Atlanta Weather

| Traffic

Cynthia Tucker

There oughtta be a law . . .

12:52 pm October 5, 2009, by ctucker

I learned the hard way that the District of Columbia prohibits use of a cell phone when driving. I got a ticket. While not happy about the ticket, I’m glad DC bans talking on the phone while driving. Hands-free or hand-held, it’s not a great idea. It takes your attention from the road and is more distracting than talking to the passenger next to you in the car.

So why is it that motorists have to be told not to drive while texting, which involves eyes and several fingers? President Obama just signed an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving, and several jurisdictions are considering bans on the practice.

Do we really need laws to get people to practice common sense? Some of you, no doubt, will see the intrusive hand of the “nanny state” here. But I want to be protecting from people dumb enough to drive and text.

  • Print

25 comments Add your comment

Shananeeeeeeee Fananeeeeeee

October 5th, 2009
1:34 pm

All states should go the way of D.C. and California and have a law where you have to use a hands free device if you absolutely have to talk on the phone while driving. I can’t tell you the number of times I have seen cellphone drivers do stupid things because they are distracted. Another big problem is that a lot of people who make turns with only one hand on the wheel are not skilled enough to make a proper turn. Texting? That should be common sense, but hands free talking is the way to go and will eventually be law. Just how many more accidents are going to be caused by these distracted drivers before it happens? Some of them are going to be fatal I am sure.

blue

October 5th, 2009
1:35 pm

Motorcycle Helmut laws were seen as “protecting people from themselves” and are still widely protested. However, if you are a police officer who has the unfortunate circumstances of notifying a grieving wife that you have just scraped her husband’s brains from a roadway, you probably see the laws as having protections for you too.

Same thing with seatbelts.

SP

October 5th, 2009
1:36 pm

We already have a reckless driving law – if you are at fault for an accident or driving recklessly because you were texting/talking/eating/putting on makeup, etc – then you get cited for it – why another law?

There are some out there that can use their phone responsibly -

r0x

October 5th, 2009
2:06 pm

Because common sense isn’t so common after all.

r0x

October 5th, 2009
2:06 pm

Enter your comments here

i am i am

October 5th, 2009
2:11 pm

these types of laws also serve the greater good. i have little compassion for someone that texts and drives and then is injured or died as a result of their incompetence. what saddens me to no end is that it seems as though these people are not the ones killed in an accident. its always the family with little children that get killed and not the imbecile using the cell phone.

Chris Broe

October 5th, 2009
2:42 pm

But Cynthia, darling, you just admitted that you got a ticket for using a cell phone while driving. A cell phone is the keyboard for texting, and it’s the keyboard for making phone calls. there is no diff. (You just called yourself dumb). When you receive a cell phone call, you usually have to look at the caller ID because we all are avoiding calls (from interns we had sex with), so, don’t go there, girlfriend. Just don’t go there, okay?

Then, you have the temerity to ask why motorists have to be told not to do what you just got a ticket for? Then you say that you want to be protected from yourself?

Makes no sense. I suggest that you are still in shock from the way the policeman acted when he wrote you the ticket. He was obviously mean to you. I would start there and rewrite this piece from the angle of Police brutality, (plain and simple).

Unless you flirted with him to try to weasel your way out of the ticket, which would be shameful.

Worse, as a reporter, you forgot to include data about how much the ticket was. How fast you were going. How far you ran from the cop before the choppers boxed you in…etc. (and when your episode airs on Cops).

I mean, honestly.

Jklol. BTW: How’s the food in DC?

Say What??

October 5th, 2009
3:09 pm

The dems are the party of the nanny state.

Am I reading this right, Cynthia? You don’t think more LAWS need to be passed to tell people what to do? Really?

David from WI

October 5th, 2009
3:18 pm

Inattentive or reckless driving laws should already apply for texting or talking on cell phones. No need for more laws the police should be able to use those laws to ticket and pull over drivers already. Are we going to have separate laws for typing on a laptop? (I have seen drivers do that too and while talking on a cell phone grrrrrrr) What about some one putting on make up? My point is there should not be the need for additional laws that current ones should cover. Looks good for the lawyer politicians however. It shows they are ‘listening’, Hah!!

Kevin

October 5th, 2009
3:35 pm

President Obama signed an executive order banning federal employees from texting WHILE on government business, driving government vehicles or using government equipment.

I’m sure he’d be more thrilled if he could ban it during their personal time as well. Oh well, there’s always tomorrow.

Yes we can!

Shawny

October 5th, 2009
3:40 pm

It isn’t a nanny state. And, there oughta be a law.
If there is no law, then there can be no enforcement of the law. And with no enforcement, there can be no improvement in improper behavior. It is silly, but for some people, you have to spell it out along with the punishment of breaking the law, or they will not comply.
And in this case, it is like any other driving while impared…it isn’t just the impared individual at risk.

Jack

October 5th, 2009
3:47 pm

There oughta be a law against liberals .

Atlanta Native

October 5th, 2009
3:56 pm

Federal law? No. Who wants federal highway cops to enforce it.

Should the states consider such laws? I am behind seatbelt and helmet laws. Although, I do not like the idea of the cops having unlimited probable cause to pull people over just because the cop cannot see their fingers. DWB’s will get even easier for cops under such a law.

The question is what political pressure will be used to coerce the States to enact such laws? Withholding of highway funds? That’s what Mr. State’s Rights Reagan did with the drinking age. Its that sort of federal blackmail that upsets me.

El Jefe

October 5th, 2009
4:07 pm

Maybe the state needs a driving while stupid law.

Michael H. Smith

October 5th, 2009
4:11 pm

Intrusive hand of the “Nanny State”?

Comrade Cynthia, do you have a fever, got the flu or some strange terminal illness? Never thought the day would arrive when you would ever utter such conservative curse words as “the intrusive hand of the “nanny state”” here on your blog. Even when passing judgment on common sense.

I mean, sure, there is such a thing as a liberal that has been mugged by reality but they call them Neo-Cons.

OMG! Comrade Cynthia has been mugged!

leeh1

October 5th, 2009
4:44 pm

Many people are not trained well by their parents. They have to be told as adults what is expected of them. One of the great tragedies of getting rid of the draft system is that many young men are now not forced to brush their teeth or shine their shoes, sometimes for the first time, in boot camp. Much of what was taught there is what their parents should have taught them- respect for others, personal grooming, accomplishing goals.

Many adult men and women are people who never stopped being adolescents.

jconservative

October 5th, 2009
4:49 pm

Congratulations on your ticket. You deserved it.

And when it becomes the law in Georgia I will probably get a ticket.
And you can then congratulate me.

I do not mind someone talking on the phone while driving & killing themselves. But if they kill someone else that’s a different matter.
Maybe the penalty for that should be a charge for premeditated murder. Maybe.

citizen

October 5th, 2009
5:10 pm

You would be shocked at the number of individuals driving under the influence of prescription medications who are obviously impaired. Their short term memory is affected and even if a law is passed that bans talking on a cell phone while driving, these individuals don’t remember not to answer their phones while driving.
They don’t intend to break the law, they just don’t remember that a law exist.

Joan

October 5th, 2009
5:48 pm

Well, all of the foregoing posts tell us why Darwin’s theory is alive and well.

Azazel

October 5th, 2009
6:52 pm

We should have the same laws and driver requirements used on the Autobahn. No: cell phones; tailgating; passing on the right; driving too “slow” in left lane; verbal or hand gesture harassment; many others. As I recall these infractions have severe and sizable penalties. The Autobahn is constantly monitored and all regulations enforced.

TnGelding

October 6th, 2009
12:33 am

I’m thinking we should even take radios out of our personal vehicles. How many more have to die due to distractions?

Azazel

October 5th, 2009
6:52 pm

Soundsd great.

Ben

October 6th, 2009
7:09 am

Cynthia, in your specific case I feel your pain. The seat belt, texting and other asinine laws that have been passed to “protect public safety” are nothing more than a big government attempt to control our lives and get us to conform unnecessarily to the sheep think model. I fight and resist them where I can.

For example, I have 2% window tint on my truck’s windows which gives me great privacy on the road because it’s nobody’s business what I’m doing. I still carry a shotgun in my gun rack like we used to do in the old days but no one can see it but me; and I don’t wear a seatbelt because I don’t want to and the law says I don’t have to. They are stupid laws that should not be obeyed and should be resisted and defied when possible.

Azazel

October 6th, 2009
7:11 am

Yeah, strict traffic laws and enforcement; and no speed limits on that desolate stretch of I-16.

Roger

October 6th, 2009
7:19 am

Cynthia.. you had to get a ticket before you realized talking on a cell phone while driving was dangerous? You must not read the AJC. There have been dozens of stories about this very subject.

Krystal Kid

October 6th, 2009
7:38 am

80% percent of all rear end collisions (the most frequent vehicle accident) are caused by driver inattention, following too closely, external distraction (talking on cell phones, shaving, applying makeup, fiddling with the radio or CD player, kids, texting, etc.) and poor judgement. There’s not much you can do to avoid one so I got one of these sparebumper.com

Add your comment