Don't Ban Driving With Cell Phones

Reader Comments
Back to blog

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

Yeah, let's not let business, technology, and competition provide a hands and eyes-free environment in our cars with our phones, let's do what an activist government does -- clamp down hard on those evildoers. No, I don't want one more person hurt or killed because of inattention -- but totally banning any distraction in a vehicle with a new Federal Authority over my town sheriff is not the answer. In fact, it will cause more problems while it stops the progress.
You mean you really don't want a SIRI or its like getting you directions or stopping you from pulling over next to 60 mph traffic to make a call, then trying to blend back in -- Even cops don't pull that one without full lights blaring so they won't get rear ended.
Wow, do I want to get back to a government by grown-ups!

tom of NY 1:48PM April 30, 2012

Most women cannot chew gun and walk at the same time. Most are already terrible drivers. You should only concentrate on driving, not try to do three things at once. Driving is a privilege.

putridscum of MT 1:32PM April 30, 2012

After reading this thoughtful commentary, I'm changing my vote about banning cell phone use! It is true that using them wisely and responsibly is the key here, and the drunk driving analogy hit it home perfectly for me. There will always be a small percentage of irresponsible behavior within the population in any context. It's the same argument for allowing casinos in the state (now a hot topic in MA) - some have problems with gambling, but the majority will spend a little on the weekend and have some fun, and help defray state costs. We shouldn't have to police everybody just because of the bad behavior of a few.

Clark Heintz Tools & Equipment LLC of NH 12:47PM April 30, 2012

Driving is a full time job when you are behind the wheel, multitasking is bull.
When driving at 60 miles per hour the car is traveling at the rate of 88 feet per second.
To be distracted for only one second, you have traveled apx 5 car lengths, be honest with yourself how close do you follow the car in front of you.
Driving in the neighborhood at 30 miles per hour
you are traveling at the rate of 44 feet per second
with cars parked on the street with children playing, you can not stop in time when a child runs to retrieve a ball.
If you think what you have got to say, is worth the life of a person, you are a lot more important than I.
If you have to Talk stop or let someone else drive.
Please Think About This.

Vincent Lawrence of MN 10:41AM April 30, 2012

Bullpuckey. If your wife or child were killed by some one talking or texting on their phone, you would want and deserve justice. It is just as irresponsible to talk/text while driving as it is to take a drink and then get behind the wheel.

brian of AK 8:27AM April 30, 2012

I forgot to add that this is the same thing as speed cameras. In Los Angeles, there are two cities that have them. The others have decided that the revenue generated by the speed cameras isn't worth it 'cos the cameras themselves cause accidents. Everyone else just pays a bit more in taxes and doesn't have cameras.
If the lack of cameras meant total anarchy, i.e. people running through the red lights, illegal turns, etc. then how come the others cities don't have this problem. The number of offenders as a statistic of the population is about the same. The difference is that people aren't killing themselves trying not to run a red light.
Again .. the motive was revenue. The city was short so they decided to squeeze some money from another corner of society.

Ranier Wolfcastle of CA 6:51AM April 30, 2012

Whilst, I agree with everyone that cell phone use such as texting etc are dengerous. Think about all the people that are driving 1 hour to work and 1 hour back. Do you really want to spend the extra hour in work or a hands-free-call on a lonely freeway home worthy of getting a ticket.
Even if this were to become law, who will enforce it? We dont have enough policemen to enforce this. We don't need policemen to enforce this. We already have decent laws which prevent dangerous driving. If those people driving with their cell phones and driving dangerously aren't brought to justice by the current system what's to say that this law is going to have any effect? it won't.
Why don't people see this as what it really is? It's a money-making scheme. Just like the speed limits! How come countries in Europe allow people to drive at 70-80 mph ... Germany doesn't even put limits on its 2-LANE (yes, 2 lane) autobahns and yet we have to put up with 65mph. In fact, take that as an example, how many people got a ticket for driving 70 in a 65 zone. how many got for 75 in a 65 zone ... hardly any 'cos everyone does it.
Similarly, this is a stupid law and i hope it never comes into effect. And even if it came into effect, nobody would be there to enforce it. Except on end-of-month ticket tally days when they cops have to report the numbers of their tickets issues/arrests/etc.

Ranier Wolfcastle of CA 6:45AM April 30, 2012