One for Phillip from the Star Press. Sen. Kruse didn’t think much of laws banning cell phones while driving until he fumbled his own phone and crashed into a ditch.
“I was on the cell phone, messing around trying to dial a number and I lost control, went into a ditch and smashed my car up pretty good,” said Kruse, R-Auburn. “That scared me, so I decided to file a bill and get the issue out in the public.”
Similar bills have died a quick death in the legislature during the past seven years, and the odds for Kruse’s Senate Bill 216 appear long this session.
[tags]SB216-2007, motor vehicles[/tags]
If he can’t drive and use a cell phone, then don’t do it. Why does he need a law in order to make himself stop?
And before you say “it’s to protect me from other cell phone drivers”… there are plenty of laws on the books already dealing with reckless driving, etc.
In trying to figure out what is my political philosophy it seems to always come back to being a conservative liberal with strong flavoring of being a libertarian—-why—-Why should I be comfortable with any “big brother” government positions. While it is not difficult to understand government role in speed limits, creating any dangerous situation, etc.—-when it comes to telling businesses this is how you SHALL operate whether it is “smoke free” or no trans fat or similar things I have a problem accepting that as necessary. Seat belts and some border line issues (for me) do seem to cross over the line into my rights without insuring someone else’s rights. Cell phone use is a new thing with an old problems–driving distractions—how far is the right distance in restricting use—radio dial changes may cause harmful distraction—checking gps map may cause distraction—children in the vechile may cause distraction, etc. eating, etc. If I smoke in the presence of my grand children should it be a legal matter of child endangerment (and based on real science—what exactly is the real danger of second hand smoke–an irratating thing or real danger) and will next if I eat fatty foods in front of them I will be risking charges of endangerment or even child abuse—and the triade could go on and on.
Same thing as to all the collective wisdom on how local governments should operate being held in the state house—so is it absolutely necessary that Indiana abandon its constitutional status of “home rule” and protect citizens against their own locally elected local officals. Somethings seems not quite right—but as a senior citizen maybe it is just me remember other times.
Let me rephrase:
“I don’t know how to use bluetooth, I don’t know how to use voice dialing, I don’t know how to dial based on touch using the dots near the 5 key. So, I must look away from the road while dialing. Since I can’t do any of those things and must look away from the road, no one who knows how to do those things should be allowed to use a cell phone in a car either”
Thanks for your protection, Kruse.
Ryan,
Why do we need a law to protect me from myself by making me wear a seatbelt in my truck??If I do not wear a seatbelt that’s my choice and I do not need the government telling me what to do from the time I get to the time I go to bed as long as it is not harming anyone else!
Driving while impaired is also a form of reckless driving but we have a seperate law for that.So why not a seperate law for reckless cell phone drivers since we are passing laws that say everyone must wear a seatbelt which hurts no one but the person who chooses not to wear the thing which can not be said by those who cause wrecks because they are driving while being distracted by a cell phone.This way when the police see someone talking on a cell phone they can hurry up and pull them over like they do when they spot someone not wearing a seatbelt.
Not to worry the proposed cell phone bill will go no where.
So, if Kruse ran off into the ditch because he was talking to his wife, he’d file a law banning that?
ROFL – so I guess this makes Sen. Kruse the lowest common denominator for benchmarking the need for laws?
I vote that we legislate other personal habits – showering, hair cuts, driving while eating, eating too slow in a crowded restaurant, wearing spandex, and anything else that is impossible, costly, or pointless to try to enforce.
I’m starting to wonder if the government were to stop trying to legislate personal behavior if they’d all be out of work. Maybe this is simple job security?
A study by State Farm Insurance and reported by Fox News last week revealed that teenagers riding with other teens was a major contributing cause of traffic accidents.
I wonder if Kruse would consider adding an amendment to his bill banning teens from riding in cars?
All of the above arguemnts against banning cell phone usage while driving brings me back to my point as to government intrusion where does it end or where do we draw the line.
My point has been if the government is going to make it a law that I wear a seatbelt in my truck while harming or effecting no one but myself which is legislating personal behavior that harms no one but me will they also protect me from reckless drivers who have nearly hit me several times while fooling around with cell phones.
(sarcasm)As long as applying makeup while driving is included, I’m all for it. (/sarcasm)
I’m not sure if a law is the answer, but based on my readings on this subject, I would encourage everyone NOT to use a cell phone while driving, for their own safety.
Studies that seem credible to me indicate an increased risk of accident on par with driving while legally drunk.
Link to study (Edited to close link tag)
Interestingly, it did not seem to make any difference whether the phone was ‘hands-free’ or ‘hands-on’ – the important factor seeming to be the driver’s disassociation from the here-and-now by virtue of being engaged in conversation with a party in another location.
There is already a law that addresses this to some degree. IC 9-24-11-3 provides that all licenses issued to individuals under 18 years of age are “probationary.” As such, the teen drivers are not allowed to drive after curfew. During the first 90 days they are licensed, they cannot operate with a passenger in the vehicle unless that passenger is 21 or older and has a valid driver’s license. Every passenger in the teen’s motor vehicle is required to wear a seat belt.
Personally, when I’m on the phone in the car, the priority is the car, then the call. Of course, it’s the same way when talking to someone else in the car. I guess I don’t see
the difference.
I mean, you can get distracted by the scenery, so let’s just bulldoze everything within two miles of each road.
Kenn –
As long as you don’t post while driving…
Joe –
It may be that you are the exception – or, that your self-assessment is a bit off. It does seem that most folk defending the practice seem to bring up other things that people shouldn’t be doing, either, which doesn’t seem to build a really strong case. Anyway, be careful, please.
Doug –
Thanks for closing my link tag – I did not mean to anchor to the rest of the thread!
If you’re not going to go after all the causes, what’s the point?
To me, it’s like banning smoking “light” cigarettes in public because you’re worried about second-hand smoke.
The “perfect” is often the enemy of the “good.” (Apparently something said by Voltaire.) I take this to mean that striving for perfection (and being unable to attain it) ends up preventing us from accomplishing the more attainable good but less than perfect.
Also, there is some balancing going on. Not wearing a seat belt doesn’t have much to recommend itself, nor does smoking. Though I guess both activities make an individual feel good. And, smoking satisfies an addiction once a person is addicted. Talking on a cell phone arguably has more social utility, though that might depend entirely on the conversations being had. Closing a deal that will bring 1,000 new jobs to town — probably worth the additional risk of being a dangerous driver. Talking about what you had for lunch yesterday, not so much.
Doug,
But by the same token, if what you’re negotiating over the cell phone is that important, isn’t it worth pulling into a parking lot — or at least over onto the shoulder — for?
Oh, probably. But then Mr. Big has to waste precious time where he could be doing other economically useful things.
My argument is not an especially strong one, I’ll concede. But, my point is that the cell phone conversations have the potential to be socially useful in a way that smoking or driving without a seat belt do not have. So, forbidding or restricting the conversations have a larger potential downside than forbidding or restricting non-use of a seatbelt or smoking. I’m not committed enough to the argument, however, to spend much time on the probably more important question of how big the differential is between the potential downsides.
Doug,
Well, maybe, but I’d rather see a law against cell phone usage — at least of the hand-held variety — than one that increases the reach of the seat belt laws to more adults and licensed drivers. (As I stated elsewhere, I support seat belt laws for minors, similar to New Harmpshire’s law.)
The reason is that cell-phone using drivers are as hazard to other people on the road.
A person who goes without a seat belt is for the most part only adopting risk for him- or herself. A person who talks on a cell phone while driving is imposing a risk to everyone around them.
Just the other day a person in a Disney/FM 97.something van was doing 35 mph in the right lane on WB I-465 between Allisonville and Keystone. Once I passed her, along with the people between me and her, I noticed — she was talking on a cell phone. Traffic was backing up on the ramp from Allisonville Road due to this person.
If we’re going to keep hand-held[*] cell phones legal, we should also repeal DUI laws. I’m libertarian enough to be able to entertain this notion without gasping for breath, but we have to recognize the social and economic consequences. For both cell phone and drug-impaired driving, the costs of an individual’s risky behavior get socialized for the most part among the population, via car insurance company.
The interesting question to me is, with the increased ubiquity of cell phone usage, and the effect of talking while driving being approximately equal to driving at the BAC threshhold for legality, are more accidents being caused by the unregulated cell phone usage than by the presently-regulated DUI activities? If DUI laws were repealed, would that risky activity catch up to or exceed the impact of cell phone usage?
We may be in a position where the aggregate risk imposed to drivers on the road is greater from cell-phone usage than from DUI. It would be enlightening to find out.
As a final aside, Doug, I’m all for jury nullification in situations like the one you present. If the 1,000-job-deal-lander guy ends up getting cited by the cops, let him make his case before a jury, and let them let him off the hook if he didn’t actually hurt anyone.
Except…the right to trial by jury by one’s peers was unconstitutionally repealed for traffic court, wasn’t it? Oh well.
[*] It’s probably too hard to enforce hands-free cell phone usage. The cops would have to have devices that analyzed EM activity around your car, or have information mandatorily fed to them by cell phone companies. Either of these 1) is too open to shenanigans; 2) would turn into a boondoggle for someone doing the systems development and integration; 3) would probably expose more information than was neccessary to the police; and 4) is too intrusive for my taste.
People screwing with their iPods are a hazard.
People fumbling with the radio are a hazard.
People reading books are a hazard.
People applying makeup are a hazard.
People talking to people are a hazard – be that on a cell phone or those in the back seat. (You’re telling me a parent has never been distracted by their kids & gotten in a wreck?)
Isn’t there some kind of law that 35mph Disney mom could get prosecuted under already, like reckless driving?
Parker said, “It may be that you are the exception – or, that your self-assessment is a bit off. It does seem that most folk defending the practice seem to bring up other things that people shouldn’t be doing, either, which doesn’t seem to build a really strong case. Anyway, be careful, please.”
Don’t confuse arguing against criminalizing cell phone usage with encouragement to engage in the behavior. Clearly, it is a hazard. But I like to think ‘no harm, no foul’. If one causes a wreck because of their cell phone use, include that in the citation, jack up the fine, and allow the offender to make restitution to those injured.
Law is law, and it rarely makes exception for situations when using the cell phone when driving is very appropriate- such as to report a drunk driver or an accident. If law is on the books and unenforced, what’s the point? If law is on the books and strictly enforced despite rarely there being foul caused by the practice, what’s the point? There is a place for balance on this, and to me, the law swings the pendulum against liberty and towards excessive police intervention into daily life.
That’s what I’m arguing against.
Joe,
What you say is true, and there are many potential risky activities in which one can indulge while driving. You cited several.
In my post about cell phones and DUI I was trying to encourage something beyond a black-and-white analysis. For four of your cases, the distracting activity does not involve interaction with another person, and can be swiftly discontinued. Furthermore, with the possible exception of applying makeup, all of these actions take significantly less time than most phone conversations.
Imagine a line graph. If we plot the time spent doing a risky activity on the horizontal axis, and the level of distraction to the driver on the vertical axis, then the area under the curve will approximate the total risk level. (Industrial engineers have been doing analyses somewhat like this since the founding of the field.)
Some activities last only a very short time but could be intensely distracting — say, picking up a hammer and clocking yourself in the skull with it while driving. Others, like talking on a cell phone, are less sharply distracting but stretch out over a longer time.
I seem to recall that studies have been done regarding the distractedness of drivers engaged in conversations with other people in the vehicle. Evidently other people in the car maintain some situational awareness, and often know to be quiet should road conditions or congestion levels get worse. A person on the other end of a phone call can hear little and see nothing.
With the exception of having to control rambunctious children, I don’t think your examples are really horses of the same color as cell phone usage. At least in the case of children, the parent has a moral (and sometimes biological) compulsion to get the car into a safe place if the kids are really going bonkers.
(On the other hand, some people’s kids seem to drive ’em so crazy they wanna just take the car through the guardrail and into the river…)
Mike Kole said what I wanted to say, except I couldn’t. Maybe that’s why he ran for office, and I didn’t.
One interesting thing to me about this discussion is that the prospect of increased socialization of risk in the form of higher insurance premiums (recalling that we’re required by law to carry insurance for our motor vehicles) is drawing nothing more than a yawn from the economic conservatives — the same folks who’ll raise hell over the prospect of a quarter-percent increase in the sales tax, or the failure of the federal government to completely repeal the estate tax.
As long as we’re socializing costs through private companies who are guaranteed by law a larger clientele than the free market would permit, is it just not a big deal anymore?
O Tax, where is thy sting?
How about a law that simply states that cell phones cannot be used by a driver if they are hand-held? We all want to go into the middle of the forest and count all the trees.But I was a school teacher and I had to keep things simple , fast and instantaneous.I realize more and more that the nature of law is not designed that way,because just one law affects countless people everywhere,and it’s just as well legislation is slow and deliberative..
Lou –
The study I linked to in #10, above, found that risk increase was essentially the same for both hands-free and hand-held units – it may be that the mental disassociation is more important than any physical fumbling.
I’m not pressing for a law, but I do encourage everyone not to make or take calls while driving, because I believe it puts you and the people around you at significantly increased risk.
As for all the other distracting things folks do – yeah, try not to do those either, ok?
And, while I’m on a roll of telling you how to behave – Eat your vegetables!