A relatively new and meaningless law that is being enforced as of July 1, 2008 is the hands free cell phone law.
Taken from the Department of Motor Vehicles website, there are two parts to this law “The first prohibits all drivers from using handheld wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. Motorists 18 and over may use a ‘hands-free device.’ Drivers under the age of 18 may not use a wireless telephone or hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle.”
The reason why this law is completely meaningless is because it is not being heavily enforced. Because of this, people do not take this law seriously and continue to chat away on their phones while driving like they did before the law existed.
An article by Robert Roy Britt titled, “Drivers on cell phones kill thousands, snarl traffic,” Britt says “A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and typing up traffic in general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they’re as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.” (livescience.com) While this statement may be undeniably true, the same goes with people who eat, read, shave, apply makeup and do all other miscellaneous things while driving.
A law targeted strictly towards people who chat on their cell phones while driving is a little discriminatory when there is a million other things to distract us that are just as dangerous as well. How many accidents have been related to drivers who eat? How about drivers who shave or drink coffee in the morning? The numbers might be surprising.
Either enforce a law that prohibits doing anything else besides driving or don’t enforce a law at all, especially a law that is as meaningless as this one is.
Another meaningless provision of this law is the citation amount that goes along with this law. From the DMV website it states, “The base fine for the first offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. With the addition of penalty assessments, the fines can be more than triple the base fine amount.” A measly $20, seriously? The minimum price for parking in a handicap spot is $445, a law that surely anyone is bound to take seriously. A small amount of $20 makes people laugh, if law enforcement really would like to see people respect this new cell phone law at least make the fine $100 for first time offenders. The second time they get pulled over make it $200, maybe then people will step back and say, “Whoa that’s a lot of money. We should probably not use our cell phones or at least get a Bluetooth while driving.”
There are hundreds of accidents of accidents every year related to people just being careless and looking down at the radio for a moment. Laws are not being created for carelessness just like this law should not be enforced because no one respects it and thinks it is necessary.
There are hundreds of other laws that are enforced which make absolutely no sense. For instance, did you know that in the state of California it is illegal to set a mousetrap without your hunting license? What does hunting and mice have in common? Absolutely nothing. But it’s laws like these that make people in this state wonder, “why have laws like these at all if it makes no sense?”
So in conclusion, the next time you are driving in your car and you go to grab for your cell phone ask yourself how many people are illegally setting mousetraps then proceed to make your phone call. Illegally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There is no doubt where the writer stands on this issue.
But there are some issues of substance and style that need addressing.
In the second paragraph, it probably isn't necessary to use attribution and the direct quote. In fact, a paraphrase would have been stronger.
And, speaking of strength, the word 'meaningless' is probably not accurate.
In the third paragraph, stylistically, it's unnecessary to say 'the reason why this call is...' and instead just say, 'This law is...'
And in the next graf, the citation is fine, but where did the article appear.
But beyond the stylistic issues, this column did several things well. The research is thorough, the writer clever in several spots, and the overall tone (outrage or disgust) quite evident.
A good first effort.
Post a Comment