Michigan Votes Forum

 What a stupid proposal.  More bad logic.  If talking on a cell phone is such a distraction, shouldn't we ban passengers in automobiles?  After all, they may talk to the driver.

 how about we list cell phone usage as a contributing factor in accidents on the accident reports. that way, we could gain accurate knowledge of exactly how many people are using cell phones when they crash their cars.

a distracted driver is many times more dangerous than a drunk driver.

either talk, or drive.

I do believe that teens and new drivers should not be talking or texting. As for passengers talking, if teens have responsible parenting they will not be allowed to have passengers during their first year of licensed driving. There are many distractions (roadside accidents, pedestrians, other drivers vying for attention, cool cars on the road, multiple potholes...had to throw that in for fun, etc.). I think legislation to address in a common sense way that didn't hinder on basic civil rights. Legislation should not be discriminatory in that not all income levels can afford hands-free devices. Some elderly folks I know can barely operate a cell phone, let alone figure out how to attach to their device or figure how to hook-up to their vehicle's sound system for hands free talking. My message to legislators is to please use the KISS method (keep it simple...).

 Look, I don't like being behind someone who is not focused on driving because they are on a cell phone, but this law is ineffective and unnecessary.  I also don't like getting stuck behind someone who lurks in the left lane on the express way.  I don't like dealing with a driver that is focused on their kids in the back seat instead of the road.  Shall I go on?  There are good drivers and bad drivers and this law won't fix that.  We don't need more laws in Michigan! 

Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

It is my belief that texting while driving should be a primary offense in the State of Michigan, rather than the secondary offense as contained in HB 4370. 25 other states make this offense primary, only 4 states make it a secondary offense. Common sense says that you should not text while driving. We, as legislators, need to send a clear message to those who do not have common sense. This bill, unfortunately, is not a strong enough message, or legislation.”

 I strongly agree, there is way to many people that are driving while texting or talking on their cell phones.  Why isn't our state government protecting us from the idiots on the road? Michigan needs to do the math and see how many people get injued or die due to this complete lack of respect for the road and how dangerous it can be when you are distracted from the road.  Have any of you (powers that be) been behind a driver texting or on the cell phone and was angry because they can't keep their focus on the road?  i myself have been scared for my life.  Oh wait maybe you are the ones in front of me on the road. 

                                                                                                                    leisha

 Oh good grief, pretty soon we won't have any freedoms left at all.  While we're banning cell phones, better also ban cigarette smoking, using a GPS device, eating/drinking, applying make-up, doing one's nails, shaving, and a whole host of other activities that people are routinely seen doing while driving and which can all cause distractions.  I agree with the OP...more laws won't cure bad drivers.

susanmercy:

  Oh good grief, pretty soon we won't have any freedoms left at all.  While we're banning cell phones, better also ban cigarette smoking, using a GPS device, eating/drinking, applying make-up, doing one's nails, shaving, and a whole host of other activities that people are routinely seen doing while driving and which can all cause distractions.

Evidently, actual studies of traffic safety show that "distracted" driving is as hazardous as drunk driving.  I'd say not to worry a whole lot about either if the only person affected was the distracted or soused driver who injures or slaughters him- or herself by running up a stump.  Trouble is, both distracted and sotted drivers injure and kill other people on the road as well, with sufficient frequency and in sufficient numbers to create a genuine public safety issue.

So on the one hand I can agree with you that this bill, if passed, would represent another limitation on personal freedom.  But on the other, I have to look at it from the perspective of the innocent who gets creamed by the drunk, drugged or distracted driver.  That's not right either -- and very arguably it is less right than allowing someone to behave (drive) dangerously.  There are reasonable limitations on our freedoms -- imposed to protect the legitimate interests and rights of others -- and we never should forget that in discussing issues of this sort.

I agree with the OP...more laws won't cure bad drivers.

I also agree with that, especially if the laws are not enforced.  The real key here is an effectively written law, effectively and fairly enforced. 

Bills like this should be tie-barred to legislation that raises and allocates adequate funding for effective implementation (enforcement).  That would be fiscal conservatism in action.

susanmercy:

Oh good grief, pretty soon we won't have any freedoms left at all.  While we're banning cell phones, better also ban cigarette smoking, using a GPS device, eating/drinking, applying make-up, doing one's nails, shaving, and a whole host of other activities that people are routinely seen doing while driving and which can all cause distractions.

If I am not mistaken, research in traffic safety shows that "distracted" driving creates as much extra hazard as drunk driving.  Now, I could easily argue against banning either one if only the driver were impacted by a crash resulting from the distraction of playing with a cell phone (or other device) or drunkeness.  But that isn't how it works out, unfortunately.  Both wind up injuring and killing other people in way too many crashes resulting from their behavior.  That makes the behaviors leigitimate public safety and welfare concerns. 

Yes, this bill does represent further restriction of personal freedom.  But such restrictions on individual behavior (freedom) are commonplace and time-honored when they are recognized as necessary to protect the interests and rights of other people.  That is something to be remembered when discussion of bills like this one pops up.

I agree with the OP...more laws won't cure bad drivers.

I certainly could not agree more with that statement.  Unenforced, or poorly enforced traffic laws do little to protect public safety.  Effectively written laws, effectively enforced are the key to making our roadways safer places.

Unfortunately, this bill lacks a tie-bar to companion legislation that would raise and allocate sufficient revenue to effectively implement and enforce it.  (That would be fiscal conservatism in action.)   Without such a companion bill, this legislation most likely is window dressing that mainly provides for punishment after the  fact of a crash and does little if anything for prevention.

 I agree with both the texting and cell phone bans-but have a question. If you are on an interstate highway, you can't pull off to the shoulder to conduct the conversation-it's against the law-so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

albaby2:

 I agree with both the texting and cell phone bans-but have a question. If you are on an interstate highway, you can't pull off to the shoulder to conduct the conversation-it's against the law-so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That "question" (actually an argumentative statement) is nonsense.  It overlooks the indisputable fact that you have a choice and full control over the decsion as to whether or not you will converse by cell phone or texting while driving down any road. 

I have two objections to this legislation as it now stands.

One, the "no license points" provision in the passed Senate version knocks a lot of the enforcement teeth out of the proposed law.

Second, there is no provision for generating revenues to fund enforcement of this bill if it ultimately becomes law.  Without funding, it would/will receive the usual sub-par enforcement.  Good enforcement is a key to improving on-the-road safety.  So, this is "just another law" on the books to punish drivers after the fact of a crash. 

The TV show Mythbusters did a test and proved that talking on a cell phone while driving is unsafe and is destracting for the driver.

I personally can't seee that any conversation is important enought that we can't wait to pull over and call the person back. If you are on the interstate and there isn't somewhere to pull off close by then oh well! A car is a dangerous machine our focus should be on driving it.