Them cell phone laws

So I make a blog, and hardly even use it, and when I do (right now), I decide to rant.  Many people will disagree, but think about it for a minute before you do.

Recently I learned that Utah tightened their cell phone laws.  The official wording of this bill can be found here, on the state's legislative web page.  Keep in mind, this has passed and is in effect already.  Most people didn't even know it was being considered.  Essentially, it takes the "Don't text and drive" law and make its more ridiculous.  With that one sentence, people are already thinking I am a horrible person, I am sure.  Hear me out.  The new law adds a few new bans:

• writing, sending, or reading written communication including text messages, instant message, or electronic mail
• dialing a phone number
• accessing the internet
• view or record video
• enter data into a handheld wireless communication device

Naturally, some exceptions must be included.  The law still allows you to:

• use the "handheld wireless communication device" as a "communication device for voice communication" (you can answer a call, just not dial one)
• view GPS or navigation apps
• use for emergencies including medical, criminal, or safety hazards
• use if you are in law enforcement
• use if the device is physically or electronically integrated into your vehicle

KSL does a good summary of the law with their news clip here.  

Several years ago, I lived in California.  They put one of the first cell phone laws into effect which eliminated talking on your phone while driving unless using a hands free system.  The goofy result I saw from that law is that people would switch to speaker phone mode, and hold their phone in front of their face to talk.  This definitely seems safer, right?  Sure, lots of people bought a blue tooth device and looked like Borg, but even those supposedly safe drivers could still manipulate their phones while driving, because they had a headset on.  I found it to be a silly law, quietly removing a few freedoms from people in the name of safety.  

Soon thereafter I was living in Utah, and they decided to add a ban on texting while driving.  Naturally, this had the initial effect of polarizing people.  Many saying how smart it is to ban, it will make the roads safer, texting is so dangerous while driving, etc.  The opposing side, if they voiced their opinion, was shut down.  How dare you think its OK to text and drive? You are putting your life and others at risk!  What could you possibly have to say that couldn't wait till you stopped driving?  Depending on what side you were back then, you either heard or said something similar.  

Now, humans tend to find ways to rationalize what they are doing.  You can see this with almost any traffic law.  Were it not so, there would be no speeding tickets nor parking fines.  Rather, drivers may think "a little over the speed limit is fine", or "I can't see any cops", and go above the posted limit.  Isn't this dangerous?  Speeding kills people.  In Utah last year, 50 deaths were attributed to "aggressive driving", which includes speeding.  Good thing there is a law against speeding.  Now, I know that speeding is not the only part of aggressive driving, but this is how numbers are told to you to make things seem more severe, so I figured I would follow suit.  Parking tickets may not seem like a safety thing, and usually I would agree.  Most of the time its a courtesy scenario that is being looked at.  Nevertheless, people will justify parking illegally for "just a minute", or where they disagree with the postings, or where everyone else is doing it.  Most of the time, they will probably get away with it too.  My point with this paragraph is that humans are going to find ways to do what they want.  Block one method, they will find another; they're indomitable.  As for texting, the simple solution is to put your phone lower down so as to not be seen.  If that didn't work, just hit the dial button really quick if you got pulled over and pretend you were calling your friend the whole time.

Fast forward to now.  12 deaths last year in Utah were from "distracted driving", which includes cell phone usage.  Once again, I know that is not the only part of distracted driving, but this is the number used to scare people into accepting this law (the KSL story says 11, my data is from Zero Fatalities web site).  Clearly to solve this problem, we should just eliminate cell phone usage all together, then nobody would ever be distracted.  But that is too radical to suggest.  Being the sly government that government is, they take it in baby steps.  Granted, this last step was pretty big.  I'm being facetious, of course.  

The short of this long is that there is already a law in place for distracted driving.  We don't need to make more specific ones.  Honestly, if a more specific one were to be made, what about all those dogs on drivers' laps? or shaving? or (dare I say it) eating?!?  There doesn't need to be specific laws about those, because if you cause an accident while doing ANY of them, you are at fault for distracted driving.  Lots of people eat and drive, and can do so fairly safely.  Granted, doing any activity while driving takes some of your attention away from the road, but that is a calculation that a good driver takes into account before engaging in those activities.  I personally don't see why driving with a dog on lap is ever considered a good idea, but dogs are too protected by popular culture to be considered a distraction, so nobody would even propose a law against that.  One of my friends got in a wreck when he looked down to change the radio station.  Yes, it was his fault, and he was "distracted", but there isn't a law against changing your radio.  Nor should there be.  Another friend of mine got hit when another driver was reaching to pick up a dropped pencil.  Still no law there.  You know there are many more scenes I could set up to continue this point.  We don't need more laws for distracted driving.  

This part is one that gets stuck in my craw: cops are exempt?!?  I know, for a police officer to do his work he must be communicating with other officers.  But why are they considered talented enough to do what is so dangerous for all of us?  If they need to type on their laptops, they can pull over too.  Or if they need to run a plate, check ID, or whatever, why would they be doing that on their cell phones?  Don't they just radio those in?  Basically, why are police exempt?  Besides because they seem to be above all traffic laws.  Be it known, I an very thankful for cops and all they do.  I just wish they would focus on enforcing more dangerous infractions, and less on minor traffic violations that don't hurt or endanger people. But I digress, and submit that they should follow the same laws for "distracted driving" that we the masses do.

Changing my music while driving?  Good grief.  My cell phone has bigger media buttons than my car's CD player, and suddenly its more dangerous to use it.  I definitely don't agree with that part.  Unless I physically mount my phone to my car somehow.  Vague, can I use Play-Doh there to mount it?  Or electronically integrated... can that mean if its plugged in to a charger and auxiliary jack?  Those are both electronic, and integrating my phone with my car.  Now, it also specifies you cannot watch or record video while driving.  That's fairly common sense, but then do we need a law for common sense?  Unless of course you are recording a video like this; then by all means, entertain us.  Taking a picture, however, is not listed that I could see.  So, with this law, you may take all the pictures you want, as long as your phone doesn't combine them into a file that shows them at a specific frame rate.  Please Utah, you don't need to add more specifics to this law.  Its OK that you left a few things out like taking pictures.  

Wow, this has gotten long.  Basically, I don't agree with this law.  If a person is found to be at fault while causing damage while driving, why do we need to be more specific?  If you fell asleep at the wheel, needed to change your music, or dropped a curly fry, and caused an accident, its your fault.  If you can safely sleep and drive (you can't, facetious again), go for it.  If you can safely dial a number and drive, I have no qualms with sharing the road with you.  If you can't, then don't do it.  It need not be legislated.  In conclusion, if I were to write the law for distracted driving, it would simply say "Don't do anything stupid".  

Clever way to publicly express contempt for this new law.  Not my photo, just a funny addition.

Afterward remarks:

I am not a writer, or English major, or law interpreter.  If you are going to critique what I say, keep those in mind.  If you are going to voice your disagreement, please at least be clever enough to suggest an alternative to with what you disagree.  Simply disagreeing gets us nowhere.