| OCR Text |
Show Warning: Using a Cellular Phone While You Drive May Be Hazardous Kenneth Wayne Jackman II In 1988, the State of Victoria in Australia became the first jurisdiction to address the issue by banning the use of hand-held telephones while driving. Since 1988, nine other countries have followed Australia's lead with such prohibitions. These countries include Spain, Israel, Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Chile, Switzerland, the Republic of Singapore, and Great Britain (NHTSA 1997, 1.4; Sundeen 1999, 3). The NHTSA reports that this legislation has been based on research studies or on empirical observations, but it is not clear what specific findings, observations, or incidents may have prompted the various laws (NHTSA 1997, 1.4). Furthermore, several other countries, including France, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands have considered or are currently considering similar legislation. However, the effectiveness of the enacted legislation is unclear due to lack of data. Although some countries in the international community have already acted upon cellular phone use, the United States government has not passed any legislation specifically restricting the use of cellular phones. The federal government has not acted as traffic safety laws and enforcement traditionally have been within the jurisdiction of state laws (Sundeen 1999, 2). Therefore, state and local governments have been left to decide the matter on their own. All states make reckless or careless driving illegal, and some states even have laws making distracted driving illegal (NHTSA 1997, 1.4). In some limited cases, individuals have been held liable for driving carelessly while using their cellular phone. However, they were cited for driving carelessly or inattentively, and not specifically for using their cellular phone although the cellular phone did cause the careless driving (NHTSA 1997, 1.4). As stated previously, legislators in at least twenty states have proposed bills concerning cellular phone use in motor vehicles, and some states are currently considering them. To date, only three states have passed any such legislation, and these laws are very minimal. It is worth noting these simply because they are the only instances. In California, rental cars with cellular telephone equipment must include written operating instructions for safe use. In Florida, cellular phone use is permitted in an automobile as long as it provides sound through one ear and allows surrounding sound to be heard with the other ear. In Massachusetts, car phones are permitted as long as they do not interfere with vehicle operation, and drivers keep one hand on the steering wheel at all times (Sundeen 1999, 2). Also, the State of Washington adapted its laws to provide an exemption for certain approved "hands-free wireless communication" devices, from the general ban on the use of headphones and earpieces while driving (Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel 1998). Other legislative proposals have included banning the use of all cellular phones while driving, requiring hand-free phones, length restrictions on phone calls, requirements to keep one ear free, solicitations restrictions, and improved data collection (Sundeen 1999, 3). On March 22, 1999, the City Council of Brooklyn, Ohio became the first governing body in the United States to severely restrict cellular phones by banning the use of handheld cellular phones while driving (Tebben 1999, 1A). According to John M. Coyne, Mayor of Brooklyn, the issue was brought to his attention when police determined that an inattentive driver on a cellular phone caused a minor accident involving two cars in Brooklyn (Deseret News 1999). The city ordinance makes it a minor misdemeanor to use a cellular phone while driving unless both hands are on the steering wheel. There are some special exceptions to the law. Mayor Coyne says: "This is an awakening call. Everyone's been talking about it, but nobody's done anything about it Maybe we can stimulate interest nationwide. Our job is to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of people. This is safety" (Tebben 1999, 1A). Brooklyn's ordinance is the first of its kind in the United States, and it will be watched closely by many other legislative bodies. However, analyzing the effectiveness of the new ordinance is likely to be difficult. First, Brooklyn's population is quite small so any data will be very limited. Also, Brooklyn has no specific data from past years showing the number of accidents caused by cellular phone use. Therefore, it will be impossible to accurately compare data to see what effects on safety the ordinance has had. Nonetheless, this ordinance is a bold step for the city, and it sets a precedent that other cities or states may copy. By blazing the trail, Brooklyn has made it easier for other governing bodies to follow its lead. Cellular Phone Debate in the State of Utah The debate surrounding bills restricting cellular phone use has been basically the same in all states involved. Namely, opponents assert that these phones are not a significant safety hazard, more research is needed before taking action, such laws are blatant attacks on personal freedoms, and any cellular phone law would be difficult to enforce. Therefore, it is useful to follow the debate in one state that has recently considered the problems of cellular phone use by drivers to examine what happened and why. Utah is one of the states that has recently been dealing with the problem of cellular phones. In the 1998 legislative session, Senator Robert Steiner (D-Salt Lake City) introduced a bill that would have made a person's use of a handheld cellular phone while driving a minor infraction, similar to a parking ticket. However, this bill was defeated in the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee by a vote of 3-2, and was never debated by the full Utah Legislature. State Senators decided it was not really an issue they wanted to consider at that time (Van Eyck 1998, Bl). However, in the 1999 legislative session the issue was once again brought into the public eye by Representative Ralph Becker (D-Salt Lake City). Representative Becker began 44 |
