The Brain Free Driving Law
Recently, California followed suit with many other states in the nation by passing a "Hands Free Driving Law".
Now, to some, this might seem reasonable. Even practical. Few of us could claim that we haven't been annoyed, cut off by, or down right endangered by someone flying down the freeway with a cheeseburger in one hand, and cell phone in the other. All while apparently setting their ipod to shuffle, getting out change for a toll, crunching numbers for their latest filing deduction, and changing Hannah Montana DVD's in the backseat for the kids.
But that's just the thing. NONE of those other things are against the "hands free law". But in yet another shortsighted attempt to treat the symptom rather than the cause, legislators and social do-gooders immediately saw what they determine to be the biggest culprit, cell-phones, and banned their use while driving........
Well.....Kind of.
Further continuing the non-sensical approach, using a cell phone isn't banned. Only using a cell phone that you hold up to your ear while driving. Headsets, speaker phones etc. are okay.
Where this comes to a logical 10 car pileup is that studies show that cellphones increase the chances of an accident, not because you are holding it to your ear, but because your being mentally engaged in the conversation distracts you from driving. (Many studies have attributed much of the frequency of teenage accidents to be based on being distracted by a friend's conversation in the vehicle)
This begs the question, what has this law done, or even addressed?
Can it be said that cellphones are dangerous to use while driving? Yes. Most certainly. Studies show they impair many peoples ability to drive. But has this law prohibited the use of cell phones while driving? No. Only the use of them without a headset or speaker option, which those same studies show, are just as dangerous.
Furthermore, if distraction (as studies show) or usage of the hands is the culprit (as legislators seem to feel) then why do I continue to see women putting on mascara? Truck drivers eating lunch? Soccer Moms reaching in the backseat to give the kids a smack? Friends giddily chatting away?
I'd imagine its because legislators and people of influence would rather do something like pass a law, generate some easy tax revenue and "feel" like they did something, rather than actually take the time to use the power of government to pass a meaningful and effective law.
The reality is, feel good laws like the current "hands free" legislation do nothing but unnecessarily infringe on individual liberties, and do nothing but treat the symptom rather than the cause. And the cause of such actions are once again, irresponsible individuals.
Some people CAN talk on the phone, eat, etc. and drive. Some cannot. And should that person not be able to operate a vehicle safely while doing those things, then they should be punished at THAT point, not with preemptive, orwellian assumptions of guilt before innocence.
Much like sobriety checkpoints, "hands free" legislation is yet another dangerous path in the changing of our legal code to assume guilt before innocence, rather than trying a man for the crimes or irresponsible actions he has actually committed.
And for the record, we already had a law that covered ALL of these offenses. It was called "reckless driving", and it was sufficient.
- IanGary's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 278 reads
to get your posts on the top of the page? Or is it a random act of stupidity that you are up there. Enough, he contributes nothing!
Oh great. My mom is on BTM you guys.
Hi mom. :p
**They say that buying pot funds terrorism, which I take personally. Because I used to sell pot, and the only time I ever funded terrorism was when I filed my taxes.**
I agree that current legislations that ban hand held phoning/texting are missing the entire point--current research backs that up. Laws such as the one proposed in California and the ones already in place in places like New York (banning hand helds, but promoting other forms) simply miss the entire point--ANY usage creates an unacceptable distraction to drivers. The REAL solution the this problem is to devise a system that simply does not permit these systems to work in moving vehicles. I am no engineer, but I have heard about a new type of nanotechnological breakthrough that is being developed. The idea was to put the 'nanotubes' into paint products eventually and use this in theatres. Flip on an electrical current....and the room painted with that will be cell=phone silent. Why not try developing a 'nanotech paint', that works to dampen cellphone reception whenever, say, the engine is running (i.e. producing an electrical stimulus that shuts down the target product--cell phones)? I realize that this would run headlong into some current FCC regulatory strcutures regarding dampening communication technologies.
I'd find the government having the ability to shut off my phone at will to not only be disturbing, but unconstitutional and flat out dangerous. What if there is an emergency situation on the road? Or a natural disaster?
And, since I pay for this service, who will reimburse me for the time I don't have control over it?
I don't trust the government to be able to do much of anything, much less have the foresight to determine when my cell phone should be able to operate.
**They say that buying pot funds terrorism, which I take personally. Because I used to sell pot, and the only time I ever funded terrorism was when I filed my taxes.**
We already have civil courts to allow people to sue those who damage their property. If the cell phone, cheeseburger eating driver injures or kills someone, they can be charged with criminal negligence. If what they did does not rise to that, but should rather be considered a tragic accident, that is ok. It is not necessary that every time something we don't like happens, that someone is charged with a crime. This is the attitude that has resulted in our incarcerating a larger percentage of our population than any society in history, including the Soviet Union under Stalin and South Africa under apartheid.
You are right on, too. There can be no just law that attempts to prevent the opportunity to commit a crime. Taking that thinking to its logical conclusion, we'll all be under house arrest some day.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
When the hands free law became effective it was all over those big digital billboards that you see all the time now, driving down the freeway. "We've got our eye on you, drivers! And we'd better not catch you holding your cell phone!" etc... (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it) It was really creepy, honestly, just like Big Brother watching over us.
A couple of years ago they tried to make it illegal in California for anyone to smoke in a car if there is a minor in the car. But that law didn't pass... It's crazy, though. Why don't they just keep us all in padded rooms? Then no one will get hurt for sure.