We all have laws we hate, and some of us even take the time to tell lawmakers just what we think of their sponsored legislation. But Pleasanton, California resident Grant Paulson took his protest public by spending $10,000 of his own money to let state Senator Joe Simitian know just how he feels about the legislator's bill that led to California's ban on drivers using handheld phones.
The 47-year-old owner of a fire-protection company paid to have a billboard posted in East Palo Alto along Highway 101. It tells Simitian in no uncertain terms that "Your Cell Phone Law Sucks."
Paulson told the San Jose Mercury News that he's irate over the law because he finds calls hard to hear when using a Bluetooth device or speakerphone, and he feels the law is an affront to personal freedom. "All I want is to have a choice," Paulson to the newspaper. "When I get a call from someone on Bluetooth, it's comical. I'll say, 'I can barely hear what the hell you are saying. Are you on Bluetooth or a speaker phone?' They say yes, and that's why I hate this law so much." Paulson is also pushing for a ballot measure to repeal the law.
Senator Simitian (D-Palo Alto) described the billboard as a "hoot" and said it "put a smile on my face." But he's also concerned "that someone might be rear-ended," he added. The Mercury News reports that other motorists side with the senator and "find the verbose, 75-word message a distracting nuisance." Micki Miller, a 62-year-old former computer science teacher from Mountain View told the paper that the billboard "immediately made me angry. And I think the cell phone law is excellent."
But Paulson is unperturbed and sees the cell-phone law as one in a long line of attacks on personal freedom. He points out that people, "used to (be) able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, ride in the back of a pickup, not wear a seat belt, ride a bike when a kid without a helmet, etc.," in comments he posted in response to a story on an NBC Bay Area Web site. "Where does it stop and what's next? Helmet laws to ride in a convertible because that would be safer?"
Paulson says the billboard will remain up through the end of February, and even in these tough economic times says he may be willing to shell out even more money to keep it in view longer. "Yes, 10 G's was a lot of money to put up to express my opinion," he said, "but someone needs to do it. Most people won't fight for their personal freedoms, I will."
Paulson hasn't gotten one of the 60,000 tickets the California Highway Patrol has written since the hands-free law went into effect last July. But he did get one warning from a Pleasanton policeman.
Which will probably be his last.
altimadude00 says:
07:16 PM, 02/18/09
"Personal freedom" will only happen when drivers accept accountability for their bad driving habits rather than suing other companies because they "didn't provide sufficient safety for the user." It's a proven fact that helmets increase the survivability of a crash. Riding in the back of a pick-up increases your risk of being ejected in a crash. Using a phone in your car, Bluetooth equipped or not, increases your risk of being distracted.
These laws are enacted to save people from themselves. You are invincible up until the moment you die, apparently.
stovt001 says:
08:14 PM, 02/18/09
But Paulson is unperturbed and sees the cell-phone law as one in a long line of attacks on personal freedom. He points out that people, "used to (be) able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, ride in the back of a pickup, not wear a seat belt, ride a bike when a kid without a helmet, etc.,"
Sure, but those things don't harm other people. This jerk, on the other hand, and anyone else who talks on the phone while driving, even using bluetooth, is a danger to every other person on the road. Drivers on cell phones are distracted. Period. End of story. They slow down traffic, make dangerous maneuvers, and are generally oblivious to the world outside. Any cell-phone use while driving, whether bluetooth or not, should result in license suspension.
ctpax says:
08:33 PM, 02/18/09
The helmet laws are understandable because if you fall off your bike and splatter your brains across 4 lanes of highway the local authorities (which are paid by the taxpayers' money) will have to remove your body, stow it in the local morgue, process tons of paperwork, get rid of your bike, etc. Point is: dead people cost our governments (state, city, county) money and that money is paid by us. So to save everyone's time and money the government instantiates laws that minimize risks of you dying, which minimizes their responsibilities.
The cell phone law, however is immensely stupid. There is absolutely no evidence that cell phone use while driving contributes to more deaths on roads. I for one am a better driver while on the phone than off it.
greenpony says:
09:04 PM, 02/18/09
I thought there was a study by State Farm linking cell phone use with collisions.
Maybe this guy just needs a different Bluetooth headset. Mine is fine under most conditions.
stovt001 says:
11:26 PM, 02/18/09
ctpax, that is absolute BS and you know it. Are you also better at throwing darts when you're blindfolded? You just don't realize the problems you're causing for everyone else while you're zoning out in your own sad little bubble.
benson2175 says:
12:33 AM, 02/19/09
Yeah what's this guys problem? There is no handsfree law here in BC but I've put that Clarion bluetooth deck in both my cars. It runs through the car speakers and the mic is in the headliner. It works great. I hate fishing for the phone when it rings while I'm driving. Plus holding it makes it hard to shift. He could have saved about $9800 and had that deck with installation.
ctpax says:
02:16 AM, 02/19/09
no stovt001 it is the law that is absolutely BS and I know it. I'll run circles around you on any road while talking on my cellphone. Oh and I could even be wearing a bubble costume too like you said. That's how good I am and you're just jealous.
firstwagon says:
07:35 AM, 02/19/09
ctpax
I used to think that way when I was in high school too.
ctpax says:
10:03 AM, 02/19/09
firstwagon,
haha. I'd suggest fixing your sense of humor.
bbechtel16 says:
10:59 AM, 02/19/09
Many of you mentioned the studies that show that cell phone use while hands free is just as dangerous as hand held phones. How in your right minds given that "fact" can you support and hands free law that doesn't increase safety and increases bureaucracy and infringes on personal freedoms?
firstwagon says:
12:19 PM, 02/19/09
I have an idea that should make everyone happy.
Instead of a law against cell phones, they should just allow the insurance companies the right to refuse to cover any at fault accident where the driver was talking on the cell phone.
That way you can still talk on your phone but if you screw up then you have to take personal responsibility for it.
desmolicious says:
01:24 PM, 02/19/09
ctpax wrote:
"There is absolutely no evidence that cell phone use while driving contributes to more deaths on roads. I for one am a better driver while on the phone than off it. "
These studies show that he is clueless:
1/ This one shows a 4 fold increase in accidents from people using cell phones.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/Notes_From_The_Road/Cell_Phone_Crash_Stats_.aspx
2/ This one shows drivers on cell phones are as dangerous as drunk drivers.
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
3/ This one shows the effects of driver distraction by using cell phones.
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone
the list of these studies goes on and on....
eclogite says:
03:14 PM, 02/19/09
Wow. Way to go, Mr. Paulson!!
compliance says:
03:54 PM, 02/19/09
This is one of the few newer safety laws I totally support. Driving a car is not a right, and doing unsafe things on the road is not part of your personal freedoms.
blueguydotcom says:
09:36 PM, 02/19/09
I wish they'd enforce the law. I also wish the blasted cops would enforce the law regarding lights on during rain/fog.
Instead they troll the highways looking for speeders. :(
TPAWRX says:
12:01 PM, 02/20/09
This is a tough issue. But I'd have to say I agree with bbechtell, that studies show hands free cell phone use is just as dangerous and distracting as normal hand held. "How in your right minds given that "fact" can you support a hands free law that doesn't increase safety and increases bureaucracy and infringes on personal freedoms?"
I think it is more sensible to outlaw texting in the car and hand held cell phone use with a manual transmission greatly increasing distraction and decreasing maneuverability. Which I must admit I'm guilty of. I should go out and buy a bluetooth.
I never though I'd say this but God Bless Florida! None of the laws Paulson mentioned take effect here in Florida besides the child helmet law I believe.
Lastly, are California and New York the only states that restrict cell phone use? And how exactly do cops enforce this law. Especially in a city like LA.
estreka says:
01:23 PM, 02/21/09
I'm all about personal freedom myself, so I support Mr. Paulson.
Stov, it's also been proven that the source of distraction is the actual conversation, not the phone itself. We aren't true multitaskers.
dougnewcomb says:
10:14 AM, 02/22/09
TPAWRX: Six states and the District of Columbia have laws banning the use of handheld phones by a driver, and some also have text-messaging bans. Several municipalities also have similar laws. Here's a full list Edmunds compiled last summer before the California law went into effect: http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/audio/articles/131236/article.html.
In California and New York, driving while talking on a handheld phone is a "primary" violation, meaning an officer can stop you for it, as opposed to a secondary violation, as in Washington state, where you can receive a ticket for the offense only if you've been stopped for another reason.