Mike Oz's Mailbag: Cell-phone driving, Bromance and fun with MySpace
As you probably already know (and saw splashed across the front page of The Bee this morning), today is the first day of the new hands-free cell phone law in California, prohibiting hand-held cell phones while driving.
I didn't see a single person talking with a cell phone to his or her ear on my way to work this morning. Score one for Johnny Law, I guess. Speaking of talking: My column last week on the issue had people talking to me -- mostly telling me I was wrong for my this-is-stupid stance on the law.
We'll start this mailbag with the cell-phone chatter and continue with some more of what's landed in my inbox lately.
From Paul:
From your writings you seem to be a nice young guy but today you slipped back to being a kid who thinks only about himself. The facts are cell phones in your hand do kill people.
This should have been the law from the get-go but better late than never. I'll agree that twenty bucks is not enough to get the attention of your generation but that can go up.
Realize also that if you have an accident while you have your phone in your ear you will almost 100% be found liable and I would assume it being a moving violation your insurance will immediately go up.
My son is probably going to bitch like you but this is a good law. If you haven't been almost hit by a cell phone user you are indeed living on borrowed time.
Best regards otherwise.
Did I miss something or did you advocate that people disregard the new cell phone law ? My daughters and several young relatives read your articles and I feel they may get the wrong message.A concerned parent
From Elly:I was just writing to comment about today's column. I agree with you and at the same time I don't. I think the law was made for those stupid, self-absorbed drivers who can't turn both ways just because they're talking on the cell phone.
I'm sure you've encountered these people, who when they're coming out of the driveway or turning, forget to look to make sure they're not in the way of oncoming traffic. I've had sooo many close calls with this type of person, i've lost count. Now, I'll be honest, i've been that person, too. But, unlike you, I never played any video games.
I'm actually glad that law's coming into effect. I don't mind having to go out and buy a bluetooth. Isn't there also a law where you can't drive with your dog on your lap or the front seat? I'd love to see that go into effect immediately!
From Claire:
May I compliment you on your excellent article about the new cell-phone law. I agree with you 100% and I'm glad that somebody decided to say something to the public about it. So again, kudos to you for a writing a funny article with a good question! :]
From Emily:
I appreciate the honesty you express in your columns, and this one was indeed honest and probably representative of the feelings of many.
But the feelings of many on this manner give me great sadness, and I hope you won't mind if I single you out for just a moment ..
Most people do goof off a bit in their cars, and for the most part, nothing comes of it. But I think we all know that if something were to happen, those little things can add up to tragedy. It's easy to shrug off those slim possibilities in everyday life, but that in no way eliminates the risk - if anything, it increases it!
It saddens me to hear and witness the nonchalance most people have behind the wheel, because *my* life is at stake, too! You're entitled to your own opinions and choices, but I can't help but resent it when those choices seem to be toying with a life that I very much value and don't want to lose to a phone-talking, gadget-fiddling driver. I take driving very seriously, and I don't think it's silly or uptight to hope that others would do the same.
I'll just respond all at once:
I still think this law is joke. So I can send text messages, which could require me to look down at my phone to see what I'm writing, but I can't hold a phone to my ear and talk while keeping both eyes on the road?
Reading and responding to text messages are a far bigger distraction than talking on a phone. And if nothing else, this law is going to make MORE people text message in the car.
Even so, my original point remains: I think the distraction in cell-phone driving comes from the actual conversation you're having, not the holding of a phone to your ear. Hands-free or not, people getting too wrapped up in a conversation are the liability.
Now, I as a driver also don't know who's talking and who's not. Not as easily, anyway. It used to be that I could tell when someone had a phone to their ear, and I could know I had a person near me who maybe wasn't paying the best attention. Now they all look the same.
If using cell phones in cars were banned altogether, then that would at least make sense. Instead, what we have is some odd law that people think is doing something useful, but it's not.
Here's an e-mail I got in regards to my previous column about Brody Jenner and his "Bromance" reality show being pretty much the downfall of our society.
Jerry writes:
OK, so you could see this email coming. I get your initial disclaimer about not minding that gay people can now marry. I guess that is your back-handed way of saying you are not homophobic. Uh huh.
I get that your main beef is against the idea of another “pick a partner” type romance show. Fine. And I guess you don’t really like Brody Jenner. Also fine.
But then you bring up the crassness of having the “Bros” parading around in their swimsuits when they are kicked off. "Religious diehards, if you're looking for something to picket, it should be this." That is pretty close to homophobia.
I know you were only quoting someone else regarding the hot tub scene, but you did include this quote and seemed to be turning your nose up (and holding your nose) at this supposedly disgusting scene.
This is no more disgusting to gay people that watching Tila Tequila with her bi guys and gals in her swimming pool.
I agree, all of these shows are probably getting too crass and exploitative, but a little more sensitivity to your gay brothers would be appreciated.
Seeing guys in swim suits is hot. Not disgusting. And you don't need to alert the crazy police. I think it was inevitable that a gay show of this ilk would eventually surface.
Just tread lightly or you will become Fresno Bee Homophobe of the Month.
I didn't save my exact response to Jerry, but it went something like this:
I don't have a problem with the guys in swimsuits/hot-tub eliminations because it offends my moral structure -- I have a problem with it because it's another stupid reality TV idea. I have a problem with people competing on a reality show to be friends with some putz who whored himself around reality TV and got his own sliver of fake fame out of it.
As for the homophobe stuff: The column was mocking all the folks who were protesting gay marriage -- so yeah ...
From Mean Street Elite:You may not be aware of this -- but I get hit up for all kinds of things on MySpace. That inbox is a mess, but often brings correspondence worth sharing. For example:
Not sure why it keeps doing this but every time I click to add someone who isn't a band the page takes me backto my myspace instead of the add me page.
any ideas?you always seem to have a great understanding of things pertaining to this so I thought I'd ask.
My response: I dunno, man. Ask Tom. Since when am I MySpace tech support?
From FresnoSpeedDate.com:Subject: Quesiton?
I am advertising like crazy right now for the new business I recently got going ( Fresno Speed Date ). How possible is it to get cover of the Local section, or maybe even a section?
My response: I'm no business man, but I'd suggest before you starting getting on the cover of The Fresno Bee, you get a grip on spelling the word question.
Comments:
My own 2 pennies worth on cell phones.
Ever see those people who can't talk to the person sitting in the car next to them without looking at them?
They're driving, and any time it's their turn to speak,
they actually have to turn their necks/torsos whatever and face the passenger (not the road) to speak to them.
----it seems to me, different people have different abilities to speak (phone or no phone) and watch the road.
---it also seems goofy...what? did bluetooth score big here? Do we all have to go out and buy yet ANOther gadget?
A simple solution, (but not everyone would love this--too big and general of a hammer? ) would be
a 'no using the phone(texting/talking/whatever) if you are the driver'law.
Posted by: blake at July 1, 2008 12:31 PM
Wow. I wonder if people would be as condescending about your age and your generation if they knew you're about to turn 29.
Posted by: Heather at July 1, 2008 12:32 PM
why do our gay brothers always get butthurt?
Posted by: mdub420 at July 1, 2008 1:42 PM
I think that once Mike Oz turns 30, The Bee should hire a new "young" reporter and reassign Mike to covering pancake breakfasts full-time. Full multimedia and blog coverage of the pancake breakfast scene is long overdue.
Posted by: Jeffresno at July 1, 2008 2:32 PM
Hey, I have an idea, Mike! The real issue here is distracted, reckless driving, and though that's already illegal, they're making it double-secret-probation illegal. And you know what's REALLY dangerous when driving? Drinking. And speeding. They should make THOSE illegal! And then they'll never happen again, see.
Posted by: Kent at July 1, 2008 3:51 PM
One of our business reporters saw plenty of people on their hand-held phones this morning. Hmm, what does that say about the part of town he lives in? Plus, there’s some interesting conclusions on the danger of cell phones here.
Posted by: Bethany Clough at July 1, 2008 3:54 PM
i was almost crashed into today by a guy texting. it reminded me that today all conversations had to be hands free.
this law is typical of california right now: we see a "problem," someone throws out their theory, we don't actually check it out, we pass it into law.
seriously, i can eat a burger, hold a soda, and drive with my knees (i've practiced this move many times). this is legal. but, replace one of those things in my hand with a cell phone and put it by my ear, i'm screwed. idiocy.
any distraction to driving is a bad thing. talking on a hands free phone is just as dangerous as using your hands. talking to someone in your car is just as distracting and dangerous. changing the channel on your radio or the song on your ipod is dangerous.
Posted by: ed at July 1, 2008 4:48 PM
i'm the best at driving while smoking a bowl of chron-dulja.
Posted by: mdub420 at July 1, 2008 4:52 PM
I love how laws are often only considered "stupid" when they interupt the selfish nature of the one complaining. We could look at the ban on smoking in public places for that little big of selfishness. Let's not forget that your rights end where mine begin. The unsafe practice of using a cell phone while driving falls into this catagory.
Take a moment and look up the science behind the cell phone issues that come with driving. It's not just the holding of cell phone, but the way the brain has to work in order to hold a conversation over the phone. Talking on a cell phone is more of a distraction than having another person in the car based on how the brain has to transmit the information.
Multi tasking slows down the response time of a person, not unlike being under the influence.
Yes, there are a lot of other multi tasking issues that are a problem, but the cell phone issue could be considered an epidemic when looking at the number of users.
There are several articles out there that discuss the data. There are studies out there to support it. The New York Times had an article a couple of months ago. Very interesting stuff, including a study of Microsoft employees to show that not only were they slowed down in the middle of multitasking, but AFTER the interference of a technical gadget.
While so many others will bemoan the fact that they can't continue to regress from societal propriety, I shall do a little happy dance, knowing that those I love are a tad safer on the roads than they were just yesterday.
Posted by: Claire ( not already listed) at July 1, 2008 11:30 PM
Claire, very few if any people are saying that holding a phone to your ear while you drive isn't dangerous. The issue here is the reactionary aspect of this piece of legislation that fails to take into account that there are myriad things a driver can do in the car which distract them from the road but are not illegal.
They are making the claim that it's either a ridiculous form of tokenism to make people feel safe without actually doing so or the beginning of a slippery slope towards legislation that perhaps removes radios from cars or makes it illegal to eat a sandwich while driving or drink a can of soda.
And in fact, the "your rights end where my rights begin" argument is interesting. Why stop with cell phones? Why not say no one else can drive?
Posted by: adam at July 2, 2008 9:42 AM
As far as the cell phone law goes, you now gotta use that annoyingly pretentious little ear plug blue tooth thing but driving with mascara in one hand and a sandwich in the other is still legal, right?
AWESOME! I'm still in the clear!
GOOOO knee-drivers!
Posted by: MsJoey at July 2, 2008 4:44 PM
Actually if a police officer sees someone obviously sidetracked from driving ( mascara, etc.) he has the right to pull the driver over for "inattentive driving", unfortunately they can only do so if the car seems to swerve, etc. The phone is an easy to spot, common-place, and a studied ( anyone bother looking up the science?) danger.
Sure Adam, let's take it that far. Let's say that since you think it's OK to drive with a proven distraction and I don't, you don't get to drive anymore . What the little term actually means is that when your PERCEIVED rights infringe upon my safety then they are no longer your rights.
When does common sense take a backseat to outrageous claims of 'fairness' and that 'slippery sloap'? Just that argument was used for the banning of smoking in public areas ( also a studied danger). And like I tell my elementary kids, the sooner you learn that life isn't fair, the happier you'll be. Oh sure, there are some big unfairs out there that need to be fought for, I simply don't see how not being able to yabber on the phone while driving falls into that catagory. Then again, I'm not much into the disconect of humanity in favor of gadgets ( yes, even as I type from this thing).
I'm up for a good "the evils of government and the men in the white vans" discussion any day, but it doesn't seem to apply when the discussion is about an issue that really is little more than common sense.
And if common sense isn't your thing, there's always the finger pointing one can do. Just make sure to point the fingers at the people who are unable to multitask safely. No reason to point to the folks who feel like living a full life.
FWIW, I think the blue tooths are outrageously ugly and far too Borg like. They annoy the heck out of me when people are using them in stores, etc. But if they keep someone from making a life altering mistake then *I* can deal with how foolish they look.
Posted by: Claire-second time around at July 2, 2008 6:44 PM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)