Guy In Silicon Valley Buys Billboard Ad Against CA's Hands-Free Mobile Phone Law
from the one-way-to-protest dept
I'm not really sure that this is an effective use of money to protest a law, but one guy, Grant Paulson, has shelled out $10,000 of his own money to buy space on a billboard in Palo Alto to protest California's new requirement for using a hands-free device if you're using a mobile phone while driving. The billboard's message is directed at state Senator Joe Simitian of Palo Alto -- who introduced the legislation in the first place. In part, it reads:Senator Joe Simitian: Your cell phone law sucks. Amazing how 1 man's bad idea can screw over & inconvenience millions of people in CA. Let's overturn this law in the next election & protect what rights we still have left."It may be getting attention, but Simitian doesn't seem particularly persuaded by it, saying that it "put a smile on my face" and calling it "a hoot." Also, it looks like most of the people the San Jose Mercury News asked about it weren't impressed by the billboard -- with some noting that they have no problem with the hands-free rule, and others complaining that the billboard itself was distracting because it contained too many words (seriously). Even Simitian noted: "My only concern is that someone might be rear-ended." That seems pretty ridiculous, frankly. Shouldn't drivers know better than to get distracted by a billboard with "too many words."
Hell, perhaps next Simitian will propose a law banning billboard with too many words as a new "driver distraction" that must be stopped. I'm sure I know one guy who would buy a billboard protesting that law...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, grant paulson, hands free, joe simitian
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _superhazards_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _superhazards_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
illegal driving ? In FL we don't have that law yet, what the heck is illegal driving ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
- Failure to stop or come to a complete stop at a stop light or stop sign.
- Failure to signal a turn.
- Failure to signal a lane change.
- Failure to operate a vehicle with headlights on during inclement weather or between sunset and sunrise.
- Driving faster than the posted speed limit.
- Weaving or swerving in traffic.
If I have to explain illegal driving to you, then you are obviously not a driver or you have issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
If all those things were so easy to list, AND if any cop witnessing these activities already has a law that he can cite, why the need to create yet a NEW law banning the use of a device ?
By your logic we should ban Ipods and radios in cars, because changing the tune you're listening to (through the stereo, not even headphones) CAN BE a distraction while driving. Yet as you listed out so eliquently, if a cop sees the results of a distracted driver, he has many existing laws to fall back on.
I do drive, and my issues are with morons who support more government, more laws, and more rights being removed from citizens ; )
Perhaps you should hop down from your high horse one day and live a day with the rest of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
You misunderstand. I have eaten and still do while driving (though I pull over now when the lettuce from a burger falls in my lap instead of trying to clean myself off while driving), I talk to my passengers, I have talked on a cell phone while driving (and have been near to an accident a couple times while doing so; I lived and learned from those mistakes - driving first, cell phone second) and probably everything on the list at one time or another. Some, like reaching for a moving object, I no longer do while driving.
However, every time I do something that distracts me, I increase the risk that I will get into an accident.
I am sympathetic to people who want to ban using cell phones while driving because I have seen people totally violate every driving rule imaginable while using one (running red lights, changing lanes with and turning without signaling, speeding, failure to reduce speed in construction and school zones, abrupt lane changes, driving off the edge of the road, and any other conceivable thing you can name).
In spite of my distaste for people unable to drive while using a cell phone, I think the bigger issue is bad drivers, not cell phone use. I think all drivers with a second moving violation should be required to take a 40 hour driver's education course within six months of the violation. I also am in favor of progressive fines for people violating driving laws.
Do we need a ban on cell phones? Probably not. We need the police to be more agressive enforcing the laws already on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
Then there was the lady with all the traffic piled up behind here. When we moved onto a four lane I caught up with her and passed her (it was easy, she was doing 30 in a 40 zone...before the turn she was doing 30 in a 45). She was busy yakking away on a cell phone.
Then there was the idiot who kept creeping over into my lane. Big mistake. He was in a car, I was in an F-150. He moved back into his lane really quick when he realized that I was a couple of inches from his car.
I have thought about putting a video camera in my car and getting these people in the act and putting them on YouTube, along with their license plate. A little revenge against the idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: _superhazards_
Ahhh, that explains a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are plenty of people out there that can handle talking on the phone while driving. Phones are not the problem. The problem is some peoples inability to prioritize what they are doing. Driving vs. Talking on the phone. Driving vs. Talking to thier passenger. Driving vs. Changing the radio station or CD. Hell, some people can't even WALK in a straight line if they look one way or the other. PHONES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It appears you don't drive much.
You're talking about people who effectively create traffic jams when coming upon a fender bender just to see it.
While it may be rare, the potential is definitely there.
$10,000. Wasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn Signals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn Signals
My parents raised me on stick, and I can do more with 1 hand on the wheel than most people can do with two. These laws don't consider all drivers, they punish the good and the bad together. If they considered all drivers, we wouldn't have laws banning mobile phone usage in a car.
These type of blanket laws are not specific enough; laws are not supposed to pass if they aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turn Signals
Living in Poland, all of us drive stick and all of us drive two-handed now because we paid for our one handed bad habits in cash and personal injury. Two handed beats all other styles hands down (excuse the pun). Have you ever driven Warsaw? Granted there are more challenging places to drive however there are no old bad drivers here...Best of luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Turn Signals
The problem with this no handheld cell phone usage law, is that it is already covered. If people are driving irratically or dagerously, pull them over and give them a ticket, reguardless of the reason why. Do we need another law to keep people from turning their head to talk to their passenger? Or do we just give them a ticket, when it causes them to veer and create a dangerous situation?
Yes, some people are incapable of driving safely and talking on the phone at the same time. But others are perfectly capable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turn Signals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn Signals
If you factor in the fact that American drivers education doesn't teach situational awareness or avoidance manuevering with the fact that most drivers identify a hazard much later than they should, you'd realize that puting people on hands free only slightly improves the time that it takes them to drive their car right into the car they were supposed to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn Signals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Laws from Silly Legislators
a flurry of initial tickets, basically this law goes
unenforced as far as anyone can tell. Personally, I believe
that text while driving is far more dangerous - have
witnessed a couple accidents where texting driver A
read ended driver B. I've used a hands-free for years
now, but the basic overall problem is that some people
multitask better than others - so even with handsfree, you
still end up with a distracted driver. Enough states have
these laws now that you would think that before/after statistics would help guide the law making process. The
cynical side of me says there is no press release value
in "Hi, I'm Senator Blowhard, and I just wanted you to know
that I properly researched my initiative and responsibly
decided to *NOT* introduce the law I was thinking of
bellowing about". In these days of downsizing, how come
no one ever suggested we downsize all the a-hole politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ready for work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eyes free billboords
That's funny.
And there should be a law that dictates eyes free billboords. This will allow the driver to not be distracted while tailgating, eating, changing radio stations, and everything else that is potentailly hazardous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/ NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2008/DOT-HS-810-704.pdf
However, I missed on the other passenger part. Here are the leading causes of distraction leading to an accident:
23.7% Outside object/person/event
20.8% Another vehicle occupant
5.2% Using, reaching for an object
3.7% An object moving inside the vehicle
3.6% Using a cell phone
2.9% Adjusting a radio, cassette or CD player (but not listening)
2.8% Eating or drinking
1.5% Adjusting a climate control
However, these factors are frequently environmentally important. Crashes associated with adjusting audio devices are more likely to occur at night. Moving objects inside the vehicle occur more frequently on non-level grades (who woulda thunk it?). Distractions leading to accidents involving other car occupants occur more frequently at intersections.
Further, drivers under the age of 20 and over the age of 70 were more likely to have been distracted at the time of the accident (12 to 14% versus 6 to 9%).
Distracted drivers are 50% more likely to have been seriously injured or killed in their crashes relative to attentive drivers. Distracted drivers were much more likely than attentive drivers to have been involved in single-vehicle and read-end crashes. Approximately 70% of distracted driver accidents involved one of these two events.
However, on page 13 of the study, the results of a 2006 study by McCartt et al. presents evidence that phone conversations are more disruptive than conversations with passengers or manipulating a radio, CD or cassett player.
There is a further caution in 4.1.1 of this study that points out that cell phones are being used for more purposes and by more people, and that younger people tend to be early adopters and are more susceptible to distraction and accidents.
1.0% Smoking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a good law, but doesn't go far enough
You are welcome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MATH!
Just another classic example of how the government gets to infringe upon our rights as individuals and consumers by forcing us to comply to a meaningless law under the guise of safety. TALKING, yes TALKING while driving is distracting, whether it be holding a cell phone, yelling at your kids in the back seat, or any other scenario where your brain is focusing more on the conversation than trying to navigate the road is what's dangerous. Shut the fuck up and keep your eyes on the road and that's what will keep you safe, not some dumbass law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MATH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MATH!
What is really sad is that recently there have been a spate of single car accidents involving teenagers in Indiana getting killed where the teenager was either talking on the cell phone or texting either during the accident or just before the accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MATH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why stop there?
Hummers and F-350s...any type of large truck is a hazard. You can't see around them what so ever and if they hit a compact car the damage to that car and it's occupants could be devastating. This goes for any type of work vehicle carrying a large amount of tools also, the extra weight means less stopping ability and more potential damage if they hit someone. That is just plain physics. Plus, since they ride higher than most other vehicles they pose an extreme risk at night since their headlights shine right into the rear view mirror, forcing the other driver to remove their hand from the steering wheel, take their eyes off the road and adjust the mirror. They definitely need to be banned.
We need to remove the radios from cars and especially DVD/TV's. Though I guess the TV won't matter much once we eliminate the ability to have passengers in the vehicles too.
We should lower the speed limit to 25 on every drivable road, be it highway or not. That will definitely make things a lot safer for everyone.
Restaurants should no longer be able to serve take out food to someone unless the customer fills out and signs a form stating that they will not attempt to consume the food in a vehicle.
Obviously make up needs to be banned to. I'm tempted to say we shouldn't even allow women to drive. They should probably have to register their menstrual cycle with the DMV at the very least and be prohibited from driving on those days. Or we could install a Tampon-lizer in all of their cars that they have to use before the car will start, just like a breathalizer. Yes, I am patenting that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Law -- Non-Violent Obstruction Idea
This is how we Californians end it. Everyone go to a minit-mart gas station store. By those stupid candy cell phone with the junk candy in them that kids love to waste money on. Everytime you see a cop, hold the toy cell phone to your ear like you are talking on it. When you get stopped, show you are just eating candy. No law against that. Cops will have to stop pulling people over and just ingore it after awhile.
This is coming for an ex-cop. it will work and it is a cheap solution.
This will be a bloodless and fairly comical revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Srsly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because 62 year old female members of the teachers union are *always* at the front line when defending personal freedoms. *Always*, I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already have laws for inattentive driving, right?
If your behavior shows inattention and therefore unsafe driving, you should get pulled off the road and ticketed. If you can do 5 other tasks and still drive well (i.e. because you are a helicopter pilot and cars are simple) then it should not be a problem.
Personally, I think cell phones should be hands-free, because you should always drive with both hands on the wheel. You have much better control in case of an emergency. But, drivers licenses are so easy to get in the USA that overall poor driving skills are a much bigger problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should outlaw drive-thrus and cup holders
In any case many I see that are "obeying" the law still have a hand occupied. How many times have you seen someone holding the mic/phone to their mouth instead of their ear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really wish we didn't need to do this to make people stay off the phone while driving. But after being cut off by some a-hole on a cell phone almost every day I think we need to. Why can't people just shut up and pay attention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phone Legislation
Please take down the $10,000 poster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phone or not....
For example... the last 3 accidents I was in were all from different forms of distractions.
1. I was at a 4 way stop, waited for the car coming from my right to come to a complete stop. Once she stopped I proceeded through the intersection. The lady (distracted by issues at home with her husband) came right at me and t-boned my car when I was more than half way through the intersection. She told the police she was distracted by family issues and she didn't see me.
2. On the freeway in the "slow lane" to exit the freeway. There was an earlier accident being cleared up in the center divide so of course people had to slow down and look. Except of course for the guy in the F-350 dually behind me who was too busy looking at the accident to notice everyone in front of him braking.
3. On the freeway in the slow lane (again). It had rained the night before and the road was slick. Girl a little bit ahead of me in the middle lane was distracted apparently searching for something in her car. Swerved for a dead cat into the fast lane where she noticed there were cars, over corrected and came into my lane.
None of these people were on cell phones (and neither was I). So sight these sources for your "statistics" please. I would like to take a look at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving with one hand
I've been driving with one hand on the steering wheel for more than 20 years, wheter I am using the phone, drinking my coffee, eating a snack, or doing whatever else you can do with one hand! Never had an accident.
I also find it faster to steer with one hand in response to a road situation, I am actually not sure how to do it with two as I was never used to steer using two hands, I find it awkward and it won't work for me as I am sure it's also the case for many others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving with one hand
I've been drinking and driving for more than 20 years, wheter I am using the phone, drinking my coffee, eating a snack, or doing whatever else you can do sober! Never had an accident.
I also find it better to drink in response to a road situation, I am actually not sure how to do it sober as I was never used to driving sober, I find it awkward and it won't work for me as I am sure it's also the case for many others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it may be inconvenient
Although Police have much more important things to do than enforce yet another traffic law. They've got their hands full trying to stop you from going 5mph too fast, you Criminal!!! (our tax dollars at work)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Half the people out there can handle it and half cant. So as usual we have to stop the half that cant from killing thr rest of us. There is nothing wrong with a handfree law. Its a good thing. In fact, after a while you wont want to use anything else. Try getting a speakerphone frokm Jabra. Clips to your sun visor battery lasts forever and it sounds great. you can even make it come through your car speakers. I love it. Here it CT we have a law that goes even further. Basically its a no distraction while driving law. That means no handheld devices (whether it be cell phones, PDA's, Playstations, Shavers, etc) It also menas no eating your lunch while driving (which is very dangerous) and no putting on makeup either. As I said some people can handle this multitasking but others cant and they will kill someone or a whole family.So we need laws to protect us from morons. I swear one morning I was next to a guy on the highway who was eating breakfast, shaving and reading the paper while he was driving. Complete idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly people
Lets get this straight people -- we are talking *statistics* here. Individual experience is statistically meaningless. Please go back to college are retake that statistics course that you obviously failed.
Re: billboard -- So that's what it said. I could never read it. Too many words and too small!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billboard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the PASSENGERS???
I have made stupid mistakes while driving a car. Most of them because of distraction of one sort or another including passengers, radios, personal problem solving sessions in my head and yes, even cell phones. Not all of these mistakes have resulted in my causing an accident though I suspect that I am pretty lucky in that regard. But I own up to my stupidity and I do try to minimize my distractions while driving. It is called personal responsibility. When we dumb down our laws to deal with those who refuse to be personally responsible for their own behaviors everyone loses.
Who cares WHY I drove through a red light? I should get the ticket for *driving thru the red light*. And if I injure or kill someone because I drove through the red light, I should be punished accordingly, regardless of WHY I ran the red light (sudden medical issues like heart attacks excepted for those of yo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY???
I have made stupid mistakes while driving a car. Most of them because of distraction of one sort or another including passengers, radios, personal problem solving sessions in my head and yes, even cell phones. Not all of these mistakes have resulted in my causing an accident though I suspect that I am pretty lucky in that regard. But I own up to my stupidity and I do try to minimize my distractions while driving. It is called personal responsibility. When we dumb down our laws to deal with those who refuse to be personally responsible for their own behaviors everyone loses.
Who cares WHY I drove through a red light? I should get the ticket for *driving thru the red light*. And if I injure or kill someone because I drove through the red light, I should be punished accordingly, regardless of WHY I ran the red light (sudden medical issues like heart attacks excepted for those of you who would like to argue that point).
As for the statement that "statistics don't lie" as an argument to enact a nanny law, well, that doesn't fly either. These can be interpretted many ways depending on what the focus or desired outcome is. If you are *looking* for a particular outcome, you can usually find a way to spin it that direction. In fact, politicians and the companies that pay for them spend a lot of money to hire a lot of really smart people to do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donate to Grant Paulson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]