A Case against Fining Drivers for Using Cell Phones


I would like to chime in on the legislative argument requiring larger fines for cell phone use while driving. I think the government has infringed on our freedoms enough. We all know it is dangerous to be distracted by talking on a cell phone while driving, but we already have a law on the books for this—it’s known as inattentive driving.

Trying to legislate people to refrain from talking on their cell phones and charging high fines for breaking this type of law is not going to stop them or, for that matter, change the fatality rate for auto accidents enough to make a difference. Another problem in regulating cell phone use while driving is how are you going to know if someone is on the phone if they are using a hands-free device or on speaker? These days as just about everyone is using Bluetooth and if they are not using a hands-free device while driving, they are just plain stupid.

I took the time to do some research on how the state-imposed bans on cell phones have worked over the years since 2000, and there is very little if any real evidence that the bans did anything to reduce the number of accidents or fatalities, regardless of how the surveys were done. You are not going to stop people from using their cell phones with bigger fines nor will you stop inattentive driving. What you’re going to do by imposing large fines is fill the coffers of the state that imposes them and help the bureaucrats hire more bureaucrats to increase the number of rules and regulations they can impose on the general public.

Every time the Idaho legislature is in session, they feel for some unknown reason the necessity to bring up more rules and regulations to justify their existence and they impose those rules on the general public that elected them. Let’s take a look at Marcy’s Law as an example of bad legislation. The legislators meant to do some good for the victims of crimes but by proposing this law they infringe on our gun rights by using the term “reasonable protection” in the law, giving a judge the option to interpret the word and use it for the confiscation of your guns.

We also have a health and welfare department that imposes vaccine requirements for school-age children throughout the state but they fail to require schools and administrators to tell parents they have the right to opt out of vaccinations for their children. To further make things worse, the Chairman of the Health & Welfare Committee, Dr. Fred Wood, by edict allowed individual cities to implement laws requiring vaccinations with no exemptions by parents. Since when does the law of a city or municipality supersede state law? It’s like we don’t have any critical thinkers in our legislature with the ability to use common sense in making the rules by which we are to be governed.

I have a great idea, how about for every new regulation or rule our legislators implement, they be required to remove 2 existing ones. People have a problem with critical thinking and don’t do their homework when it comes to opposing these new laws that are imposed on us by well-intentioned legislators. A good example is the lady who called into the Kevin Miller show about a child that was killed in an auto accident because of texting so she now supports a law against driving and using cell phones. Do you really think she did any homework on the subject? I will take a wild guess and say she didn’t, and I will also say that Kevin Miller has not done his homework on this subject matter.

If we are going to impose new laws, let us not rush to judgment but instead do our research and set aside a time out of say one legislative session before making a final decision to put another law on the books.

Less government is better government.