Here in sunny wonderful California we have cell phone usage laws while in operation of a vehicle. The law basically says no using handheld devices while driving, talking, texting, browsing etc. At first I was 100% for these laws, I thought they would be great legislation and get people to pay attention to the road. Well recently this theory was put to the test. I had a road trip from SD to Sacramento (Vacaville) and back again. This is approximately an 8 hour drive though OC, LA, and the most barren parts of interstate 5 freeway. On my return trip I decided to observe other drivers and see who was texting / using a handheld. I started when we left on the return trip but decided to STOP because before we were at the grape vine (2/3 done marker on the way home) I had already reached over 100 in count of either gender while in operation of a vehicle. This is NOT talking on the phone, this is strait out TEXTING or BROWSING. So I scrubbed the count and decided to see how bad it was from LA to OC to SD. Sadly almost every other car was interacting with their cell phone, 37 different females, 18 different males. Then we very slowly passed a highway cop (CHP) and SHE WAS TEXTING TOO!!! Still in LA I stopped counting AGAIN! These cell phone laws are completely unenforceable and if you actually have gotten a ticket for it then good for you, douche. I have no qualms with anyone TALKING on the phone because how is talking on the phone any different than talking to your passenger(s)? So how could/would we solve the problem? Well from the digging I've done around the internet, this does NOT mean I know what I am talking about, cell phones (now-a-days on a G3+ network) are in constant communication with receiver towers, and most phones have a GPS chip. How fast does a human walk or run even? Guaranty it is NOT in the 55mph area. So couldn't cell phone companies get some sort of tax credit or incentive to alter their service so that if you are moving faster than a certain speed only certain functions work on your phone (preferably only voice would work)? Argument: Why should the passengers suffer just because we are along for the ride. We should be able to text and stream video etc. long rides are boring (and I don't want to talk to anyone in person). Retort: Dude, seriously? If you are the one making this argument then you are the kind of person who doesn't unplug and shouldn't be out of your house anyway! The internet will still be there when you are done with your trip. Argument: What about long trips, why limit everyone? Retort: We are only talking about California. Like I said, California is a 12-13 hour state North South, and a 2 hour state East West. Argument: What about people who are in time trades (stock brokers, auctioneers, TV producers, you know, deadline jobs) we should be able to use are devices while in travel. Retort: NO ONE is that important and if you ARE you are not bound to PUBLIC streets, you'd use helicopters and jets AND you probably have people who make the calls for you so you are N/A. This is for the average douche who uses the freeway and is the American icon, the people who think that everything should be right now / at their finger-tips. Final Retort: Anyone arguing with finding a way to enforce responsibility and save lives by enforcing law is a nut-job-cell-phone-user and part of the problem in this new century of technology. IT WILL BE OKAY WITHOUT USAGE FOR YOUR TRIP... IT IS SAD THAT YOU WON'T. Conclusion: Talk , text, browse, stream video and watch it on your dashboard, but listen here; if anyone hits me I'm taking your info AND your cell phone number AND your service provider. Then when I go to claim I'm gonna make sure my people look up your cell phone activity. Guaranty if you have any activity at the time of incident I'll win the claim.