The other morning, a white BMW SUV passed me on the freeway. The driver was talking on her cell phone cradled on her shoulder while sipping soda from a paper cup. Now, what's wrong with this picture?
It has been almost three months since California enacted the
Text Messaging Law and more than seven months since the
Cell Phone Law and it seems to me that too many people are simply ignoring it. Many of them, and I say this at the risk of sounding sexist, are women. And at the risk of sounding ageist, young women. Of course, I have seen men doing it, too, but less often. Many men can't multitask like women was my friend's explanation for it.
I think the intent of these two laws is good, but neither one has any bite to it. Neither one has enough sting to "motivate" people to observe it, let alone care about it. Critics say that there are studies that show that talking on the cell phone does not necessarily correlate to accident rate. But there are studies that do; I don't think our lawmakers formulate these laws willy-nilly just to be sticks in the mud and not let us use our cell phones whenever we want.
Cell phone use is just as bad as eating while driving. It's just as bad as applying lipstick or eye make-up. Or fixing one's hair. So research or no research, any distraction to the driver means increased possibility of accidents. If I ever found a magic lamp, my first wish would be that in an accident, only the person at fault will sustain the damages.
I think the penalties are too light: $20 for the first offense and $50 for subsequent ones. Now, what is the probability of a cop actually stopping someone for using a cell phone while driving? The driver simply has to hang up and say he was never on the phone. His word against the cop's word. Of course, there is the call log on the phone, but at this point it becomes too much work for a measly twenty bucks.
Let's say I got stopped and fined. What are the chances of me getting stopped again? Very remote, if I were to guess. So I propose that we should make the first penalty in the $150 range, and double that for subsequent offenses. I bet you people will think twice about dialing while driving to talk about nothing.
Yes, many cell phone calls are about nothing, if you haven't noticed. How many times have you heard a conversation similar to this:
A: "Where are you now?"
B: "I'm at the check-0ut line."
A: "What did you buy?"
B: "Doritos and diet Pepsi."
Cashier: "Plastic or paper?"
A: "Yuck. I like diet Coke."
Cashier: "Sir, plastic or paper?"
B: "No, I quit diet coke a long time ago."
Cashier: "Sir?"
B: "Huh? Oh, just a second, the cashier is talking to me. Plastic please. Pepsi tastes way better..."
But I digress.
On top of the ridiculously affordable fines (even in this economy), a citation doesn't even go into one's driving record as a violation point. So getting caught doesn't necessarily affect one's insurance rates. So no one cares.
This is the bottom line:
people will care only if it hurts the wallet. Cell phone laws and other similar common-sense laws are -- if you really think about it -- a waste of taxpayers' money because of the amount of time that the government wastes in discussing, dissecting, and eventually passing these laws. But since common sense is not really very common these days, we have this kind of laws.
And since the laws are already there, we might as well make them do what they are meant to do:
scare the bejesus out of the apathetic, selfish, noncaring public to do something that they should be doing anyway, mandated or not, by slapping them with fines that leave a stinging red welt on the checkbook.
Making the fine double the cost of a bluetooth headset will make the options clearer for many of these uncaring drivers.
