Maryland Senate Passes Handheld Cell Phone Ban

The Maryland Senate passed, barely (24-23) , a law banning the use of handheld cell phones. Since talking on a hands free device is no less distracting than a handheld phone, this is like making it illegal to steal oranges, but not apples. It also has no teeth.

The fine for first-time offenders is $40, but the bill classifies the offense as secondary, meaning a police officer can only cite a motorist after pulling him or her over for another violation. Police say such measures are very difficult to enforce.

So it's a little like Virginia's texting ban. Based on the close vote, I'm guessing this was all that could be done (though Sen Rona E. Kramer (D-Montgomery) said she voted against the bill because it does not go far enough).

Opponents said the bill was too intrusive and ignored the realities of modern life, in which phones are used for far more than talking.

"Most of us who have teenage kids understand what a big impact this law will have," said Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's).

God forbid we inconvenience inattentive teenage drivers. Thankfully, Pipkin is there to protect a 16 year old's right to talk to his friends while he operates the one device most likely to kill people his age.

"We need to educate our citizens, not turn them into lawbreakers."

That's exactly how I feel about murder. Why make it illegal? Why not just educate people about how bad murder is? Do we really need to turn them into lawbreakers?

He also predicted the bill would be "a blank check for law enforcement to pull law-abiding citizens over."

So did he even read the law? Hello, it "classifies the offense as secondary, meaning a police officer can only cite a motorist after pulling him or her over for another violation." If police officers want to pull someone over, I'm pretty sure they can find a reason to do that now. And the only people it would allow them to pull over are those talking on the phone, which is illegal - so, not law-abiding. Really, I read stuff like this, and I just don't understand how some people get elected - except that a lot of people in the comments agree with him.

I've found talking on the phone has helped me from getting drowsy on the road.

That's a wonderful combination. You know what else helps, pulling over and taking a nap. I find drinking while I drive has helped keep me from experiencing road rage.

Comments

[Grendel]

Channeling Jon Stewart today? Well said nonetheless.

[TurbineBlade]

Ditto.

[w]

these laws are comletely useless unless they are enforced.

In DC every other driver is talking on a hand-held cellphone - some doing extremely dangerous things - such as stopping at intersections during green lights ...

The perpertrators who drive and talk w/o hands free phones are a menace to all pedestrians and cyclists.

They should have their licenses taken away.

Zero tolerance.

People are DYING because of these selfish fools.

[ontarioroader]

MPD had issued over 42,000 tickets for violating the cell phone ban as of September '09.

They've issued an increasing number each year since the ban went into effect in '05. I believe around 12,000 of those citations are from '08 alone.

Do they need to issue more tickets? Raise the fines? I still see dozens of people using phones while driving in DC every day. I'm really not sure what the answer is. There are just a ton of really really entitled people here.

[stacey2545]

I personally think all vehicles should come with two devices: breathalyzer ignition locks and a cell phone signal blocker that allows only 911 calls when the car is in gear. Not sure if the second actually exists, but it sure would be nice.

[Chris]

Gawd - AMEN to all of this!

[Jon]

I agree with w that the ban is pointless unless it's enforced. The last thing we need is more laws that aren't enforced.

stacey2545, it's probably a commentary on how infrequently people carpool that this seems like a good idea. Sort of like my wife's car's GPS system that won't let me operate it from the passenger seat when she's driving.

[mike]

great commentary!! made me laugh...excellent!!

[Washcycle]

Even laws that aren't enforced have SOME value. Some people will try not to break the law just because it's against the law - even if they don't think they'll get caught. But more enforcement and education is needed. We also need to find a way to stigmatize this like they have drinking and driving. We need a movie were Meghan Fox's character dumps a guy for talking on the phone while driving...

[w]

good idea- make it socially un-cool

[SJE]

I am wary of such laws because the focus on specific activities distracts from the more important question of whether someone was driving with due care.

For example, in the Leyermeister case the driver was not ON the phone, but was rooting around for it when she hit him. I would say that rooting around for a phone when driving is worse than talking on one, but its not on the list of specifically prohibited activities like being drunk, on drugs, seriously over the speed limit, or unlicensed.

[w]

interesting point.

Much of this goes back to drivers education- which seems to be extremely lacking in this country.

Perhaps we would need less emphasis on "defensive cycling" classes if only the drivers had a more responsible attitude in the USA. As it is- far too many drivers- when NOT distracted- are aggressive and speed, and they are very menacing and dangerous towards cyclists.

Yep- distracted driving is the issue here. But I for one have noticed it has gotten a whole lot worse since the introduction of cell phones- sure it was there before- but it is a lot worse now.

[TWK]

There is some value in laws like this, as it removes the excuse of "...but it is not against the law..." after the fact as the body bag gets zippered closed.

[JeffB]

Driving studies, where the subject is placed in a simulator and their performance is measured, show that cell phone conversations are particularly distracting. Much more so that conversing with a passenger or listening to the radio and on the par with driving while intoxicated.

Brain imaging of people engaged in cell phone conversations has begun to suggest why that may be so. It turns out the areas of the brain that are "engaged" with processing a phone conversation are the same ones used to process visual information.

So, in a sense, while engaged in a cell phone conversation our brain is trying to "visualize" it. And since the brain can not multitask then information about our surroundings coming in from our eyes is not getting processed.

So when a driver, after running down a cyclist in broad daylight, claims he/she didn't "see him". In a way they are right.