Another Cell Phone Ban Rant

Person using cell phone while driving. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

OK.  I feel the need to go off on one of my cell phone ban rants.  I have expressed my distaste in the past for singling out the use of cell phones while driving when there are just so many other things that cause a driver to be distracted while driving.  I am not denying that the use of cell phones while driving can cause some drivers to be distracted, but it is only one of many things that can distract a driver, and it is the only action that government is actively creating laws to ban their use.

A case in point is the news story that NBC4 in Washington was broadcasting this morning.  They were reporting the results of a study that showed that if you sing while driving that it increases your risk of being involved in an accident.  It prompted me to search for a link to the story on the internet and led me to send out the following on Twitter:

Follow @dickster1961

Dick Stone
@dickster1961

so what's next, a ban on car stereos?-Singing While Driving Can Lead To More Accidents Per Year, Study Finds http://t.co/nvQvyYsd

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
17 minutes ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto

I am not trying to minimize the danger of distracted driving.  Believe me, I have been frustrated at being stuck behind somebody traveling slower than the speed limit only to discover them holding a cell phone to their ear once I was finally able to get around them.  My beef is that there are so many other things that can distract a driver and lead to accidents.  Only one of those behaviors is being legislated against when a general distracted driver law would be sufficient.

It is bad enough that government has banned hand held cell phone use and texting while driving, but there are some legislators and bureaucrats that even want to ban the use of hands free devices.  It's the nanny state run amok. So in addition to my sarcastic suggestion on Twitter to ban the use of car stereos, I would like to submit a number of other items that should be banned while driving.  Some of these could be made easier by telling car manufacturers to eliminate features from automobiles.

1. Applying makeup while driving-car manufacturers can assist in this by removing vanity mirrors from all visors in new vehicles.
2. Eating or drinking while driving-just imagine spilling a cup of hot Starbucks coffee in your lap while driving or the insides of a Big Mac falling in your lap.  Now that is a distraction.  Laws could be made banning cup holders and drive through windows at fast food establishments.
3. Kids arguing in the back seat-is there anything more distracting that your children arguing in the back seat?  "Mom, Susie keeps touching me."  Simple solution, no driving with kids in the car.  Therefore no more back seats in the cars.  Sure, it will be inconvenient to get things done, but what's more important, convenience or road safety?
4. Other passengers-by logical extension, if having a conversation while on a cell phone is distracting, so would be having a conversation with another passenger in the car.  Just try to convince me that you haven't had an argument with your significant other while driving. Therefore, all vehicles should be constructed to transport only the driver of the car.  This will also allow those pesky HOV car pool lanes to be used by everybody.  
5. Maps and other items that can be read while driving-granted the use of GPS devices has rendered the old fold out maps almost out of existence, but I still remember seeing drivers with their maps, newspapers, or written direction in their hand, on the steering wheel while driving.
6. GPS devices-much like car stereos, where you can push buttons or change a CD, GPS devices have their own share of distractions.  There is entering an address on the screen and then there is glancing at the screen itself while driving.  

There are just a handful of the things that I could come up with that could also be banned while driving.  All of these are things that could potentially distract a driver and lead to a potential accident.  Can you think of anything else to add to this list?  On second thought, why don't we just ban driving altogether?  There is no chance of getting distracted and having an accident if you can't get in the car in the first place.

Related articles

• Even after the call, cell-phone users are risky drivers (timesunion.com)
• Drivers still texting away two years into cell phone law (king5.com)

Never Ending Nanny State

Image via Wikipedia

Let me begin this post by saying that I firmly believe there is a place for laws in our civil society.  However, the government has a tendency to overdo it when it comes to creating new laws.  Legislators seem to think that they have to right a new law for every conceivable possibility out there in the world.  Even if existing laws to cover a wrong, they have to create new laws to specifically call out certain behaviors.

One of my favorite laws that I like to rail against are the laws against using a cell phone while driving.  It is not that I don't believe that some drivers have their driving skills impaired while talking on the phone.  I see it every day when I pass drivers that are going 10 mph under the speed limit with no traffic around.  It is the signalling out of cell phone usage when there are other forms of distracted driving just as likely to cause an accident.  Besides, existing laws would have punished a driver causing an accident due to cell phone use if it caused the accident.

My state, Maryland, looks like they are going to soon be enacting another law that would allow police to issue a citation to certain motorists.  The proposed new law has already passed the state Senate.  Given that I live in one of the bluest states in the country, I would not be surprised to see the law pass.  The new law would prohibit the use of a legal substance in an automobile under certain circumstances.  It would be illegal to smoke cigarettes in the car if there was a child 8 years of age or less in the vehicle.

Personally, I do not smoke.  I think it is a vile habit, and I do not want to be around anybody while they are smoking.  I also think it is stupid and reprehensible for anybody to smoke in an enclosed vehicle with a kid in the car.  I remember my wife and I walking down the boardwalk in Ocean City while my wife's sister pushed a stroller with our nephew in it while smoking.  The burning cigarette was in her hand, inches away from his face as we strolled down the boardwalk.  Stupid, yes, criminal, I don't think so.

There is no doubt that second hand smoke is a potential health hazard.  I guess my biggest concern is where does it end?  First, a ban on smoking in your car.  Next, a ban on smoking in your own home.  Then, does it end with smoking?  With all of the emphasis on the diet police, will the next thing be to write you a ticket if you take your kid to a fast food restaurant? 

Related articles

• Senate Gives Initial OK To Vehicle Smoking Ban (baltimore.cbslocal.com)
• Maryland Senate Debate On Ban From Smoking In Vehicles Continues (washington.cbslocal.com)
• Smoking ban on private property? (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Why Cell Phones Will Never Be Banned In Cars (usnews.com)

New Maryland Cell Phone Law

Image by bjosefowicz via Flickr
It saddens me whenever the government decides to pass legislation that basically isn't needed.  Particularly if existing laws already encompass the act in question.  Tomorrow is a day that will particularly sadden me because of a new law that will take place in my home state of Maryland.

Beginning tomorrow, it will be illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving in the state of Maryland, making Maryland the 8th state to pass such a ban.  For now, it will be a secondary offense, meaning that you can only be charged if you are pulled over for some other offense like speeding or running a red light.  However, I predict it won't be long before they make it a primary offense. (God I hate living in a Blue State).

I do not disagree with studies that show that folks that talk or text on their cell phones while driving increase their chances of being involved in an accident.  Studies show that 28% of accidents are caused by people using their cell phones in some manner while driving.  In total, 80% of accidents are caused by some form of distracted driving.

Here is why I have an issue with making cell phone use illegal.  First, under current law, if a person is involved in an automobile accident and is found to be at fault, they will be charged.  It doesn't matter whether the accident is caused by using a cell phone or some other factor.  Second, of accidents caused by any form of distracted driving, based on the studies linked above, only about a third are caused by cell phone use.  You are just as likely to have an accident while eating a Big Mac, putting on eye makeup, or changing the CD in your car stereo.  Those you can still do.

I admit, that I have been frustrated on more than one occasion because I got caught behind somebody driving under the speed limit.  Sure enough, more often than not, when I was able to get by that driver they were talking on a cell phone.  For me, that frustration isn't enough to warrant making cell phone use illegal, especially when there are so many other activities that can cause an accident.  This is just another example of what the Heritage Foundation calls the "Overcriminalization of America."     

Related articles by Zemanta

• Texting bans for drivers not putting a dent in accident rates (arstechnica.com)
• Talk About Distracted Driving (dickstersrandomthoughts.com)

Sports, Politics, and Unruly Fans

I am a huge sports fan.  In recent years, I have become more and more interested in politics.  I don't particularly care for it when those two worlds collide.  In fact, I hate it.  A case in point would be last weekend when folks protested outside of the Washington Nationals game.  The reason for the protest?  The Nationals were playing the Arizona Diamondbacks and people were protesting against Arizona's illegal immigration enforcement law and next year's baseball All-Star game being played in Arizona.

In my opinion, sports should be apolitical.  They should be a welcome and joyful respite from the everyday concerns of the world.  They should not become a vehicle for one's political agenda. Nothing turned me off more than when the Phoenix Suns started wearing "Los Suns" jerseys to protest SB 1070.  About the only time sports and politics should intertwine is during the Olympics, and then only to root for one's own country.  While I disagree with those who oppose the bill, and understand and support their right to protest, please leave my sports out of it.

There was another bit of action in regards to the protest at the Nationals/Diamondbacks game last weekend.  In addition to the protest outside the game, two idiots decided to run out onto the field with a banner to protest the law.  Rather than comment about what I think should happen to morons like that, I decided to show you a few examples I found on YouTube.

First there is this classic from Baltimore Colts linebacker Mike Curtis.  It doesn't get much better than this.



Here is another nice one from the world of football from Pittsburgh Steeler James Harrison.


While I sometimes think that police can be too quick to use tasers, this member of Philly's finest gives this fan what he deserves.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Immigration protests hit Nats stadium (thehill.com)
• Take Me Out to the Protest (blogs.wsj.com)
• Protesters at Nationals game urge Selig to move 2011 All-Star Game (sports.espn.go.com)

Come to the USA

For those of us who support the recently passed Arizona immigration are not anti-immigration or racist as the left would have you believe.  We are against illegal immigration and support the enforcement of our existing federal immigration laws and securing our borders.  This is what the Arizona law hopes to accomplish, the enforcement of current federal immigration laws.

The left likes to throw the racist label out there as often as they can towards anybody that disagrees with them these days.  They like to claim that when somebody says "some of my best friends are black," then that is a sure sign the person is racist.  So I hesitate a bit to go down the road I am about to go down.

As I said, I am not against immigration, but against illegal immigration.  I am proud to have had friendships through my life with folks who were immigrants. One of my best friends in elementary school was from Trinidad.  Among my friends today are Gary, Grace, and Bambi from the Grace's Fortune restaurant where I worked for a few years as a delivery driver.  Then there is Akintunde (Ak for short) from Nigeria who I worked with at Barnes & Noble, and there are others.

Those friends and others have done it the right way, by obeying our laws, not by sneaking across the border illegally.  It is those that do not obey our laws that do not deserve to be here, nor do they deserve amnesty and a fast track to citizenship.  So, yes, I was offended when the Mexican president proceeded to trash Arizona on the floor of Congress.  I was even more offended at the asshole libs that gave him standing ovations for his comments.

For those immigrants who have done it the right way, welcome to America.  For those who have no respect for our laws, go home.  For a little more lighthearted view of the subject, here is a little Ray Stevens for you.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 'Does Everyone on the Planet Have a Right To Live in the US?' (lewrockwell.com)
• States Gearing Up to Follow Arizona's Lead on Immigration (chicagoraysrants.com)

Maryland & Gay Marriage

Image via Wikipedia

The DC City Council passed a bill that would allow gay marriage in the District of Columbia.  They did so despite calls from religious leaders and others to put the bill to a referendum of the citizens.  The bill was signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty.  Since DC is still a federal district, any of the laws passed are subject to Congressional oversight.  With the overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and Senate, it does not appear that Congress will step in to change that legislation.

My state, the state of Maryland, has defined marriage as between a man and a woman since 1973.  While marriage is defined in Maryland as between a man and a woman, the law regarding recognizing marriages is a little more vague.  Maryland recognizes marriages performed in other jurisdictions under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution.  Same sex marriage is not specifically addressed.

As liberal as my state is, I fully expected that the issue of gay marriage would come up sooner rather than later.  With gay marriage looming so close in neighboring Washington, DC., a member of the Maryland house of delegates, Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County) has introduced House Bill 90 that would ban the state from recognizing gay marriages performed in states or countries where the act is legal.  As I said, I expected the issue to come up sooner or later.  What I didn't expect was that a Democrat would be the one to propose a bill that would ban the recognition of gay marriage.

My current view of gay marriage is not typical of most conservatives.  I do not have a strong feeling either way.  I believe it is an issue to be determined by the individual states.  I believe that if a state legislature or the citizens by referendum decide to allow gay marriage, then so be it. I do have a problem with the matter being decided by activist courts.  I do not believe that churches should be compelled to perform gay marriages in states that allow it.  That being said, I do feel that marriages that are conducted in a legal fashion, including gay marriages, should be recognized by states, even if those states do not allow gay marriage.  Let's face it, with nearly half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, it isn't like we are getting it right ourselves.   

Related articles by Zemanta

• Maryland Legislator Proposes Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• DC Mayor Signs Gay Marriage Bill (alan.com)

Cell Phone Bans Don't Reduce Accidents

Image by Will Merydith via Flickr

More and more jurisdictions across the country are implementing bans on using cell phones.  On the whole, I am against these bans and have talked about it here and here.  The main reason that I am opposed to banning hand held cell phones is that I believe that existing reckless driving laws cover cell phones. If you cause an accident, you are at fault, whether it was caused by using a cell phone or some other distraction.

A recent report issued by the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that in those states that have banned the use of hand held cell phones, there has been no impact on the number of accidents.  The studies do show that the use of hand held devices has declined in those states.  The study cites that the reason for the lack of decline is that even with hands free devices a driver can become distracted by just the act of carrying on a conversation.

I don't know if the release of this study makes me feel any more justified in my belief that banning of cell phones isn't necessary.  I do know that when I am driving that if I do come upon a driver not keeping up with traffic they usually have a phone up to their ear.  So now there are some that are even calling for the ban of any cell phone, even with hands free devices. 

Where does it end? There are a number of things that can distract a driver whether it is eating or drinking, using a cell phone, trying to read a map, or putting on makeup.  Having your kids in the car can distract drivers, especially if they are arguing.  Are we going to get to the point where we are going to ban every activity that could possibly distract a driver?  Let's take out the radio and CD player.  No more GPS devices.  Do we have to have the government telling us everything we can and can not do?    

Related articles by Zemanta

• Study: Cell phone bans don't reduce accidents (cnn.com)
• Handheld Cellphone Bans Don't Reduce Car Crashes After All [Driving] (gizmodo.com)
• Cell phone bans do little to reduce crashes, study finds (csmonitor.com)
• Distracted driving laws don't stop crashes: study (ctv.ca)

A Few Random Rants

It is a cold, rainy night here in Maryland with temperatures in the 40's.  I just finished an eight hour shift of delivering fresh hot pizza.  I am sitting here enjoying a nice bottle of 1998 vintage wine from the Cotes de Castillon region of Bordeaux.  Life is good, but I have a few little rants to get off my chest.

The cleaning crew in my office does a really nice job.  Seriously.  They do a particularly nice job keeping the rest rooms clean.  They probably come through at least three times a day.  The problem though is that sometimes they do too good a job.  There are three stalls in the rest room.  To change the roll of toilet paper in one of them, the cleaning crew opens a panel in the middle stall to change the roll.  Unfortunately, they will change the roll even if somebody is sitting in the stall.  It is rather disconcerting to be taking care of business and have a panel open up next to you while somebody changes the toilet paper.  You'd think they would wait until the coast is clear, so to speak.

Tonight was actually a pretty good day delivering pizza, so I really shouldn't complain, but I am going to.  As I said, it was a cold and rainy night.  It still amazes me that somebody will order $51.51 worth of pizza and hand me $52.00.  Then there are those that place a $30 order and put $1.50 tip on their credit card when placing the order.  Sometimes I just want to tell those people that if I have two deliveries to make, and I see $1.50 tip on one slip, and $3.00 or more on the other, who do you think is going to get their pizza first?

Lastly, why is it that liberals take offense to calling illegal aliens "criminals?"  Let me see if I can explain this simply.  Let's think back to basic algebra and the following mathematical theorem.

a=b

and b=c

therefore a=c

Pretty straightforward. So using this same logic:

Illegal immigrants have broken our immigration laws.

People who have broken laws are criminals.

Therefore, Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Again, seems pretty simple to me.

Dangerous Legal Decision

Regardless of where you stand on global warming or climate change, the news this week out of Great Britain is disturbing. Six Greenpeace activists were charged with causing property damage to a coal fired power plant in Kent, England. They were cleared of the charges by the jury.

The activists used the "Lawful excuse" defense under the Criminal Defense Act of 1971. That law states that a "lawful excuse" exists if damaged caused by an action can be shown to prevent greater damage, as in breaking down a door to try to keep a fire from burning the whole house down. Their "lawful excuse" was that by causing damage to the coal fired power plant, they were trying to prevent the greater damage of global warming.

There is still considerable debate (unless you are Al Gore) in the scientific community on how much of climate change is man made, and how much is natural weather cycles. In fact, you can find a lot of arguments against man made global warming at GlobalWarmingHoax.com.

There is a huge difference between vandalizing a legitimate business involved in a legal activity, and breaking down a door to fight a fire. It is too bad that a jury in Great Britain isn't intelligent enough to know the difference. My bigger fear is that we here in the states might eventually make the same boneheaded decisions.