Common Objections to Cell Phone Legislation
Adapted
from ://www.geocities.com/morganleepena/rebuttal.htm
"Banning
cell-phone usage by community is confusing."
"Banning the use of hand held cell phones while driving is
an infringement of my personal freedom."
Some people have asserted that they believe they have the right to use
their cell phones while driving. They do not have that right. The state
of
Our state and national constitutions guarantee us all the freedom to live our
lives. We have the right as parents to thoughtfully and responsibly care for,
nurture, and raise our children. These are the kinds of freedoms that build the
foundation of a democracy. These are the kinds of freedoms worth fighting for.
Cell phone users face no such compelling loss of freedom. They're faced with a
minor inconvenience, a change in relatively recent habits, and nothing more.
Any small discomfort someone may experience as a result of this legislation is
far outweighed by the overall benefit to public safety.
"Talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting
on makeup, eating fast food, tuning your radio or reading a map while driving.
People need to use common sense, and we can't write laws that make that
happen."
There is no question that there are many distractions occurring in the car. Of
course responsible drivers should make every effort to minimize those
distractions. But none of those behaviors rise to the same level of driver
inattention as does dialing and then conducting a conversation or closing a
business deal on a cellular phone. Human Factors experts tell us that there are
basically three kinds of driving distractions. The first is visual.
Looking away from the roadway would be an example of this. The second is mechanical.
This would include manipulation a control -- such as dialing a cellular phone
or adjusting a radio, and can often be associated with a visual distraction.
The third is cognitive. By example, we have all had the experience of
traveling from point A to point B and then realizing that we aren't sure how we
got there or what happened in between. Being "lost in thought" or
being in focused conversation with someone causes us to withdraw from
situational awareness. Researchers are beginning to obtain evidence that
shifting from hand held to hands-free phone use while driving does not result
in eliminating all cell phone distractions. It addresses the visual and mechanical
distractions, but does not address the cognitive issues. This raises the
question, "How is conversing on a phone different from talking with a
passenger in the vehicle?" There are two important differences. The first
is that a passenger in a vehicle is aware of the driving situation and can even
serve as an additional look-out for hazards. If there is a needed pause in
conversation, the reasons are evident to all parties. The second is that phone
use seems to carry a certain obligation of immediacy. When the phone rings, we
feel compelled to answer it -- whether it is convenient, safe, or appropriate
to do so or not. We become focused on the phone call and lose the situational
awareness so necessary for safe driving.
Of all the distractions mentioned, only the use of a cell phone
incorporates all three of those demands. The sheer magnitude of cell phone
usage also differentiates these behaviors.
The landmark NHTSA 100-car, 241-driver study found that cell-phone usage
is the most common driving distraction, and that distraction is a factor in
almost 80 percent of crashes. As of
September 2006, there were 219 million cell-phone subscribers. We know that as
a society we can provide the means to keep in touch with family and
friends, conduct business deals, entertain ourselves, or order a carry out
dinner while driving our cars, but the important question that has not been
adequately addressed is should we?*
Some people have a problem with the concept of legislating
personal responsibility, but legislating personal responsibility is nothing
new. The State of Illinois has enacted laws enforcing the use of seatbelts and child
safety seats, and sobriety while driving. Aren't these, too, personal
responsibilities? Once it was realized that people were not wearing seat belts
or strapping their children into car seats, it took an act of legislation to
force the public to change their habits.
This change in social non-acceptance of drunk driving came about as a
direct result of the legislation. In today's society we MUST legislate because
there are people out there who do not take personal responsibility for their
own safety and more importantly, that of others. We do not pass laws to punish
responsible people; we pass laws to protect ourselves from irresponsible ones.
"There are already laws that punish careless and reckless
drivers appropriately for reckless driving. We don't need another one
specifically for cell phones."
Careless and reckless driving laws do cover a wide variety of driving
infractions. However, Illinois is one of a handful of states that does not have
a law that directly relates to careless and reckless driving. Also, we don't choose to simply lump all
driving behaviors under reckless or careless driving. We make special laws
making it illegal to drive through a red light, to follow the speed limit, or
to stop when a school bus lets off children. We also made a law specifically
addressing the behavior of driving while intoxicated. Why? A person violating
any of these laws could surely be accused of reckless or careless
driving. When we recognize a specific behavior as being particularly
hazardous we address it independently. Those laws clearly define particular
behaviors as unacceptable leaving no ambiguity for drivers or law enforcement
officials. A law is needed because it underscores to the public exactly how
dangerous and destructive the behavior can be. A law forces people to think
about that specific behavior and its consequences.
"A law like this would not be enforceable."
Some lawmakers have raised the question of whether a law such as this would be
enforceable. How do police officers
detect whether someone is wearing a seatbelt? How do they know whether a driver
is intoxicated? All of these things are difficult to detect and therefore
enforce. Yet we’ve made them laws anyway. When we are faced with overwhelming
safety concerns, we legislate. We’ve even passed laws making it illegal to
carry a concealed weapon. The very nature of that offense would make it highly
unlikely that an officer would be able to enforce it. Yet we’ve still passed
the law anyway. Why? The hope is always that lawmakers will be able to spot and
remove potential hazards from the public before harm occurs, but if that fails,
it gives us the ability after the fact, to assess additional penalties on those
who have chosen to act recklessly or irresponsibly.
"This law will be
bad for business."
The fact is that as we speak there are businesses all over this country who are
rewriting their employee handbooks to prohibit the use of cell phones while
driving. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson, the third largest
pharmaceutical company in the world, and Praxair, a bottled gas transportation
company, just to name a few, have prohibited their employees from using cell
phones in moving vehicles while on company time. They see how vulnerable they
are, in terms of liability, if an accident were to occur. The companies can
distinguish the difference between the small advantage their employees incur by
conducting business on their phones while driving, and the enormous
disadvantage of being held financially responsible for the injury or life of
the employee and any person they strike while exhibiting this behavior. If even the Defense Department, with its
wide-ranging acceptance of risk and ability to pay for damages has found it
necessary to ban cell-phone driving of any kind on its bases, how can any other
entity afford to allow it?
"There isn't enough evidence to prove
that using a cell phone while driving causes accidents."
A lack of statistical data about a problem is not the same thing as a lack of
evidence!*
There are number of more recent studies that point to serious problems with
distracted driving and those are listed separately. The fact is, we have evidence that a problem exists. We don't
have statistics not because they don't exist, but because we don't
currently collect them.
When 120 children and small-statured women were killed with airbags, there was
a huge government, industry and societal response. When 150 people died using
Firestone tires, the response was similar. Both airbags and tires are essential
parts of the driving environment. Cell phones are not, so why do we tolerate
this problem?*
Illinos police are not required to note whether a
driver involved in an accident had been on the phone, so statistics linking
crashes to phones are hard to come by. Only
"The information you need most is not available, because we are not
collecting it," said Mark Burris of the
*Information marked with an asterisk provided by Fran Bents, co-author of the
Department of Transportation's 1997 report entitled "An Investigation of
Wireless Communications in Vehicles," in her March 7, 2000 testimony
before the Senate Transportation Committee in