Continued from page 1
But why just cell phones? If real intent of law is to eliminate distractions from our roadways, why not ban them all? Summers could justifiably expand proposal to include a ban on smoking in car, adjusting radio or inserting a Britney Spears CD, eating fast food, scolding rug rats in backseat, talking with your spouse, shaving or applying makeup, doing crossword puzzle, using a laptop computer, calling for on-screen directions to Starbucks, and rehearsing your excuse that explains your tardiness to boss.
Could we really ban Britney Spears CDs? I digress.
Before law is done with revisions, no common person will be able to read and understand it, and mainly, drivers will just continue to take their chances.
This begs significant philosophical question: Why bother?
Isnít it sufficient that citations can already be issued if use of a cell phone is cause of an accident? Why pile on? No harm, no foul: If use of a cell phone isnít endangering anyone in moment, why penalize for harm that was not caused?
Ah, law is to be a deterrent, to eliminate possibility of harm. But wonít it also become more than that? How much of a stretch is it to envision police pulling over drivers who endanger nobody on a deserted road at 11pm, but who are guilty of making a cell call, just so officer can meet his monthly quota? Isnít that a harm all its own?
Say, if police pull a driver over to side of road, isnít that sort of distraction that could cause an accident? It should be banned!
Letís hope this Bill dies in committee. If it passes, Summers will run for re-election in 2006 on basis of having produced this wonderful lawÖ and of having been suitably busy.
Chair of the Libertarian Party of Hamilton County (Noblesville) and candidate for Secretary of State (2006).