Saturday, May 9, 2009

They seem to be catching on...

Here in California, we have a law that requires cell phones be "hands-free" while driving. This means that we cannot text, but we can still have conversations on our bluetooth headsets.

I've had a problem with this idea since the law was passed. Granted, the no-texting law does make sense. But my issue is, is it really holding the cell phone up to our ear that causes the distraction, but not the conversation?

Let me try to explain what I mean: I can eat a burger, while holding a shake in another hand, but cannot get pulled over, granted I am not swerving, or running lights, of course. However, I cannot hold a cell phone with one hand to my ear. Now, let's be honest, if I was about to get into an accident, which one would I drop -- the messy burger or the cell phone?

So why is it then, that I CAN eat a burger while driving, but I can NOT hold a cell phone?

I've always said that if they're going to outlaw one, they really should outlaw the other. It seems as though the government is possibly picking up on this. Watch this short video:

In all honesty, it may be a good idea. Drivers should not be distracted while driving. The only problem is, where do you draw the line? Can cops really pull EVERYONE over for not being in the 10-and-2 position? What about if my conversation with my friend in the passenger seat is causing my mind to drift, even if I am driving, with all intents and purposes, correctly? What about if I am driving to a funeral and I am crying? At what point can they outlaw "distractions"?

What do you think?


Jess(ica) said...

I agree that it's more the conversation that is distracting, not the holding the phone. And having a conversation on the phone is pretty much the same as being into a convo with someone in the car with you... so I think the law is stupid. I agree that texting should be banned even though I always text and drive.

Jess(ica) said...

PS on your poll I voted the "once a week" choice but really it's every few days =)