Deseret News | Reader comments: Lawmakers targeting phone use by drivers

Reader comments
Lawmakers target cell phones

Good luck. | 9:48 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Perhaps they should target people not smoking and driving at the same time as well. Until I see cops not talking on their cell phones while they are driving they shouldn't force citizens either. I'm all for hands free and agree with it, but I've almost been hit by people trying to light up their cigarette and drive, sometimes trying to shift their car all at the same time.

uncannygunman | 10:55 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

"The Blackberry business . . . ." Heh.

I'm fine with this bill as long as each legislator who votes for it gets up and, with a straight face, swears that they currently refrain from EVER talking on their phone while driving because it is just so darn dangerous that they have to ban it.

Let's start with the sponsors--Riesen, Ray, and Moss, do you currently refrain (not minimize, REFRAIN) from talking on your cell phone while driving? If so, kudos to you for not being a hypocrite. If not, why not?

Anonymous | 12:24 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

What about girls who do their make-up or guys shaving. Thats freaken wrong. People who do hands free talking on their phone arent the problem.

Comments continue below

Craig | 3:26 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

"other people who rely on radios for work to be negatively affected" does he really mean it? I am in sales and should not be treated different than truckers. They are not paid for radio time. It is either safe or it is not. Unless it is an emergency call even cops should be banned, They can pull over and while eating donuts make their routine calls.

No exemptions | 3:47 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

The only exemptions to the Blackberry law should be law enforcement. Even the hands free phones should not be exempt, how do they think these devices get truned on and off and dialed? None. And anyone can claim they are using their phones for business use or an emergency, and we are right back where we started. Pass the law with no exemptions and then adjust it as necessary to meet needs. Truckers should not be exempt either, their own companies prohibit drivers using them. And what about all those government agency vehicles running around the state on "errands"? Is it business or is it a home call? This law is too lax and lean and doesn't have the ability to be enforced. Then why is there any need to mention school zones? They are automaticaly included. This change should also include the inattentive drivers law that is already on the books with the same penalties and fines. The fine and penalty should be a minimum standard, not the max. Especially in cases involving an accident or death. Anyone caught should also have their phone or device confiscated and returned after the penalty phase and fine is completed.

the posse | 4:26 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Only 90 days in jail? And its ok to use one to report on a fellow citizen using one??? Lets see 20 drivers arrested for cell phone use... all used the same defense: I was reporting the driver of the next car using a cell..... the lawyers will love this one!

Wow what great legislation. | 4:56 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

This is something that I feel we can really use.

Impared driving in my opinon is also texting, dialing or even holding your cell phone to your ear.

I am tired of following some one with their head cranked to the side with their hand on the side of the head doing 30mph in a 55 mph speed zone.

I feel the ticket would be a great source of revenue for a cash starved state.

What's wrong with hand free devices? They are not as bad in my opinion.

I rented a car in California last week and they had a sign at the rental agency advising people of the hands free law.

Phil Riesen is a breath of fresh air in Utah politics.

Blow Your Mind | 6:09 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Good luck with this one. Maybe they should ban smoking while driving or eating while driving. How many accidents do these cause each day?

Nanny state? | 6:30 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

The legislators are worried Utah will become a "nanny" state. Utah is ALREADY a "nanny" state.

More laws | 6:30 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

I think there should be more laws. Especially laws restricting things that people can do in public. We have way too many freedoms in this country and state.

Lots of | 6:37 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Lots of talk on this, there will be no action.

Why? Because 10% of the pop. are doing it all the time.

Lots of talk, no action.

Canty | 7:03 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

We already have a law prohibiting cell phone usage:

Utah Code 41-6a-1715 states, "... A ... person is guilty of careless driving if the person commits a moving traffic violation ... while being distracted by ... using a wireless telephone or other electronic device unless the person is using hands-free talking and listening features while operating the motor vehicle;

Thus, if a person can drive safely when using a cell phone, its OK. Only when it is associated with other careless driving behavior it becomes a violation.

This law is simple to enforce and addresses the real problem which is distraction while driving causing drivers to commit other violations.

Let's enforce what we already have and save the time and cost required to write additional, more complicated, and less effective legislation.

George | 7:13 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Obviously the legislators have nothing to do! Don't they understand that a law already exists? Being distracted while driving is already a crime in this state. So why not work on something else that may be more important....Like cutting taxes, and balancing the budget! Why are they so stupid??

where am i? | 7:15 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

is the Utah or the peoples republic of massachusetts????

It won't happen ... | 7:18 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

because the legislators will never do something that would impede them from doing their business - or, at least, what they see as their business - and if you have ever watched as the parking lot under the capitol drains after a working session, you will see at least half the legislators talking on their cell phones as they hit the roads.

Daryl | 7:50 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Where does it end, laws protecting people against themselves because someone feels that they should be made to live a life style by their standards. Yes some people can not drive and use a phone safely, but they also can not eat or smoke and drive safely or even change a radio station. One more pc. feel good law our law enforcement people will have to enforce. Many states restrict young drivers from having passengers because of distractions, I could agree with a law restricting under 18, leave the adults alone.

I knew it | 7:55 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Before I even clicked on this article I knew Paul Ray would be involved somehow.

Utah's modern-day version of Carrie Nation must lie awake at nights worrying there is some aspect of life that the government has not yet regulated, and in order to protect us from our own stupidity he must ride forth on his White Steed and introduce silly new laws.

For The Children, of course.

Thomas W. Clay | 8:06 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Don't we already have laws converning distracted drivers?

And these proposed laws are different how?

Idiots | 8:10 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

The idiots are not the legislators but most of the people that are so self righteous and arrogant to think that they are better than others in this aspect of their lives. I am sure you all will say you have never had a mishap but the person that you cut off or near missed would not agree. The U study showed that many of the problems associated with cell phone use was not even perceived by the offenders. Pull your head out of your cell phone case twits.

Ignorance | 9:35 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

These comments are just more proof of the "NOW" generation and their facination with pricey toys. They don't get it from a safety standpoint or financial. Get all of the technology toys and the mind altering drugs, the big houses, the rec toys, the new autos and trucks, then cry when you go broke or someone in your family dies from a pre-occupied driver. They just want EVERYTHING NOW, thats all. Idiots.

More regulation? | 9:38 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Ron Paul for President!

the true cost... | 9:41 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

I trust that the legislature has considered the cost of making productive citizens criminals. When asked if you have a criminal record for an employer you will be required to disclose. Moreover, if the police officer is having a bad day or doen't like the color of your hair, skin, etc. and decides (in the rare case to arrest and book) - the cost is over $1500. Add defense and prosecution fees...

Critically, this will give law enforcement an additional ability to pull over drivers that fit a certain profile...

Responsibility | 10:14 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

I personally like Riesen's bill best. It is sad to me that we have to legislate common sense, but it is obvious that too many people are far too selfish and too self-important to consider putting the safety of other people before their own need or desire to talk or text while driving. We got along just fine before cell phones came along.

I've had some near misses due to completely oblivious people chatting away on their phones and not paying attention to driving. One woman did not even register that I was honking at her while desperately trying to stay out of her way in a double left-turn lane.

I enjoy using my cell phone and think it is a wonderful convenience. However, everyone who knows me knows that I refuse to answer (or make) calls while I'm driving. I either pull over to the side of the road or wait until I arrive at my destination and return the call. I wish everyone else would do the same.

Which is more important? A phone call or your own or someone else's life?

What if... | 10:25 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

...someone is picking their nose, examining it and looking for a place to wipe it and gets in a wreck? Shouldn't there be a law specifically for that, too?

It figures that democrats are behind this stupid law.

But, they'll be sure to let real drunk drivers go free!

Plain stupid.

People just need to not get distracted, as Canty mentioned in an earlier comment. The existing law is sufficient for distracted driving. Let it be, dumbo legislators.

Personal experience | 10:42 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Seen an accident happen when someone was trying to pick up cell phone after dialing & putting it on speaker.
Seen way too many close calls only to see a phone involved.
Dumbest thing I ever saw: someone dangling their cigarette out the window, while they talked on their cell phone with their other hand -- who's driving that thing?!!
A law that helps reduce these dangerous practices, although inconvenient in some ways (the kids never call when I'm sitting in a parking lot!), will hopefully help us protect each other!
We need to be good examples, too -- let our kids see that we won't answer or call while we're driving. My 5 year old is my Jiminy Cricket when I feel the urge to answer!

Unwise | 10:41 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

This law would cut my productivity in half. Driving time is my calling time. I've never come close to getting a wreck while talking on the phone, perhaps texting, but not talking on the phone.

And what about long stretches of freeway in Utah's wastelands? If I don't talk on the phone how will I stay awake? I don't think there's much danger in doing much when you're driving on a straight road without any traffic for hours and hours.

Riesen has good intentions, but there are too many loopholes and problems with his proposal.

Re: What if | 10:49 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

If picking ones nose were as wide spread as it is in your car you would have a legitimate argument rather than another one of those idiotic self centered comments above, oh but it is a fallacious comparison so don't dig to much deeper your already removing neural matter and you don't have much to lose.

Jimmy | 10:59 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

It's about time legislators. Weaving, lane drifting, going slow on the Interstate, not going on a green light, not using turn signals, making one handed turns that cross the line; DUI? No cell phone users. Try using a cell phone while you drive in Europe and you will find a flashing red light behind you.

It's sad | 11:14 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

People no longer want Liberty and Freedom. They want Politicians to legislate their pathetic lives so everything is in order.

Their already is a law in effect.

Please go back to yor America Idol web page.

To Unwise | 11:18 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Evidently you're one of those people who consider your "productivity" more important than your own life and the lives of others. You must be really important.

When you're driving long stretches of freeway in Utah's wastelands, how about 1) not driving in the first place unless you're rested and alert; 2) drink a caffeinated beverage prior to driving; 3) how about playing music to keep you awake rather than talking on the phone: 4) although some Utah roads are less traveled than others, I've never gone hours and hours without seeing other travelers.

It has been proven that talking on a cell phone, even hands free, is just as impairing as alcohol. Perhaps you've been a lot closer to crashing than you think because you're too busy talking on the phone to notice what is going on around you while other folks are scrambling to get out of your way.

Please realize that you're not invincible and neither are drivers around you.

CeeCee | 11:15 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

this will never pass.... I've seen too many legislators (you can identify them by their special licenses plates they have) driving and talking on the phone, oh and speeding at the same time. I like the idea, but when all the Reps realize it would apply to THEM they will vote it down.

To "RE: WHat if" | 11:24 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

You obviously missed the entire point of the comment, which is:

This law is as dumb as legislating nose-picking.

Get real and get a clue.

Try this test | 11:30 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

First count from 1 to 26 as fast as you can.

Second, say the alphabet from A to Z as fast as you can.

Pretty fast, eh?

Now combine the two, numbers and alphabet, like this, and say it as fast as you can: A1, 2B, 3C, 4D, and so forth.

If you're like me and most other people, that really slowed you down. This is a good example of two different tasks competing with each other in a specific area of your brain. Talking on a cell phone and driving an automobile also compete in the same area of your brain and it seems that a focus on talking wins out over driving skills. You cannot concentrate on both tasks at the same time.

I hope the legislature has the courage to pass Reisen's bill this year!

Steve | 12:38 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009

I was initially FOR a ban on cell phones while driving. But, after reading some of the comments here I have totally changed my mind. I, myself have a cell phone but can't seem to get the hang of talking on it while driving (maybe I'm uncoordinated, I don't

know), when I get a call while I'm driving, I flip it open and holler "call me back in 5 mins" (or whatever time), then put it back down.

But, the thing is - police don't enforce all the laws that they have now, why would they enforce this?

I'm also convinced of the "nanny state" factor, we don't need MORE laws, we just need the ones we have enforced. (immigration?)

I drive SL to Provo 3-4x per week, and I have to wonder why the UHP doesn't enforce the HOV lane restrictions. From what I've seen they could pay half the state budget writing HOV violations!

Tom | 2:13 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009

The sooner there are strict laws on bimbo cell phone users, the safer our roads will be. I have to dodge one of these BIMBOS everyday after work while driving home. They are too busy texting or blabbing about absolutely nothing. I hate to say this, but It's most women who do this inconsiderate behavior, and think they have so much to say while driving irrationally on the road, and put the lives of others in dangers way. Even when I honk at them they just don't get it.

Abominous | 2:57 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009

@ Canty | 7:03 a.m.

"Thus, if a person can drive safely when using a cell phone, it [should be] OK. Only when it is associated with other careless driving behavior [should] it becomes a violation."

Great idea. Let's do the same thing with drunk driving, too. If you can drive safely while drunk, it should be OK. Only if drunkenness is associated with other careless driving behavior should it become a violation.

After all, who wants to live in a nanny state?

Police Exempt? | 7:47 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009

I was at a stop sign next to a police officer this evening. He was cradling a cell phone and typing on his computer. Come on! I don't know how the police can drive while being distracted by a computer and a cell phone.

Lyndon | 2:52 p.m. Jan. 19, 2009

I think we need to be careful about combining cell phones with two way radios. There are a lot of business people that must use a mobile two way radio while driving. Taxi cabs, police, city workers, fire department, ambulances. Also there is a large group of ham radio operators that we rely on to provide communication in the event of a disaster. We need to make sure we separate trained radio operators and people that use cell phones to communicate for no reason at all except for entertainment. Most of the time it is a useless bit of conversation that can wait till we get home..

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.