<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Auto Ins .net &#187; california cell phone law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.autoins.net/tag/california-cell-phone-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.autoins.net</link>
	<description>Car insurance quotes.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:24:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Cell Phones and Driving</title>
		<link>http://www.autoins.net/2008/cell-phones-and-driving/</link>
		<comments>http://www.autoins.net/2008/cell-phones-and-driving/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 17:31:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Tips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Driving Tips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[auto insurance risks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[autoinsurance rates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california cell phone law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cell phone laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hands free cell phones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safe driving]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.autoins.net/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the United States over 254 million people subscribed to such wireless communication devices as cell phones as of February 2008, compared with approximately 4.3 million in 1990, according to the Cellular Telecommunications &#038; Internet Association.
Increased reliance on cell phones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the devices while [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the United States over 254 million people subscribed to such wireless communication devices as cell phones as of February 2008, compared with approximately 4.3 million in 1990, according to the Cellular Telecommunications &#038; Internet Association.</p>
<p>Increased reliance on cell phones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the devices while driving. There are two dangers associated with driving and cell-phone use, including text messaging. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing. Second, people can become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the act of driving is severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of vehicle occupants and pedestrians. Since the first law was passed in New York in 2001 banning hand-held cell-phone use while driving, there has been debate as to the exact nature and degree of hazard. The latest research shows that while using a cell phone when driving may not be the most dangerous distraction, because it is so prevalent it is by far the most common cause of this type of crash and near crash.</p>
<p><em><br />
<strong>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS</strong></em></p>
<p>    * Studies: Studies about cell-phone use while driving have focused on several different aspects of the problem. Some have looked at its prevalence as the leading cause of driver distraction. Others have looked at the different risks associated with hand-held and hands-free devices. Still others have focused on the seriousness of injuries in crashes involving cell-phone users and the demographics of drivers who use cell phones. Below is a summary of some recent research on the issue.</p>
<p>    * In July 2007 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Center for Statistics and Analysis released the results of their National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), which found that in 2006 5 percent of drivers used hand-held cell phones, down from 6 percent in 2005, the first decline since the survey began tracking hand-held cell phone use in 2000. The decline in use occurred in a number of driver categories, including female drivers (down from 8 to 6 percent), drivers in the Midwest (down from 8 to 4 percent), drivers age 25 to 69 (down from 6 to 4 percent) and drivers of passenger cars (down from 6 to 4 percent) to name but a few. NOPUS is a probability-based observational survey. Data on driver cell-phone use were collected at random stop signs or stoplights only while vehicles were stopped and only during daylight hours.</p>
<p>    * A survey of dangerous driver behavior was released in January 2007 by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. The survey of 1,200 drivers found that 73 percent talk on cell phones while driving. Cell phone use was highest among young drivers.</p>
<p>    * Text messaging, or â€œtextingâ€ by teens, a driving distraction related to cell phone use, was the subject of an August 2006 Teens Today survey conducted by the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD). The survey showed that teens considered sending text messages via cell phones to be their biggest distraction. Of the teens surveyed, 37 percent said that text messaging was extremely or very distracting, while 20 percent said that they were distracted by their emotional states and 19 percent said that having friends in the car was distracting. The January 2007 survey by Nationwide found that 19 percent of motorists say they text message while driving.</p>
<p>    * Motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study of drivers in Perth, Australia, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The results, published in July 2005, suggest that banning hand-held phone use won&#8217;t necessarily improve safety if drivers simply switch to hand-free phones. The study found that injury crash risk didn&#8217;t vary with type of phone.</p>
<p>    * Many studies have shown that using hand-held cell phones while driving can constitute a hazardous distraction. However, the theory that hands-free sets are safer has been challenged by the findings of several studies. A study from researchers at the University of Utah, published in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, concludes that talking on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, even if the phone is a hands-free model. An earlier study by researchers at the university found that motorists who talked on hands-free cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.</p>
<p>    * A September 2004 study from the NHTSA found that drivers using hand-free cell phones had to redial calls 40 percent of the time, compared with 18 percent for drivers using hand-held sets, suggesting that hands-free sets may provide drivers with a false sense of ease.</p>
<p>    * A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is the use of cell phones, followed by drowsiness. However, cell-phone use is far less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions, according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by nine times, talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone only increased the risk by 1.3 times. The study tracked the behavior of the 241 drivers of 100 vehicles for more than one year. The drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near-crashes and 8,295 critical incidents.</p>
<p>    * These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers. That study was based on the analysis of videotapes from cameras installed in the vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>    * State and Federal Initiatives: The number of state legislatures debating measures that address the problem of cell-phone use while driving and other driver distractions continues to rise. As of March 2008 four states &#8212; Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Utah &#8212; plus the District of Columbia had laws on the books banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. Similar laws in California and Washington State go into effect in July 2008. Except for Utah and Washington State, the laws are all &#8220;primary enforcement,&#8221; meaning a motorist may be ticketed for using a hand-held cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place.</p>
<p>    * About 17 states have passed laws banning or restricting young drivers from using cell phones. The most recent state to enact such legislation is California. But the California law goes farther than any other state&#8217;s. It bans the use of any mobile device by drivers under age 18. This includes a cell phone, a broadband personal communication device, specialized mobile radio device, handheld device or laptop computer.</p>
<p>    * In May 2007 Washington become the first state to ban the practice of texting with a cell phone while driving; New Jersey passed a similar law that took effect on March 1, 2008. In Washington, the fine for DWT (driving while texting) is set at $101, but since it is a secondary offense a driver must be pulled over for some more grievous infraction before the penalty can be imposed. In New Jersey the fine for DWT is $100, but the state has made the offense one of primary enforcement (see above). In Connecticut drivers can be fined $100 not only for using a cell phone, but those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can be fined for other driving distractions such as putting on makeup or turning to discipline children in the back seat. In New York, the first state to enact such legislation, in 2001, drivers face fines of $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second and $500 thereafter.</p>
<p>    * Businesses: Businesses are increasingly prohibiting workers from using cell phones while driving to conduct business. Exxon Mobil and Shell are examples of large companies that ban employees&#8217; use of any type of cell phone while driving during work hours. The California Association of Employers recommends that employers develop a cell phone policy that requires employees to pull off the road before conducting business by cell phone.</p>
<p>    * Court Decisions: In December 2007 International Paper Co. agreed to pay a $5.2 million settlement to a Georgia woman who was rear-ended by one of its employees. The employee was driving a company car and talking on a company cell phone at the time of the accident. The settlement was reached even though the employee had violated her companyâ€™s policy of requiring the use of hands-free headsets while driving. The suit is among the most recent of several cases where an employer has been held liable for an accident caused by a driver using a cell phone. (See background section on Employer and Manufacturer Liability.)</p>
<p><em><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></em></p>
<p>Cell phones play an integral role in our society. However, the convenience they offer must be judged against the hazards they pose. Inattentive driving accounted for 6.4 percent of crash fatalities in 2003â€”the latest data availableâ€”according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Inattentive driving includes talking, eating, putting on make up and attending to children. Using cell phones and other wireless or electronic units are also considered distractions.</p>
<p>As many as 40 countries may restrict or prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Countries reported to have laws related to cell phone use include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Botswana, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. Most countries prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving. Drivers in the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom may use cell phones but can be fined if they are involved in crashes while using the phone. Drivers in the United Kingdom and Germany also can lose insurance coverage if they are involved in a crash while talking on the phone.</p>
<p>Supporters of restrictions on driving while using a cell phone say that the distractions associated with cell phone use while driving are far greater than other distractions. Conversations using a cell phone demand greater continuous concentration, which diverts the driverâ€™s eyes from the road and his mind from driving. Opponents of cell phone restrictions say drivers should be educated about the effects of all driver distractions. They also say that existing laws that regulate driving should be more strictly enforced.</p>
<p>Employer and Manufacturer Liability: Although only a handful of high-profile cases have gone to court, employers are still concerned that they might be held liable for accidents caused by their employees while driving and conducting work-related conversations on cell phones. Under the doctrine of vicarious responsibility, employers may be held legally accountable for the negligent acts of employees committed in the course of employment. Employers may also be found negligent if they fail to put in place a policy for the safe use of cell phones. In response, many companies have established cell phone usage policies. Some allow employees to conduct business over the phone as long as they pull over to the side of the road or into a parking lot. Others have completely banned the use of all wireless devices.</p>
<p>In an article published in the June 2003 edition of the North Dakota Law Review, attorney Jordan Michael proposed a theory of cell phone manufacturer liability for auto accidents if they fail to warn users of the dangers of driving and talking on the phone at the same time. The theory holds that maker liability would be similar to the liability of employers who encourage or demand cell phone use on the road. Holding manufacturers liable would cover all persons who drive and use cell phones for personal calls. Michael notes that some car rental agencies have already placed warnings on embedded cell phones in their cars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.autoins.net/2008/cell-phones-and-driving/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New California Driving Laws for 2008</title>
		<link>http://www.autoins.net/2008/new-california-driving-laws-for-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://www.autoins.net/2008/new-california-driving-laws-for-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Tips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california cell phone law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california cellphone law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california driving laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california driving laws 2008]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california motor vehicle laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california motor vehicle laws 2008]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.autoins.net/2008/new-california-driving-laws-for-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The state of California has new laws affecting drivers in 2008.
Violations could result in higher auto insurance premiums.
In brief, the new laws affect registration, smoking, license plate obstruction and probably the biggest issue, the use of cell phones.



New Laws for 2008 &#8211; Driver License
 				Unless otherwise indicated, these  new laws become effective on January [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <strong>state of California</strong> has new laws affecting drivers in 2008.</p>
<p>Violations could result in higher auto insurance premiums.</p>
<p>In brief, the new laws affect registration, smoking, license plate obstruction and probably the biggest issue, the use of cell phones.</p>
<table align="center" bgcolor="#000000" border="0" width="90%">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#eaf2e5">
<h3 id="h3PageTitle"><a href="http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/leg/leginfo_dl.htm">New Laws for 2008</a> &#8211; Driver License<!-- #EndEditable --></h3>
<p style="padding-right: 10px"> 				<!-- #BeginEditable "content" -->Unless otherwise indicated, these  new laws become effective on January 1, 2008.</p>
<hr />
<h4>Driving Under the Influence Repeated Offense â€” Operative January 1, 2009</h4>
<p>Amend and Add: Vehicle Code Â§Â§13353.1, 13353.2, 22651, 42009, 422010 13389, and 23154 (AB 1165 Chapter 749)</p>
<ul>
<li>Makes it unlawful for a person who is on probation for a driving-under-the-influence offense to operate a motor vehicle at any time with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater.</li>
<li>Imposes an admin per se driver license suspension on persons found to violate this prohibition.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Medical Examination for Special Certificates</h4>
<p>Amend: Vehicle code Â§12517.2 (AB 139 Chapter 158)</p>
<ul>
<li>Authorizes the medical examination for an original or renewal certificate to drive a schoolbus, school pupil activity bus, youth bus, general public paratransit vehicle, or farm labor vehicle to be given by a licensed, advanced practice, registered nurse qualified to perform a medical examination or by a licensed physician assistant.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Reporting Abstract of Record of Court</h4>
<p>Amend, Repeal and Add: Vehicle Code Â§1803 (AB 421 Chapter 746)</p>
<ul>
<li>Reduces the time in which the clerk of a court is required to forward to <acronym title="Department of Motor Vehicles">DMV</acronym> an abstract of the record of the court from 10 to 5 days after conviction or sentencing.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Required Declaration on an Original or Renewal Application for a Driver License â€” Operative July 1, 2008</h4>
<p>Add: Vehicle Code Â§13385 (AB 808 Chapter 748)</p>
<ul>
<li>Requires an applicant as a condition of obtaining or renewing a driverâ€™s license to sign a declaration acknowledging that a driver may be charged with murder if a person is killed as a result of driving under the influence.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Smoking in Vehicles With Minor Passengers</h4>
<p>Add: Health and Safety Code Article 2.5 to chapter 4 of Part 15 of Division 104. Amend: Vehicle Code Â§12814.6 (<strong><a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_7_bill_20071010_chaptered.html">SB 7</a></strong> Chapter 425)</p>
<ul>
<li>Makes it an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a person to smoke a pipe, cigar, or cigarette in a motor vehicle any time a minor is present in the vehicle.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Speed Contests and Reckless Driving</h4>
<p>Amend: Vehicle Code Â§Â§11110, 11215, 12810, 13201, 13351, 13352, 14601, 21051, 23103, 23104, 40800, 40804, 41610, 42008.5, 42009, and 42010 (AB 430 Chapter 682)</p>
<ul>
<li>Includes reckless driving on a highway, reckless driving in an off-street parking facility, or exhibition of speed on a highway within the scope of various other existing statutes.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Traffic Violations Adjudication</h4>
<p>Amend: Penal Code Â§1203.4 Vehicle Code Â§Â§40501, 41501, and 42005 (AB 645 Chapter 161)</p>
<ul>
<li>Prohibits the courts from dismissing serious traffic violations through completion of a traffic violator school program or any other court-approved program for safe driving. Serious traffic violations are those that would result in the assessment of two negligent operator points.</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Transit Buses Right-of-Way Sign</h4>
<p>Add: Vehicle Code Â§24617 (AB 1492 Chapter 451)</p>
<ul>
<li>If approved by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, this would:
<ul>
<li>Authorize a transit bus to be equipped with a specified yield right-of-way sign on the left rear of the bus.</li>
<li>Require motorists to yield to a transit bus when the sign is activated.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h4>Wireless Telephones and Mobile Service Devices â€” Operative July 1, 2008</h4>
<p>Amend and Add: Vehicle code Â§Â§12810.3, 23123, and 23124 (SB 33 Chapter 214)</p>
<ul>
<li>Prohibits a person under the age of 18 from driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, even if equipped with a hands-free device, or while using a mobile service device, as defined.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Web rumor debunking site <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/california2008.asp"><strong>Snopes</strong> notes two separate instance</a>s of circulation of an <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/california.asp" target="_blank">e-mail</a> purporting to list new traffic laws going into effect in California in 2007, with the second being much wider and expanding to encompass several other states as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.autoins.net/2008/new-california-driving-laws-for-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
