For Heaven's sake, when I go out to the market tomorrow, I'm going to have to obey the speed limit along Glenwood Avenue; leave my cell phone on the car seat and not use it; and fasten my seatbelt, even though it wrinkles my dress.

(Just a bit of levity this evening before I retire, for my young friends. I haven't had a moving violation since Eisenhower was our president, and I don't wish to receive one now).

When is Menlo Park going to put in turnouts so we can check our Facebook status while driving?

Why announce this? Wouldn't it be more effective to do this unannounced?

Despite what many may wish, we are no longer sleepy little towns -- we are a busy part of Silicon Valley and the traffic reflects that. While I appreciate that the police are trying to make the roads safer for all of us, I hope they are also looking from the driver's perspective at some of the streets that were never built to handle this level of traffic. In particular, driving on Santa Cruz Avenue at 3 in the afternoon is an extreme sporting event. You don't need a cell phone to be distracted. Drivers are trying to look a few steps up each sidewalk lest someone step into the crosswalk as they're moving forward while at the same time watching for oncoming traffic and bikers as well as cars coming out of parking spaces. San Mateo County should send out traffic engineers to patrol along with enforcement officers.

I think that by announcing it, police are hoping for globally better behavior (assuming their goal is to change behavior and not just catch people off guard and raise revenue).

Santa Cruz Avenue is a disaster for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians--particularly during times when the sun is in people's eyes, which unfortunately tends to be rush hour. I'd love to see it turned into a pedestrian zone with designated bike lanes and no parking--but I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why this will never happen.

I don't understand the statement in the article, "using a speaker phone while not holding the phone is not legal, Cpl. Murphy said." Is this a misquote?

I think he means if you have a cell phone, and are talking to someone through its speaker phone (as opposed to a headset or the car's microphone and speaker), even if you're not holding it in your hand, you can be cited.

I don't know whether this is true or not, but that is how I would interpret the statement.

"I think that by announcing it, police are hoping for globally better behavior (assuming their goal is to change behavior and not just catch people off guard and raise revenue)."

That's one interpretation. An advertisement for how much they're doing for the community is another.

"Two Way Street"
Barring cars is not the answer....and it would be the coup de gras for Santa Cruz Ave.

At least part of the problem on Santa Cruz Ave. is that pedestrian behavior is quixotic and often illegal too. Pedestrians pay no attention to the crosswalks, and they are ALSO often on the phone and not paying attention.

Pedestrians often dart out mid-block between parked cars, without even looking to see if there is oncoming traffic....EVEN THO there is a crosswalk just a few feet away. I've seen this several times. Have even seen parents with babies crossing mid-block.

One instance that absolutely took the prize was when a woman on the phone started her mid-block dash behind a car that was backing up to leave a parking place. The driver had looked before he moved, but was looking forward again. The fact that this moving car, or a car in the traffic lanes on either side of the road as she ran across, didn't hit her was a miracle.

Pedestrians have responsibilities to obey the law too. Maybe some tickets?

Just think, until folks learned to obey traffic and pedestrian laws, most of Menlo's budget could come from enforcement.

I believe the article misquotes the officer about the use of a speaker phone. As stated by DMV on Web Link
"Q: Does the “hands-free” law allow you to use the speaker phone function of your wireless telephone while driving?
A: Yes, as long as you are not holding the phone."
The article has a confusing double negative ("using a speaker phone while not holding the phone is not legal") that mis-states the law according to the DMV website.

Prior to this article I noticed numerous motorcycle officers this morning between Almendral on El Camino and Valparaiso at the bank. While it is great that the officers are out trying to promote safety, the 8 am commute hour is not when the greatest number of speeders occur, as there is too much traffic and one just sits. Vehicles seem to speed up between Menlo college to say Almendral, and again Almendral to Fifth avenue and often hit sixty or more mph per hour. So rather than targeting the 8 am or 5 pm commute time, when traffic stalls, why not target the speeders who hit the gas along El Camino when there is no traffic? This is probably obvious to the local police, but they seem to be making a public statement often stationing an officer by the floral wreath where the poor young man was killed. Again, retiming the traffic lights so cars cannot hit such a great rate of speed, would do a great deal to promote the general slowing of vehicles.

In my stories on these enforcement events, I have been incorrect regarding a cell phone in speaker-phone mode on the seat. The illegality occurs when someone is holding a speaker phone. If it's on the seat or the center console, there's no violation.

My apologies to all of you who came away from this story with the wrong impression about this aspect of distracted driving laws.