WHILE CELLULAR phones have emerged as one of the great conveniences in life, everyone should stop pretending that it’s safe to use them behind the wheel. Massachusetts, certainly, has been slow to deal with the problem. While negotiators for the state House and Senate are working out details of a bill that would ban drivers under 18 from talking on cellphones and sending text messages, it remains unclear whether lawmakers are willing to apply the same restrictions to adults.
In fact, a categorical ban on all types of cellphone use by all drivers is in order.
What's wrong, Globe editors? Paper's not tanking fast enough for you? Aren't there some unions you could be caving to right now? Is there some mysterious reason that you've decided to come out for a full ban on all cellular devices - even the hands-free units you've been pushing for years?
This is what so thoroughly irks me about the liberal mindset. "We don't like it" = BAN IT. They use statistics "proving" that some 6,000 deaths a year are attributed to distracted driving as proof that "anything" that killed that many people would be banned. Really? First off, much like the global warming "science", let's see that whole study. How did the folks running the study determing that "distracted driving" caused the crash, rather than just some idiot behind the wheel? I've seen enough fucking morons without cell phones in this state to refute that study.
And what's next? Do we ban passengers? I mean, logically, if you can't be trusted to drive while talking on a hands-free cell phone, you can't be trusted to talk to another human. It's a very short hop here - can anyone think of a single difference between talking on a cell and talking to the person in the passenger's seat? What about radios? How many crashes are caused by people fiddling with the radio? Heater/air conditioning? Maybe we should mandate that all cars maintain a constant, fixed temperature so that folks don't get distracted turning the heat on.
That's the whole thing. It never ends. Once we let them dictate one behavior, there's no stopping those who would use the power of the state, the men with guns, to force the people to bend to their whims and wants. Today cell phones, tomorrow iPods, next week it's passengers and heating choices.
It's telling, isn't it, that the only "choice" these statist pricks seem inclined to let us make is the "choice" to murder our babies...
That is all.
Please note the creation of a new tag just for this sort of thing...
8 comments:
I admit to being of two minds about this.
On the one hand, I agree with you about the liberal "we don't like it so we'll ban it" attitude. On the other ... trying to send a text message, or talk on your cellphone, or fiddle with your MP3 player, while you're driving truly is distracting, and it truly is dangerous. And people should not be doing it.
I would like to see some rider on car insurance policies such that if it can be demonstrated that you were doing any of those things and caused a crash as a result, your insurance coverage does not apply. I'm not interested in ruining people for life, so maybe it should just apply to the physical vehicle damage. But the only way you'll get people to stop doing something that is foolish and dangerous is to make it a major risk factor for them.
Or just start enforcing the existing laws against distracted driving.
That's what gets me. Much like gun control, what's being addressed here is already covered by existing law. If a police officer observes you swerving all over the road because you're too involved in your conversation, he can give you a ticket for distracted driving, impeded operation, and/or failure to stay within marked lanes or failure to use care and caution.
There's simply no need to ban cell phone use - unless it's as a precursor to something else. Set the precedent, or merely enforce previous precedent, and we make it that much easier for them to ram ever more intrusive laws down our throats...
I've seen much more distracted driving due to conversations with passengers, myself.
I can comprehend a ban (or an increased fine for other offenses, preferably) on texting while driving as inherently too distracting, as it requires your eyes to be off the road, as well as at least one hand.
But banning talking?
Insipid, stupid, pointless "be seen to be doing something" reaction.
Many moons ago -- while mobile phones were the size of a small range bag and carried only by teh ostentatiously noveau riche Yuppies, a VA State Trooper explained to me that "Driving While Imparied" was NOT restricted to "intoxication", and VA case law supported ANY impairment to your ability to drive as grounds. (I wwas asking a buddy if he was allowed to do something about the people trying to drive while carrying out their morning ablutions and breakfast at highway speeds.)
"can anyone think of a single difference between talking on a cell and talking to the person in the passenger's seat?"
I've been saying that almost since I learned to drive. And anyone that has ridden with me can tell you I'm not a very good conversationalist while I'm driving - I tend not to pay attention to the person I'm talking to in favor of paying attention to my driving and the idiots around me.
"What about radios? How many crashes are caused by people fiddling with the radio?"
Amen! The one significant accident I've been in I was t-boned by a girl fiddling with her radio (or something in that general area). She had to drive past a line of cars stopped at a green light and cross 2 lanes plus a turn lane before hitting me behind the driver's door - while I was driving an ambulance with the lights and siren running.
I'll give her only the excuse that she had the green light and I had the red, but I had slowed and made sure all the traffic I could see had stopped before I entered the intersection. She popped up behind the line of stopped cars in the other lane, crossed those 3 lanes, and hit me without ever even touching her brakes. I had just enough time to yell a warning to the rest of my crew, but I could see her reaching towards the radio just before she hit.
Thankfully, there were no serious injuries. She hit hard enough to bend the frame on the ambulance - an F-550 Super Duty with a large, heavy box on the back.
Dude... they already GOT the iPods. It's illegal to drive with earplugs in.
And I'll second Jake's comment about radios being a distraction - couple of friends of mine got hit head-on (and permanently injured) by some 17 year old bimbette with the ink still wet on her license... because she had to lean down and adjust the her frickin' stereo. We ought to make a law... Oh, right.
"can anyone think of a single difference between talking on a cell and talking to the person in the passenger's seat?"
You can't turn your head away from the windshield to look at the person you're talking too.
Oh wait, I can't say that, it'll disrupt the narrative.
I've suggested something similar to WolfWalker's idea...just make a minute change in the liability laws.
- If you're involved in an accident and it can be shown from your cell-phone/Crackberry logs that you were in the middle of using said device at the time of the accident, you are 100% liable.
No ifs, ands, or buts. Even if you get rear-ended, if you were on your phone instead of driving, it's all on you.
Intended consequence: People driving lousy cars will be targeting the nearest idiot in a Mercedes on a cell phone, just to nail them for the insurance money. You'd see a marked drop in the use of electronics while driving, or at least the idiots on the phone would hide it better, both visibly and in their behavior.
Post a Comment