New proposed bill would make cell-phone use in car primary offense

jamey said on January 4, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Welcome to the Socialist State of WA. When will the Sheepeople of WA figure out that these petty new laws are about Revenue, and not Safety. A Dirt-Bag is going to be a Dirt-Bag regardless of how many laws you pass. The violent offenders we let out of prison early don't care about cell phone laws, seat belt laws, traffic cameras, gun ownership laws, protection orders, or any silly paper laws like that. They are the 10% of the population that cause 90% of the problems. We just need to enforce the laws we already have.

kavcon said on January 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM

I think it is about time they did something.You gotta remember those people who are always babbling on the cell phone are the ones who brought this on. They have no one to blame but themselfs, but by reading all the comments they are whinning the loudest. Grow up and figure it out, or do your prefer to kill someone cause you were yakking on the cell phone about "who did what the night before".?

wittyname said on January 4, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Oops. excuse the typo *off

wittyname said on January 4, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Why would they be exempt? They are as likely to cause an accident as anyone else. No one is immune to being distracted while driving whether it is the attractive woman walking down the street, the deer on the side of the road, kids in the back seat fighting or cell phone use. We can ban all of these I suppose hmm? Law enforcement, fire and aid are all just as susceptible to being distracted as any one else. Honestly SOME of the stories of officer involved driving accidents can probably be attributed to cell phone use. They certainly would never let a story get out about a cop talking on the phone and running into or over someone would they? More likely something along the lines of "in pursuit of suspect" or "investigating suspicious activity". They probably would also leave out "cleaning powder sugar of uniform from donut". We have some great officers but we have a lot who bend and break the same rules we do and it is just as dangerous if not more when they do it.

dazigzagman said on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

i bet all the people complaining are the same people arguing on the phone and slowing traffic down. Maybe now we can get home a little faster and safer without people jamming up the freeways on the phone. And texting, which is proven that they are just as bad as someone who blows a .16 BAC. And factoid, we should ban everything that kills people that can be prevented, especially something as easy as getting a headset, which wouldnt be banned under new law. And law enforcement, fire and aid would of coarse be exempt. Just like they are exempt from car pool restrictions.

factoid said on January 3, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Based on your comment 'wannadanc' , to be fair we should ban everything that kills people.

wannadanc said on January 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

A relative killed 2 children years ago when his cell phone caused distractions. Enough said!!!!!!!!!

blankingout said on January 3, 2010 at 2:18 PM

I agree, if the law enforcement officer's emergency lights are not activated, I would say cellphone use would fall under the same principle of why they cannot blow through a red light for the hell of it. Meaning then too they should be fined if seen in person and photographed while driving on the phone. Red light camera shots should not count as there is no physical person there witnessing it at that time.

paulemorris4emt said on January 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM

WARNING: This will be COPY-PASTED SEVERAL TIMES. If State Senator Tracey Eide's Bill ever sees the light of day into becoming a Law, I will be taking digital photos of ANY and ALL Law Enforcement Officers who are holding Cell Phones to their heads. These will be Hand delivered to either, State's Attorney General, County Prosecutors, and City Attorneys etc. These photos will then be used as a means to cite, AND convict ANY, and ALL Law Enforcement personnel of breaking the new law. The Court will then order two things. First, that the moving infraction be made a visible part of the Officer's Permanent Personal Driving Record with the DOL, and a copy of this will be placed in the Officer's Permanent Personnel File. Second the Court will Order the Officer to directly pay ME the entire NON-Mitigated amount along with the entire Court Costs in the form of a cashable Money Order to be deposited into my Checking Account. This Money Making prospect will be made available to ANYONE.

camanojoe said on January 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

It's not the cops or the firefighters that want this law passed. It's lame Politicians and a few folks that shouldn't be driving even without a phone.

wittyname said on January 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM

I see cops and troopers on their cell phones all the time while they are driving on duty. Shoot, they are even on their computers looking up info while they are driving. I guess we are supposed to believe that there is some special driving while talking on cell phone training that they go through to make it okay for them to do so. The cameras are put on patrol cars to monitor what happens outside the vehicle. Maybe there should be one inside to monitor those actions as well. I would guess there would be twice as much revenue from this law if law enforcement were held accountable to it as well.

factoid said on January 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM

"intell" Did that once on Hwy 18, Trooper pulled behind me and asked what the problem was. I told him I had to take a call and take some notes. He told me to move on, shoulder was for emergencies only. "remainingreal" I pay two thousand dollars a month in advertising, so by not answering the phone, I could loose valuable business, especially in this economy, every call counts. Just for the record, in 30 years of driving, no accidents and one ticket when I was 16. Why should people like me be punished, for those that probably can't drive well even without a phone.

intell said on January 3, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Is it that hard to pull over to talk or text.

remainingreal said on January 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I believe those who have a problem with this must use their cell phones in their car a lot.

whidbeylm said on January 3, 2010 at 8:38 AM

Great, maybe they will stop putting blue tooth in cars also.

thinknovuu said on January 3, 2010 at 7:31 AM

The current law in effect with regards to cell phone usage doesn't include emergency response personnel. So in fact that police officer can use his cell phone while driving. I am guessing that you would rather have him ignore that emergency cell phone call where your own life hangs in the balance and seconds count to find a place to pull over and stop. Response time would greatly increase and the use of cell phone in police work is growing. My own department uses cell phones when transporting patients with life threatening conditions. We are on the phone with doctors and other medical personnel. Without the ability for emergency personnel to use all the means they have available at any time means....someone will die!

scott04 said on January 3, 2010 at 12:19 AM

So if its permanently fixed on the dash, next to my laptop, and CB, and shotgun, and my cuffs, with the dog in the back seat, with the radio on, im ok for now right?

factoid said on January 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM

"collegeguy" That is probably what you and the Senator think, but studies have shown that the conversations are more distracting than briefly looking at the phone. An column in the New York Times cited a Harvard study and this is a direct quote "Research also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe, it shows that using headsets can be as dangerous as holding a phone because the conversation distracts drivers from focusing on the road." It is a good and informative read and covers most distractions in your car. "

collegeguy said on January 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM

factiod... it is not the conversation that is the issue based on what everyone thinks, it is the need to have it in their hands and looking at it and not the road. But again, it is a needless law. Get your facts straight, or we will call you non-factiod.

jonjuan said on January 2, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Great and from what I see it should also include the police.

paulemorris4emt said on January 2, 2010 at 7:54 PM

WARNING: This will be COPY-PATED SEVERAL TIMES. If State Senator Tracey Eide's Bill ever sees the light of day into becoming a Law, I will be taking digital photos of ANY and ALL Law Enforcement Officers who are holding Cell Phones to their heads. These will be Hand delivered to either, State's Attorney General, County Prosecutors, and City Attorneys etc. These photos will then be used as a means to cite, AND convict ANY, and ALL Law Enforcement personnel of breaking the new law. The Court will then order two things. First, that the moving infraction be made a visible part of the Officer's Permanent Personal Driving Record with the DOL, and a copy of this will be placed in the Officer's Permanent Personnel File. Second the Court will Order the Officer to directly pay ME the entire NON-Mitigated amount along with the entire Court Costs in the form of a cashable Money Order to be deposited into my Checking Account. This Money Making prospect will be made available to ANYONE.

factoid said on January 2, 2010 at 7:34 PM

"noskills" It is the distraction of the conversation, not holding the phone, that is the problem for those that can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

domesticdreamer said on January 2, 2010 at 5:53 PM

How do you "gently honk?"

sibyl69 said on January 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Please do not pass another nuisance law that accomplishes nothing but inconveniencing people and repealing our civil liberties just another step only to garner more revenue. It shames us all. After the Patriot Act, I wondered when people would start objecting to these erosions, yet I am amazed to see that they just keep coming. There is a happy medium between the two extremes of freedom and security. Remember what "maximum security" really means, and note the utter lack of freedom implied.

noskills said on January 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM

If you really need to talk on your phone while driving get a bluetooth device or another hands free headset.

camanojoe said on January 2, 2010 at 4:26 PM

What if you're talking to someone in the backseat and driving, listening to head phones and singing along and driving, eating and driving, drinking coffee and driving, chewing gum while driving, or you're just plain stupid and can't do more than one thing at a time and drive? What if you get into an accident and you weren't on a cell phone can we make a law that says it's not your fault? Why not?

factoid said on January 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM

"notquite" Not saying you are wrong, you should know. But one of my employees rear ended a car and got cited for inattentive driving. Thanks for leaving those of us who can drive alone. I use my cell for business while driving and I find I pay more attention while I am on the phone. Ironically the few times I have had close calls, I was just driving, nothing else. Just for the record, in 30 years of driving, no accidents and one ticket when I was 16. Stay safe and thank you.

nwrap said on January 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM

I don't think it is such a big deal. There are so many options available that the public can use and there really is no need for anyone to be holding a cell phone while driving anyways.

whatsyurbeef said on January 2, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Cell phones are a distraction from driving whether you pick up to look at it for five seconds to see who's calling or jabber on it for five minutes. Now if this becomes law then the cell company should look at technology to make a caller aware that you are in a moving vehicle, and they have to leave message. Should'nt be to difficult they can already track your cells location I beleive. s

nwrap said on January 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I don't think it is such a big deal. There is so many options available to the public that they can use on their cell phones while driving so they don't have to hold them while talking. As a matter of fact I know of a very unique product called the Universal Cell Wrap. Check out the website at www.universalcellwrap.com....you'll be glad you did!

realitychk said on January 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Perhaps we need more stringent testing/licensing requirements and a change on how we view attaining a driver's license. A responsible driver avoids distractions including eating, reading, shaving, blabbing with passengers, screaming at children or pets. A responsible driver avoids distractions because they might cause one to weave, lose speed control, tailgate, change lanes improperly, drive erratically and subsequently cause wrecks. We are way too lax in handing out licenses to people without requiring a real test including skid pad and defensive driving. The problem is not cell phones. It's that people don't take their driving responsibility seriously, government fails to REQUIRE skills prior to handing out a license and fails to remove the license of those that show us that they cannot drive. Driving is not a right, it's a privelege. If you value the privelege, you will drive in a way that helps you keep your license.

notquite said on January 2, 2010 at 1:56 PM

to factoid - As a police officer, I don't really enforce the current cell phone law much now anyways unless their driving is so bad a negligent driving 2nd degree charge woud be warrented. There is however no "inattentive driving law". Be nice if there was. In regards to the new cell phone law becoming a primary offense, I'm not quite sure if it will really make a huge difference. There are a lot of other distractions that lead to collisions besides cell phones.

corey19753 said on January 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM

How much closer to a communist country are we going to get? What freedoms do I have to choose anymore? The government does it for me and i don't think these law are for safety it's because she's gotten behind someone driving with a cell phone going five miles an hour. It's personal. Safety? why don't all the Washington state senators stop making mega bucks of the tax payers get off your A@# and start making laws to better protect us. Example? keeping people like maurice Clemons off the f-ing streets. Putting people in prison for animal cruelty. Why don't because you are morons reduce our taxes by taking a pay cut? You people are a joke. I say clean out the local state governement and lets get someone who actually cares instead of pouring so much attention and tax dollars into little whimpy Sh#t like this.

hailscott said on January 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM

So now it is cops who are above us all, I support law enforcment to a great extent but they are the ones on the cell phones, laptop computers while driving all the time. Next time you see a cop, look at them- I bet there is a cell phone to their ear...Will they get a ticket? I think not.... I know it's their job, but other people have jobs driving, using their cell phone or on the computer. I see people reading newspapers, putting on make up, eating while driving, they can't pick on people who use a cell phone.

logic14 said on January 2, 2010 at 12:58 PM

What is so important to talk about 24/7 in any case? I think people are just scared of their own thoughts so they have to talk about nothing with someone all the time. If everyone asked themselves "Is this conversation necessary?" and could honestly answer they wouldn't be on the phone. People often complain they have no time for themselves but they have to be on the phone while alone in a car....interesting.

commonsensewa said on January 2, 2010 at 12:50 PM

.... until they pass a defensive driving course.

xtremeracer said on January 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Another useless law just to generate more revenue If your too stupid To talk and drive your too stupid to have a License TAKE THE BUS

bekster4 said on January 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Lets just pass a law stating that it's against the law to be stupid. Would take 99.9% off the road. It should still be MY choice weather or not I wear a seat belt, whistleberries. Life is about choices. You can make yours, I will make mine. I think we need another revolution, more and more of our rights are being taken away by stupid laws aimed at our wallets and nothing else.

retrievers said on January 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I was driving to work this morning and the guy in the car next to me was shaving and smoking his cigerette. The light changed green and he did continue to shave but threw his cigarette out of the car. A friends vehicle was rear ended by someone who spilled their coffee in their lap. Why not also enforce the loud stereo's. At a stop light a month ago a young man in a Honda had his music pounding so loud, that when the light turned green for the ambulance that was going lights and siren, he almost turned in front of it. So many laws, too many not enforced.

whistleberries said on January 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Hey, oldtimer1 - - - Your comment "...seat belts, it should be my call if I wear one or not," might mean that you have never worked in emergency services. - - - Anyone who works in a hospital emergency room, or as a firefighter, police officer, or ambulance crew, realizes the importance of seatbelts. - - - If you make the choice not to wear a seatbelt, you are the one who is risking the serious injuries, should something happen on the way to the store. I hope you have insurance that will pay for your medical care and rehabilitation. - - - Talking on the phone, or texting, IS distracted driving - meaning that the person is not paying full attention to driving. The “Inattentive Driving” laws should be more vigorously enforced. - - - The fact remains, the average John Doe or Jane Doe, do not need to be speaking on the phone while they are driving a vehicle.

organdonor said on January 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM

If this law passed I hope this scenario plays out. It would start with me driving down the road and witnessing a horrible accident(preferably someone that is for this law), I then go to pull out my cellphone to call 911. But wait!!!! I suddenly remember that its illegal to talk and the phone and drive. So I instead travel to the next gas station or home before I call for help. I'd then proceed to explain how I could of called sooner, but you made it illegal for me you dipshi*ts.

graham said on January 2, 2010 at 10:33 AM

If they pass this as law & i was a cop i would be looking for the idots on there cell & there would be no talking themself out of a ticket

collegeguy said on January 2, 2010 at 10:27 AM

You know what, those that say we should pass this law... Have you not figured it out that it will not stop people from doing this? There are already laws that are not enforced that cover this already. If you want to stop people from distracted driving, maybe we should put them in jail when they actually hit someone and not just for cell phones. I am tired of all you women who do your make up in your cars or all the people who are distracted by this or that in their car. It is not the cell phone, it is the person behind the wheel! Give me a break and use common sense!

horribleron said on January 2, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Why don't we just pass a law requiring common sense?

remainingreal said on January 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM

livinglife-thank you, the voice of REASON!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!! By the way, people it's not a RIGHT to yak on the phone, it's a privilege. There is a difference, you know.

remainingreal said on January 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

cmeeverett-wouldn't you think it's a common courtesy to OTHER DRIVERS to NOT pick up the phone and answer it? I also have my phone in my car, but I let it ring. Why do you presume to believe that ANYONE would care that you answered the phone to tell them you can't talk? If I can't or won't answer the phone, I don't, plain in simple. I don't feel it's common courtesy to HAVE to answer a phone when it rings. You're just making excuses. And saying it's comparable to sneezing is just ridiculous, as well. And suggesting a law for it is just as ridiculous. Please use some common sense when comparing apples to oranges.

remainingreal said on January 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM

justcommenting-as a WOMAN I can tell you that you are an idiot. Perhaps you need to be off the road for being one. I have never been in an accident that was caused by ME, but I certainly have caused by the doofus-headed fools like you. So, which one is the better driver? I think I'll bank my money on myself. I haven't even had any near misses, thank you very much.

timenow said on January 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Ridiculous!!! Good luck enforcing it. Besides, most newer cars have hands free devices built in. Can we work on the State's more important issues ?? Eide needs to rethink her reasons for being there in the first place.

mtnbiker said on January 2, 2010 at 10:14 AM

It's about time. How difficult is it to go out and buy a $20 earpeice. Then you have BOTH hands on the wheel and can talk at the same time. Please................

remainingreal said on January 2, 2010 at 10:14 AM

tangpo-the statistics would have been irrelevant, since they would have to catch them doing something else before they could tag them for using a cell phone. THIS WILL show real statistics when they can pull them over for using them, period.

oldbuck said on January 2, 2010 at 10:14 AM

The cops don't even enforce exising laws, what's the point in passing new ones. Maybe we should cut police funding by 10% and tell them they can make up the shortfall by increase the enforcement of existing laws.

remainingreal said on January 2, 2010 at 10:13 AM

dcady-when you're hit by someone who was yakking on their cell phone and they put you in critical condition on a hospital bed, perhaps you'd think twice about WHY this law is being put into affect. Or maybe you're the one yakking. Personally, I think it's great. I'm sick and tired of the rude behavior and lack of consideration for others that cell phone users portray whether driving or just in general in the public.

sickofthenonsens said on January 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM

does this senator own stock in one of the companies providing bluetooth devices or will those be offensive as well? I hope she makes things crystal clear and puts some real teeth in the bill - like a $20,000 minimum fine so the state can get what it really wants which is more free $ - also include such dangerous actions as coughing, sneezing, scratching that itch, picking your nose AND the most dangerous of all - being STUPID!!!!! Actually the last one will cover it all. Too bad Gary Locke isn't around to order one more study by a "blue ribbon" panel.

xxx87 said on January 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

agflyer is right - police don't even enforce existing laws, so what's the point in passing new ones. Maybe funding to police departments should be cut by 10% and tell them they can make up the shortfall by starting to enforce the laws. To carry this further, too many people go to court for traffic infractions even when they're guilty because they know the judge will reduce the fine. How about if you go to court to fight a ticket and are found guilty, the fine is doubled. This will reduce the amount of time the cops have to spend in court and will free them up to spend more time on patrol. Flame away.

agflyer said on January 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM

some of these law that are passed are benificial. if the police do not enforce these then the public choose to keep using cell phone, etc. if enforce they just slap your hand for a first offince, stiffer penalties might mean more if enforced in the first place.

agflyer said on January 2, 2010 at 9:44 AM

no matter how many laws are passed it won't make much of a difference. When the police do not enforce them the public just ignors most of these laws. enforce them first, stiffer sentences next time there cought. might work??

agflyer said on January 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM

pass all the law's..dosn't count much..Police do not enforce them. Plenty of close calls from cell users, encluding red light runners. If they do not enforce it no one will stop using.

speeadork said on January 2, 2010 at 8:55 AM

I was just driving home from work and called Tracey Eide on her cell and talked to her about this. She had to put me on hold twice because she said it was hard to apply makeup and talk on the cell at the same time....and god knows we don't want to see half the women that are applying makeup or doing their hair every morning on the way to work have to stop doing that.

milleramerican85 said on January 2, 2010 at 8:35 AM

While I'm usually against more laws, this is a good idea. On the way home the other day I had a girl come into my lane TWICE because she was texting while driving. I'm also sick of the idiots doing 55mph in the fast lane becasue they are yapping away on their phone. There are individuals out there that can do these things and drive but the vast majority can not. I just put my phone down while in the car when it became a secondary offense. I doubt anything that important needs to be addressed on a regular basis in the car anyway. Get over your need for instant gratification people and wait until your stopped before using your phone.

tangpo said on January 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Where are the statistics from the last stupid cell phone law? Did the number of traffic accidents in Washington decrease after the law passed? Somehow I doubt it. Where is the statistical evidence that cell phone bans provide any meaningful effect on reducing accidents? Cell phones are not the problem. Distracted drivers are the problem. Talking on a cell phone can't be any more of a distraction than say eating while driving. On that basis shouldn't we be banning drive-thru windows??? What about applying makeup? Why don't we pass a ban on having your purse in hand's reach while driving? Senator Eide is wasting the people's time with an ineffective and worthless law.

cvn65 said on January 2, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Dcaddy then don't use your cell phone. I can't even begin to count the times that I have been nearly run down in a crosswalk by some blithering idiot with a cell phone to their ear. Grrrr.

sp2009 said on January 2, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Not going to stop me or thousands of others from talking on the phone while in your car. Waste of tax payer money!

machinehead said on January 2, 2010 at 7:28 AM

While I agree that cellphones can be dangerous when in the hands of a distracted driver, I ride a motorcycle and have been run off the road by people just yakking with passengers in their car! This article also says "just for having a cellphone in your car". Hmm, doesn't seem to be any differentiation for cellphone and hands free headset! I agree that we need much more clarification. At this point it does sound like an umbrella law for revenue only!

maynerdgkrebbs said on January 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM

The elected elite don't have a clue,and don't care. Another pre-files billSB 6239-2009-10 this bill wants to change all laws already passed to say hisor her. With all the problems facing the state one would think they would have better things to do.

cmeeverett said on January 2, 2010 at 6:34 AM

This law needs to be defined... When i'm driving down the freeway & the phone rings, i answer it & tell the person i am driving & will call them back. That way they or i do not have to go through the frikin hassle of going into messages, plus its a common courtesy, plus, the 5 (or less)seconds i"m on the phone, telling them "i am driving, bye", does not take my eye off the road any more than a simple sneeze. To make this act "illegal" is frikin rediculous, & beyond reason!!! What's next? Making sneezing in the car while driving illegal? ---If you're on the phone longer than a minute, or use it to text ---throw the book at them. But for the rest of us, it's just not fair.

whatsyurbeef said on January 2, 2010 at 6:01 AM

Again I say the sooner the better, and for those of you who do not think it will work, well hit em in there wallet hard 1000.00 fine first offense 2000.00 fine second offense, and 2000.00 every time after that, it'll work, and the money made can be used for road projects that are badly needed in washington cities.So Whats Your Beef ?

coolblue9 said on January 2, 2010 at 5:41 AM

I get tired of hearing people say their rights are being taken away. Where in the U.S. or State Constitution does it say you have a right to talk on your cell phone while driving? While your at it, can you show me where it says you have a right to drive your car on the highway/roadway? Look all you want because you wont find it. Driving a car on the State roadways is a priveleage that the state bestows upon you. It is not your right. To excercise that priveleage you must follow the laws. If you don't like like it...TAKE THE BUS! For those that think they can drive a talk on a cell phone just fine, try this excercise out. Completely shuffle a deck of cards and spread them out on a tabel. Now have someone time you while you sort them as fast as you can by suit. Try to do it again while someone is talking to you and asking questions that you have to answer. I can guarantee a much slower time. Talking on a cell phone divides your attention from the road. HANG UP AND DRIVE!

whoyou222 said on January 2, 2010 at 4:31 AM

I agree with sensibleguys comment. Everything you do in your car seems to be illegal so lets cut out the middle man and stop passing laws that prohibit you from doing this or that. Just pass a law where a cop can randomly pull over someone and give them a citation for no reason.

usfbullman said on January 2, 2010 at 4:15 AM

Boom another personal right about to be taken away and we all just smile and say thank you.

ustawuz said on January 2, 2010 at 3:28 AM

To all those who wimper about too much government, I recall the phrase above the corridor in my high school. "Democracy Begins With Self-Control". If we cannot control our own lives, and be responsible for our own actions, then somebody has to take control for us. It was that way when we were children, and as long as "adults" refuse to take the responsibility for their actions and use the brains they were given then government will have to take them by the hand and lead them along, like children.

seasprite38 said on January 2, 2010 at 2:49 AM

It's about time, but too late to prevent the accident I had when a woman on a cell phone ran through a stop sign and t-boned my car.

bangarang said on January 2, 2010 at 1:13 AM

I think it only fair that if this law pass the very next one should be retesting for drivers license at the age of 60. Especially if we are talking about safety. Then how about laws against bicyclist being able to be a vehicle when it benefits them and a pedestrian a few seconds later.there are so many issues and to try and single them out is ludicrous. It is just a way to be able to find the things most popular for a driver to do so they can up the ticket price on those.we can have a tv monitor in the dash (GPS) and thats okay but something like a cell phone call that doesnt take your eyes off the road is a no no and if you want to bring up texting thats understandable i get it but good luck for cops trying to see if a person is texting or not its a waste of leg's time. As far as seatbelts go me not wearing my seatbelt will only effect me. So why can I not make that choice on my own? PS I wear one cuz its smart but disagree with it cuz its forced.

livinglife said on January 2, 2010 at 12:13 AM

I agree...some people may not think cell phones are distracting while driving but they are. I have seen so many people run stop signs because they are on their phone, I have seen accidents where people at 4 way stops are not paying attention because they are on their phone and cut people off while others are about to take their turn. Or they just cant stay on the road. If its business related maybe the best option would be blue tooth. Its not the conversation being held that is so much as a distraction as it is the phone itself also. What ever texts I receive while driving or any calls I may get can wait until I get to where I am going or my passenger can read them to me or answer the call.

east123 said on January 2, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Does this include law enforcement as well as all emergency vehicles because I sure have seen my share of such cell phone users?

tangier said on January 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Today I was pulling out of the 'drop of mail in the post box' lane of the post office on N.E. 8th and 156th in Crossroads/Bellevue and was waiting for cars to go in front of me. In 4 cars that passed me, 3 drivers were on cell phones and the 4th was texting while driving out onto N.E. 8th. All 4 of these cars were entering large boulevards. Evidently, a wimpy law doesn't make a difference to them and somehow, they feel that they are special and above the law..that the law doesn't apply to them. Talking on the cellphone and texting while driving has been proved to be dangerous as well as eating, putting on make up, doing anything that is distracting. I would support a law for primary useage of cell phone as illegal. If you don't want to contribute your hard earned money to the government coffers then follow the laws! The laws are for a reason: people do dumb things to hurt others. Simple. I also stop at stop signs.

supportrofficers said on January 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM

THE BOTTOM LINE IS NO MATTER WHO IS FOR IT OR AGAINST IT, IF THE LEG WANTS TO PASS THE LAW THEY WILL. THE PEOPLE THAT PASS THE LAW ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BREAK THE LAW.

whatsyurbeef said on January 1, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Glad to hear it the sooner the better, believe it or not everyone communicated just fine before everyone started using or should I say abusing those disruptive little gadgets. So Whats Your Beef ?

factoid said on January 1, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Hey "grandpa36" FYI, there is also a law against driving without insurance. Did not stop them did it? Again, the inattentive driving law covers everything you are not supposed to do in the vehicle already. Singling out one or two distractions will not help or change anything regarding safety, it only puts more money in the governments coffers and keeps the police busy.

dcady203 said on January 1, 2010 at 8:52 PM

"Seig Heil" to our all knowing and omnipitant "government officials", who at EVERY level from town, to city, to county, to state, to federal, are subverting , little by little, drip by drip, day by day, the American citizens' basic rights to be left FREE of governmental intrusion into our lives at every level. Where the heck are the TRUE activist citizens when we need them the most? They seem to be caught up and unduly focused (thanks to the kool-aid drinking socialist enviornmental wackos) on saving the whales, the trees, the animals, (name your favorite cause) , than on saving and protecting the basic and fundemental rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. Eventually, even their rights will slowly, quitely, without fanfare, disappear without them recognizing it, and they then, too late, will be caught up in the governmental web that "prohibits" and "excludes" their voice of protest. It's rarely overt; it's gentile, subtle.

withane said on January 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM

The most dangerous driver on the road has a cell phone stuck in her/his ear, a couple of kids and a dog in the back of the SUV and a latte in the cup holder. Lord, help us.

grandpa36 said on January 1, 2010 at 8:19 PM

People have been killed by using cell phones while driving. I think it was near Port Angles last year a girl drove in the water and she & 2 others drowned. I know someone can find a site that has all the facts on death and injuries from cell phone use. I personally was rear ended by a person yapping on the phone. Injuries were minor but they also did not have any insurance. Totaled my car and cost me almost $ 10,000 for medical and car replacement. Someone will say why did you not sue them. Ever try and get blood from a turnip enough said. BAN THE CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING

collegeguy said on January 1, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Ok, enough is enough... big brother needs to stop being in our lives. Yes people should use common sense and not use their cell phone while driving but to constantly pass laws in the supposed name of safety is BS, what next? outlaw car stereos and GPS devices and putting on make-up, or even eating or drinking something in the car??? Enough is enough!

organdonor said on January 1, 2010 at 8:12 PM

I would think navigation systems would cause a distraction also. Lets ban those too while were at it. Lets also make it illegal to eat and drive, or drink a water. The radio is also a huge distraction, those need to go. List could go on and on.

bekster4 said on January 1, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Oldtimer1 your name says it all !! LOTS of things can distract drivers. I have not yet read where a cell phone user was so distracted they ran a stop sign and killed 4 people.....Or a cell phone user driving the wrong way on the freeway wiping out an intire family.

blankingout said on January 1, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Why are they beating around the bush, the government just needs to declare marshall law and assign us block leaders we report to everyday.

factoid said on January 1, 2010 at 7:43 PM

One more time, for all those in favor of this do nothing, self serving bill by Mrs. Eide. All distractions while driving are already covered by the inattentive driving law. Geez. I am so frustrated by ignorance.

farmer01 said on January 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM

what about eating or doing your hair , Kids in the back yelling ,I drive all the time on my cell I have too it is business and it is not distracting at all we need laws that make sense not take away our rights

what_the said on January 1, 2010 at 7:07 PM

I miss the days when there were no cell phones. Come on people, what is so important to talk about that you can't pull over and do it? Why risk your life and others so you can have a useless chat with someone while driving? It only takes a split second to cause a wreck, is it worth it? Yes I have a cell phone and only use it for emergencies, until then I don't even turn it on. Please pull over to use yours if you have to.

iloveella said on January 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM

This law can't come soon enough. I can't tell you the number of times people on their cells have almost collided with me and others. And when I gently honk my horn to alert them, they give ME the finger! Maybe if this becomes a primary offense, some of these self absorbed jerks will think twice before using their cells while driving.

sensibleguy said on January 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Why don't we just make this simple. Direct the State Patrol to randomly pull people over and give them a citation. Solves the revenue problem. Not much left to make illegal anyways.

lifted_loyale said on January 1, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Please make it soon, and lets start with a first offense fine of at least $2000, 1 year license suspension, and confiscated vehicle.

yogibear said on January 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM

If they do this, they should add eating, drinking,reading the paper, looking at a map, brushing your teeth and all the other things drivers are doing other than driving. These are just as distracting

ehoquiam said on January 1, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Does this mean that we soon won't be able to have cars with radio's that have to be tuned and kids riding in the back seat. After all they are a distraction as well. We just need more people who have to pass the, "Walk and chew gum" test before they can purchase any kind of cell phone. We don't need more control from the goverment. That's not going to stop people from using their phones.

oldtimer1 said on January 1, 2010 at 6:45 PM

YES!! If you imagine each distracted cell-phone driver as a drunk, you can see how scary and serious this is!

bekster4 said on January 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM

I think the government is in our lives enough. We are made to used seat belts, it should be my call if I wear one or not. This has nothing to do with children wearing seat belts. This should be law until they are old enough to make that decision on there own. We already have laws on cell phone use while driving a car. Enough is enough. Why don't you, Tracey Eide, concentrate on keeping baby rapers in prison, Make a law that anyone convicted of raping anyone under the age of 12 be sentenced to life instead of slapping them on the hand. I bet if it was your son or daughter you would want stiffer sentences.Change laws to keep violent offenders behind bars, stiffer sentences to those who drink, drive and take live(s). It just shows where our political prostitutes priorities are. I hope you are voted out next election and someone comes in that does not have a price tag around there neck. We need serious laws not frivolous C#@P.

mikthrac said on January 1, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Thank you! Thank you! I will vote to pass it! I'm so tired of having people almost hit me while their talking and trying to drive.

brutehead said on January 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM

It's about time!!

proudamerican said on January 1, 2010 at 6:09 PM

finally

seattlecitizen said on January 1, 2010 at 6:09 PM

While they are at it, they need to pass House Bill 1479 which would abolish legalized land theft (aka adverse possession). Unfortunately, Rep. Jamie Pedersen refuses to move HB 1479 onto the floor. Why? Ask his lawyer friends. It's time for adverse possession to end now. Support Tracey Eide and tell your representative to support HB 1479, too!

proudamerican said on January 1, 2010 at 6:08 PM

FINALLY!

factoid said on January 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Apparently Mrs. Eide has nothing more constructive to do. Hope she also included, shaving, applying make up, flossing, brushing hair, eating, drinking, radio talk, GPS adjusting, disciplining children, reading, writing, computers, music, general conversation, napping, etc.. Oh wait, these things are already covered by the inattentive driving law. You would think she knew that. Another do nothing law to get re-elected.

dcady203 said on January 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Now who do you know that couldn't have seen this coming? Really. " It's all about safety" is a euphemism for "we want all the money you may have remaining in your wallet - even if it is from unemployment compensation". A big new year thank you to our elected graftors for continuing to come up with new and unique means to steal our life's blood, sweat, and tears.

remainingreal said on January 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Good.

stopchildnapping said on January 1, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Please GOOGLE: InnocenceDestroyed Thank you. "Lovingfitfather"