Cell Phone Ban to Result in Traffic Tickets Starting July 1, 2008
In a matter of weeks, Washington drivers will no longer be allowed to legally hold and talk on a cell phone while driving. As state, county, and local governments look to "protect" you, my gentle readers from yourselves and the public, they're also looking to take a few of your hard-earned bucks off you by having the police pull you over, delay you, and write you tickets. Don't let the government take your money.
Before you use your cell phone while driving, get a hands-free device for your cell phone. Hands-free cell phone devices are allowed and they are the new, permissible way to drive and talk on your cell phone. Hopefully the devices will save you some money as well.
Yes, I am one of your "opponents". As someone who regularly looks for drivers committing infractions, I will tell you that there are few of us who think this law will make much difference. First, because it is a secondary violation, and not likely to be found out unless the driver was in a collision. Second, although people on cell phones are often involved in collisions, the real cause of the collision is not the cell phone use, but the lack of sufficient distance that the cell phone use can lead to. (Or any number of other infractions such as speed too fast for conditions, etc.)
My personal opinion is that there should be a broader law pertaining to distracted driving of any kind (animals, DVD's playing, phones all included) that leads to another infraction such as speeding or lane travel. Targeting a specific activity tends to "label" that activity as dangerous, when in reality there are so many other things that can distract you just as much. Driving a car is a privelege, not a right. If every driver was responsible and safety minded, I would be far less busy.
I am thrilled that a police officer, who identifies himself only as 'COP,' has decided to post a comment. Dearest Constable on Patrol and peace officer, you have some very interesting observations that are worthy of response to this blog's readers.
First, you may consider yourself my opponent, but I don't always consider it so - I should give you a stack of my business cards to hand out with all the tickets you issue!
In all seriousness though, you sound like a police officer who cares more about public safety than only generating revenue, and that in and of itself is commendable.
It is also interesting that you think the hand-held cell phone ban just approved in the State of Washington will make little difference. As someone who believes in sensible legislation, I tend to agree with you that the new law does not cover other types of distractions and if we have such restrictive legislation, maybe that legislation ought to cover other activities (I am not suggesting that we have other legislation, only the idea of all or nothing versus having a particular restriction).
Still, you give a lot of weight that hand-held devices used while driving can lead to driving too fast or not giving enough a distance (following too closely); however, what I often observe on the roadway are drivers giving plenty of distance, but many of hand-held cell phone drivers are actually driving too SLOW for conditions! To me, this creates a danger of equal value, though I often do not see traffic and other patrol officers enforcing this part of the traffic code as equally as speeding infractions.
You also mention that the new law will make little difference because these violations are not often seen unless there is a collision; however, many of your colleagues are issuing tickets under the new law without any collisions. If a violation is not likely to be found unless there's a collision, it certainly begs the question of why officers are citing Washington drivers if most of the time officers need a collision to make a prima facie case. Of course, under the new law a collision is not required and I think you and I will see a lot of these infractions. I might even see some of the ones you issue!
My biggest concern about secondary infractions is that they end up as a pretext for a traffic stop, when in fact another infraction should be a reason for the stop. The potential for abuse exists.
After State v. Rife, 943 P.2d 266 (Wash. 1997), the Legislature held a special session and further diluted the rights of Washingtonians by increasing the police power to detain suspects to run warrant checks for ANY civil infraction, such as jaywalking or even an open container violation. Unfortunately, since 1997, there have been several instances of police officers' abuse of individuals' rights by using civil offenses as a pretext to a larger criminal investigation. Although you correctly point out that driving is a privilege and not a right, individuals have a right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures, something many police officers forget in the context of stops for civil infractions.
Thanks for writing in and contributing to this discussion.
I think you should post more often, I have enjoyed this so far. Added to my reader. Btw, my blog is dofollow, stop by and grab a link. SusanO
Again I have read a few contrary opinions to this, and overall this does seem to be the consensus .
It is very interesting to see what other states are doing in response to the number of collisions that are committed in part (or full) because of the distraction of a cell phone. I was really impressed to see the opinion of a police officer who is more concerned with the public safety than generating revenue. I'll check back to keep up on the debate!
Greg
I've heard some goody things about this blog. The content has really been useful a great balance of text and pictures.
Do you know the difference between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile"?
Good information, it was worth reading. Keep up the good work on your posts, I will keep checking back for more posts like this one. If you want checkout my site as well.
Nice article. Thanks. :) Eugene
The best way to handle ANY ticket is to consider it redeamable for a NOT Guilty verdict the next time you serve on a jury. This forces the state to retry the case at a much bigger expense than the ticket costs.
It's about money. Cities and states acrue allot of revenue via tickets and the way to handle this is not to get mad, but to get even. Everyticket you receive is redeamable for one NOT Guilty verdict the next time you serve on a jury. You will never see the other eleven people again and it costs the state a fortune, definitely more than your ticket, to re-try the case. The lost revenue cuts into the raises the police receive and upgrades to equipment required to do the job. When you are on a jury you have more power than anyone else in the courtroom INCLUDING the judge.
Use that power. Also, spread this idea around.