Nevada City, MO, police officer playing with his toys. (Click on photo to enlarge)
The December 31, 2011, Coeur d’Alene Press has a guest opinion column titled Cell phone ban is needed. It was authored by local attorney Steve Bell. As his title notes, Bell advocates banning all cell phone use, not just text messaging, while driving. His premise is that, “You remain a distracted and dangerous driver while engaging in that conversation and that includes hands-free use…”.
According to the column, Idaho State Senator Jim Hammond believes Idaho will enact [anti-] texting legislation during this years legislative session.
What do you think? Is legislation needed? If it is, what should it include? More important, maybe — whom should it cover and who should be exempted?
Assuming for the moment that our legislature does actually intend to do something (whether it is or is not necessary or whether it will or will not be effective against this real or misperceived problem is immaterial), you can be certain that the legislature will gratuitously exempt public safety drivers from having to obey the law that the rest of us must follow. But if the underlying premise of Bell’s concern is valid, if drivers can be and are being distracted by their gee-whiz gadgets, then shouldn’t any ban apply to all drivers?
The photo that leads this post shows a Nevada City, MO, police officer sitting in this car. How many “distracting devices” do you see? I see a mobile radio microphone (presumably connected to a control head with volume, squelch, and channel selector). Immediately above his mic is a GPS unit with front-panel controls. He has an in-car video system with the camera to the right of his rear-view mirror, and its display unit with controls is directly above that. The gadget to the right of the video display is likely either a RADAR or LIDAR unit. But the biggie is, of course, the mobile display terminal (notebook computer) on which his gaze is fixed and his right hand is resting.
To get a better understanding of what distracted driving really is, read the Policy Statement and FAQ from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about Idaho telling me I should not drive while distracted, but I do believe that if any legislation is passed that will supposedly increase highway safety, it has to apply equally and without exception or exemption to all drivers. Public safety employees regularly tell us they are human just like the rest of us. I agree, so if I can be distracted by car toys, so can they.
California banned hand held cell phones with a hefty fine. I did not see anyone with a phone to their ear while in California during the holidays. The fine should be a hefty one and enforcement is an absolute necessity.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — December 31, 2011 @ 9:06 am
A ban would be tough to enforce. However, if there is an accident and it can be proven that the driver was distracted by being on a cell phone or texting, then I believe the fines and penalties should be heavily increased.
Comment by Dan — December 31, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Public service employees should be setting the example, NOW, without any law or ban in place. Texting or typing while driving is insane. If a law were to pass with an exemption for them, because they are quicker, faster, and more super human like, I don’t think that would sit well in the craws of many of us and I believe we already have inattentive driving laws/citations in place.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 31, 2011 @ 9:41 am
What about eating while driving? Having a dog in your lap? Putting on lipstick? Yelling at…oh, I mean “suggesting an alternative behavior” for your kids in the backseat? Reading a map? Flirting with a boyfriend or girlfriend?…the list goes on and on.
Distracted or negligent driving should be dealt with as just that. You can’t legislate every possible distraction!
Comment by mary — December 31, 2011 @ 9:54 am
See http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/10/texting_while_driving_laws_are_unclear_inconsistent_and_spottily.html
Just what we need, more laws. Maybe Jim Hammond could retire and let a rational legislator take his place. Maybe someone who has not sucked at the public teat for his entire life.
Comment by justinian — December 31, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
Dan, what do you mean if it can be proven?………..”if there is an accident and it can be proven that the driver was distracted by being on a cell phone or texting,” What is there to prove, when they became distracted?
Oh I forgot, now you’re a public OFFICIAL.
Mary, how about pushing the preset buttons on your radio?
Comment by Ancientemplar — December 31, 2011 @ 6:58 pm
Oh come on now, some things take more brain power than others. Public service SHOULD be exempt from such laws. All vehicles should be equipped with a device that will ONLY allow a cell phone to work in emergency mode while the ignition is on. If you do not like it, do not drive and “txt whl drvng n put da rst of us in dngr”. You are supposed to be DRIVING.
Stupid laws are created because we have stupid people around us and stupid lawyers that defend these stupid people and stupid judges that let these stupid people with their stupid lawyers in their court.
Can anyone say hot coffee? Or how about closer to home, election challenge?
Comment by concerned citizen — December 31, 2011 @ 8:51 pm
There are jurisdictions where they will review your phone records at the time of the accident. If it’s shown that you were on the phone or sending/receiving a text at the time of the infraction, the fines are tripled.
Comment by Dan — December 31, 2011 @ 10:29 pm
concerned citizen,
I believe all the briefs have been filed in the November 2009 Coeur d’Alene election contest lawsuit. Now we’ll wait and see when the case gets put on the Supreme Court’s calendar. The Court is scheduled to convene in Coeur d’Alene on April 2,3, and 4, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the case that should be heard up here will be.
Comment by Bill — January 1, 2012 @ 6:49 am
Dan,
You are correct that authorities will check to see of one had been texting while driving however, if it has gotten to that point it means that one had already created a problem and had possibly killed me and/or one of OUR loved ones because of the ones stupidity, ignorance and their self centered lack of concern for others.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 1, 2012 @ 7:28 am
For starts it just so happens that I was born in Nevada, Mo. It is kinda small but bigger than nearby El Dorado Springs where the family once lived. I still have many relations in that region.
As for cell phones, if it is hands free then there should be no problem. Most police vehicles have equipment that is large enough to see and it is placed so it can be operated with ease (see ergonomics). That is a lot different that struggling with a tiny cellular device, with tiny keys and a tiny screen. It is not so much the conversation that leads to trouble as it is wrestling with the itty bitty appliance in order to have that conversation. Also it would be near impossible to enforce a hands free device ban. The driver could easily end the call long before the police would get to their door. Then they claim senility and a long and benign habit of talking to themselves.
Happy new year to all.
Comment by Wallypog — January 1, 2012 @ 12:37 pm
Stock gadgets. Add the privately owned cell phones that most officers also carry and regularly utilize as they are making random u-turns as they are driving down the road with no lights or warning and without any observable reason other than to go the other direction. Who is going to ticket the officers for routinely ignoring traffic laws let alone using a cell phone?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — January 1, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
Wallypog and Joe Six-Pack,
A large part of the problem with the proliferation of toys in cars is their distraction. If distracted for one second while traveling at 60 mi/hr, you will have gone 88 feet during the distraction. I personally object to the gadgets cops are required to carry on their batman utility belts and are expected to operate in their cars. Each gadget come with an operational policy which adds to the decision-making process and distraction time.
It’s been six years since the Madonna-Kralicek shooting in Grouse Meadows. According to the Idaho State Police homicide investigation report, when Kralicek entered the house pursuing Madonna into Madonna’s own home which had not been cleared by Kootenai County deputies Bangs and Smart, Kralicek was in the process of unholstering his TASER. Madonna, on the other hand, had already made a decision to retrieve the handgun in the living room coffee table and shoot. Whether shooting or driving, decisions take time, and the more decisions that department administrators require officers to make, the greater the opportunity for delays in making the correct one.
When confronted with an unexpected change while distracted, regardless of the nature of the change and distraction, reaction time increases. I’m concerned that the proliferation of gadgets and toys, with the corresponding increase in decisions to be made to be within policy, puts more people at risk.
Comment by Bill — January 1, 2012 @ 7:14 pm