• Comment (41)

Don't Ban Driving With Cell Phones

April 27, 2012 RSS Feed Print

After years of saying he wouldn't, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is now calling for a new federal law to ban talking on cell phones while driving in any kind of vehicle on any kind of road anywhere in the country. 

[Engage: Should drivers be banned from using cell phones while driving?]

Speaking at a "distracted driving summit" in San Antonio, Texas Thursday, LaHood attacked what he called a "national epidemic," adding it was important for police to have "the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in 2011 there were 3,000 fatal accidents resulting from "distracted driving," which could be anything from talking on a cell phone to eating to putting on make up to screaming at the kids for making too much noise to fiddling with the GPS system in heavy traffic. By putting the blame on a single technology rather than on the bad choices made by individual drivers, where it belongs, LaHood is missing the mark.

The particular problem of "talking while driving" is already being addressed by the states--38 of which already have laws restricting the use of cell phones in cars--by the auto companies, and by the cellular telephone industry, which has made great strides in making cell phones safer for drivers to use while operating a motor vehicle. 

[Read Susan Milligan: NTSB Right About Cell Phone, Texting While Driving.]

The best way to address the problem, says the National Motorists Association is "through efforts to educate the public" on the dangers associated with not paying attention while driving. "Reinvesting public resources, that are now invested in 'speed kills' campaigns and related enforcement excesses, into education and public relations efforts focused on inattentive driving would be a far more productive use of these funds," the Association says on its website.

The group makes two other important points, both of which flow from the reasonable position that "preemptive laws that make otherwise innocent harmless acts illegal" are already too plentiful in the United States. First, that it is foolish if not dangerous to try and convince people that making talking while driving illegal "will eliminate the possibility that this act will lead to another, actually harmful act." And second, that the idea is popular in certain circles because a ban on cell phone use while driving is easier to enforce than laws intended to combat all forms of distracted driving, which "eliminates the need for exercising thoughtful discretion and reasoned judgment. The issue appears black and white. That the cell phone user was causing no harm and endangering no one does not have to enter the decision making process."

Others are also critical of what LaHood is trying to do.

[Check out the latest political cartoons.]

"Treating cell phone use like drunk driving is particularly wrong-headed and assumes that cell-phone use and accessibility are casual novelties instead of the critical 21st century tool most Americans rely on. Unlike Washington, adults all across America understand the difference between responsible use of their cell phone and alcoholic misuse," said Horace Cooper, a legal commentator and adjunct fellow at the non-partisan National Center for Public Policy Research.

"Instead of solutions which are voluntary and rely on education and technology, LaHood seeks out the hysterical approach of banning cell phone use outright--this is a solution whose time hasn't come," Cooper said.

What LaHood is proposing extends the heavy hand of "big brother" even further into our lives. The fact that it is being pushed in the name of "safety" is no reason to accept it blindly.

Tags:
Ray LaHood,
driving,
cellphones,
government intervention

Reader Comments Read all comments (41)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

First, This is a States rights issue and should not be under the eyes of the Federal Government (who per the Constitiution is only supposed to have specific "enumerated powers"). Perhaps Mr. LaHood and the rest of the Federal Government should take a moment and actually read the Constitution and get out of my life.

If we are responsible for ourselves, we understand that when trafic is congested/heavy we perhaps do not take or make a call. I have even told people on the phone that traffic is getting heavy and I will call them later, it's called be respectful and responsible. Perhaps Mr. LaHood should make a point of continually asking everyone to learn to be responsible and respectiful of others in his speeches and not take away everyones rights because of a few idiots. I get much more from my children when I educate them on right vs. wrong, rather than scolding them!

I can not disagree with texting, but in our State that is already banned. Perhaps we should next ban radios, kids and the ederly from riding in vehicles as they are much more of a distraction on the road. Then we can move on to more serious issues like eliminating roads that face into the sun or perhaps banning animals from our roads, as there have been many times deer have distracted me while driving or even being in my way when driving (look honey, more vension for the freezer, by the way I need a new car).

When is enough, enough!

Jim of MN 2:19PM November 19, 2012

I certainly do not believe we need federal law on this point. The whole concept of our form of government is to push the governing of the people down to the state level and below. Those states not enacting laws regarding texting and driving will be the cause of a federal law being enacted. If the states handle this accordingly, representatives can push back in DC showing that the system works.

As far as I am concerned Horace Cooper’s shows his stupidity with his comment, “Unlike Washington, adults all across America understand the difference between responsible use of their cell phone and alcoholic misuse”. If that were the case, you, I and others would not see rampant examples to the contrary every time we drive the roads.

I believe Mr. Cooper has his head buried all the way up his own ass and that is more than evident in his missing the reality that drunk driving and cell phone use while driving are more alike than not. While not exclusively an act of an alcoholic, my guess is that the majority of drunk drivers are alcoholics [sufferers of alcoholism – people addicted to alcohol]. The majority of the texting while driving [or is “driving while texting” a more apt description] people you, I and others encounter daily are most likely habitual “texting drivers”. In other words, these folks [like alcoholics] are addicted. They are just as addicted to texting as the alcoholics are to booze. Would Mr. Cooper support the repeal of open container, DUI and DWI laws? I would think not but considering he apparently fails to realize the addictive nature of texting and that the actions of a very large group of adults disproves his notion that “adults all across America understand the difference between responsible use of their cell phone and alcoholic misuse” maybe not. If the vast majority of adults understood the difference, I would think the number of texting drivers would be substantially smaller than what my first-hand observation seem to indicate. Perhaps, Mr. Cooper does not drive himself to and fro. He appears to belong to a member class that might avoid such nuisances.

A quick gander of Mr. Cooper’s background seems to indicate he has a problem in remaining on the up-and-up. Of course, that doesn’t mean he is wrong on this point. His head up his ass condition does, however. Links on Mr. Cooper:

http://www.horacecooper.com/hc/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/horace-cooper-pleads-guil_n_529054.html

While there are other driver distracting activities that I am certain have resulted in accidents or near accidents, I have not observed them to the degree I have observed texting and phone number dialing. Why a law specific to texting? Because it is by far [my observations only mind you] the leading distraction going today. Why is that do you suppose? Maybe it is because the cell phone is “the critical 21st century tool most Americans rely on” or is that the 21st century tool most Americans are addicted to and can’t seem to do without for a thirty or sixty minute span while they drive from point A to B? People can’t do without it because they are addicted to it. Addiction should be dealt with directly and on many fronts, if not to protect the addicted person, to ensure that others are not harmed by his/her addiction. Don’t outlaw it, simply regulate control it. We see how a total ban on alcohol works and continue to see how it works with what we call controlled substances but are in fact illegal. I don’t believe anyone is proposing to outlaw texting altogether. Right minded people are simply attempting to manage it so it is not an activity harmful to others. If texting while driving only exposed the “texter” to harm, who should care? A loved one perhaps but not you or I. However, that is not the case. Texting while driving exposes others to potential harm and even death. How would the opponents to texting while driving laws feel if their most beloved person was killed in an accident caused solely because a driver was texting while rolling down the road at 60 or 70 mph?

I believe LaHood may be taking it a few steps too far but what ultimately may save a few thousand lives, too many steps or none at all? If all states would take at least that one step they need to or should take, perhaps there would be no need to sit and watch the federal government take too many.

Let's Pull Our Heads Out Eh of TX 6:04PM May 03, 2012

tom of NY _ What a ton of crap & stretch of the imagination.

“...pulling over next to 60 mph traffic to make a call, then trying to blend back in... ”

Take off your safety belt and show your disregard by wearing no helmet on your Harley-Davidson motorcycle . It impedes your view of road. Women can not see your face. MORE SILLY NOTIONS WORTHY YOU...

Bill Hedges of MO 8:25PM April 30, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement