creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
19 Feb 2012
Occupy Oakland, Violence Optional

Occupy Oakland activists have filed a lawsuit against the city and are seeking damages. The American Civil … Read More.

16 Feb 2012
President Obama Punts on US Deficit

In February 2009 — having signed into law his $787 billion stimulus package — President Barack … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
Obama Imposes Will in Contraception Compromise

From San Francisco, where I live, the controversy over the White House decision to require church-affiliated … Read More.

Backseat Driving from Sacramento

Share Comment
People think state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, is anti-cell phone because he wrote the law that, since July 1, has required California drivers to use hands-free cell phone devices when they are behind the wheel. Not true. Simitian told me, "I'm not hostile to cell phones."

It so happened that Simitian was driving and talking via hands-free technology when he returned my call Monday. My beef: It's too easy for California lawmakers to pass laws against unpopular behavior. It's like the cool kids passing laws against nerds -- except the nerds are in charge.

"I would not have spent six years working to get this thing passed if I had not believed it would save lives," said Simitian, citing a report, "What to Expect from California's Hands-Free Law," released by the Public Policy Institute of California, that predicted his law would prevent 300 fatalities each year.

Saving lives. It was the argument cell-phone restrictionists used even in the early years of cell-phone use, when studies found that other activities -- adjusting music, eating or drinking -- distracted drivers more than cell phones.

The fact that other distractions were more prevalent didn't matter. People have an instinctual dislike of other people talking and driving. It became Sacramento's job to line up the factoids to make a ban on gabbing and driving seem The Right Thing To Do.

To wit: In 2004, the California Highway Patrol cited cell-phone use as a contributing factor in 931 of that year's 441,334 collisions. According to California Highway Patrol spokeswoman Fran Clader, preliminary statistics for 2007 show 1,091 crashes in the state with a driver using a handheld cell phone; 447 people were injured in those crashes.

Clader herself was in a car that was broadsided by a woman who was chatting on her cell as she sailed through a red light.

I sympathize. We've all heard the stories. But the other universal element in these accidents is: bad drivers.

In essence, the Legislature passed and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law to ban an activity deemed to be a factor, not necessarily the cause, in less than 1 percent of collisions.

Simitian countered that drivers may not tell officers they were on the phone. But since 2002, state law enforcement agencies have been directed to collect information on whether cell-phone distraction contributed to a crash. Here are some other numbers: In 2006, the CHP cited 220,168 uninsured drivers. According to the Department of Insurance, in 2006, 25 percent of insurance claims in California involved an uninsured motorist.

Want fewer accidents? Keep those clowns off the road.

Even Simitian noted that hands-free devices don't eliminate the distraction of talking and driving. As the PPIC report noted, "Existing studies of mobile phones and traffic safety have found that using hands-free technology is no safer than using hand-held phones while driving. It is also possible, as the former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said, that hands-free laws 'give hands-free phones a free pass as being safe' and could encourage drivers to use their phones more, thus raising the risk of collisions."

Simitian's strongest argument is that the "already available technology that costs next to nothing" allows a driver to enjoy the utility of the cell phone -- and keep both hands behind the wheel. If the state can pass a law requiring that technology, without ending the convenience, why not pass a law that makes drivers use it? It will save lives.

And if it turns out that driver distraction is a factor in a like number of accidents despite hands-free technology, will Simitian push a bill to ban all cell phone use while driving?

"It's a nonstarter," Simitian answered. "So why even think about it?"

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Say; Isn't it sad that no one can escape their business, whether it be home or job? I have lived long enough in my life to have driven down the road beside many a woman doing make up at Eighty Miles an Hour and the best I can say is that I beat most of them to the next light. If a woman, or a man feels they need to talk on the phone it is because they need to talk on the phone. How will denying to them what they need make them better drivers? We forget that needs are external to the person, and possible solutions are internal. You can more easily blame a person for a poor solution than a bad need. So, if talking on the phone in traffic is a bad solution then, punish that. All most all people who talk in their cars get away with it no problem. Punish those who cannot drive and talk without accident. If law is evr going to work it is because it mandates responsible behavior rather than making whole classes of behavior illegal. Thanks, Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:25 AM
Isn't it amazing how fast governmental entities, from the City of Chicago to the State of California, have jumped on preventing accidents due to hands-on cellphone use? Why, we've only had widespread cellphone use for a few years. It's all the more amazing when one considers the net benefit to society--practically nil. On the other hand, remind me again how many accidents, many of them leading to death or serious injury, have alcohol "involved". I dare say, alcohol is more of a "contributing factor", than cell phone use ever could be. And how long has alcohol been a problem? And what's been done to fix it? Imagine a bar where you have to 'blow' to get your keys to drive home. Ya don't hafta wonder how long it'd be in business. Cellphone companies 'fixed' their problem--nuisance factor, really--by offering an alternative technology. Too bad there's no technological alternative to being functionally impaired by elevated blood alcohol.
Comment: #2
Posted by: davd w pennington
Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:34 AM
What about truck drivers using CB's... how is that ANY different than talking on a hand held cell phone? Too many people "jump on a cause" like this and forget the repercussions....
Comment: #3
Posted by: Barb
Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 19 Feb 2012

9 Dec 2007 When Big Government Goes Bad

29 Nov 2007 Free Clarence Aaron

9 May 2010 Arizona Law Also Happens To Be Good Politics