Two months ago I wrote my opinion on banning cell phone usage while driving and the fact that Iowa lags behind in the adoption of legislation addressing the safety issues of using cell phones while driving. That fact may change in 2010 as new legislation is being proposed by Iowa’s elected officials, including our own Representative Curt Hanson (House District 90, Democrat).
Curt Hanson is co-signer of House File 2020, a proposed bill that would ban all drivers from text messaging or using cell phones unless a hands-free accessory was employed. Violation would result in a fine of $30.
HF2020 states:
This bill prohibits a person from operating or using a cellular telephone while operating a motor vehicle on a street or highway unless the cellular telephone is used in a hands-free mode.
The bill also prohibits a person from using a wireless handset to write, read, or send a text message while operating a motor vehicle.
The bill defines “hands=free mode” as the use of a cellular telephone by way of an internal feature or function, or an attachment or addition, by which the user engages in a conversation or communication without the use of either hand.
A violation of the bill is a simple misdemeanor punishable by a scheduled fine of $30.
I spoke with Curt Hanson about the status of the proposed legislation. HF2020 is currently with the Transportation Committee, is unlikely to pass through. There is resistance from the business community about the impact of such legislation on trucking and other occupations that require drivers to be in communication with customers or dispatch.
In order to achieve a bill that can pass, Curt Hanson is in the process of forming a bi-partisan committee with the goal of crafting a bill that has enough support to become law. While most legislators agree that texting while driving is bad, there is not strong agreement on the dangers of talking on a cell phone while driving. But Curt Hanson points out that talking on a cell phone still involves taking your eyes off the road to look up a contact or dial a number.
Would you support the passage of HF2020 into law? Considering growing concern and attention over safety issues involved with cell phone use while driving, have you altered the way you view or use cell phones while driving in the past year?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ea7bce57-5a49-4fbf-b3f4-86b5196626b9)
My first reaction was, noooooooo! But now that I see that handsfree usage would be allowable, I have to agree, even if I don't like it for ME.
I was a bit neutral on this whole debate once it started last year. But in order to write the article I did last month, I ended up reading through several studies that show just how dangerous any cell phone use can be while driving. Then I ended up learning about how behind Iowa, and the US at large, are vs. other countries.
So I started paying more attention to my own use while driving, and noticed how un-attentive and distracted I was when on the cell phone. So I have voluntarily stopped using the phone in the car. Anyone my age (40) can easily recall a time when we got along just fine without car phones. So I don't see this as a limitation on my freedom, but rather a responsible approach to technology adoption.
Will, I'm glad you researched this issue and reported back for those of us short on time. My first reaction is to defend cell phone use while driving as just another part of modern life, but upon deeper consideration it's clear that there are simple ways to stay safe without compromising convenience.
The low-tech solution is to keep an ear-piece in the car that you plug in to your phone before driving. Easy enough. Some newer cars have built-in Bluetooth where you can make and receive calls with a touch of a button on the steer wheel. Very cool. Other systems allow cell calls to be routed through the stereo system. So there are plenty of options that allow you to use your phone while keeping your hands free to drive.
Texting is another story, since there really is no safe way to text and drive. Until voice-recognition technology catches up I support serious fines for texting and driving and more public awareness campaigns, especially for teens.
So yeah, it would be a pain to get a ticket for using your phone in the car, but if it helps to reduce the number of accidents then I support it.
I would disagree with this ban, due to the fact that our American government was not designed to handle these types of problems. The basic rule of thumb for what the government can do comes down to this: If you as an individual can't force another individual to do something, then the government can't Constitutionally do it either. So, would you personally be allowed to force another person to not use their cell phone while driving and make them give you $30 if you caught them doing it? Of course not. So, then the government cannot either. Someone can give you all of the facts in the world about why this thing or that thing is bad for you, but it comes down to personal liberty that each American is given. Let's not let the government take that away from us, tiny piece by tiny piece.
Intuitively I would think that hands-free devices are safer since you can keep both hands on the wheel, but I've heard that hands-free devices don't actually make driving while talking on the cell phone much — if any — safer. I did a quick web search and found several articles confirming that: http://www.saferoads.org/hands-free-cell-phones-s...
But Jim, you didn't answer my questions!
Would you support removing speed limits from all roadways, allowing people the freedom to drive 80 mph through town if they wished?
"It infringes on my right to ban talking on a cell phone while driving, but it infringes on YOUR rights when I slam my car into you, because I was distracted."
But it's not a mistaken connection. By that logic everyone should have the right to ignore stop signs. I can run a stop sign and not hurt anyone, but that's not that point.
But I will answer your questions:
1- That line is drawn wherever we as a society wish to draw it. That line will be decided by society and not the decision of you or I individually.
2 – Again, society, through our elected representation.
The way I read your position, and please correct me, is that as we introduce new technologies, any updates to our laws are unwarranted. That any such attempt to update how we organize new technologies (and the consequences good and/or bad) is a threat to personal freedom. And I just cannot agree with that. I don't believe that we should both freeze our social contracts while allowing our society to change and evolve beyond the knowledge of those contracts.
My take: If CARELESS driving is illegal, why single out just one of the many things that can cause careless driving?
Meanwhile, this article from the Wall Street Journal says Cellphone Curbs May Not Decrease Car Crashes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704...
[QUOTE]
Laws that forbid motorists from using hand-held phones or texting while driving don't appear to result in a significant decrease in vehicle crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute expected to be released Friday.
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting. Highway Loss Data Institute is a not-for-profit that is supported by the auto industry. Not that I think that there some secret plot by the industry to allow people to talk on their cell phones, but it IS very interesting that new cars are starting to have cell phones and other electronics that will surely take people's attention off of the road, being built into them. It's just interesting…
Here's a link to the Utah study http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Drivingissues/20...
FYI – New study came out showing that three different states and the D.C area had just as many car crashes before AND AFTER they banned using cell phones. (USA Today article, weekend edition, Jan. 29-31, 2010)
I am totally with you on this Will, well put!
Here is the study that showed cell phones are more dangerous than alcohol. After reading it, I'm not convinced. The standard errors are high enough that the differences in breaking response time, following distance, recovery time, and speed could all be identical, with differences showing because of errors in measurement.
It is also thought provoking to see that all three groups did not differ significantly in an any category including the alcohol impaired group (excepting the "breaking force" measurement; the impaired hit the breaks harder).
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/Dri...
There are many things that can distract us while driving. I don't think it is reasonable to ban all of these activities. The Utah study is very flawed.
Should be ban all of the following?
1. Eating
2. Applying makeup
3. Fixing hair
4. Smoking/Lighting cigarettes
5. Having kids in the car
6. Talking to passengers.
7. Adjusting the radio
8. Using the GPS
9. Thinking
10. Driving when sick
Additionally, many people enjoy different levels of reaction time and driving skill. Should we ban people with below avg hand/eye coordination? Should we ban anyone with depression or mental illness? What about people with a tendency to daydream?
As Will pointed out — we draw the lines where we think it is reasonable to place them, but cell phones are not any more distracting or dangerous than any of the items listed above, in my opinion, and I don't welcome the loss of integrity associated with a law that focuses on one of myriad driving distractions. It's insulting and dangerous to imagine that each of us is incapable of using technology in a responsible manner.
Another study, funded by AAA, found that while cell phones do distract some people, more crashes are caused by other distractions. The study found 29.4 percent of accidents caused by distracting activities were due to activities of a person, object, or event outside the car, and 11.4 percent of accidents were attributed to radio controls. Does that mean we should be banning billboards and audio systems?
People do all kinds things while driving. They eat, fix their hair, put on lipstick, light cigarettes, and we even saw someone curling their eyelashes. If we must always drive with two hands on the wheel, should we outlaw picking your nose? Just putting on my sunglasses or drinking a sip of coffee takes a hand of the wheel. The radio is a big distraction problem; I'm constantly distracted trying to push the tiny buttons to avoid commercials.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123815&pa...
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it's safe to text or chat or butter my bagel while driving. I'm just curious that perhaps the ban-laws aren't effective on their own. Nevertheless, I'd rather have the ban-laws than not.
So would you also argue that the government shouldn't "ban" us from running red lights, or say, getting drunk and shooting firearms into the air downtown on the square?
We do live in a civilized society and we *benefit* from the rule of law that protects us all and our basic freedoms. The constitution was not intended to protect you're "freedom" to drive distracted in an automobile capable of sustained speeds over 60mph. I believe it's a red herring to call this an issue of our personal liberties.
Jim, let me ask you this. Would you support removing speed limits from all roadways, allowing people the freedom to drive 80 mph through town if they wished? If not, then how is that different from a ban on cell phones while driving?
Missy, your link is broken (looks like it got cut off when you posted it). I don't understand how talking on the phone hands-free is any different than talking to a fellow passenger. Talking is talking, regardless of if it's with someone nearby or on a phone, right? Does talking require sufficient awareness to distract from driving? In my experience it does not, but if studies prove otherwise then I'll happily shut up while driving (easier said than done).
Which makes sense. It's another element of distraction. I guess it comes down to how much distracted driving do we tolerate as a society?
We all accept radios in the car. But now instead of radios we have complete media hubs in the dash board, complete with the ability to seek and read track listing, gps navigation, phone and complete hi-fi stereo tuning options. Consider the number of controls in a car in 1940 (brake, clutch, gas, horn, steering, choke) to today!
I don't know where the line is – how much distraction is too much. ??
2 questions for you, Will:
1) Where is the line drawn when the government has passed enough laws to keep us "safe" (nanny state) and too many laws that take away our personal freedoms?
2) Who decides where that line is? You? Me?
As long as I am not infringing on someone else's right to their personal liberty, I trust no one with my personal decisions except me. It infringes on my right to ban talking on a cell phone while driving, but it infringes on YOUR rights when I slam my car into you, because I was distracted. I understand that easily mistaken connection. I believe that public education and awareness is a good motive, but not punishment by law. You can't punish me because I MIGHT crash into somebody, just like I can't invade a country because they MIGHT attack my country! I thought we learned that lesson in 2003 with Iraq…?
Wow, this is quite a little story and debate! I think a ban on cell phones makes sense. I for one have many "windshield time" meetings on my phone, hands free I may add, and believe that I can actually drive pretty safely that way.
That aside however, from what I've heard – and I'm going to be lazy here and not post links – talking on the phone, hands free or otherwise, is as bad as being drunk when driving.
So in defense of those who might get into an accident because of, or with, a person who is on their cell phone, I believe a ban makes sense. ESPECIALLY for teenage drivers who get into more accidents ANYWAY (sorry daughters Lindsay and Erin, who haven't been.)
Now if we can only stop people from talking on their cell phones at tables in restaurants or in line at the store
To answer your question, yes, we do need suggested speed limits, stop signs, and red lights for society to work. Don't get me wrong, I believe that rules are necessary for a society to function properly.
However, I also believe that those rules should be restricted. I am not the person you should come to in order to know where that line is. According to your argument, society creates the rules. Should 49% of the population be subjected to a law if the other 51% of the population voted in favor of it? That, my friend, is called "tyranny of the majority," and I disagree with it very much.
Someone else may respond, "Well isn't that what a Republic/Democracy is??? If you don't like how this system works, then you can leave." I thought this nation was founded on the idea of escaping the powers-that-be from dictating every aspect of your life.
After this cell phone ban is passed, what happens next? (Fake statistic): "Studies show that a person is 4 times more likely to be killed when there is a gun in the house." When studies come out like that, should we then (pardon the pun) get up in arms about gun possession and try to ban guns??? What about when they finally realize that speeding causes many accidents and try to pass a law to install GPS chips in every car to track your location and speed and then send you a ticket via mail for speeding? They do it for running red lights already! How Big Brother is that??
Again, Will, I don't have the answer to when this has gone too far… But I don't want to keep passing all these laws and eventually figure out the hard way when that day has come when we no longer live in the "land of the free." Driving without talking on a cell phone is a GREAT idea, but I cannot agree with a government that micromanages to that extreme. That's all I have to say about that, and thanks for hearing me out.
Here's the link: http://www.saferoads.org/hands-free-cell-phones-s...
Talking on a phone (hands free or otherwise) is more dangerous than talking to a passenger. The passenger is generally aware of the traffic and other conditions and conversation often slows or stops during critical driving situations, if you are on the phone the other party has no idea that you are passing, merging, turning or otherwise have an increased workload and continues the conversation unabated.
The "hands free" laws are a joke, it's not what your hands are doing that make you dangerous, it's what your brain is doing.
Thanks for the comments Jim. Gives us all some points to think about.
Interesting. Why would that study be suppressed?
Great point! As a society we need to pick our battles and prioritize. As I watch people slow down, swerve, and practically go into the ditch (yeah, I'm a full fledged mid-westerner now) I would suggest that stopping cell phone usage is a priority. Listening to the radio, not so much. Shaving, well yeah, that should probably be outlawed too (I've seen far too many people do this in NY…)
In order to evaluate that study, we really need to know if cell phone use while driving actually changed after the laws were passed. It seems a rather difficult law to enforce or even to measure compliance with. We also need to know if there is a link between severity of crashes and cell use, and if there is, if crash severity changed in states with cell bans.
Thanks for the link.
I'm guessing that the results are due to lack of enforcement. And shouldn't be used to conclude that driving while using electronics is not a concern.
My main concern and reason for support of such legislation banning the use of cell phones while driving, is to force change in the continued introduction of electronics into the driver's seat. We're not trained jet pilots, yet at the current adoption rates, the set of controls, displays and communication devices in the driver's seat is quickly looking more and more like a high tech console.
But maybe a ban is the wrong approach. Maybe a different levels of licensing? We require a different license if someone wants to drive a semi or motorcycle, maybe for cars we should have advanced dashboard licensing. I know this may sound a bit ridiculous, but look at the trend just over the past decade in in-dash electronics. If you extend that trend into the next decade, with literally no regulation on the auto companies, you're looking at cars that can park themselves, brake themselves, auto navigate, mobile wi-fi hubs, entertainment centers . . . there's an argument that the current driver's education system is completely out of sync with technology.
I keep going back to DUI. We decided, and I think everyone agrees, that driving drunk is wrong, and that we developed technology and procedure to enforce DUI laws. So if driving distracted due to electronic devices is the same as driving under the influence, then why do we agree to ban one and not the other?
Why is the auto industry allowed to put more electronics into the dashboard, but not say a beer dispenser?