Just what we need - a new law on distracted driving

I've written extensively about the idiocy of laws to ban texting while driving (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) and one of the points I routinely raise is that laws already on the books cover the issue. 

It's called 'distracted driving' or 'reckless operation' or any number of other names depending on the state or locality.  They all mean the same thing:  driving without due attention to the task. 

These existing laws are sufficient to cite someone who is texting while driving or talking on the cell phone while driving and not paying attention to their actual driving.

But another point I often make is this:  if we need a law to ban texting while driving, don't we need also need a law to ban putting on your makeup while driving?  Or one to ban shaving while driving?  Or how about driving with a dog in your lap?

Finally, a legislator has heard my plea and introduced a bill to ban driving with a dog in your lap. 

A Rhode Island Democrat, Rep. Peter G. Palumbo of Cranston, realizing that he might be able to 'save just one life,' has introduced the lap-dog legislation.  Under his proposal, those violating the law would face an $85 fine for their first offense, a $100 fine for their second and a $125 fine for all subsequent offenses.

Rhode Island drivers already have several laws that govern "driving so as to endanger," along with driving under the influence and driving while impaired.  They also have a reckless driving law, which states:

§ 31-27-4 Reckless driving and other offenses against public safety. – Any person who operates a motor vehicle recklessly so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or operates a vehicle in an attempt to elude or flee from a traffic officer or police vehicle, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for the first conviction and a felony for the second and each subsequent conviction.

This law certainly will cover any type of distraction a dog in the lap would cause the driver.  But Palumbo, apparently infected with TOBAL-itis, was moved by emotion after one (yes, one) constituent complained.

I certainly do not support adding a new law when current laws are sufficient, but at least there is finally a legislator who realizes that there are other types of distractions, besides texting or using a cell phone, that are equally as dangerous and risky while driving.

My hope is that, if they attempt to outlaw all such dangerous actions that could cause us harm, they're realize that a single law, properly enforced, is all that is needed. 

But I won't hold my breath - too many legislators and voters judge performance by how many laws are made, rather than by how much government ensures our right to be free.

Idiocy of Ohio's cell phone texting ban

Earlier this morning I wrote about the passage of a texting ban in the Ohio House, but I thought this particular point about the ban deserved its own post.

There are a lot of onerous facts to consider in the ban, and one of them, as I detailed, is that members of the Ohio House are touting this bill as 'making our roads safer.'

But if safety is such a big concern that we need to have a law, why wait six months to actually enforce it?

From the press releases I received comes this identical wording:

Additionally, House Bill 99 provides that for the first six months after the effective date of the bill, no ticket, citation or summons may be issued for a violation of the new prohibition established by the bill. During this time, only a warning may be issued that provides information about the prohibition.

Huh???

We so desperately need to make our roads safer that we need a new law when we already have one on the books that will suffice, but for the first six months, we're not going to allow a ticket, citation or summons to be issued? We're only going to warn people that the ban exists?

If there is no penalty for violating the law, the law is worthless. And if we need it to ensure our safety on the roads and highways, how will not enforcing the law accomplish this goal?

If having a law that bans texting and driving is enough to keep us safe, won't the fact that people know they'll only get a warning for the first six months encourage them to go ahead and break the law, knowing there are no consequences for doing do?

As Glenn Beck says, get out the duct tape before your head explodes!

And yes, this does qualify for 'stuck on stupid' designation.

Ohio House promotes nanny state with new texting ban

I received two press releases yesterday regarding House Bill 99, the cell phone texting ban, which would "prohibit driving a vehicle while using an electronic communications device to write, send or read a text-based communications."

It was sponsored by Rex Damschroder (R-Fremont) who said upon passage:

“Texting while driving is a danger that has affected many within our communities,” Damschroder said. “We took an important step today toward addressing this issue and making our roads and highways safer.”

In a release from Terry Boose (R-Norwalk Township) was this comment:

“Texting while driving is a distraction that has resulted in many unfortunate automobile accidents that have led to the loss of lives,” said Boose. “House Bill 99 will make our roads safer by banning texting while driving.”

What I don't understand is why Republicans - supposedly the party of limited government and personal responsibility - are rejoicing over the passage of an unneeded law and the expansion of government.

First, there are already laws on the books regarding distracted driving. It's "Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property" (ORC 4511.20). Texting while driving is certainly covered under that description - but so is shaving while driving, putting on makeup while driving, reading a newspaper while driving, etc., etc., etc. There is no need for another law when one already exists.

Additionally, as my post from October of 2009 (when Toledo was considering such a ban) details:

As author Radley Balko explains, "...we need to get over the idea that we can solve every bad habit with a new law. We can't, and this issue illustrates why."

Because, as he documents, despite the increase in cell phone usage, traffic fatalities and accidents have dropped. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle even has a post about Lucas County getting traffic safety grants where the press release from the state touts this fact in Ohio:

In the past three years, Ohio roadway fatalities have decreased to near record lows. There were 1,191 fatalities on Ohio roads in 2008, down from 1,257 in 2007 and 1,239 in 2006.

So why, exactly, do we need a law?

Why indeed?

Secondly, they're not going to stop people from texting and driving - they'll only give police another excuse to pull people over. Also from the October 2009 column, quoting the same author:

These laws aren't about safety; they're about symbolism.

Here are two things these bans will do: They'll give police officers another reason to pull people over, and they'll bring in revenue for the municipalities that aggressively enforce them. I think both are arguments against a ban. You may disagree, but the one thing these bans aren't likely to do is make the roads much safer. And if they won't accomplish that, there's no reason to enact them.

Precisely!

This law is all about emotion, as documented in my November 2009 post on the issue.

'Polls show people want such a ban...'

'Polls show people think texting while driving is as dangerous as drinking while driving...'

Yes, because we all know how accurate polls are and they certainly reflect a well-thought, reasoned argument in favor of a further limitation on our liberties. Why - if the people 'believe' it's needed, it must be! Let's create a law because people believe something that may or may not be true. This is such a terrific method of determining public policy, I can't believe we don't do it all the time!

But there is also a failure to understand the reason we have laws. As District 2 Councilman D. Michael Collins explained to me, "...laws are created to insure and protect the citizens from harm and injury."

And this is the same 'logic' promoted by the two Republicans - that such a law will "...make our roads safer."

As I wrote then,

"...laws are not created to insure and protect us from harm and injury. Laws are supposed to exist to guarantee our rights and freedoms. They protect our right to life by penalizing those who would take it. They protect our right to property by penalizing those who would steal it or damage it.

No amount of laws can ever keep us from injury, and they shouldn't try. But if this is what a councilman believes laws are for, what other onerous, duplicate and freedom-destroying ordinances will he introduce and support in the future?"

I can understand why Councilman Collins would think otherwise, but not our Republican representatives in the Ohio House. They're supposed to be upholding our Republican Party principles and adhering to the Constitution - not promoting the idea that they're 'keeping us safe' merely by passing a law.

In explaining his vote in favor of Toledo's texting ban, Republican District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski said one of the things impacting his 'yes' vote was that council would be 'taking a 'proactive approach' - if we make it illegal, some people won't do it and that may help the problem.'

Perhaps that's what our state legislators thought as well. But if that's the case, I wonder what other laws they'd support 'if they save just one life...' which is the emotional appeal that so many make when they want onerous, unnecessary laws on the books.

So now we have a law that cannot be enforced and will not keep us any safer on the roads and highways than we were before. As the author Balko said in the article quoted above, it's TOBAL-itis:

TOBAL is short for "There Oughtta Be a Law." Here's the progression of symptoms: Wrenching anecdotes about the effects of some alleged new trend make national news. A panic takes root in the media. Earnest editorialists scrawl urgent pleas for action. Politicians grandstand. Soon enough, we have our new law or regulation. It doesn't matter if the law is enforceable or may have unintended consequences. Nor does it matter if the law will have any actual effect on the problem it was passed to address. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the problem actually exists. The mere feeling that it exists is sufficient.

And so it goes with the panic over texting while driving. I'm not going to defend the act of clumsily thumbing out an E-mail while guiding a 2-ton, gasoline-loaded missile down the highway at 70 miles per hour. That's foolish. Nor will I argue there's some right to drive while iPhone-ing tucked into a constitutional penumbra. I will argue that we need to get over the idea that we can solve every bad habit with a new law.

Thank you Republican House members for reacting rather than thinking and for giving us more of a nanny state with a false sense of security than we had before you saved us from ourselves.

Kudos to Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.)

The U.S. House of Representatives, with nothing better to do, is considering banning cell phones on planes. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill that would make the current Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communication Commission ban on cell phone use during flight permanent.

Why?

Because members of the House are 'offended' by their usage - with one member complaining that his wife had to listen to another women's cell phone discussion of her sex life.

Of course, the excuse given to the public will be 'safety' as someone saw a person take a picture of the plane with a cell phone.

All this when European Union is considering allowing cell phone usage during flight.

The other concern is that airlines might make more money by charging people extra to sit in a no-cell-phone section.

But then along comes Rep. John Mica with a huge dose of common sense - thankfully! He pointed out that there are many annoyances on planes, but we don't ban them. I don't like screaming babies, dirty diapers, kids who kick the back of your seat, people who have their iPods so loud I can hear it two seats away, individuals with bad breath, and snoring ... but I don't see Congress considering bans on those items.

Mica hits the nail on the head - and his colleagues need to pay attention:

"You are trying to legislate courtesy, folks, and that just doesn't work," he said.