The Daily of the University of Washington

Staff Editorial: Cell phone ban has been a long time coming


Beginning next year, cell phone users won't have to worry about driving getting in the way of their text-messaging.

Gov. Chris Gregoire passed a bill Friday that makes using your hands to talk on the phone or send a text message while driving illegal, and violators will face a $101 fine.

If drivers already haven't figured it out, trying to collaborate with T9 while driving is not only tough, but imminently dangerous as well. It's a big surprise this law is only now going into effect. Finally, people's lives are a higher priority than text messages.

The law, however, still allows drivers to use a hands-free device to talk on a cell phone while driving. The problem? Hands-free devices pose the same threat as regular cell phones. Drivers may not need to hold a physical object, but they will still be just as distracted by the conversation.

For some, $101 will be worth it to be able to keep up the text-messaging and avoid buying that Bluetooth.

Too many people consider cell phones an extension of their body.

We feel obligated to answer the phone when it rings and obligated to return phone calls as soon as possible — even while driving.

We need to start detaching ourselves from our cell phones: Making a phone call or sending a text message should never be as important as someone's life.

If you are one of those people at the beck and call of your cell phone, think about reorganizing your priorities.

Adopt the very simple and practical habit of putting your phone on silent when you're in the car. The messages will be waiting when you get where you're going — and people can wait an extra few minutes to hear your beautiful voice. If nothing else, save the $101. Your life and the pedestrian's in the street are worth it.


2 Comments

#1 Lee Robison
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)

on May 15, 2007 at 8:54 a.m.
Report this comment

I think we should make talking on your handset a pull over offense. You can use a hands free headset without penalty. Let's see if it makes a difference here before we legislate any more of our free choices away. Studies can unintentionally (or intentionally) favor the sponsor of those studies.

#2 Nick
(Kent, WA | Unverified Name)

on May 15, 2007 at 10:11 p.m.
Report this comment

Although I do believe this may be good legislation (and I emphasize legislation) just like every other wide-ranging legislated law (jay-walking, and 25-foot smoking, for example) I see it as something that will only be selectively enforced... And likely something that will be tacked on afterwards only to get additional revenues when you're picked up for something else.

Good thought - but not realistically enforceable.


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: