ACHTUNG: This is not a “fair and balanced” article. It is an editorial by the editor.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
It had to happen. A new state law was signed this week to make it illegal to use your hands for a cell phone while driving a motor vehicle.
Despite the above Franklin quote, it seems the 21st century has made it necessary to limit absolute freedom for us to do whatever we please if it causes danger or harm to others. That same principle was behind the eventual passage and signing of a seat belt law. The similarities here are obvious.
Back in the mid-1980s, government introduced a bill to make seat belt use mandatory under penalty of law, about 20 years after Ralph Nader published his influential book “Unsafe at Any Speed.” He was catcalled, “Seat Belt Boy” by Libertarians and conservative politicians, but in the end he had the last laugh.
Seat belt use since the law was passed has increased greatly, and traffic deaths have declined as a result. Not everybody has followed the directive, as evidenced this week by three teens who were thrown from their vehicle, causing their hospitalization with serious injuries.
But Nader and his allies have proven that “seat belts save lives” and most citizens have taken heed.
The cell phone issue became obvious to me about 20 years ago. Whenever I’ve seem motorists yakking at the wheel, I’ve wondered whether they were a danger to themselves and others on the highways.
During long trips, I’ve become so bored with riding freeways as a passenger that I’ve invented a contest between how many vehicles I spot on the road are hybrids against the number of drivers using cell phones while operating their cars, trucks or SUVs. The latter always won this contest by a landslide.
Using cell phones while driving is indeed dangerous and is an example of distracted driving, but it’s convenient, and we’ve become slaves to this little device in our need to reach out and touch someone. As I have insisted so often in this space, if you make something easy to do, people will do it. Conversely, if you make it inconvenient, they won’t.
To be sure, this new law will be difficult to enforce and it will not stop all motorists from practicing this nasty habit. But it also will result in fewer deaths on the highways.
So what it boils down to is another example of government insisting that individual freedom isn’t as important as safety or security. This means there are exceptions to the absolute rule that “It’s a free country,” and I’m allowed to do whatever I want.
In my world, safety and security trumps freedom because too many of us own a very simplistic notion about just what freedom is.
I don’t often sing the praises of of legislators in Lansing, but I will on this law. For once they did good.
One of the very few things Witty has done that I can agree with. Long, long overdue. Stiffer penalties are warranted. My opinion.
While generally libertarian in my views, this is also a piece of legislation I can mostly support. People are effectively moving themselves down the road in a tool that has the capacity to kill other people. Texting and driving is the equivalent of going to shoot skeet at the range but doing it with a blind fold on. You may shoot in the right general direction but you will almost always miss the target.
I’m not sure I agree with not being able to hold your phone while talking on it and driving. They don’t take away your license if you only have one arm or one leg. This isn’t any different in terms of capacity. You’re a one armed person talking to a passenger effectively. The difference is answering and hanging up the phone. But again, the concentration needed to do that isn’t any different than running a GPS or adjusting your radio or climate controls.
Texting and driving is bad. Reading and driving is bad. I’ve seen people reading books or the news paper (back when that was a thing) while driving. Talking on the phone isn’t great but no worse than one would already be distracted by passengers and running the radio to find another station.
The hard thing about this will be enforcement. Like the seat belt law most people are caught at stop lights or specific enforcement zones. I expect the law to make an impact but to set a goal of zero traffic deaths by 2050 like they want is impossible. As long as cars are on the road people will die. Tires will blowout, engines will fails, things will fall off trucks and trailers, and in michigan, the snow will continue to fall.
Another thing to ponder is the difference between a car and a motorcycle. Why are seatbelts required in a car but a motorcyclist doesn’t need a helmet? Wearing a seat belt affects no one but myself (and my immediate family if I die or am gravely injured) but in the end, I’m only risking my own life, not the life of another driver. I am a proponent of seatbelts and always wear one myself but not seatbelt laws.
Last summer, you reported in TownBroadcast about a woman that was hit by a car while crossing the street after getting the mail. That woman, Roberta Sites, was my aunt. Today, in Allegan County District Court, the driver was found guilty of “misdemeanor moving violation resulting in death”. Investigators from the Michigan State Police and Allegan County Sheriff’s Department were able to prove that she was texting while driving. The penalty under Michigan law is “up to” one year in jail or $2000 fine and six points on the license. Not much of a penalty for killing someone. I agree – stiffer penalties are warranted.
Another thing you could compare it to…you can eat and drive, drink coffee and drive, put makeup on and drive, shave and drive…you can’t legislate stupid out of people, unfortunately.