Distracted Driving Laws Are Too Specific

Recently Indiana state legislators passed a law banning texting while driving. Now drivers caught emailing or sending text messages on their cell phones can be cited or fined.

A few days later, a New York man protesting a proposed helmet law was killed when he wrecked his motorcycle, flipping over the handlebars and hitting his head on the pavement. Nothing says stupid like the irony of irresponsible behavior.

What does a texting ban have to do with helmet law protests? Essentially, they're opposite sides of the same coin, both of which make the same argument: people cannot be trusted to behave sensibly so government intervention is required.

Banning various activities while driving might generate good revenue for legal system, but it really doesn't prevent people from making bad choices. Drinking and driving, for example, brings more people to the courtroom each year than assault yet the laws banning it have done little to curtail the offense.

On the flip side, things that probably should be banned aren't. Where are the bans on smoking while driving? What could be more dangerous than dropping a hot lighter or lit cigarette on the fabric and plastic interior of a car moving at 65 miles per hour down the highway?

How many people turn completely around in the driver's seat attending to children in the back of the soccer mom mobile? Why has nothing been done about people who go down the road with a novel open on the steering wheel? Where is the restriction on loose pets running all over the inside of a moving vehicle? None of these things has been banned as of yet.

As more government legislatures struggle to balance budgets, the cost versus benefits should be weighed before more of these laws are passed. How much does it cost to pass the bill into law?

What does it cost to be printed, copied, distributed and signed? Is the law genuinely intended to save lives or is that just a good excuse for adding a revenue stream, as may be the case with traffic light cameras.

If it seems like this topic is all over the map, that's because it is. There is no good answer to any of these arguments. How someone views these issues, however, may have a great deal more to do with their political mindset than their views on public safety.

Liberals tend to want to babysit the public, trying to protect the people from themselves and assuming (albeit correctly) that grownups can't make choices without strict rules to govern their behavior. But often these regulations are pointless.

For example, San Francisco's left wing city government passed a law prohibiting people from sitting on the sidewalk, citing a public safety hazard. Really? A city with a 9.3 percent unemployment rate, and that's what they spent time on?

Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to have as few regulations as possible, not because they think more highly of the general public, but because they just don't like being told what to do. The problem here is that they can be so anti-regulation that when a law is genuinely needed they will overlook it solely on principle. Assuming that everyone will make good decisions is just as ridiculous as the idea that no one will.

As far as the texting and cell phone bans go, they are far too specific. Instead of passing laws prohibiting explicit activities a general restriction on any distracted driving would better serve the public's interest. Law enforcement would have greater latitude when issuing citations and possibly prevent more accidents based on a wider interpretation. In short people should have the good sense to kennel the dog, eat at home, put down the phone -- and pay attention to the road.

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown. Read more at www.deerinheadlines.com.