MA: Car Safety Act (Statute)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Car Safety Act

1. Car drivers and passengers are required to wear seatbelts in a moving vehicle. Car drivers and passengers who violate this regulation shall be fined.

2. Car drivers are not permitted to use a mobile phone in a moving vehicle. Car drivers who violate this regulation shall be fined.

3. Children up to the age of 6 years must be fastened in a government-approved child safety seat in a moving vehicle. Guidelines for child safety seats shall be made by the Mideast Department of Transport. In case this clause is violated, the car driver in question shall be fined.

Sponsor: ZuWo

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The fines should be defined, and Section 2 is too overbroad for me.

[ZuWo]

The fines should be defined, and Section 2 is too overbroad for me.

Thanks for your input. I will put forward an amendment which takes into account your comments, but that will take me until tomorrow.

[CathKhan]

This is sickening.

[TJ in Wisco]

The cell phone restriction would be better with an exception for phones that do not require the use of the operator's hands. That's becoming a more and more popular feature and I'd like to see it remain legal.

Also, isn't 6 a bit old for a child safety seat? I'd imagine most six-year olds wouldn't fit into a seat.

[CathKhan]

I remember I was forced into one of those seats til like 2nd grade. Whenever we went to see my cousins in WI, I was amazed at the freedom they had. They could do whatever the Hell they wanted, including not riding in those horrible car seats. One day I'll have to forgive my parents for making me do this stuff.

[ZuWo]

I remember I was forced into one of those seats til like 2nd grade. Whenever we went to see my cousins in WI, I was amazed at the freedom they had. They could do whatever the Hell they wanted, including not riding in those horrible car seats. One day I'll have to forgive my parents for making me do this stuff.

2nd graders wouldn't be affected by this bill, as it only requires children up to the age of 6 to sit in such a special seat.

The cell phone restriction would be better with an exception for phones that do not require the use of the operator's hands. That's becoming a more and more popular feature and I'd like to see it remain legal.

Also, isn't 6 a bit old for a child safety seat? I'd imagine most six-year olds wouldn't fit into a seat.

It is not my intention to restrict the use of hands-free mobile phone equipment in cars. The bill only tackles the manual use of mobile phones of car drivers since this is a serious threat to road safety. But I understand that Section 2 should be rewritten in that respect to avoid confusion.

If we have a look at international standards for child safety seats, an age limit of 6 years is actually quite lenient. The UK, Germany, Switzerland, Spain - just to name a few examples - even have laws in place which require children up to the age of 12 (usually if they are smaller than 150 cm) to use such safety seats. Since I was aware that Americans tends to be less restrictive on such matters, I thought 6 years was a sound compromise.

Fellow members of the Assembly, let's keep in mind that we're dealing with children here, and children are more vulnerable than adults in car accidents. This bill helps to improve road safety in general and can protect children travelling in cars in particular. 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The problem is that the bill doesn't just tackle manual use of phones.  It simply bans use of phones.

I'm all for a texting ban, but I'm not 100% on board for banning phone calls.

[ZuWo]

I am putting forward the following amendment. I hope the language of Section 2 is clear enough now; the use of mobile phones (this includes making phone calls as well as typing) is generally forbidden, but car drivers are allowed to use hands-free mobile phone kits. I also added precise fines to the bill, and I think they are quite moderate. If you see a language problem feel free to correct it.

I do not think it makes sense to differentiate between making phone calls and typing on a regular mobile phone because making a phone call obviously involves some sort of typing. Both talking on the phone manually and typing on the phone have been shown to distract car drivers considerably, so I think this really helps to improve road safety.

Car Safety Act

1. Car drivers and passengers are required to wear seatbelts in a moving vehicle. Car drivers and passengers who violate this regulation shall be fined $50.

2. The use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle is not permitted for car drivers. Hands-free usage of mobile phones, i.e. the use of hands-free mobile phone equipment, is exempted from this clause. Car drivers who violate this regulation shall be fined $100.

3. Children up to the age of 6 years must be fastened in a government-approved child safety seat in a moving vehicle. Guidelines for child safety seats shall be made by the Mideast Department of Transport. In case this clause is violated, the car driver in question shall be fined $100.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Any debate on the amendment?

[CathKhan]

Doesn't this bill discriminate between tge rich--those who can afford hands-free sets--and the poor--those who can't?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Doesn't this bill discriminate between tge rich--those who can afford hands-free sets--and the poor--those who can't?

Hands free sets don't cost that much.  If you can afford a car and a cell phone, you can afford a hands free set.  Again, I'm not sure I'm on board with banning manual cell phone calls while driving (although I am on board with texting bans).  But I don't oppose it for a monetary reason.

[big bad fab]

I agree on ZuWo's proposal and with his amended version.

[ZuWo]

Doesn't this bill discriminate between tge rich--those who can afford hands-free sets--and the poor--those who can't?

Hands free sets don't cost that much.  If you can afford a car and a cell phone, you can afford a hands free set.  Again, I'm not sure I'm on board with banning manual cell phone calls while driving (although I am on board with texting bans).  But I don't oppose it for a monetary reason.

The reason why I insist on banning manual phone calls is twofold. On the one hand there have been numerous studies that showed how dangerous it is if the driver talks on a phone while driving. It simply is a major distraction and leads to many accidents that could be prevented by a simple and effective ban. Of course, having a conversation with other passengers can be distracting as well, but there is just no way to regulate that.

On the other hand I think it makes sense to treat texting/typing and manually talking on a phone in the same way. If you talk to someone on the phone while driving you have to type in a number and hang up at some point; these actions involve some sort of typing or at least pressing a button, which most of us agree should be forbidden.

[CathKhan]

Doesn't this bill discriminate between tge rich--those who can afford hands-free sets--and the poor--those who can't?

Hands free sets don't cost that much.  If you can afford a car and a cell phone, you can afford a hands free set.  Again, I'm not sure I'm on board with banning manual cell phone calls while driving (although I am on board with texting bans).  But I don't oppose it for a monetary reason.

The reason why I insist on banning manual phone calls is twofold. On the one hand there have been numerous studies that showed how dangerous it is if the driver talks on a phone while driving. It simply is a major distraction and leads to many accidents that could be prevented by a simple and effective ban. Of course, having a conversation with other passengers can be distracting as well, but there is just no way to regulate that.

On the other hand I think it makes sense to treat texting/typing and manually talking on a phone in the same way. If you talk to someone on the phone while driving you have to type in a number and hang up at some point; these actions involve some sort of typing or at least pressing a button, which most of us agree should be forbidden.

If you get a call and assuming your phone's not in your pocket, it's quite easy to flip it open, talk, and flip it shut.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Under this law, someone could call 911 to report an accident and end up getting fined if they don't use a hands free set.  It needs a clause for emergency calls.  I'd prefer it to only ban texting.

[ZuWo]

Under this law, someone could call 911 to report an accident and end up getting fined if they don't use a hands free set.  It needs a clause for emergency calls.  I'd prefer it to only ban texting.

First of all, making phone calls while driving is is basically forbidden all across Europe. For once, that's not due to Europe's penchant for unnecessary regulation but because it really helps to reduce car accidents. Banning mobile phone calls in this context is not an attack on individual freedom because people who talk on the phone while driving put other road-users at risk; they are distracted and pay less attention to the road, which increases the risk of accidents.
Now from my experience I still see many car drivers who ignore this ban, and only a handful are caught by the police and fined. Therefore, there will not be many cases of people who call 911 and are subsequently fined; we're probably talking about a few cases here. Furthermore, I think policemen are usually obliging when it comes to such situations and hardly ever fine anyone who calls an emergency number while driving. However, to make this crystal clear I am putting forward yet another amendment which permits car drivers to call an emergency number even when they are driving.

[ZuWo]

Car Safety Act

1. Car drivers and passengers are required to wear seatbelts in a moving vehicle. Car drivers and passengers who violate this regulation shall be fined $50.

2. The use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle is not permitted for car drivers. Emergency calls and hands-free usage of mobile phones, i.e. the use of hands-free mobile phone equipment, are exempted from this clause. Car drivers who violate this regulation shall be fined $100.

3. Children up to the age of 6 years must be fastened in a government-approved child safety seat in a moving vehicle. Guidelines for child safety seats shall be made by the Mideast Department of Transport. In case this clause is violated, the car driver in question shall be fined $100.

Is that clear enough or do we have to specify what an "emergency call" is?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I'm good with that.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Seeing no further debate, the following amendment shall be voted on.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24-hour vote:

Car Safety Act

1. Car drivers and passengers are required to wear seatbelts in a moving vehicle. Car drivers and passengers who violate this regulation shall be fined $50.

2. The use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle is not permitted for car drivers. Emergency calls and hands-free usage of mobile phones, i.e. the use of hands-free mobile phone equipment, are exempted from this clause. Car drivers who violate this regulation shall be fined $100.

3. Children up to the age of 6 years must be fastened in a government-approved child safety seat in a moving vehicle. Guidelines for child safety seats shall be made by the Mideast Department of Transport. In case this clause is violated, the car driver in question shall be fined $100.

Is that clear enough or do we have to specify what an "emergency call" is?
[/quote]

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

AYE

[ZuWo]

Aye

[CathKhan]

Aye.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 4, and the NAYs are 0, with 1 not voting.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment is passed.