Cell Phone Law is a Non-Law
So let me see if I've got this straight. It's against the law to use handheld devices whilst driving a car in Maryland, but police officers can't stop you for doing so—OK. Was this one of those laws that was passed to appease both people concerned with safety and the big cell phone companies?
I watched a guy tonight at Honeygo Village, on his phone, lighting a cigarette, making a right turn on red without stop, and blowing his horn at the guy who turned with the arrow. I suppose if a police officer had seen the turn, a ticket could have been issued for the phone as a secondary infraction? Why the secondary status? Do they teach kids in drivers ed that it's OK to talk on the phone, as long as you don't break any primary laws?
We need to belly up, adult up and stand up. They did the same thing, I think, when the seat belt law took effect. If something is decided to be a danger, why the tip toeing around the issue, are we scared someone will be mad? Are we worried the police officers won't be able to see inside the cars with the illegally tinted windows, and oh yeah, then there's that!
Kelly Campbell
12:28 pm on Saturday, May 28, 2011
Great post, Andy!
Tim
4:23 pm on Saturday, May 28, 2011
I agree, and you can blame our state congressman for not having the fortitude to actually make this law have teeth. It's not just Democratic majority, either. I reviewed and manually looked up each Congressmen who voted on this bill - back when it was passed, and although Republicans are in the vast minority population wise, they still contributed greatly to this joke of a law being passed.
There were some (Democrat introduced amendment) that wanted it to be a primary offense - but that was shot down virtually instantly.
It's just another example of America as entitlement nation, and politicians not having the stones to do anything to rock the apple cart (read: risk not getting re-elected). It's a vicious cycle of irresponsible people holding the power over politicians who look the other way. When they aren't "on the take" from lobbyists, they are too busy doing what's right for their next election campaign, not what's actually best for the world they are - in part - responsible for.
Danielle
5:57 pm on Saturday, May 28, 2011
Personally I think it is a ridiculous law! There are plenty of people who are more distracted by a passenger in the car or changing the radio station than by their phones. Are we going to outlaw changing the radio station next? Or better yet, maybe it will become against the law to eat while driving, because that is definitely more distractive than my cell phone. When will it end!!
Eric Martin
1:16 am on Sunday, May 29, 2011
Danielle, I can't agree with you more. The gov't needs to stop treating its citizens like we are children. Enough of the big brother watching over us. There are already laws on the books that can be applied if someone causes an accident for whatever reason they were distracted. It is called negligent or reckless driving. We need less laws not more.
Tim
10:50 am on Sunday, May 29, 2011
Stop acting like children, and causing accidents.
Changing a radio takes seconds, cell phone use goes on for minutes and completely disables one of your two hands the entire time.
This has nothing to do with big brother, this has to do with people like Danielle and Eric learning how to act like responsible adults, and quit causing the rest of us who a) use hands free or b) don't use our cell phone in the car to have to avoid idiot drivers like you two - swerving between lanes and otherwise driving like the typical Maryland moron.
If you want government to stop treating you like children, then here's an idea - stop acting like them.
Danielle
11:40 am on Sunday, May 29, 2011
Tim,
Just so you are aware, I have a Bluetooth and have no problem using my phone as a hands free device. My problem is that I see people driving down the road putting on mascara, reading the newspaper, and arguing with others in the car; when will the government stop making new laws and start enforcing the ones we already have. The laws we already had about erratic driving cover swerving while talking on the phone. Next time you want to point fingers at people like Eric and I maybe you should have all the facts!
Tim
11:53 am on Sunday, May 29, 2011
Danielle,
It's obvious why they created a new law for this. At least, it is to me. It's to adjust the penalties for violations of the law - specifically to cell phone usage. One size doesn't always fit all. Moreover, it has no relevance whatsoever if there are 4 variations of the same law. You/we shouldn't be breaking any of them - and if you aren't, fantastic. It warms my heart to know there's one less terrible, distracted Maryland driver on the road. We're in the minority.
What's funny is, you sound like you are all for the enforcement of this "non-enforced law" yet here you are pissing and moaning about it. How do you figure that?
Danielle
2:38 pm on Sunday, May 29, 2011
I am not "pissing and moaning" about the non-enforced law, I am unhappy with the fact that rather than enforce the laws that are already in the books, we feel the need to waste valuable resources to create and enforce new laws. If we enforced all of our laws to begin with, we would have no need to create new laws for things such as this.
A lot of the problem has to do with personal responsibility. I bought a Bluetooth device about 4 years ago when I was first able to get one, because it made sense to have one. I don't think we should need the government to make laws to tell us what makes sense.
My question for you, Tim, is this if you are so excited about this law are younalso one of the people that would like the government to outlaw things like trans fats, because we aren't intelligent enough to decide what we should or should not eat?
Tim
9:18 am on Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Danielle: answering your question-
In general, NO, however there is one exception I can think of off hand: In the cases where the government is providing you with money or a means of acquiring food (example: Food stamps). To this, I say yes, absolutely they can and should influence what you spend it on.
This isn't a reasonable comparison though. Choosing to eat foods that will likely kill you sooner doesn't affect the lives of others (well, strangers). If I had a dollar for every person I saw with a hand held phone to their ear while driving a vehicle at 40mph or faster over the past year, I wouldn't have to be working today.
I am NOT excited about this law. I'm disappointed it's not more severe. Now, if it were a primary offense and carried a stiff fine ($250-$500)- then I might actually be excited (provided, once again, it was actually enforced). It's hard to blame police for not enforcing it as it stands, due to the 'secondary offense' nature of it. The law's a joke as it stands.
Hand held cell phone drivers cost lives, they cost money un-necessarily.
I don't have issue with hands-free sets. In my view, using a hands free set is no worse then (as you say) changing the radio station or taking a couple seconds to take a sip of a drink or a bite of a sandwich (I'm guilty of the drinking part, but don't eat anything in the car unless it is stationary.
Andy Brawn
8:51 am on Monday, May 30, 2011
For me it's simple, I hate being told what to do, hated when I was 5, hate it now at 50. Here's the thing, it's the law, if I have to do it, you have to do it, end of story! It's not about which team is in power, or if we agree or not. Get involved and change what you don't like, but until then, do what makes us different, follow the law.
awb
William Lutostanski Jr
11:07 am on Tuesday, May 31, 2011
First the Police whould have to obey this law themselves. As Tim states if I had a dollar for everytime I saw a police officer driving while sending a text message/ talking on a hand held cell phone, I wouldn't have to work at all.