I always have to remember to take a deep breath when examining the laws being proposed by our grand Legislature. I detest most of the new legislation on the table, but have to forgive our representatives in the House and Senate for it. After all, writing laws is what a Legislature does, and if they don’t write enough laws, it can begin to look like they’ve been loafing.
Call me strange, but I rather prefer a Legislature that goofs off and under produces new laws. I’m convinced we have enough of them already, and agree with Mark Twain, who famously said that no man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session. Quote citation.
Mainly, that is because no lawmaker wants to look like a slacker, especially so soon after an election. It’s bad form. As a result, we get some hideous proposals that I would chalk up as an effort to hide behind some broad good intention while looking meaningful, or at least busy.
House Bill 1508 is a textbook case as one such proposal.
Representative Vanessa Summers, an Indianapolis Democrat, has introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of cell phones, making exceptions for hands-free devices and for emergency use. The proposed fine for violations of the law would be up to $25.
The intent is to make our streets a little less hazardous. We have all groused at the idiot guilty of driving while in conversation that cut us off or made us miss a light, and we have cursed the driver and his cell phone. Summers’ proposal takes its cue from similar laws passed in New York and the District of Columbia. As everyone knows, these cities now have the safest streets in the world.
This law is rife with problems, from practical application to the higher concerns of individual liberty.
I know four friends, right off the top of my head, who would gladly pay up to $25, as a cost of doing business. They think this highly of each and every one of their calls. $25 is no kind of deterrent for these people.
What is emergency use? I define emergency use of a cell phone as a frantic call to a friend because I suddenly had two tickets offered to me for a Colts’ playoff game, and I have to accept within five minutes, or the tickets will be passed on to a co-worker. My wife defines it as having found a deal on furniture, and she’s on her way home so I can look at fabric swatches. I’m betting that this is not what the Representative had in mind. Some revisions will be in order.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
Driving without sufficient sleep probably causes FAR more accidents than dinking around with cell phones. Bleary eyed folks who haven't slept in 24 hours nodding off on the road- now that'll cause a wreck. How about these legislators busy themselves with finding some way to combat that?
2 - bhw
Al, I actually saw something about that exact thing a few months ago. I'll have to see if I can find it again....
3 - Al Barger
Hmm. I don't know that you could put up awakeness checkpoints, but if after an accident someone could be shown to have been egregiously underrested, I'd consider that legitimate fodder for perhaps charges of wreckless endangerment or something.
I have a pretty strong belief that I personally have in the past done ten times more impaired driving from lack of sleep than from any occassional chemical overindulgence. You KNOW not to drive when you've been drinking, but exhaustion is far easier to ignore.
4 - bhw
Found the story, from the otherwise great state of NJ [which also, I believe, just instituted a state-wide ban on driving while chatting on the mobile phone].
5 - Mike Kole
Wired had an article many moons ago about all things distracting to drivers. Cell phones didn't rank nearly as high as most folks would suspect. Driving while exhausted and while intoxicated are far more dangerous, as stated.
You're right, bhw. New Jersey has instituted such a ban. I know I'll feel safer there too. Cough.
6 - Mike Kole
The latest "Glorious Act" is one that will ban any open container in any part of any vehicle except the trunk.
Sounds good on first blush, but in testimony before the committee, it was asked whether it would be a crime if one were to pick up unsightly trash from the roadside that happened to be beer bottles. The answer, sheepishly: yeah, I guess so.
What about taking empties to be recycled? Yeah, I guess so.
Ah, the law of unintended consequences...