Introduction
The recent ban of cell phone by drivers should qualify as another of the ‘dumb’ laws that form part of the urban legends regarding quaint laws. The law regarding talking on mobile phones as dangerous while texting was conveniently ignored by shortsighted policy drafters. The whole logic behind the banning was the speaking on the cell phone distracts people and causes them to lose control and then they are involved in an accident (GHSA, 2009).
This is fine, but a driver can be distracted by many other things. Some of them include, smoking, drinking a soda, glancing at the rear view mirror, having a light snack and even talking with other occupants of a car. Will the police catch a mother who is driving with a baby and she turns momentarily to pat the crying baby? What about music and radio FM that people find so engrossing and entertaining and will the government band the radio also. So are we going to hear the song ‘the mobile phone killed the radio star’? So where will this end? Assuming that the law is good enough, how will the police enforce the ban? Many drivers use tinted glasses for the windscreens and these glasses are normally rolled up all the way. The law makes it clear that the driver can be booked for using a cell phone even if she has not committed any other traffic offence.
Main body
The ban on texting is understandable and it would be seen that texting requires a driver to move his vision away from the road ahead, look down at the mobile, read the message or type one and send it. This activity has been known to cause some accidents but a blanket ban on mobile phone use, with or without headsets and speakerphones is simply not tenable. Ban on texting is justified to some extent, but it came as an ‘afterthought’ after cell phone use was banned while driving. So we have a double negative here and is it that two negatives make it positive? Are there any more points that the government has missed and these would come as more laws to safeguard the people. Intrusion by the government into personal affairs of the citizens is not unknown but this type of law that puts the cart before the horse is uncalled for (Spice, 2008).
It is also true that texting has resulted in some horrific accidents and there was the reported case of a truck driver who was texting while driving and he lost control, killing many people. However, truck drivers are known to have accidents for a number of other reasons also and will we see laws that ban the movement of trucks. Not applying thought or seeing the difficulty in enforcement by police officers is a common problem that citizens bear. Framers of the policy can then claim that they have passed the required laws and done their job. Is this sufficient?
It would be more effective if awareness of texting wile driving was highlighted through advertisements and media reports rather than enact laws that cannot be implemented. Since the under 18 Years are regarded as potential offenders, assuming this is true, the government should increase awareness drives, show pictures of accidents that were caused by drivers who texted while driving. It has been known that people tend to break laws that are foolishly designed, just for the heck of it. While driving is a serious business and accidents are critical events, merely passing laws does not help to reduce such incidents.
Conclusion
To sum up, the law that banned use of mobile phones while driving and was passed before the ban on texting while driving, reveals a lack of forethought on the part of policy framers. Merely passing laws that cannot be enforced does not help to make it effective. Instead, an awareness should be initiated that educates and informs people about why texting while driving is bad and how it kills innocent people and children.
References
GHSA, 2009. Cell Phone Driving Laws. Web.
Spice Byron. 2008. Carnegie Mellon Study Shows Just Listening To Cell Phones Significantly Impairs Drivers. Web.