Comments on: Oregon: Cell phone laws, legislation

By: Joanne Wilgus

Joanne Wilgus — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:16:23 +0000

Is it legal to text or use your phone while stopped for a red light?

By: GreggB

GreggB — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:14:32 +0000

I’m the business owner of an IT company, and my vehicle is an integral part of my job – since I work 24/7, often using the phone for directions, hauling equipment, and visiting customer sites, this legislation will seemingly never apply to me.

In-fact, this “law” is a complete joke, a waste of our tax dollars, and a total waste of everyone’s time;
(a) Exceptions for anyone with a legitimate employment-related use of their vehicle enables a very broad audience to claim exception (how about daycare workers hauling children around, pizza delivery folks, etc).

(b) Comments from the original authors such as “…we had it in our mind to only include…”. So what, that’s not what the final wording says, and that’s all that matters. Wow, talk about a total failure to communicate.

(c) The author’s utter failure to do even a basic level of research, and actualize that DISTRACTED driving is the primary safety issue, not a one-handed driver (ie: how about all those people operating vehicles with manual transmissions). DISTRACTED driving includes toying with GPSes, raidos, DVD/video devices, dialing phones, or simply talking on a phone (handsfree or not). Studies have solidly established that DISTRACTED driving is the primary safety issue.

Hell, some of the handfree stuff on the market is more distracting to operate than simply picking up a phone; god help us… Next time, how about stronger distracted, careless and reckless driving laws, with stiffer penalties, driver re-education requirements, and a vulnerable road user’s law that reflects the real victims with penalties promising real teeth (such as a Vehicular Homicide law). Then, how about we give our public service professions the resources to enforce these strengthened EXISTING LAWS, instead of this useless theater that will more-than-likely only benefit cell phone and handsfree device manufacturer’s, as the public clamors for a plethora of confusing and poorly-designed bluetooth-enabled gadgets.

As for “saving a life”; give me a break. I can point out dozens of places around many Oregon cities, where a better-lit or better-placed crosswalk would easily save more lives than this silly legislation. I bet it would have cost less to update those areas, than has been (and will be) expended.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:59:18 +0000

This is law is an example of how ill informed Salem is. Studies do show that talking on a phone while driving is dangerous, but it makes no difference if you are using a hands free device or not. It is the conversation that is distracting, not the holding of the phone in your hand.

By: Boomer57

Boomer57 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:24:30 +0000

Just another scam from big government and business; there are just looking for the money from tickets and sales of handsfree devices. Are we going to be any safer – I doubt it!

By: Bill Babcock

Bill Babcock — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:19:15 +0000

The law is not a bad idea especially for the drivers who don’t know how to drive anyway. The last time I was involved in any type of vehicle accident , two of the three people involved were talking on a cell phone; You do the Math!

By: jeff

jeff — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:02:18 +0000

I think this law is dumb I have hade a cell phone from 1991 and it was mutch mutch biger then the one i have now and I have never had a problem in trafic with it at all. what about cb’s, drinks, food, oxygen — this bill is agansed are freedoms are rights the gov. need to … back off.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:43:08 +0000

I’m glad that a law of this sort has finally rolled around.
Personally, it really doesn’t make sense to talk to someone while driving-
no ‘latest 411′ is more important than the safety of other drivers.
Yes, phones are used for emergencies and important notices,
but if the phone call really is that important, I think that all of one’s attention should be put on that phone call by pulling off of the road.
There are been too many careless drivers out there whipping out their cells and chatting while they should be looking where they are going.
Especially when it comes to texting.

I don’t think that this law takes away the privilages of ‘free speech’ as some come to argue,
because if you really do want to talk to someone while driving,
all you have to do is spend a little more on a handheld device,
which comes with almost every phone these days.
There should be nothing said about “the price being too high and not nessary for another device” but, truly, the safety of one’s self, and other drivers, really has no price.

By: Darlene L.

Darlene L. — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:05:57 +0000

Who’s going to enforce this? How much is the fine? And, how long will it be enforced, before everyone just pretends that they don’t see the law breakers? I can’t begin to tell you all the near-accidents that I have had, that are because of cell phones. Will the police be exempt from this law? I’ve seen several police with cell phones to their ear driving around. Cell phones are great for emergencies, but does that cell phone have to be glued to your ear/hand 24/7? I think that this new law (which several other states already have) will be beneficial to all drivers.

By: graham

graham — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:51:10 +0000

@mshelby

http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2009/July09/070609/071009-06.htm

CB radios as well as other business communication will be exempted. How ’bout you do a google search before writing irrelevant long-winded comments.

By: mshelby@softgoals

mshelby@softgoals — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:08:35 +0000

Would like to point out that the comments in this article are not entirely accurate. The wording by Rep. Tomei in this proposed law defines a “Mobile Communication Device” as a wireless two-way communication device designed to receive and transmit voice or text communication. This means the ban will affect all cell phone users, Ham Radio, CB, GMRS, FMRS, and commercial communication services. So who uses all these services? Truck drivers use CB radio to navigate around bad weather, icy roads, and traffic congestion. Utility trucks (electric, gas, and phone) use commercial mobile radio for normal maintenance of our state utility infrastructure. There mobile radios can not be used while the truck(s) are in motion. Tow trucks dispatched to help a stranded driver will not be able to use any mobile communication device while the truck is in motion. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODT), has a monumental cost to retrofit there trucks with hands-free equipment. Our state Civil Emergency Services will be severely hampered in there readiness training. Our state timber industry will be greatly hampered by this proposed law. It doesn’t take much thinking to realize how this law will affect commercial mobile business and safety within this state.

The bottom line is if this bill passes, there will be a profound negative impact to commercial industries and safety within this great state. The National Safety Council (NSC) is responsible for pushing laws nationally restricting cell phone use. I personally concur with there concern. I do not agree with the wording that our legislators have selected for these proposed house bills. The wording is overly broad. They should say what they mean and mean what they say. The NSC says the problem is cell phone. This new plethora of Oregon mobile communication bills needs to be rewritten to clarify the definition of a cell phone and not include every communication device ever invented.