But why just cell phones? If the real intent of the law is to eliminate distractions from our roadways, why not ban them all? Summers could justifiably expand the proposal to include a ban on smoking in the car, adjusting the radio or inserting a Britney Spears CD, eating fast food, scolding the rug rats in the backseat, talking with your spouse, shaving or applying makeup, doing the crossword puzzle, using a laptop computer, using on-screen directions to Starbucks, and rehearsing your excuse that explains your tardiness to the boss.
Could we really ban Britney Spears CDs? I digress.
Before the law is done with revisions, no common person will be able to read and understand it, and mainly, drivers will just continue to take their chances.
This begs the significant philosophical question: Why bother?
Isn’t it sufficient that citations can already be issued if the use of a cell phone is the cause of an accident? Why pile on? No harm, no foul: If the use of a cell phone isn’t endangering anyone in the moment, why penalize for the harm that was not caused?
Ah, the law is to be a deterrent, to eliminate the possibility of harm. But won’t it also become more than that? How much of a stretch is it to envision police pulling over drivers who endanger nobody on a deserted road at 11pm, but who are guilty of making a cell call, just so the officer can meet his monthly quota? Isn’t that a harm all its own?
Say, if the police pull a driver over to the side of the road, isn’t that the sort of distraction that could cause an accident? It should be banned!
Let’s hope this Bill dies in committee. If it passes, Summers will run for re-election in 2006 on the basis of having produced this wonderful law… and of having been suitably busy.
Originally posted to my blog, Kole Hard Facts of Life. Go there. Go there often.
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...