District 10 Councilmember Mike Gallagher has proposed a ban on hand-held cellphones while driving within our city limits. Recent studies have shown than it’s not necessarily the act of holding the mobile phone that is distracting, but the actual act of talking on the phone.
While a driver might have marginally less control of the vehicle with only one hand on the steering wheel, the rationale for the ordinance was particularly amusing. Gallagher was quoted by the San Antonio Express-News as saying, “Public safety is the bottom line. If this saves one life, it’s worth it.”
Politicians often speak with this high-minded hyperbole, especially in the aftermath of a tragic accident. Obviously, the idea that we should pass freedom-depriving laws to ensure the protection of a single life is usually nothing more than political gamesmanship meant to appeal to base emotions rather than to common sense.
If we really meant, “If it saves one life, it’s worth it,” we would reduce our speed limits, since it is speeding that most often leads to traffic fatalities. But we don’t want to live in a world of 25 mile-an-hour speed limits. That’s our societal choice.
The fact is, we make risk assessments every single day. Concerning our travel, we’ve decided as a society that we’re willing to live with the certain likelihood of additional loss of life in exchange for the convenience of getting places a little faster. Instead of lowering speed limits, we’ve actually raised them – but where is the outcry here? Like talking on a phone, speed of travel for ordinary citizens is a luxury, not a necessity – but it’s a risky luxury most wouldn’t sacrifice.
Anyone could come up with dozens of ordinances that if passed would certainly save lives but would come at a social expense. We could ban contact sports such as football and boxing. We could ban monkey bars and swing sets. We could ban dogs including pit bulls and Rottweilers. This would certainly save lives. If these measures would save one life, would they be worth it?
There are other driving habits that are perhaps even more distracting and lead to danger on the roads. We could fill the city code with bans on personal grooming, tending to unruly children in the back seat, using navigation systems, looking at maps, adjusting the radio, rubbernecking while driving by emergency vehicles, or searching for a fallen French fry.
Proponents of cellphone bans in the vehicle cite statistics of the number of accidents caused by distracted driving, but none of these numbers point to accidents caused specifically because of use of a mobile device. The thing is, nearly all accidents – even before the advent of cellphones – are caused by some oversight or a diversion of our attention. Some might then argue, then, why not ban distracted driving altogether?
Nearly everyone would agree that talking on the phone is a distraction that makes a driver more dangerous. It’s impossible to dispute this. The real issues are how much more dangerous is it, whether we are comfortable with that added risk, or is it worth passing an ordinance. What is questionable is the efficacy of an ordinance banning hand-held mobile devices. We pass laws to change behavior, to make people safer. We don’t, nor shouldn’t, pass laws to receive funding or to merely give fellow council members a hollow sense of accomplishment.
What’s particularly amusing is our Council’s determination to promote virtually meaningless, feather-in-the-cap ordinances. Unfortunately, some of these initiatives have unintended consequences. In 2010, there was the ban on texting, which arguably has led to increasingly unsafe driving as texting drivers now keep their phones in their lap to avoid detection by law enforcement. Unfortunately, this also keeps their eyes further away from the road. The reality is that a ban on hand-held mobile devices is not going to stop people from using their mobile devices. It’s too late.
We’re already habituated to interacting with our technology on a moment-by-moment basis. What an ordinance would do is simply make us a little more clever in hiding our behavior, not to mention making us a little more distracted in the process, because now that’s one more thing to think about other than actual driving. It would also unfairly discriminate against the poor, who often do not have the newest cars fitted with the Bluetooth technology necessary to carry on a hands-free (and equally distracting) conversation.
Hopefully, level heads will prevail in this debate and our City Council will focus on issues that matter and that impact our community in a meaningful way.
*Featured/top image: Photo by Flickr user Jim Legans, Jr.
RELATED STORIES:
District 10 Councilman Calls for Ban on Handheld Phones While Driving
Should San Antonio Ban Driving With Hand-Held Cell Phones?
Police Chief’s Retirement a Loss for San Antonio
Moms Demand Action In Gun Debate
Share the Road: SAPD Launches New Program to Catch Unsafe Drivers
This is one of the best examples of what happens when a cheap political ploy is extended out to the ultimate conclusion. We had 9/11, and gladly traded liberty for perceived security, and look what happened. We ban alcohol, and look what happened. We ban texting, then handheld cell phones, and what is next? How about individuals accepting responsibility for their actions rather than waiting for our Government to create more restrictive laws that have much different consequences than the face value of the laws?
I hope our City Council can lead and quit focusing on cheap shot sound bytes like “if it saves one life, it is worth it”. We are better than that, are we not? Let’s just eliminate cars altogether, and it will save many more lives than one, not to mention the natural resources to build them. It may cost a few jobs and a bit of inconvenience, but we can save lives.
Well said with a level head. Every councilperson should be required to read this article before voting on a hand held cell phone ban. Any councilperson voting for a hand held cell phone ban should be there after required to dress up as a clown for the rest of their council term.
Interesting take. I am curious whether the author would support the elimination of drunk driving laws? I mean, isn’t that our “societal choice” too?
This is an example of what I call “speed bump” legislation, i.e., installing a metaphorical speed bump on our highway of life to punish all of us for the transgressions of others whom the state elects not to control in other ways. Installing speed bumps on residential streets to curb lead-foot drivers because the city is too stretched to have police sit there and catch speeders is a prime example. Similarly the proliferation of stop signs where there is virtually no cross-traffic but the neighbors want to see the reckless drivers stopped, literally. I am tired of having my freedom interfered with by politicians who would rather just pass symbolic “I care about you” legislation than attend to the harder and expensive alternatives. If the councilman continues to have his Dr. Strangelove moment, I suggest increasing the penalties for those who cause accidents “when shouting on the phone at their contractors, ex-wives or teenaged kids” (that should just about cover all the options.)