| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Spring 2000 thinking about the problem with cellular phones while driving due to his "own personal use of cellular phones and his observations of other inattentive cellular phone users" (Becker 1999). Many legislators in other states who have considered the problems of cellular phones, also cite personal experience with inattentive cellular phone users as their reason for proposing the legislation (Cockfield 1999, G19; Hoppe 1999; LeDuc 1999, B01; Jakes 1997, Al). Representative Becker decided to open a bill file to "research the issue and evaluate first, if there was a safety hazard with cellular phones, and second, if legislation was a feasible solution" (Becker 1999). After meeting with law enforcement officers, public safety officials, researchers, and representatives from the cellular phone industry, he decided not to introduce a bill into the legislative session. Instead, he established a task force to better study the problem and recommend action. As of this writing, Representative Becker did not know if he will be running a bill in the near future. First, he "wants to see the results of the task force before making a decision," and second: One must see if and when a bill restricting cellular phone use will be politically possible. There is no question in my mind that using the cellular phone while driving is a safety issue, but doing something about it is a different matter. It would be difficult to pass a bill limiting cellular phone use with the current composition of the Utah Legislature (Becker 1999). He faced the same arguments cited earlier, i.e., difficult to enforce, lack of data, etc. (Jackman 1999). Therefore, he concluded that it would be more appropriate to establish a task force before taking legislative action. Use of task forces and substantial studies has also been considered in other states including Ohio and Wisconsin (Tebben 1999, 1A; Distracted Driving Task Force 1997). Representative Becker is not the only person in Utah who believes cellular phones pose a safety hazard. In a statewide poll of Utahns, just more than 55% of respondents strongly or somewhat favored restrictions on people's cellular phone use while driving (Dan Jones & Associates 1999). Significantly, this poll did not mention any specific type of limitation so it is unclear how much legal restraint Utahns would support. Also, slightly more than 40% of the citizens were strongly or somewhat opposed to any restrictions at all. Therefore, the issue is one that evokes many different responses, and one which will arise again in Utah. Based upon poll results in other states, the same may also be said across the nation (Jakes 1997, Al). Conclusions and Recommendations The first issue addressed in this paper is deciding to what extent cellular phone use while driving is a safety hazard. On the basis of the research and evidence available, one must conclude that it is hazardous. It seems likely that as cellular phone use increases among the general public, the number of cellular-phone-related auto crashes and fatalities will also rise. However, much research must be conducted to validate these preliminary findings. Governments (federal, state, and local) as well as interested private entities, e.g., insurance companies and the cellular phone industry, should collaborate in more studies. Only then will it be known whether the problem is truly comparable to driving under the influence of alcohol. The second question addressed was deciding the magnitude of the problem. That is, how many people are actually in auto-accidents caused by cellular phone use. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine an accurate number because statistics are poorly kept that deal with that subject. Only two states keep such statistics. This is entirely unacceptable. There is enough evidence showing that cellular phones are a safety hazard that some action surely needs to be taken, to better enable us to understand the problem. Each state should include cellular phone use as part of its police reports, and law enforcement officers should be trained to carefully question any person involved in a crash if a cellular phone was being used. If a law enforcement officer suspects cellular phone use was a contributing factor, legislation should be passed granting law enforcement officers access to cellular phone records. These records would clearly show whether a cellular phone caused the crash. These solutions involve only minor changes of policy, and the cost would be minimal to the state. However, the benefits of such small changes would be enormous. The third area of this paper was to analyze the limited steps taken by lawmakers. Based upon preliminary evidence showing that hand-free devices do little to increase safety, lawmakers in the international community may have been rash to eliminate hand-held cellular phones. It seems they acted with very little data to validate banning hand-held telephones. The same may be said of Brooklyn, Ohio. These laws were probably passed on a large amount of emotion and a small amount of actual data. This does not make for good public policy. That leads to the question: For the public's safety, should lawmakers ban all cellular phone use by people while they are driving? The short answer is no. The relevant information is much too limited at this time. Cellular phone use is viewed by the American public as a right, and the Americans will not accept government attempts to ban cellular phone use without validating data. As is evident in the case of Utah, certain questions must be answered before it becomes politically feasible, or even necessary, to ban cellular phones. Furthermore, it would not be fair to the cellular industry to ban or restrict its product without sufficient evidence. The best strategy now for American lawmakers is to mandate accurate police reporting and assist researchers as they better come to understand the safety implications of cellular phone use. Once lawmakers have the data, they will be able to decide whether cellular phone use by drivers should be completely banned, simply restricted, or remain unregulated. If 45 |
