OLYMPIA, Wash. - The Washington Senate has approved a measure that makes it easier for police to pull over drivers who use a cell phone without a handsfree device.

On a 33-15 vote Friday, the Senate passed a bill that makes it a primary offense to be caught holding a cell phone to your ear while driving. That strengthens the state's current law, which only slaps drivers with an extra fine if they are caught holding a cell phone when pulled over for another infraction, such as speeding.

The bill passed Friday also outlaws any cell phone use by a driver with a learner's permit or an intermediate license, which is given to drivers under 18 years old.

The bill was introduced after statistics showed that the distraction of talking on a cell phone while driving causes accidents.

Between 2006 and 2008, the Washington State patrol linked 3,000 accidents to talking on a cell phone.

The Senate measure banning cell phones while driving now heads to the House, where a similar bill was sponsored by Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle.

"Driving with a cell phone is incredibly dangerous and the fact is that people overwhelmingly get more distracted using a cell phone than anything else," he said

<-------Law breaker.

I make the 30 mile trip from home to town (Mount Vernon) several times a week, and it is a rare day when I don't see several cops (Skagit County Sheriff and WSP) traveling the other direction on Hwy. 20, and almost always they are clearly chatting ON THE CELL PHONE.

Being 100% deaf in my rt ear, I can only hear with the left. Plug a "hands free" device in that ear and I can no longer hear emergency sirens, honking horns (or anything else). So, I use my phone without the headset (when and if I use it). If a cop stops me, I'll take my chances in court as I consider that my approach to be the safest given my situation.

So...are LEO exempt from this new law?

ISO

What laws are they not exempt from?

BTW----I knew this chickenchit stuff was going to happen. They start all this little incremental nanny BS as a secondary offense.....then the tampon brigade aka as liberal poosies push their pathetic, socialist, do nothing laws and by a stroke of genius decide to make it a primary offense.

Slippery slope liberal mutherphuckers.

"I can only hear with the left"

So the left is the good side.

As a motorcycle rider that commuted daily on 520 to bellevue I applaud the legislation. Most All the close calls I've had in the last 5 years have all been while a driver had phone in the ear...

Not to pick on the ladies but there was a chick on 520 that was not only talking on the phone but was also putting on mascara in the rearview... the only time she put a hand on the wheel was when she crossed into the other lane... The close call in that case was me almost dumping my bike from laughing so hard.

Two words - Magic Jack.

No muss... no fuss... hands free without a headset and it's so simple that even the most cognitively challenged, right-wing retard could use one.

Since it works through your car stereo... the only problem is that they will have to turn Glenn Beck off long enough to take the call.

ruthless, I love it..

If you don't already have a phone with a good speakerphone, time to get one.

done.

This law blows chunks of politcal do-goodiness all over the floor. it won't deter many from old habits, and will eventually serve only as a chest thumper next election cycle.

...But JESSE JONES (extra super emphasis added)....says they are a POS.

Perhaps they only work for democrats and retards.....you know when garble, drooling and incoherhent speech is preferable to actually listening and hearing what is being said.

Knew it was coming. Same with the seatbelt law if you recall. Started off as a secondary offence.

HA!

Everyone knows Priuses are incapable of reaching 75!

Ive never seen one that wasn't sitting in the left lane going 15 under!

This law will go screaming through our Dem control legislature and be signed by our Dem Gov. I think it is just too bad that cell phones work from a moving vehicle at all. Twice this past month (Jan) I had cars come across the center line...once with my wife in the car and it scared the Hell out of her. Hands free devices won't completely eliminate crashes caused by cell phone conversations, either. Don't kid yourself.

Good Bill, make it law.

Mf

I was told by WSP that when moving equipment down the road I need to be in contact with my pilot car so I use Direct connect, now I find out that this too will be illegal ,so who is right wsp or some senator
looks to me no matter what I will end up getting a ticket. Personally I think it is time our elected officials start facing the real problems this state has and stop coming up with stupid laws

I agree. It shouldn't be necessary, but we're a society comprised of "me first" mentalities that doesn't give a rat's ass about causing accidents that kill and injure "other" people. This law makes far more sense than the seat belt law, which protects people who often don't deserve it.

Actually, I'd be in favor of mandatory vehicle designs that puts the driver in the very front with zero protection in front of them, assuring that the slightest screw up on their part assures that they will be maimed or killed. That could cause a few more drivers to actually pay attention to their driving.

Sg

Thats a briliant idea but they already have a prototype called the bicycle.

I am all for this law and needs to be enforced. I dont know sh!t or care about the political implications of it. Its about safety and safety should not be political. Distratced drivers are a seriuos epidemic in this country with the technology that consumers desire.

Oh and text messaging is the absolute worst and this law will not capture that.

Al Gore's son got one up to 100+! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19601277/

That was only because the brakes failed....nothing else

Seatbelts cell phones whats next?!? Fukin retards in office love these easy money grabs!!

Tell you what, Hands free devices are quite cool. It took a while to get used to them down here in California. I went through a few bluetooths till I got it right. There is a visor mount the sell at Costco. I think it is around 8o dollars clear signal and very effective. I could not stand the ones that you stick in your ear. The new truck has it built in to the stereo. It is convenient and safe. Your eyes never need to leave the road... unless you are texting ( kidding)

Waaaaay overdue. Your rights end when exercising them endangers others.

Then we need to look at eating in the car , putting on makeup ,etc....
these things are just as distracting as using my phone while driving.

Total garbage written for the brainless feelgood peasants known as the Washington voter.

527 fatalities in Washington in 2008. That's about 1 fatality for every 1 million miles drivin. This law will not save a single life but will certianly make money for the state.

In fact I can argue that this will cause more accidents by the idiotic peasants rubbernecking and swerving/braking to get a good glimpse of officers ticketing their fellow peasants. Ask any trooper and they will tell you that the most dangerous part of their job is standing on the shoulder of a highway ticketing someone.

So how do we get that number down to zero. I know-lets stop giving driver licenses to the peasants so only the beutiful people running this state can drive. That would also save the world from Global Warming.

I mean if we all use buses and it saves just one childs life while protecting Mother Earth isn't it worth it!!!!

Once again I'm all alone on the hill screaming, "The King has no clothes." but apparently I'm completely surrounded by blind duechbags....

Wa traffic statistics

Actualy transportation researchers have investigated many aspects of distracted drivers. The findings suggest that the most dangerous times is when the driver takes their eyes off the road or requires two hands. For eating its opening packaging or eating things that require a utensil. One handed eating say an apple, sandwich etc, is less likely to cause a crash. In most cases of eating or drinking you set the item down and use two hands on the wheel when needed.

Cell phone studies show that crahes occur most when drivers are trying to dial the phone, looking to see who is calling, or text messaging. Once you are on the phone and talking one handed the danger decreases but does not diminish. The unique aspect of a cell phone is that you will not set the phone down when two hande operation is needed. This is because of the nature of phone conversastion and you feel rude about ending the conversation so abrubtly.

The pure science aspect of this is called perception reaction time. Its the the time it takes for a driver to percieve danger, react, and stop. Its a combination of those 3 elements. Cell phones, eating, make-up, reading, etc all reduce the perception of danger time and that is the root of the crash.

Plus a gazillion !

It's bullsh&t. If you physically can't manage the ability to talk on the phone and drive, you should never drive and just take a bus. What's next...........no eating while driving? No, it's okay to rummage through a sack from McDonald's looking for a french fry while driving, but I can't talk to a client on the phone. How about.........no changing the volume on your stereo? Your hands must be at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock at all times or you get pulled over?

The real danger? The kid texting while driving..........they text with two hands and their heads are down. I was behind a young driver and thought they were dozing off.........head bobbing, car swerving....I passed and saw they were texting.

Heard of sex-ting Hank?

Mf

Scary stuff hers just a couple vids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHdZxO4_tQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJyU3h0dNT0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUzQAmWKOw8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yo-pT97UtA&NR=1&feature=fvwp

You can choose to not understand why or how legislation like this can happen. But, to those who oppose safety, I really worry about you, your family, me and my family when your behind the wheel. I'm kind of disapointed in the reactions of some people on this thread who would never point a firearm at anybody and rely on the safety mechanism but they think they can be distracted and drive. I'm really suprised by the responses of people who preach super safety in a drift boat but claim they are not susceptable to it on the road. What a frickin joke just go back a read what you have said and relate it to other saftey issues you hold true.

Its not junk science. Perception reaction time is real and you know it.

I wont argue the point of individual freedoms because thats who we are as a culture. But, Dave makes a good point to when your choice to be distracted interferes with my choice to live.

Good point. With 104 drownings and 567 firearm deaths in Washington to go along with the 527 traffic related fatalities I think I'll sell both boats and all my guns

Better yet I think the beautiful people should just outlaw driftboats and guns. After all if it saves the life of just one child........

So if I am for this safety law going into effect. You're saying Todd is going to get my guns?

Hell yeah, and lets ban cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and cheese burgers because they kill lots of people too.

Home alone trickle charging like she has been every other day for the past month or so. Getting me a little testy if you have noticed

I think the line is that nobody is taking the phone away from anyone. Nobody is taking the car from anyone. Most conservitives are pissed when the law actualy takes ownership rights. Most gun owners are cool with not being allowed to discharge a firearm in city limits because its a safety thing. Its when the law makers say you cant have the object. In this legislation everbody gets to keep their toys. Its just a law to say when you can use it baseed on safety. Safety, safety, safety!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell ya the truth I would prefer that the government did not have to protect us from our selves either. I just wish we were all smart enough to understand the basic concept of perception reaction time, being distracted, and how it interferes with driving. I just want people to put the flipin' phone down; law or no law. If you are not conciuos enough to do it yourself then how do we change the culture to where people just put the phone down on their own recognicence?

KK,
The state should set up basic laws that we all have to abide by. For traffic related issue's that would be speed limits, types of shapes and colors of signs, traffic lights and what red, yellow and green mean etc........ These are socially accepted norms based on the rule of law. To ignore these basic laws puts our fellow citizens at extreme risks and thus should be enforced.

For personal behavior within these rules I think there are some extra laws that make sense. Drinking and driving laws and secure your load laws would be examples of laws that make common sense to me as the result of neglagence in these area's pose extreme risk to our fellow citizens. These laws designed to change our personel behavior need to be watched (and debated) very closely though as the beautiful people have shown throughout history that they are willing to trample individual rights at every turn and if we are not careful they will turn us all into the very sheep that makes up the vast majority of Wa. voters!

So it comes down to risk assessment and risk management. 500 out of 6.5 million (of which what 20? 30? 40? are a direct result of cell phone use) to me does not reach a level of risk to the point that writing new laws are warrented. Especially ones that will probably do more harm then good unless your the accountant for the local shariff's department.

But then again I'm standing on a shining hill surrounded by sheep yelling "The King has no clothes!"

My drifter is full but a wall of death may be in order if'n you don't mind missing part of a football game!

Brood, its alot more than just fatalities. Its insurance claims, traffic delays, lost wages due to even minor traffic incidents. Everbody on the wet side of the hills knows how much delay is caused by just a small, non-fatality, crash can cause. The state data you provide and " stand on the hill" about is just fatalities. I sure as sh!t think its a major hassel to deal with being late, organizing repairs, dealing with insurance adjusters, and raising my blood pressure because some teeny bopper was texting/talking about who's fu@kin who.

The diffrence is, you eating a cheese burger will not kill ME. You texting while driving damn sure might. I am all for individual liberty until that liberty hurts innocent bystanders. That's why I am in favor of drunk driving laws. If the drunks only killed themselves, and if they had adequate insurance , so i dont have to pay for their care, i would be fine with them drivign drunk.

Do I favor gun confiscation, hell no. Do I support laws baning shooting inside the city - sure do.

It's like the well established free speach laws. You can holler what ever you want, but you cant holler FIRE in a crowded theatre.

Laws protecting me from myself are stupid (helmet, seatbelt, etc. . although I use both). The laws that protect you from me ( ie: cell and texting laws that keep me from having to get out of my truck and shoot your stupid ass for crashing into me and screwing up MY life), those are a little smarter.

I used to think helmet laws were stupid, but as a Medicaid auditor I saw several cases where helmetless dipshits had major brain damage, and we the taxpayers had to pay literally millions to keep them alive. Now I favor a law that says you do not need to wear a helmet as long as you have insurance to pay for the harm you do yourself.

Good point, like I said, I wear mine so they can scoop me up with one shovel instead of two.

Better yet, make them have a living will with a "Do Not Resusitate" clause.

No sense in giving any more golden geese to the insurance industry.

Dave, +1 me on the in jest coment. I am totaly in support of this legislation. Nothing I have said here this morning could be otherwise.

On a side note if you dont want wear a helmet for yourself thats fine. But, please do it for the police, fire, and ambulance folks that half to look, smell, and touch you when your head is popped on the pavement.

Once again Stam summed up my opinion nicely and with a whole lot fewer words!!!

And for all you patsies who think this is a good law why don't you go ahead and remove your car stareo and passanger seats while your at it. Wouldn't want you to have any distractions as you cheat death every day during your commute!

I am not going to stop using my phone and that is that

...or the stupid phucks that have to have their POS lap mutt on their lap while driving?

Pets in the passanger compartment of a vehicle should be illegal.

And I am not going to stop speeding, but I know I may get a ticket if I get caught.

If they aren't belted they pose a serious problem should you have to rapidly decelerate....dogs too.

What about road head?

Should that be banned?

That is the most serious distraction I know of. I think it should be encouraged, but only on slooooow dirt roads.

It depends...

Taken on a case by case basis of course.

The damage suffered by the driver/receiver could be worse than imaginable and therefore sufficient punishment.

How about doing 120mph in a BMW on the Sacramento-Redding stretch at 1AM?

Was that you?

Yeah. I opened the sunroof and turned on the domelight for ya.

How's the back of my wife's head look?

My favorite is driving down hwy 95 doing 85 mph, not wearing my seat belt, coffee in one hand and cell phone in the other while I steer with my knees. It's legal in ID. Use it or lose it.

LEO's & Ambulances are exempt from the cell phone law. Although cell phone transmissions can still be over-heard they're still more private than two-way radios & portables that are often picked up by scanners. Not sure about LEO's but most Ambulances use their cells to contact med control. Although, I'm sure it's abused and they're sometimes calling their S.O. to pick up bread & milk!

McMahon why dont ya give me a toot on the horn when you pass. I'll wave a friendly howdy. BTW it is illegal in Idaho to drive 85 mph on US 95 but the coffee and phone are fine.

Blue water pro thanks for the dose reality. Its true, it takes fatalities to get change in legislation and change in the ifrastructure, but it takes far more fatalities to change the minds of the public.

Ain't you a benevolent SOB......

"blinker on for 10 blocks"

Except if you are following a blue hair in Ballard.

What we really need is a stiffer penalty for people who run the school
bus stops Once a week someone will go right on by when my kid is getting on and after talking to the bus driver you not only need licence number but a description of the driver ,time of day,description of the car and a witness. And these people are not on a phone

Making the cell phone law a primary infraction, is a waste IMO. There are so many distractions in the car, at least holding a phone to your ear you have the chance to look around. My only accident/moving violation ever, was when I was looking at that stupid Garmin. Those things should be outlawed, I spend way more time looking at that rather than the road, before I decided that it was just as hard as getting around the way I always had: Using my aborigonal 6th sense to locate the nearest Starbucks.

I use a blue-tooth, which I hate, but it is necessary for work. I can't use one of those whole-car units, or a speaker phone because I might be talking about the person I am with and that could cause an issue.

I was riding with a client out to an emergency meeting one day. Boss, called and I had him on speaker and did not get a chance to let him know the audience . . . he called the guy I was with a 'f^cker'. That was a great car-ride.

Remember, it's only illegal if you get caught.

Anger is understood STAM. The Washington autobody industry stands to loose millions with safer drivers.


Anyone else that thinks this will line the pockets of legislators is biting hard on what they want. They want you to be resistant; they want you to get tickets because thats the only way money will make it to them. If you want to make them poor, then you must never get a ticket because of the cell phone (i.e. put it down). Instead of being defiant maybe encouraging your fellow driver to put his phone down and not pay the legislators. Does this help to have a "stick it to the man" clause?

Still think it's a good law?

If so I've got a bridge to sell you.

From today's Seattle Times-

Washington's highway deaths lowest in more than 5 decades
Last year was the safest on Washington's highways in 54 years, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

By Seattle Times staff

Last year was the safest on Washington's highways in 54 years, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

The 490 deaths in 2009 on state highways was the lowest since 1955, when 461 people died. There also were 31 fewer highway deaths last year than in 2008.

This comes at a time when traffic volumes have increased.

According to the commission, a person traveling from Wenatchee to Edmonds in 1955 was five times more likely to die on the road than someone making that trip today.

Wait, I didn't know that they had cell phones back in the 50's.

Yep. GET OFF YOUR PHONE AND DRIVE

Statistics also show that cell phone related accidents were fewer in 2009 with 827 motor vehicle accidents including 13 fatalities attributed to cell phone use.

http://www.seattlecaraccidentlawyerblog.com/2010/02/washington_state_had_fewer_car.html

I need to see the wording of the bill exactly, but if it passess I might just drive around with a phone to my ear and talk to myself. I would love to see the officer try to swear how he could know for a fact that there was an actual call in progress. Seeing how it is all a kangaroo court they probably would still find me guilty, but I am such a jerk I might just appeal any guilty finding and watch what happens.

Yes!

It's stretch to say that it is auto technology that reduced the death rates. Cause and effect in a complicated system... like highway deaths... with many variables... are seldom so cut and dried.

It could be:

1) DUI patrol emphasis
2) Click it or Ticket emphasis
3) Greater Safety of cars as legislated
4) Greater Safety of car by free market forces
5) Stricter regulations regarding under 18 drivers

and the list goes on.

Undoubtedly, every one of the proponents of the above claim victory but only an astute student of statistics would be able to discern the truth.

I am no good at math let alone statistics so I'll let the debate go on..

Screw cell phones.

Truth in statistics?

I think you are on to something. ROTFL and SMOMN.

Bit by bit they chip away at our liberties until at some point in time we are reduced to nothingness.

Actually the cars don't sustain the impact nearly as good as they used to, it is the passengers inside that fare better, and I know what you mean, just being nit picky. . . . .

..actually it's the way in which the energy, in the form of rapid-deceleration , is transfered.

I agree that technology has improved survivability. But is that all? Or are there other components that people claim to help. MADD comes to mind.

Now, just to be straight I think that all the things you mentioned have helped considerably, along with better response by LEO and EMTs.

I'm just saying it ain't that simple.

If it was just airbags we would all be safe. At least those of us who were married.

Getting back on target, I would love to see cell phone talking while driving be a primary offense. For texting, it's an absolute no-brainer.