Cell phone bill a practical law

By Dave Churchill (Contact) | The Daily Journal

Published Friday, February 16, 2007

There is little good that can be said of most of the new laws coming from Washington and St. Paul. The big issues tend to slide without action — too controversial — while the little things get hit with a legislative hammer.

Still, they say there has to be an exception to every rule, and this year’s Legislature may be about to prove it.

Cell phones have become widely seen as factors in motor vehicle accidents, so widely that some states and many countries have made it illegal to use a cell phone while driving, unless it is a “hand-free” model. Minnesota recently passed a law making it illegal for minors to drive while using their cell phones.

Anecdotal evidence of the danger cell phones pose abounds. It is easy to find stories about people who crashed while talking on the phone. Of course, a great many more people have accidents while not talking on the phone, but that is often forgotten.

There is also seldom any hue or cry about other driving distractions, such as combing one’s hair while looking in the rearview mirror, checking on the kids in the backseat or tuning the radio.

But there may be some truth to the idea that cell phones are worse. Certainly it is difficult to dial a number, or even search through the menu for a programmed number, without having considerable head-down time. And, except for hands-free phones, driving and talking means there’s only one hand for the wheel.

So the quick-and-easy answer is to ban phones entirely. Kudos to Minnesota lawmakers for advancing a bill that takes a subtler approach: Break a driving law while talking on the cell phone and pay a double fine. The law would include those who were using hands-free phones.

Thus we have something to appreciate: a proposed law that makes perfect sense. If the weather is good, traffic is light and there’s a real need to talk on the phone, go right ahead and make the call. If good sense suggests that a phone conversation is going to be the final factor that makes a driver inattentive, leave the thing off.

And for drivers who miscalculate, pay a hefty fine. In an example used during this week’s Senate hearing on the bill, a speeding ticket for a cell phone user could run as much as $250. All the free minutes in the world aren’t going to make up for that kind of hit, so it seems like the law would be effective.

We don’t want to go crazy listing driving distractions, but this cell phone bill reminds me of another in-car habit that has always seemed like trouble: Smoking. I don’t have any personal experience, but isn’t it a distraction to be driving while holding a hot coal in your lips? Seriously.

Doesn’t the night-time flare of a lighter make it hard, momentarily, to see what’s coming at you? Doesn’t lighting up require at least one hand to handle the package, the cigarette, the lighter? Doesn’t smoke get in your eyes? Doesn’t tossing the butt out the window sometimes go awry, and blow a lit cigarette back into the car?

And what about people who are smoking a cigarette and talking on the cell phone at the same time? Double trouble.

Is all of that less of a hazard than talking on the phone? Don’t see how. So maybe it would be a good idea to roll distracted-smoking into the bill as a double-fine situation.

It’s so rare to hear about a new law that actually makes sense, we ought to get all the good out of this one that we can.

Journal publisher Dave Churchill’s column runs on Fridays.