phone laws, legislation

Last updated: May 14, 2014
nevada flag for distracted driving postCell, texting news: The Nevada Highway Patrol issued about 12,000 electronic distracted driving tickets in 2012. Jan. 1 was the first anniversary of full enforcement of the bans on texting or talking on a cell phone while driving.

While the Highway Patrol notes that the distracted driving law is “being ignored” by many drivers, relatively few repeat violations were reported. There were 30 second-time offenders and 25 third-timers in 2012, the Highway Patrol reported Jan. 2. May saw the most ticketing.

Fines are $50 (first offense), then $100 (second) and then $250 (subsequent violations). Court costs typically double the cost to the driver. Repeat offenders are subject to points against the driver’s license.

Enforcement of the Nevada bans is primary, meaning drivers can be stopped and cited for that reason alone. Cell phone use is allowed only if a hands-free accessory is employed throughout the call.

Key provisions:

  • First offenses are not considered moving violations.
  • Laws do not apply to GPS systems “affixed to the vehicle.”
  • Previous infractions do not affect new fines after seven years. Example: A repeat violator would be considered a first offender if seven years have passed since the original conviction.
  • Licensed two-way radio use is permissible if the unit is not hand held, except for the microphone.

Nevada was the 34th state to ban texting while driving.

Current prohibitions:

  • All drivers are barred from using handheld cell phones.
  • Text messaging and related activities prohibited for all drivers.

Read Nevada’s distracted driving law.

Distracted driving notes (2013):
The Nevada Highway Patrol says many distracted driving violations occurred when a vehicle was stopped at a red light. “Maybe in a driver’s own mind they feel they are not driving when they are stopped at a red light, but the law states it is illegal,” NHP spokesman Chuck Allen said in early January.

The NHP now is using Facebook and Twitter to issue traffic alerts. “It was only natural to gravitate toward social media,” said Public Safety director Chris Perry. One obvious complication: The alerts aren’t to be read by people who are driving. “We in no way want to make this appear that public safety is contradicting the (distracted driving) law,” Perry says.

2012 distracted driving notes:
The Henderson Police Department reports it handed out 351 citations for using handheld devices during the ban’s first month.

The Nevada DOT says there are more than 3,500 distraction-related crashes in the state every year, with more than 60 deaths reported in the past five years. Its advice for avoiding cell phone tickets? “Before driving, secure your cellphone in a place such as the glove box where you will not be able or tempted to access it while driving.”

2011 legislation:
SB 140: Would outlaw text messaging and using handheld cell phones while driving in Nevada. Would prevent cities and counties from creating similar laws. Original bill’s fines: $250 (first offense), then $500, then $1,000 plus license suspension of six months. Fines doubled in highway work zones. Warnings until Jan. 1, 2012. Amended and approved by the Senate Transportation Committee on March 17. Amendments approved by voice vote in Senate on April 22. Amended bill’s fines: $50/$100/$250. No license suspensions. Approved by the Senate in a 12-9 vote on April 26. OK’d by the Assembly in a 24-7 vote on May 30. The Senate’s final approval (a voice vote) came June 4 and the measure was then approved by the governor. A warning period began Oct. 1 and the prohibitions went into full effect Jan. 1, 2012. (Breeden)

AB 151: Would ban text messaging and use of handheld cell phones while driving in Nevada. Fines: $50 (first offense), $100 (second) and $250 (third). If a death or “substantial body harm” results from violation, prison term of 1-6 years with fines of $2,000-$5,000. Would end local traffic regulation of texting and cell phones. Warnings until Dec. 31, 2011. Amended (to add handheld cell phones to original bill’s texting ban) and approved by the Assembly Committee on Transportation in a 12-3 vote on March 29. Latest legislative action: Rereferred to Committee on Ways and Means on April 19. See SB 140, above. (Atkinson)

Senate Bill 76: Seeks to ban text messaging and use of handheld cell phones. Hands-free accessories OK for cell phones. GPS allowed. Also targets Internet use and any “non-verbal” communication. Dead as of April 16. (Public Safety Dept. via Senate Transporation Committee)

SB 145: Would prohibit drivers under the age of 18 from texting and using cell phones. Penalties to be determined by juvenile court, which would be directed to treat violations in school zones more seriously. Dead as of April 16. (Manendo)

AB 173: Would prohibit texting and the use of handheld cell phones by all Nevada drivers. If a death or “substantial body harm” results from violation, prison term of 1-6 years with fines of $2,000-$5,000. Dead as of April 16. (Munford)

2011 distracted driving notes:
The bill behind Nevada’s handheld electronic device law, SB 140, was approved by Gov. Brian Sandoval, who had made it clear that he would support a statewide ban on text messaging while driving. The Assembly’s final vote came May 30, 2011, and the Senate signed off June 4.

Sen. Shirley Breeden was the bill’s author. Her texting bill of 2010 failed to get out of committee, but, undaunted, she added handheld cell phones to 2011 plan. “We’re going to go for the whole enchilada in this thing,” Breeden said of the addition of cell phones to the 2011 legislation.

The Senate watered down Breeden’s texting & talking ban on April 26, lowering fines to match the Assembly’s version in order to get a distracted driving bill through.

In 2010, Breeden, D-Henderson saw her no-texting bill die in committee. This year she succeeded in getting the measure through the Legislature — as the new chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee — and onto the law books.

The Assembly Transportation Committee heard arguments pro and con on Senate Bill 140. The Office of Traffic Safety, which supports the bill, told the May 12 hearing that the number of accidents blamed on distracted driving had decreased from 2008 to 2009. Assemblyman Scott Hammond, R-Clark, said he feared that accidents would occur because drivers would be further distracted by trying to hide their phones. The panel also heard from families who lost loved ones to distracted drivers. No action was taken during the hearing.

Senate Minority Leader Mike McGinness of Fallon was the only Republican to vote in favor of Senate Bill 140.

Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, said the lowered fines inserted into SB 140 were necessary to move the distracted driving bill out of committee. (The full Senate later approved the lowered fines.)

Assemblyman Harvey Munford, D-Las Vegas, asked that Assemblymen Kelvin Atkinson amend his AB 151 to add a ban on handheld cell phone use to its texting prohibitions. The change was made in late March 2011, as Atkinson’s bill advanced from the Transportation Committee.

Munford says of his own AB 173, which would ban use of handheld cell phones and text messaging devices while behind the wheel: “This was constituent-driven. I was contacted by one family who lost a loved one and it was proven that the person was using a cell phone,” he told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

The Nevada Department of Public Safety is behind SB 76 (BDR 43-461), which would prohibit texting. In November 2010, the state Transportation Department banned its employees from distracted driving.

Nevada’s No Phone Zone campaign kicked off in November 2010.

Richard and Jenifer Watkins of Las Vegas were among the victims who spoke at the Second Distracted Driving Summit in September 2010. They suffered severe injuries when hit by a cell phoning driver in 2004.

Distracted driving has been cited as the No. 1 cause of fatal traffic accidents in Nevada. At least 63 deaths have been caused by distracted drivers in the past five years, officials say.

2009 legislation (dead):
SB 136: Would prohibit text messaging while driving on Nevada’s roads. OK’d by the full Senate vote on April 8, 2009, but died in committee in the Assembly. The wording was resurrected in the Senate on the final day of the legislative session and folded into an unrelated motorcycle bill, SB 309.

2009 legislation notes:
New state Sen. Shirley Breeden, D-Henderson, authored the 2009 texting bill. “I’m not going to give up the fight,” she said after SB 136 was smothered by an Assembly committee. (Update: Breeden is now the transportation committee chairman.)

The text messaging legislation received strong support from law officers in an Assembly hearing on April 23. The fine would be $75 but no points.

“This legislation is not just for children,” she said. “It is for all of us.” Numerous states are banning texting and cell phoning for teenage drivers, and opposition has emerged to the bills because they do not cover adults. Young drivers complain that they are being singled out. Teenagers, by far, are the largest consumers of text messaging services.

The Nevada Senate’s Energy, Infrastructure and Transportation Committee amended and approved the anti-texting and driving bill SB 136 on March 27, 2009.

Breeden’s bill was first considered in the Senate Energy, Infrastructure and Transportation Committee on Feb. 18. The usual enforcement questions were raised. Committee chairman Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, said: “If California can pass (a texting bill) with 36 or 37 million people over there, somehow their law enforcement is working with this new law, so you know, we need to make the same statement.”

A spokesman for the state Office of Traffic Safety said it may not take a position on Breeden’s plan to outlaw text messaging by drivers, or on similar legislation to prohibit the use of cell phones not connected to hands-free devices.

The 2007 legislative session saw only one bill regarding drivers and cell phones: a plan to ban drivers under 18 from using the wireless devices.

Nevada’s regular legislative session began Feb. 2, 2009, and ended June 1.

Sen. Dennis Nolan, R-Las Vegas, the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said of cell phone driving legislation: “Knowing our Legislature, it will have a tough time. Nevadans are independent and like their liberties.”

In 2003 Nevada prohibited local governments from regulating cell phones in automobiles.

Comments

  1. Sandy Watkins says:

    I am very interested in the cell phone law being passed. This is a subject that hits home closely. My son and his wife were the victims of a car accident as a result of someone talking on their cell phone while driving. Their lives are not the same since the accident.

  2. Pat Más says:

    Virtually without exception, each and every time I drive, it is necessary to dodge vehicles driven recklessly by persons distracted by cell phones – either having them plastered to the sides of their heads or gazing at them while in their hands, with the road being ignored. My well-honed defensive driving skills are all that stand between these impaired drivers and my death – or the deaths of my passenger children and grandchildren. The ages of these people run the gamut, but the vast majority are women in their 20’s and 30’s driving SUVs, most of whom have child restraint seats in their vehicles – often with children in them. This unconscionably dangerous behavior puts not only their defenseless children at great risk of serious injury or death, but society in general. Laws to protect the innocent from persons too stupid and arrogant to conduct themselves responsibly do not fare well in Nevada due to a misguided anti-legislation mindset that perceives laws to protect the rest of us from the dangerous morons in our midst as infringing upon their “liberties.” Studies have shown that cell phone use while driving results in impairment exceeding that of intoxication – and yet we have DUI laws but allow cell phone use. This is not rational. How many people must be maimed or die before the State of Nevada pulls its collective head out of its collective arse?

  3. Don’t hate because u people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time,if u can’t talk on your phone and drive that’s your proublem if other people can take care of there matters while driving let the be and u go on a head with your boaring life and leave the texting and the phone talkers alone.

  4. Laurel Robbins says:

    My 10-year-old grandson was in the crosswalk with his mother when a pickup truck driven by a woman on her cell phone came around the corner and struck him. Fortunately, he was not seriously hurt because my daughter saw the truck and pushed him out of the way. You have to be fully in the moment when driving a lethal weapon, and not distracted by using a cell phone. If there is any way I can help to get this legislation passed, I will do so.

  5. In the state of California there is a “hands free” law. It should be passed in every state. I received a $142.00 ticket for talking on a cell phone. This law should be passed all over the country.

  6. I am Sandy Watkins’ sister. As Sandy stated, this hits home. Richard and Jenifer’s lives have been deeply affected by this horrific car accident, as well as Sandy’s and mine. Jenifer and Richard were seriously injured as the result of this accident. This is no joking matter. This bill must be passed and we need everyone to help get this law passed.

  7. As to Pat Mas, I congratulate you for your concerns and agree with you totally. As for Catherine in CA, I also agree with you. As for Stephan, noone hate anyone, whether they talk or text on the phone. We just want those people realize the dangers of it and deadly it can be. These laws are to protect the innocent. To protect those from people who are irresponsible and either don’t care or realize the consequences of their behavior behind the wheel. Too many people have died or been seriously injured and their lives changed forever. How would you feel if you did this to someone or if you did this to yourself and how it would affect your family and the other families? Also, we need more people like Laurel Robbins and others to step up and help fight to pass a law to ba cell phone use while driving.

  8. This is the law that needs to be passed here. We have too many distracted drivers on the roads today hell most people in Vegas cannot drive in the rain, so why give that person a phone to talk to their little kid buddy while driving?. However I think that the laws need to be a bit more strict on people and use of cell phones with in a motor vehicle. The laws are too lean in today’s society and people need to have discipline in their lives. I see so many undisciplined people today why give them the freedom to weak a life and home. Its not a right to own a cell its only a privilege. …

  9. Thank you so much for your comment, Devin J. We do have too many distracted drivers here in Vegas. My family and I are working on trying to have a law passed to prohibit cell phone use while driving, both talking and texting here in Nevada. Please try to get some momentum going on this matter. Talk to your representatives about this. Too many lives are being shattered and changed forever because of this. Again, thanks so much for your support.

  10. February 2011, the Nevada legislature will be meeting regarding passing the distracted driving bill and bills similar to this. Please contact your legislture and remind him/her the importance of passing these bills. Also if you wil not be able to travel to Carson City for this very important session, it should be televised at the Grant Sawyer Bldg on E. Washington Ave and Las Vegas, Blvd. N across form Cashman Field. Please go to http://www.nv.legislature.gov for updated session meetings and to find out who your representtives are. Please everyone this is very important. Our family has been deeply effected by this and so proud of Jenifer to step up and fight to pass this law and continue to make awareness.

  11. stefan J. says:

    Like the first Stefan said,you always got somebody making somekind of f..k up law,first it was the seat belt, that don’t always saves lives now u telling us we can’t talk on our own dam phones just because some people can’t talk and pay attention 2 the road don’t take it out on everybody else.u people really need to go and get a life,and stop bitchin about your ( IT REALLY HIT HOME STORE ) everything hits home thats every body excuse well the Hell with u complainers there is no law passed in Nv and I will continue to text and talk on my cell phone,i mean that’s what it was maid for if u dum Ass forgot “MOBILE PHONE” oh my bad let me put this in to LAYMAN’s TERMS now do u get it. SJ.

  12. Robert Johnson says:

    Bad idea to pass more laws and become MORE Like Kalifornia.

    We already have distracted driving laws on the books.

    I cant even tolerate talking while driving, I never do it myself.. but to pass more laws allowing cops into your vehicle because they “Saw you pick up a cell phone” is nuts

    And thats exactly what is happening in California.. every day.

    People getting tickets for putting their phones on the dash, people getting tickets for holding something “that looked like a cell phone”

    So post your sob stories.. I am not moved.. we are a freedom oriented state and these laws just make us less free.

  13. Bruce Pfeiffer says:

    The present bill forbids the use of Amateur radio in automobiles which in turn would limit the usefulness of Amateur Radio in all emergency situations.

  14. This ban will do two things: increase accidents and increase income to governments from the fines given. One other thing that may happen is increase the opportunity for police abuse. Not a good idea if you ask me. Please do not pass this new law.

  15. Kathleen Velez says:

    Yes I’m all for this Law, I drive a truck , And many times I see people Texting while driving, and going way below the speed limit, And also talking and driving , What a shame you can’t even get in your car or truck and drive , Please pass this law,For the safety of our children, these people that talk and text should be fined, I”m from NY and they don’t play when it comes to this Law.

  16. I do fear that texting will become more dangerous once banned, because people are not going to stop – just hide it. I drive a car or ride my motorcycle in Nevada every day and I am constantly alert for distracted drivers. If people will truly follow the law, I think it’s fantastic. I know when I go to California I am even MORE aware of what I’m doing as a driver because of their laws on cell phone use. Please follow this law if it is signed! My life could depend on it!

  17. People are so obsessed with controlling other people. Its not the cell phones fault. What’s next, are we banning food, the radio, those pesky kids, our spouses, road side billboards, the guy walking on the sidewalk with the crazy pants, talking to passengers, our anything else distracting? Punish the destracted driver for causing the accident because they weren’t paying attention and stop trying to control others, what they do in their cars, homes and personal lives. Nosey Nellies!

  18. I would most definintely pass the Bill, those that are offended, to bad. Driving is a big responsiblilty. Your not only responsible for yourself and those that are in your car, your also responsible for those that are all driving around you. Eye’s should be focused to what’s in front of you. They aren’t focused to what they should be if your looking down , looking at keys punching them in a dang cell phone. It only takes 1 split second for something to go wrong, or for a driver to change their mind on direction .
    Is talking and texting so important, that it can’t wait til your not in the damn car driving down the road, must it over run and over rule your whole life that you can’t go without it, not even while behind the wheel…so sad!

  19. Just Like CA says:

    I recently escaped CA to get away from the nanny state. Guess I didn’t go far enough.

    If it is unsafe to text while driving, why are cops exempted?

  20. What one does in their car is not just their business. It effects every one of us on the road. It’s the same as drinking/drugging and driving… you’re still distracted. Why do some people believe it is their right to endanger others? This Bill has nothing to do with controlling others, but rather, creating a safe driving environment. But, if you believe you’re too cool to obey the law, just keep talking…and paying the tickets and increased insurance rates!!

  21. Just Like CA says:

    To those defending yet another police intrusion into our lives, answer the question:

    If it is unsafe to text while driving, why are cops exempted?

    Don’t they require more concentration on the driving job at-hand than the rest of us?

    Read the law. They have to be able to determine that you were “texting” not ” activating, deactivating or initiating a feature or function on the device (phone)” because the law is specifically against “sending and receiving non-voice communications.”

    If you must text, be sure you’re wearing your headset “accessory” or using speakerphone. It will then be up to The Man to prove you were texting, not dialing or looking up something in your address address book.

    I also like the sloppy way they tried to carve out an exemption for Ham radio operators. They can use a console radio but not a handheld? WTF is the difference? The microphone can’t have any controls on it other than a talk button? Nice job, idiots.

    Want to know where the morons in Carson City are taking this state? Just look to the left…I mean west.

  22. I drive a big truck in Nevada and the worst people I see texting and driving are NHP followed by the sheriffs around Winnemucca. The NHP around Battle Mountain are completely out of control.

  23. Kristen says:

    While I have definitely abused this in the past, I am 100% for this bill. I have been hit by a woman in a Suburban packed full of kids who was too distracted by them and her phone, and recently run off of the interstate and nearly killed by a Mustang being driven by a man in a business suit who was also busy on his phone. (Thank you NHP for pulling him over after he ran another person off later on down the interstate, causing them to hit a wall)

    As for the defense that these are “mobile” phones, you’re right. They don’t have a spiral cord attaching them to your wall, they can be taken other places. However, is it essential to use it every moment of every day? Will it kill you to avoid it for the short span of time it takes to get from point A to point B? If you have an emergency, or need directions, pull over or get bluetooth! Otherwise, get the chatter out before you drive or when you’re done.

    They aren’t passing these laws because they are bored…apparently statistics show a higher number of accidents/death-related incidents directly related to phone use while driving. If people want to think we are “turning California”, go ahead and think that. Keep in mind though, the statistics must have improved if we are adopting similar methods.

  24. Cell phones down, up next Im supporting legislation banning radios, gps devices and food from vehicles. After that children are extremely distracting, I dont think they should be allowed in vehicles….passengers either. Need legislation for all that too. Go regulation and prohibition of individual freedoms! I can’t wait until we have monitors in our bedrooms making sure we are not offending our nosey controlling neighbors.

  25. My question concerns police officers and their prolific use of cell phones. I would average that 60% of the police officers I pass on the road are engaged in cell phone conversations. While I whole heartedly agree that this bill needs to be passed and should impose stiffer penalties, can we really hold civilian drivers accountable but not police officers?

  26. Linda Scott says:

    What about reading maps, newspapers and applying makeup while driving? Shouldn’t we ban that too? Talking on the cell phone is no more distractive than talking to another passenger in the car. What people need to learn to obey is the law of two hands on the wheel at all times. Then they would be forced to use hands free devices. We don’t need more laws if we obey the ones we have.

  27. While I do agree with The Law banning cell phones and texting while driving. I would also like to include (coworkers, families,) drivers and passengers talking laughing, arguing and speaking, eating food, drinking coffee, juice and anything in general while in a moving vehicle to be included in the ban.

    Get rid of the crying infant or children playing and throwing toys, stuff in the car while in movement. The yelling boyfriend or husband at girlfriend or wife etc. … All of these situations are distracting; these are just a few to name off. Fiddle sticks what now?

  28. It’s a proven fact, the number of drownings go up and down, with the consumption of ice cream. We should ban ice cream, and save our children!!!

    This new law, and others like it, are just plain stupid.

  29. Naysayers –

    I’m all for the additional bans you sarcastically offered, from newspaper reading to cosmetics to unruly children, anything that impairs a driver from their primary obligation. Stationed in Germany long enough to see a distinct pattern; the majority of car-on-car/bike/pedestrian RTAs around the military community involved foreigners, distracted by phones and food… less so by hefeweizen and schnapps, due to the career ending penalties.

    Locals, by and large, did not suffer from this, blame it on strict enforcement, I suppose. Here, sight has been lost, long ago, on the fundamental priority in the vehicle; the proof is in the amount of cupholders (often more than the amount of available seats). That’s not to say comfort doesn’t play a critical role in driving, but the line between comfort and distraction has certainly been crossed. It may be your car, but it’s my life you’re endangering.

    Children losing their temper to the point of driver distraction? Find a safe place to pull over and correct the behavior; you’re the adult after all, right? Act like one. Need to take a time-sensitive call? Sure, but keep hands on the wheel; don’t look down to fumble with buttons and don’t allow yourself to drift into learned states … that is, if you’re on a lengthy business call or catching up with a friend, you’re there, with them… not with me, the other driver, trying to make it home from my new duty station to the family I’ve only seen over a Skype connection for a year.

    My life is more important than you’re chat. You wouldn’t want me on the phone, even a hands free set, while performing final aircraft arming procedures at end of runway, missing a simple, but critical step, only to find ordnance whizzing through your child’s room — would you? Or shall I use your argument, about “your” right to convenience carrying more weight than mine to safety… how you should just quit complaining if you can’t focus on what my superior human attention span can.

    Your selfishness is a disgrace to my tenure in our Armed Forces and what I’ve been defending for nearly 20 years, tarnishing our culture further with an unquenchable fat-cat attitude. Temper your selfish and short sighted ways and do something positive for your community.

  30. J – you have a warped sense of what you’ve been fighting for if you think it’s to interfere in the freedoms of citizens. You have a right to your safety, and should I violate that, punish me. No problem. But not until then. The notion of “thought crimes” is inconsistent with a free republic.

  31. I ride a motorcycle and have been struck by a motorist on the cell phone in one hand and coffee in the other. I wish that the fine would be more costly.

    “DON’T LET MY MOTORCYCLE RIDE INTERFERE WITH THE SAFETY OF YOUR PHONE CALL”.

  32. Joe – oh please. That person hit you. The reason they did is irrelevant. I bet they paid a costly ticket and had their car insurance rates go through the roof. That’s exactly the point – when someone causes harm or damage, punish them. We have plenty of laws on the books already for wreckless driving & at fault accidents.

    This Nevada law also makes it illegal to touch your phone while stopped at a traffic light or stuck in a traffic jam. How ludicrous is that?? There’s no chance anybody at a red light is going to hit your motorcycle. So now we have people pulling over on the shoulder of interstates to make/take calls (that’s real safe….) or getting off the road & out of the cars in bad neighborhoods to check their maps/GSP application on phone – watch the rate of muggings go up because of this.

  33. The part that kills me is that people continue to gripe against the common sense of this. If I choose to text and drive, I gamble the safety of my life and the lives of those I share the road with. Risk your own life on stupidity. Or…invest in a smart phone that allows you to perform the same functions while keeping your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road. Buy a Bluetooth and get an Android with voice to text application and shut up. Thirty years ago people didn’t have cell phones and managed. The survived and flourished. Is the short time it takes to get from point A to point B really going to kill you? With testing or messing with your phone, it could.

  34. RICHARD WAHL says:

    Who else is exempt from this law. law enforment paramedics fire deparment buses. If the ploice officer can use it on the job can he use it off the job is it the vechile or the driver?

  35. Paul Jones says:

    I’m sure that most of you that have made a comment to pass this law also smoke. I can’t even think of the accedents and deaths that have been caused by a smoker looking for that box of smokes or that lighter they just dropped. As of today more people smoke in the car then text. We are good at passing laws for load music and the use of cell phones because it focuses on who? Yet smoking is more of a issue then both of these put together. You think any one is going to put forth any bill on that?? Freedom of speech, just watch what you say.

  36. Ok…need some translation here please…I just got pulled over by a very over zealous female NHP officer…For plugging in my cell phone to the charger….the charger was already in the lighter and all I did was plug it in the bottom of the phone(my eyes never left the road) ….She informed me that the new law means I’m not allowed to even touch my phone if I am in the car?…So does this also mean that if the phone is in my pocket and it gets a little uncomfortable I am not allowed to take it out of my pocket unless I take the nearest exit on the freeway get off and find a parking lot? …The pulling off the road and finding a parking lot were the instuctions the NHP officer told me…..If not I would be cited for touching my phone while driving …..This has to be a joke?…or the officer needs to be re-informed of what the law really is…

  37. How about Banning kids that yell and scream in the back seat. Or drivers with their boom boxes so loud you can’t think. Or how about the health bar and coffee on the way to work. Also maps so you won’t be distracted. Or how about your husband or wife talking. where the hell does it end. We’re living in a socialist police state. I say get government off our backs.

  38. Dustin R. Babb says:

    People need to just get smartphones and bluetooth, is it alright if I were to decide to start playing Battlefield 3 on my in car television set? No.. If you’re on a long trip and need directions or something (which you should have gotten preemptively) maybe you should pull over to the next exit or get a GPS that tells you when to turn so you don’t have to look at it. Notice a majority of the Con group cant even spell and have improper grammar..

  39. So why don’t we have a law that makes it illegal to play Battlefield 3? This law is ridiculous. Reckless driving is reckless driving, period. We don’t need a separate law for each potential dumb thing a driver might do.

  40. I support this bill 100%! Too many times accidents are caused by idiots updating facebook, texting, chatting about next class etc.

    The law enforcement exemption was enacted so law enforcement could call suspects, witnesses and victims on their way to calls for further information. Or while speaking with an officer on scene requesting information.

    The Sherrif enacted policy stating while the statute does exempt officers LVMPD employees will be hands free or pull to the side of the road for conversations.

    Will cops get in trouble? Maybe, if they are chatting with GF about diner. If talking to a victim at the hospital to get a description of suspect… no.

    To the folks that are saying, “I was just adjusting or plugging in my phone though! Do I really need to pull over to plug it in?” Yes. If an officer sees you with a phone in your hand it is called probable cause (PC) for the stop. All an officer needs for a citation or an arrest is PC. This law is called a bright line rule. Meaning there is very little grey area for the officer or citizen to discuss.

    I believe this law will be rewritten to need more for the officer to build PC. Will most officers give you a ticket for this? Probably not unless you are a turd or argue with them.

  41. I saw ban anything that’s a distraction problem solved!!! no eating ,no drinking ,no texting , no calling , no adjusting the radio, no screaming kids in the back seat kicking the drivers seat ,no radio ect !! anything that can cause a distraction should not be allowed in a car !!! I do not feel any safer driving in vegas with or without a cell phone laws bottom line there will always be a drugged or drunk individuel in vegas ect !!!!!

  42. I think the law is a very good one. However, I don’t think it will be enforced that well. Look at California, the law has been in effcet for several years. I see too many drivers texting or talking on their cells. That being said, the fines, $50 to $250 don’t seem to detour the users.

    The new law starts here in Reno, Nv January 1 2012. Because of the chance of getting caught & the low fines, people will still drive & use their cells as in California. Nevada has to increase the fines to $500 for the first time, $1,000 for the second time, & $1,500 for the third time.

    This law is about SAFTEY for you & other people. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs can cost up to $10,000 or more & lose of license. Texting & driving is just as dangerous, but without the stiff fine! This, I think is the best way to get people to STOP using cell phones while driving.

    • Mike — Although there are many people who violate the distracted driving laws in California, the situation on the roads here is vastly improved. Used to be every other driver was gabbing away, now it’s maybe 1 in 10. Most people obey the law because it is the law. California lawmakers agreed to double the fines this year, but the governor vetoed the plan. Good luck in Nevada!

  43. Anita Grace says:

    I am so glad finally the bill is passed on this Cell Phone law !

    I see way too often People killed and injured because they are not paying attention to driving because they are on Their Cell’s ! Even though the law is in affect, since 01/01/12 I still see A LOT of Drivers with their Cell Phones up to their ears !!! Why to the life of Me don’t they just go purchase a “Bluetooth” OMG ! Mine was a mear $ 80.00 and I’ve had it for several years now.

    It’s tragic and sad to watch someone get injured or killed beacuse their more interested in listening to someone on the other end then what’s in front of them !!!

  44. Just because you are not holding the phone in your hand does not mean you are not distracted. By allowing you to use a hands free device, Nevada has given you a free pass if you run someone over while using it. Before the law, I could see if someone was on the cell phone and I knew to be extra careful around them. now I can no longer tell who the distracted drivers are.

    The fact is, whether it is talking on a cell phone or talking to the person in the seat next to them, some drivers are incapable of doing either. I know plenty of people that cannot talk to their passenger without looking at them and they are just as distracted and dangerous as a cell phone user. Cell phone use while driving should be banned regardless of whether you have a hands free device or not, and all states should give better dring tests using simulators and quit giving out drivers licenses like it is someones right to have one.

  45. People text while at stop lights thinking that this is legal where texting while driving is not. Wrong. Imagine allowing drinking in your car (just a sip, no intoxication) but putting it down to drive. Legal?

    People who text at a stoplight very often don’t see the light change or the traffic move. Then, upon the honking of the person behind them, suddenly lurch forward to catch up. That’s not safe.

    Sure, it is splitting hairs to discriminate that one is not really driving. Sometimes a law has to be a little overly broad to work.

  46. OMG… The attitudes of the busy bodies on here… You know best. Take my liberty. If I smash someone punish me, but don’t punish me for a potential thought crime. No victim, no crime. What’s next, sneezing while driving is a felony? Government, and apparently a lot of citizens, are out of control!

  47. I guess we need to take radios and other controls out of the vehicle? Sure I think texting & driving is horrible. BUT, talking on the phone is not that bad. maybe we should ban drinking and eating while driving cause its as dangerous in my opinion.

  48. Al Cinamon says:

    Brilliant thinking, Chip (March 19). No punishment until you kill someone. And what should the punishment be? Shall we put you to death. No, you would probably balk at that. After all, your only crime was to put someone else to death, but you didn’t mean it. You were just exercising your “liberty.”

  49. I got the 1st time offense ticket and it was not $50 it was $115. I called the court (702-671-3444) and they said the fine is $50 but the fees associated to the ticket are $65 so the total is $115!

  50. i got a ticket and i was using a hands free kit. the cop said i could not even have my phone in my hand.
    ccording to NRS there is a provision that states i can as long as to initiate activate or deactivate a hands free kit. which i was doing. he Officer did not seem to care at all and had no care for the fact i am disabled. this is a nightmare. don’t think a hands free kit will save you. i still got a ticket and i had one and was using it as per NRS law. also, if u enter a plea of not guilty and fight it, do they tack on ANOTHER $65 in “court fees”?

Post a comment, join the conversation

*


5 × = twenty