We may owe state Sen. Joe Simitian an apology.The Palo Alto Democrat, who sponsored the 2008 bill that banned driving with a handheld cellphone in California, introduced a bill two years ago that would more than double the fine for the infraction. We asserted in a 2010 editorial that it was a bad idea because it would have little or no impact on public safety and looked a lot like a backdoor way of raising state revenues. The bill was approved, but we were thrilled when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it under the rationale that the fine is already high enough to discourage people from dialing while driving.

A study released Monday by UC Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and Education Center suggests we may have been wrong, at least about the safety part. Contradicting nearly all of the other research on the issue, it found that traffic fatalities have dropped significantly since the 2008 ban went into effect.

In our defense, our beef with the phone ban was based on voluminous research that showed no difference in the number of accidents involving drivers using handheld cellphones as opposed to hands-free devices such as Bluetooth. There was, for example, a 2010 study by the Highway Loss Data Institute that found no reductions in crashes in states that passed laws like Simitian's. Other studies before that had concluded that although talking on a cellphone while driving is indeed dangerous -- the equivalent of driving while legally drunk-- it's the conversation that distracts drivers, not the fact that one is holding a phone to one's ear while having it. Theoretically, then, banning handheld phones should make no difference; the only way to reduce the danger would be to forbid all cellphone use by drivers.

But the Berkeley study points up a phenomenon we hadn't anticipated. It compared traffic deaths in the two years preceding the 2008 ban and the two years following it, and found that overall deaths dropped 22% and that deaths of drivers using handheld cellphones dropped 47%. Unrelated research might explain why this happened: A survey by the state Office of Traffic Safety in 2010 found that in states with handheld phone bans, 44% of drivers reported they didn't use a cellphone at all while driving -- handheld or hands-free -- compared to 30% in states without such laws. In other words, it's still quite possible that Bluetooth has no impact on safety but the handheld ban discouraged people from talking on their phones at all. Maybe that's because they're too cheap to buy a Bluetooth device, or maybe it's because the ban itself raised awareness that driving while dialing was dangerous. Either way, it seems that the ban has made a difference.

None of this is to say that Simitian's proposal to raise the fines -- and, undiscouraged by Brown's veto, he's back with another bill, SB 1310,to do just that -- is a good idea. With assorted state and local fees tacked on, a cellphone ticket costs drivers $159 for a first offense, and if that isn't enough to persuade them to put their phones down, I don't see why Simitian's plan to boost the total would make much difference. But it appears that cracking down on handheld phones wasn't as lousy an idea as we'd thought.

ALSO:

Sexual abuse, and LAUSD's overreaction

Get the federal government off public lands

Making California's primary matter -- it takes more than luck

-- Dan Turner

Photo: Drivers enjoy the freedom to hold phones to their ears, just before California's ban on the practice was enacted in 2008. Credit: Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times

Forget healthcare reform's "individual mandate." Now the government is looking to take away your right to back into stuff with your own car.

That's right: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is proposing that by 2014 all new cars sold in the United States have rearview cameras.

Now, full disclosure: In four decades of driving, I personally have backed into one car, one pole and the side porch of my house -- twice. (In my defense, none of this happened until the kids came along and I had to buy that stupid minivan!) And showing that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, my teenage son's first, and only -- so far -- accident came when he backed into an iron railing. (I'm so proud!)

And, as The Times story Tuesday said:

Each year, 228 people die after being struck by passenger vehicles going in reverse -- including about two children a week, according to the New York Times.

Accidents caused by drivers backing up also injure 17,000 people annually.

Plus the cost to automakers of the rearview cameras, now found on fewer than half of 2012's cars, isn't prohibitive: about $160 to $200 for each car.

So, on balance, I count this rule as a good thing -- for the nation and individually.

(Although I must confess that when I rented a car a few years back with a rearview camera, the kids couldn't resist taking turns checking themselves out on the dashboard screen. Which both seemed to defeat the purpose of the camera and led to a severe scolding by their mother.)

What's most interesting about this, though, has been the sea change in attitude among Americans about cars and safety. 

When seat belts were introduced in the late 1950s, for example, the U.S. auto industry resisted efforts to make them mandatory, arguing that people didn’t want them -- as evidenced by the fact that, when they were offered as extra-cost options, few people ordered them.

Thankfully, automakers lost that fight. But for quite some time, many people also resisted state laws requiring the wearing of seat belts.

Airbags were also controversial when mandated, with automakers arguing, again, about cost, and with others doubting the claim that they would improve passenger safety.

But somewhere along the way, Americans went from penny-pinching, throw-caution-to-the-wind, I'll-die-a-gruesome-death-behind-the-wheel-if-I-want-to rugged individualists to consumers of safety at all costs. (See the silly "Baby on Board" phenomenon.)

Now, the more airbags the merrier. Cars have collapsible steering columns, anti-lock brakes, safety glass, crush zones, reinforced doors and roofs, and loads of other safety features.

Sure, we still sometimes show vestiges of our wicked past: People -- very unsafely -- call and/or text while driving, for example.

But for the most part, we embrace all the new gadgetry.  And safety now sells. So automakers bring us more of it.

For example, as The Times story says:

Automakers unveiled an assortment of other preventative safety features at the L.A. Auto Show in November.

Infiniti showed off its backup collision intervention technology, which not only beeps when its sensors detect potential obstacles but also automatically brakes to avoid a crash.

A similar function from Ford offers blind-spot warnings. Cadillac has a virtual bumper feature that stops the car before it hits anything.

That's right: Soon your car may do more of the driving -- and the accident avoidance -- than you do.

The bright side of that equation? You may be able to call or text in complete safety.

"Passive Driver on Board," anyone?

RELATED:

Volkswagen's wooly Bulli

High-tech cars -- and equally high-tech security issues 

New cars vs. old cars -- the 'old paint' economic indicator

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: The dashboard of the Honda Crosstour features a rearview camera and monitor that are used when the car is backing up. Credit: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times

Keep the government out of the back of my Subaru!

By now you've no doubt read or heard about the Portland couple arrested after an attempted bit of Valentine's Day, uh, romantic role-playing went awry.

Seems that 26-year-old Stephanie Pelzner was in the back seat of a Subaru Legacy driven by 31-year-old Nikolas Harbar and, well, Pelzner was tied up, and had duct tape over her mouth, and was, well, yes, naked. And someone at a New Seasons Market spotted her, and I guess that even in a Portland market parking lot this seemed a bit odd. 

Now, perhaps Harbar went to the market looking for roses and candy for his sweetheart, and they were sold out, so being a man, he said, "I know what sounds romantic," and Pelzner, being a woman, didn't want to hurt his feelings and say, "No, really, a card is fine," and ...

Anyway, in a kind of screwball comedy of errors that Hollywood once turned out by the dozens, concerned citizens called the Portland police and the police dispatched nine cars and the officers tracked the couple down to their residence and Harbar explained they were just having a little Valentine's Day fun and Pelzner said she was fine (I guess someone removed the duct tape) -- but the police booked them on charges of disorderly conduct in the second degree, which is apparently what the charge is for in essence annoying the police in Portland.

And to think, I got M&Ms for Valentine's Day.

Now, I've heard of the "broken windows" policy of policing, but this is my first experience with "peeping Tom" policing.

Like a modern-day Rip Van Winkle, did I fall asleep for a year and now it turns out that Rick Santorum is president?

Are there now little drones flying around the nation's skies equipped with cameras that sense body heat and alert police to those being naked and naughty in mid-priced Japanese imports?

Have lovers' lanes been outlawed?  After all, they are a kind of gateway drug; unlike Vegas, what happens there doesn't stay there. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Or perhaps this is the latest example of the class warfare sparked by the Democrats?  Would Harbar and Pelzer have been OK if they'd been in a BMW or Mercedes?

So many questions, so little duct tape -- and clothing. 

Really, though, I understand the concerns of the citizens who called police. I lived in a small town once. Your business is everyone's business. Plus, you can't be too careful these days.

And I applaud the police for taking it seriously, I do.

But why the charges?  Why the mug shots?  Once the truth became known, wasn't embarrassment punishment enough?  Do we really want to make "hanky panky in a moving vehicle" a criminal offense? Wasn't Prohibition bad enough?

I visited Portland recently.  Nice place.  Has dirt streets, with street signs and all, right in the middle of town.

What it doesn't have, I guess, is a police department with a sense of humor.

So my advice to Stephanie and Nikolas -- and all you other crazy lovebirds in Portland: Try M&Ms next year instead.

ALSO:

Valentine's Day: When love hurts

Valentine's Day: Symbiotic love connection

Pension spiking: Turning sick days into retirement pay

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Nikolas Harbar, left, and Stephanie Pelzner. Credit: Portland Police Bureau

To paraphrase (badly) Neil Armstrong: "That was one small ad for Chrysler, one giant leap for political pundits."

Not to mention that Clint Eastwood apparently didn't "make Karl Rove's day," although I'm sure Bill O'Reilly was "feeling lucky" after Eastwood gave a statement to his Fox News show Tuesday night.

Chrysler's Super Bowl ad Sunday, which featured a deeply patriotic message delivered by Eastwood, was quickly decried by Rove and others as a sop to the Obama administration and its bailout of the U.S. auto industry.

On Monday on Fox News, Rove, in essence, drew first:

"I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

On Tuesday night's "The O'Reilly Factor,' Inspector Harry Callahan let Rove look down the barrel of his .44 Magnum:

"I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain. l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK. I am not supporting any politician. Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad. Anything they gave me for it went to charity. If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, I say go for it."

Really, though, how did we get here?  Do we have to start reading the tea leaves of Bud Light commercials for political messages?

And as for Chrysler, who knows what to think. The company, which is owned by the Italian automaker Fiat, puts out a simple, pro-America ad, then somehow gets bashed for being pro-Obama.

What, you think Chrysler was supposed to say "Hey, thanks for nothing, America and Mr. President; now buy our cars"?

Meanwhile, in its other ad -- for a Fiat 500 Abarth -- the Italian company features a Romanian supermodel (speaking Italian) who seduces a nerdy American on a street in some big American city.

What horrible message did that send?  Oh, I know: That Obama's a European-style socialist, and that he's seeking to seduce Americans by flaunting the sex appeal of a native of a former Soviet bloc country, and he wants you to buy cars built in a profligate European nation that's deeply in debt, and ...

Ouch. Enough.

Although I will say, if someone calls Eastwood next year for a Super Bowl ad, I'm afraid his response will be right out of "Dirty Harry":

"Well, you can just get yourself another delivery boy."

ALSO:

Wait! Isn't that Marge Simpson behind that veil?

Pain at the gas pump: Round up the usual suspects?

M.I.A. has digit malfunction, flips off the Super Bowl

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Scene from Chrysler's Super Bowl ad featuring Clint Eastwood. Credit: Chrysler

It doesn't really matter. Because you know what the smart money's on? Gasoline.

That's right: While you and your buddies were putting down $10 or $100 on a football game, $10 billion has been placed in the futures markets by large hedge funds and commodity pools -- and they're betting that gasoline prices will keep climbing.

So, anyone know a good gasoline bookie? Or can someone give me directions from the sports book area in Caesars to the commodities room?

Actually, that won't be necessary: I can't afford the gas to drive to Vegas.

That's because while the hedge fund guys are doubling-down on gasoline prices, you and I are the ones left feeding the slots, er, pumps.

As The Times reported Monday:

January is typically a month of falling gasoline prices because fuel demand traditionally falters in the slower travel weeks that follow the end-of-the-year holidays.

Not so this year. The last month was the most expensive January ever for retail gasoline as prices averaged out at $3.37 a gallon, according to the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) in New Jersey. That compared with the previous record average for the month of $3.095 a gallon SET last year. ...

In California, the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.771, up 2.4 cents since last week. That was also 36.5 cents a gallon higher than the old record for Feb. 6, which was set just last year.

Of course, it's not just speculators who are driving up the price of gas.

High oil prices was one reason. Refineries exporting large amounts of fuel overseas was another.

And as those late-night infomercial guys say: But wait, there's more:

Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com, said, "Gasoline prices tend to start moving significantly higher toward the end of February and into mid-March, so motorists should be preparing for higher prices."

You might think that about now I'm going to start ranting -- to blame someone for all this. 

You know: It's President Obama's fault; after all, he's, well, the president.

Or: It's Mitt Romney's fault. He's one of those rich guys who makes money from, uh, money.

Or: It's the evil oil companies. That's an oldie but a goodie.

But that's not fair. 

No, I'm blaming high school and college guidance counselors. 

After all, not one of them ever advised me to major in hedge funds or commodities trading. How about you?

Talk about a failing education system: There it is in a nutshell. You, me and that worthless brother-in-law of yours are working 9 to 5 and buying lottery tickets, while someone somewhere apparently whispered to the chosen few in school: "Hedge funds."

It's enough to drive you crazy.

Except gas costs too much to make the trip.

ALSO:

Refloating the housing market

A Puritan's "war against religion"

College: Just a six-figure day care? 

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: The average price of a gallon of regular gas in California has risen 2.4 cents since last week and 36.5 cents since a year ago. Credit: Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times

Yes, the U.S. economy is improving.  But.

There's always a but, isn't there?

You can talk about companies -- such as Bank of America -- reporting better earnings. Or about how unemployment claims have fallen again. Or that consumer prices are holding steady. Or even about mortgage interest rates hitting new lows.

But. 

But then there's the "old paint" index, and the news there isn't so rosy.

You might have a different name for this economic indicator, such as "the clunker," or "the jalopy" or even "this old thing? I’ve had it forever."

Whatever.  The bottom line is, the average age of all the vehicles  on America's roads is at a record high: 10.8 years. For just cars, it's 11.1 years.

They're not necessarily scientific, but those are telling numbers. 

For one thing, it means that a lot of Americans aren't sure enough in the economy to splurge on a new car.  Call it the "car consumer confidence index," I guess. And when it's down, so are we.

Because Americans love cars.  They love to drive. 

Especially in California. Here, a new car is a, well, if not a fundamental right, at least something close.

It's like the old joke about first impressions:  In the East, they ask what school you went to.  In the South, they ask who your family is.  In California, they ask what kind of car you drive.

Also, I think this whole old car vs. new car divide adds fuel to the "class warfare" debate.

What can be more discouraging -- what inspires more envy -- than the sight of a shiny new BMW passing you on the freeway?  Especially when you're driving an 11-year-old not-a-BMW that needs shocks and tires -- and that you don't valet park because you don't want to be laughed at?

I'm telling you, for a savvy politician, there's a campaign slogan here. 

Forget "a chicken in every pot."

How about "a new car in every garage"?

ALSO

Auto industry goes on U.S. hiring binge

Soul train: Promoting the MTA, one punk at a time

What does Romney's refusal to release his tax returns say about him?

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: A shiny, new Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet. Credit: Nissan

Protest songs aren't what they used to be. The Kent State massacre got a timeless response from Neil Young ("Ohio"), the Vietnam War inspired John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance," and even the quieter '80s still inspired artists such as Jackson Browne and Sting to pen diatribes against Reaganomics and nuclear arms ("Lawyers in Love," "Russians"). Today I stumbled across the most interesting protest song I've heard in quite a while. Its topic? Los Angeles traffic. Oh well, first-world problems deserve first-world YouTube music videos.

The song, above, by local punk bank It's Casual, makes up for in passion what it lacks in melody; this song grabs you by the colon and refuses to let go. More important, it does in a visceral way what a thousand editorials promoting public transit couldn't: It makes riding the subway seem cool. Actually, it's not the first of its genre -- a colleague who was deeply into the punk scene of the late 1970s pointed me to the song "Gas Line" by the Plugz. I couldn't find a video version, but I did discover that this guy thinks it's a great song to listen to while cleaning a gun. Rock on.

Our editorial board tends to favor public transit because it's a practical solution for several of L.A.'s biggest problems (traffic, pollution, high gas prices), but it's still a challenge for people who live far from a station or don't have easy bus connections to ride it. Of course, there are other ways to go; my preferred traffic-defeating, gas-sipping alternative even has its own music video too.

ALSO:

The MTA's gates of delirium

Pranksters to exercise the right to bare legs

Protest songs: Record labels aren't listening

-- Dan Turner

Remember "Christine," the malevolent Plymouth Fury of book (Stephen King) and movie fame?

Guess what:  Her high-tech sister may be back, sort of.

Or maybe it's more "Car 54, Where Are You?" except this time your car can tell you where it is, and a whole lot more.

Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News reported on recent studies by university researchers and security companies concerning the possibility of cyber attacks on today's brainy cars and trucks:

One found that a car's computer controls could be remotely accessed through their Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or OnStar connections, potentially enabling terrorists to simultaneously disable the brakes of numerous cars, corporate spies to eavesdrop on a motoring executive's phone calls or thieves to electronically locate, break into and start cars they've targeted to steal. Another study showed how a car's tire-pressure warning system could be wirelessly tricked into sending false alerts to drivers, which could prompt them to stop and fall prey to robbers following them.

And you thought the big high-tech motoring problem was teenagers who text.

OK, I know, it's not as if the cars can go nuts on their own. They'll have to have help -- I guess from the folks George W. Bush so memorably called "evil-doers."

But think about it. Once, you could perform many car repairs yourself. Today, you're lucky if you can find the dipstick. I mean, I was in the showroom of an exotic-car dealer a few years ago.  A mechanic was inside the car. He was tuning it. Using an Apple laptop plugged into an access port.  

So what are you going to do when your nav system says, "Sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that," after you've asked for directions to the nearest Dunkin' Donuts?

Will there be Jiffy De-Bugger places that'll de-virus your car in 30 minutes or less?  Instead of grease monkeys, will there be silicon snakes? Will used-car ads tout a vehicle as "low-mileage, one owner, no computer viruses"?

Thankfully, our government has our backs. As The Times story says:

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is aware of the potential for 'hackers' and is working with automakers to better understand what steps can and are being taken to address the problem," the agency said in a statement, adding that it has asked the National Academy of Sciences to look into the matter.

Whew.  Maybe they'll turn it over the TSA, and we can all have our cars patted down.

In the meantime, though, here are some practical steps I suggest you take:

1. Buy an old VW Beetle. It may catch fire, but it certainly won't be vulnerable to cyber attacks.


2. Don't give your car a pet name.  That way, when it goes crazy and you have to shoot it, you won't feel like the kid in "Old Yeller."


3. Encourage your kids' computer use. Junior can then grow up to be either an Internet entrepreneur or an auto mechanic. Either way, he can earn a living and not have to mooch off of you or move back home.


4. Last but not least, buy American.  For who knows what evil lurks in the minds of foreign cars' computers?

ALSO:

Photos: Driven in 2011

Car owner takes legal fight away from lawyers

The arson fires and an appreciation for L.A.'s firefighters

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Today's cars feature sophisticated computer systems that control many functions. Credit: Wieck

Parents, plug your ears: The Wall Street Journal points out Thursday that the Golden State's roads are going to be Scream Central starting Sunday, when a new law goes into effect raising the age and/or size requirement for children's car seats. Currently, the law requires kids under 6, or who weigh less than 60 pounds, to be strapped into booster seats. Under the new law, they have to stay in car seats until they turn 8, or grow taller than 4 feet 9 inches. Parents of 6- and 7-year-olds (there are 1.1 million of them in the state), who thought they had graduated to regular seats, now have to find a way to break it to their kids that they're back in the penalty box ... er ... kid's chair.

The law isn't a bad idea, and California is only doing what 29 other states have already done by raising the requirement to 8 -- that's the standard recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for maximum safety. Somehow, though, I suspect that logic will escape the average 7-year-old who thought they could sit in the big-boy or big-girl chairs like a grownup, only to be busted down to the minor leagues.

More to the point, though, the logic of Gov. Jerry Brown's veto decisions is escaping me.

This fall, Brown vetoed a bill that would have required kids under 18 to wear helmets while snow skiing or face a $25 fine. As we've said on the editorial page, this would have helped prevent serious injury or brain damage on the slopes. Brown's justification: "I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state." This not only ignores that child-safety laws are commonplace (there's already a law on the books requiring minors to wear bicycle helmets, for example) and effective, it's logically inconsistent. As my colleague Karin Klein has pointed out, after Brown vetoed the helmet bill, he signed a bill outlawing the use of tanning beds by minors even if they have their parents' consent. What is that, if not a transfer of authority from parents to the state?

Which brings us back to the child-seat law, another effort by the state to mandate parental decisions in the name of safety, and which Brown, despite his high-minded principles, didn't seem to be bothered about.

Sometimes when a kid kicks and screams over minor frustrations, such as being put in an uncomfortable car seat, the best response is to lay him down for a nap. The next time the governor is tempted to veto a worthwhile bill, he should maybe do the same.

ALSO:

The 10 most viewed Op-Eds of 2011

Photos: Ted Rall's 10 most popular cartoons of 2011

Year in review: California budget, L.A. pro team, GOP triple threat

-- Dan Turner

Photo: Don't tell this kid, but she's not getting out until she's 8. Credit: Associated Press

Craig Watson, director of the California Arts Council, responds to Michael McGough's Dec. 13 Opinion L.A. post, "The solution to the problem of controversial license plates: Get rid of them." If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed, here are our FAQs and submission policy. 

Michael McGough expressed his concern over a new, controversial special license plate design in Texas and concludes that states should not have any special license plates at all. For California, adopting McGough's recommendation would be a serious mistake, especially concerning arts funding for our children and local communities.

The iconic special plate design that evokes California -- recognizable worldwide -- is the classic sunset and palm trees motif of the Arts License Plate. Designed by renowned California artist Wayne Thiebaud in 1993, the Arts License Plate has raised more than $20 million for arts programs since its inception. Currently, plate revenues account for more than 60% of the California Arts Council budget and support hundreds of arts organizations, including those in schools and after-school programs. The Arts Council is currently promoting its "Million Plates for the Arts" campaign to raise $40 million for arts education and local programs.

The arts plate deserves much credit for keeping statewide arts funding viable at all. When the California Arts Council budget was slashed by more than 90% after the dot-com bust, the revenue generated by the Arts License Plate saved the agency from extinction. The plate continues to be vital to the California Arts Council's existence today. The Californians who pay extra for the plate know that their contributions help pay for programs for children and local communities. Eliminating specialty plates would deprive thousands of Californians of the opportunity to support arts programs.

Also, the concern that a private organization might seek to push a controversial cause is a moot issue in California. Under current law, special plates are sponsored by state commissions, departments or agencies (like the California Arts Council) and not by private nonprofit entities. So McGough's proposal to eliminate all special plate programs is unnecessary in California and would do more harm than good.

As the old saying goes, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; or in this case, don't take music, theater, dance and visual arts programs from thousands of children in California because of a minor controversy in Texas.

ALSO:

The solution to the problem of controversial license plates: Get rid of them

Texas approves controversial license plate featuring crosses

A hidden threat to drivers

-- Craig Watson

Image: www.ca.gov