Senator who voted for anti-cellphone-driving law crashes car -- while on the phone

We're sure somewhere Drew Curtis's head is exploding over this one: submitted for your perusal, one California State Senator Carole Migden -- former voter for a state bill that fines people for using their cellphones while driving -- rear-ended her state-issued SUV into a Honda sedan on Highway 12 in Solano County, today. While on her phone. The driver of the Honda was taken to the hospital with minor injuries, although the most painful aspect of this story is surely the jaws-of-life-biting irony. Then again, at least we know Midgen's heart is in the right place; like the cleaned-up drug addict invited to tell schoolkids to stay off the dope, surely this morning more than others Midgen felt all the more confident in having voted the way she did.

[Via Raw Feed]

[EDomain @ May 21st 2007 6:31PM]

Shocking.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! She had BETTER get a ticket for this

[Joe @ May 21st 2007 6:32PM]

Oh so thats the definition of irony.

[Luke @ May 21st 2007 6:32PM]

....Where'd the Nokia Scentsory story go?

[strider_mt2k @ May 21st 2007 6:33PM]

You big dummy.
Quit yakkin' while you drive!

[Eric @ May 21st 2007 6:34PM]

"Drew Curtis's"

Are you guys farking serious? Proof reading's tough work, but if you guys aren't going to do it you should change your titles to "Copy Monkey" instead of Editor.

[Randall Bennett @ May 21st 2007 6:55PM]

Actually, it's only Curtis' if he's a bunch of people... so technically, despite how whacky it looks, Curtis's can be proper. There's some debate as to whether it's properly proper, but hey, give it a go.

Peep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Possessive_apostrophe

[ryan @ May 21st 2007 6:36PM]

guy one: remember the other day when you asked me what irony was

guy two: yeah?

guy one: well thi..AHHHH!!!!

Family Guy anyone?

[Stephan @ May 21st 2007 6:37PM]

Are you kidding me "former voter" on the bill. Hello it is her job to vote for bills, unless of course for the lazy senators that don't even bother to show up when a vote is happening. Also it doesn't say if she voted for or against. Lastly the law does not go into effect until Jan. 1st 2008, and handsfree sets are still ok.

Next we are going to hear the irony of someone that worked at Ford got in a car accident driving a Toyota.

[Alex @ May 22nd 2007 12:05AM]

I think it is inferred(?) that she voted for the anti-cellphone driving law. I don't think they would put it up if she voted against it, shit like that happens everyday I'm sure.

[Ryan Block @ May 21st 2007 6:52PM]

I clarified -- she voted FOR the anti-cellphone-driving bill. Thanks for the note!

[pumpkin869 @ May 22nd 2007 5:19PM]

Worst analogy ever. Especially considering you were wrong on the basic facts.

[Damian @ May 22nd 2007 5:44PM]

Hands-free sets for cellphones have not been shown to be safer to use than hand-held units. This doesn't seem to matter to the legislators.

Rather than banning hand-held cellphones we should have simply increased the penalties for causing an accident. That being said, talking on your cellphone while driving is a bad idea.

[Ricci @ May 25th 2007 7:44PM]

You sure about the date. We received a fax from the DMV in San Diego regarding a list of laws that go into effect JULY 2007... such as:

Incorrect lane change $380. Dont cross the lane on solid lines or intersections

Driving on the shoulder - 450.
Cell phone use in construction zone - double fine
Passenger AND drivers get ticket for not having seatbelt on.

speeding begins at 3 miles over the limit.

DUI = JAIL (10 years on record)

as of 7/01/07 cell phone use must be "hands free" while driving.

I work in an office with some pretty upper tier San Diegan power brokers, and someone in this office was sent this information.
Who knows maybe its wrong.. but still.

[Joe Smith @ May 21st 2007 6:43PM]

just so you know, eric, some textbooks recommend keeping the 's after an something like curtis. others don't. both can be correct.

[randy @ May 21st 2007 6:47PM]

You voted for her, California distric 03!

Now issue her another "state-issued SUV" and let her get on with taking your money and destroying your civil liberties!

[carlo @ May 21st 2007 6:50PM]

@Stephan:

Just because someone drives a Ford doesn't mean that they live a certain type of way that purposely restricts the abilities of those who drive Toyotas. Come on.

This is a clear example of political hypocracy.

[itsme92 @ May 21st 2007 7:10PM]

PWNED!!!!!

[Steve @ May 21st 2007 7:16PM]

Maybe cell phones aren't to blame here. Maybe she had just glanced at the mirror in her sun visor and thought she saw a ghost.

I'd be pretty damn scared if I saw her in a dark hallway, that's for sure.

[bl0nde @ May 21st 2007 7:20PM]

"You know what you'll find if you look up 'ironical' in the dictionary?"
"A description of this incident?"
"No you moron, the definition of the word 'ironical' which is what this incident IS"

[10.Deep @ May 21st 2007 7:25PM]

Ha-Ha! I love irony but I'm actually FOR people not yappin on their phones while driving.

[paul34 @ May 21st 2007 7:28PM]

So, in addition to the irony, can this possibly become any more of the quintessential embodiment of a certain stereotype? LOL

[pissed @ May 21st 2007 7:54PM]

Screw this whore! She was all over the news here in CA 2 weeks ago for her previous taxpayer funded car.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/09/BAGTTPNKDC1.DTL&type=politics

[MarkZ @ May 21st 2007 8:07PM]

Woman drivers - no survivors :)

[Neebs @ May 21st 2007 8:12PM]

Drew.Curtis.justgotowned.com

[tony @ May 21st 2007 8:26PM]

he spells it drew curtis' on his web page

www.fark.com

[MarkG @ May 21st 2007 8:31PM]

Michael Jackson's new wig looks nice, and pink really suits him!

[Azrael @ May 21st 2007 9:00PM]

Delicious. :)

[Adrian Williams @ May 21st 2007 9:18PM]

It's not exploding it's assploding

[John Q Public @ May 21st 2007 10:56PM]

We kept voting for these turds into office.

Secure them all behind iron bars and throw away the key, bunch of hypcrites.

[Matthew @ May 21st 2007 11:46PM]

A cell phone specific ordinance is pandering plain and simple - distracted driving was an infraction long before Carol and her cohorts voted in this ridiculous law du jour.
CA schools, prisons, and health care are broken and we're spending money literally like there is no tomorrow, but at least we have this wholely unnecessary and redundant law to protect us from a miniscule but headline grabbing problem.

[Mike @ May 21st 2007 11:53PM]

Doesn't surprise me, just your typical, run of the mill political hypocracy run amuck.

[Robby @ May 22nd 2007 2:55AM]

Actually it isn't even implied, which is what you meant, because the reader infers, and the author implies, but it says clearly in the title she voted for, keyword for, the anti cell phone while driving law.

[Noah @ May 22nd 2007 2:55AM]

There's a bumper sticker like this: "Hows my driving? Why don't we discuss it on my cell phone?"

[ben.bohn @ May 22nd 2007 3:40AM]

actually, it is implied. if it was stated clearly, it would be explicit, not implicit. if everyone took the exact literal meaning of everything spoken or typed, to imply something would be impossible.

[Robert Andrews @ May 22nd 2007 11:21AM]

Ahh English 101 on comments, isn't it great fun!! Being proper on a blog, thank you for correcting me. How can I tell someone something if i am not even 100%. I should be a bit more on the ball since my mother is an English teacher, but hey we're always learning right? :-)

[NitroNeo @ May 22nd 2007 8:31AM]

obviously her suv wasn't one of the Volvo's with anti collision alert sensors... how dangerous will those Birkenstock wearing crunchy's become once they all start buying those steel missiles.

[Channer @ May 22nd 2007 9:09AM]

Beware Republicans...

We are not allowed to point out the hypocrisy of Democratic officials.

Remember, just like Al Gore...she is doing far more good than any insignificant peons could by raising awareness for the dangers of driving with a cellphone. She also buys bad driving offsets so the point is moot.

Don't even try to respond...the left will squash you with factual evidence and good reasoning.

[Rick Lyon @ May 22nd 2007 9:35AM]

So, did the bill pass?

[wargarurumon @ May 22nd 2007 2:04PM]

hahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
in your face stupid hypocrit women nananananana

[NovaLand @ May 23rd 2007 1:06AM]

Headsets are safer while driving with stick-shift. It sucks to change gear with stick-shift while talking on the hand-held cellphone and drinking a bottle of coke with no cupholder in the car like mine while making a turn in an intersection with pedestrians. And oh, the just-bought burger from McD needs to fit in there too.

[Sade @ May 23rd 2007 3:22AM]

So some car manufacturer has to install burger holders in cars now.

[jason @ May 23rd 2007 3:34AM]

Just goes to show how hypocritical our politicians are.

[Mishkin @ May 23rd 2007 12:18PM]

@ Stephan

Dude, if you worked at Ford, why the hell would you drive a Toyota? Don't get me wrong, Toyotas are highly superior to their American counterparts, but the amount of money you will save when you buy a Ford just because you work at Ford is reason enough.

[Tim Georely @ May 23rd 2007 12:54PM]

Good article, I was reading on article on prepaid cell phone about this same thing. Very interesting stuff, thought it would help.

[http:ezprepaidcellular.com @ May 23rd 2007 12:56PM]

I read on http://ezprepaidcellular.com about this same thing. Shes a hypocryte, but then again who dont use their cell phone.