Posted on 03/30/2005 8:20:17 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Salt Lake County Council members don't want to touch a proposal to ban cell phones while driving and doing county business.
By an 8-0 vote Tuesday, the council booted the suggestion from the Mayor's Office back to a steering committee for more study.
Before the vote, the county's chief administrative officer cited a stream of studies suggesting drivers are four times as likely to crash if talking on a mobile phone.
"Reaction time is as bad or worse as someone who is legally drunk," Doug Willmore argued.
If so, "wouldn't we see a rise in accidents?" Council Chairman Michael Jensen asked, adding he hasn't seen such evidence.
Mayor Peter Corroon acknowledged the hole in the argument - "it is not based on anything we've seen in the county," he said - but suggested the government be proactive.
The proposal would restrict county employees from using a county-issued cell phone while driving or personal cell phone if the conversation included county business.
It would apply to hand-held phones and hands-free devices. Sheriff's deputies and a handful of communication-critical roles would be exempt.
Willmore and Corroon floated the idea to address what they say is a growing trend of employers being held legally liable for cell phone-related car accidents.
But the plan has yet to be presented to employee groups. And such a ban, they acknowledge, could lead to a drop in productivity.
Councilwoman Jenny Wilson suggested it also may be too extreme to restrict calls to a spouse on the way home from work.
Councilman Randy Horiuchi offered tepid support - "this may not be the most popular thing in the world, but we ought to be taking the lead" - but said the popularity of the phones creates a dilemma.
In fact, he joked, some people want them protected like guns.
"Pry my cold dead hands from my cell phone," he quipped, invoking the National Rifle Association slogan.
The proposal could come back before the council later this spring.
djensen@sltrib.com
It doesn't sound like this govt has done that or tried to do that?
Well, I think they 'do' -- just because a pattern hasn't shown up in a small subsample doesn't mean it's not true. A town or county might go for years without a drunk driving accident -- but that doesn't mean it's safe to drive drunk in that town or county. Over the long haul the effect will show up.
Now that doesn't mean just 'cause something's dangerous we should ban it. Eating in the car is dangerous. Drinking. Fiddling with the radio. Doing one's makeup. Shaving. (Yes, people do all those things.) Distracted driving causes lots of accidents. But should we ban those activities?
Oh really, legislation banning cell phone use in vehicles is not being considered by state legislatures? Where have you been?
"Since 1999, every state has considered legislation related to driver use of wireless phones. During the 2003 session alone, legislatures in 42 states considered such measures. Seventeen states have passed laws regarding mobile phone use while driving, at least 17 track mobile phone involvement in crashes": http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate1203.htm
"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 hand-held cellular phone while driving a minor infraction, similar to a parking ticket.": http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/jackman.htm
Excuse me but the government you referred to was the Salt Lake City Council.
"But should we ban those activities?"
Hell no. The only things that need to be banned are idiots who think everything that poses a potential risk should be banned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.