Bill number SB1613, which prohibits the use of wireless telephones while operating a vehicle unless the phone can be operated hands-free, is, in fact, a good idea. You cannot argue that distractions while driving increase the likelihood of motor vehicle accidents. I’m sure that each of us has been in proximity to a motorist on the phone, as indicated by his swerving, speeding up and slowing down, and overall inattentiveness. As you pass by and gaze over at him in annoyed fascination, you play your 50/50 game: is he intoxicated or on the phone? Driving represents a considerable challenge without the distraction of a cell phone, and if you believe that driving isn’t challenging, then you don’t take it seriously enough.

Bill number SB1613, which prohibits the use of wireless telephones while operating a vehicle unless the phone can be operated hands-free, is, in fact, a good idea. You cannot argue that distractions while driving increase the likelihood of motor vehicle accidents. I’m sure that each of us has been in proximity to a motorist on the phone, as indicated by his swerving, speeding up and slowing down, and overall inattentiveness. As you pass by and gaze over at him in annoyed fascination, you play your 50/50 game: is he intoxicated or on the phone? Driving represents a considerable challenge without the distraction of a cell phone, and if you believe that driving isn’t challenging, then you don’t take it seriously enough.

Opponents say that cell phone distractions are only one of many California drivers face while on the road. They might contend that, technically, reaching and leaning causes more accidents than cell phone usage. Or that children, eating, and the radio are even worse in grabbing a driver’s attention. Or perhaps cell phones rank eighth among distractions or that the studies are flawed and cell phones actually rank either 4th or 10th.

That’s not the point! Cell phones are distractions, and distractions should be addressed for your safety and the safety of others on the road. You don’t just say, “forget it–why bother–it’s not the ONLY distraction out there”. Driving is a privilege, not a right: it is logical to take responsibility for decreasing distractions, no matter what the distraction may be.

A second point of opposition: Why bother, this law simply can’t be enforced adequately. Well, you may be right. Can speeding be enforced? Can switching in and out of the diamond lane be enforced? No, but these are still laws, and there is still a chance these laws will be enforced upon you. SB1613 is a general deterrent that will discourage illegal behavior, meaning the public will at least think twice before fiddling with their phone while driving, because it has been deemed illegal. Sometimes society knows something might be dangerous, but this suspicion is validated through law.

I would dare to take this law one step further: ban all cell phone use while on the road, whether it is hands-free or not. Hands-free might eliminate some physical distraction but you still have to put in the ear piece, dial, and hang up.

Hands-free also does not address mental distraction. Check it out. Your phone rings, and the news is really, really good, or, really, really bad. It hits you suddenly, and you cannot think, let alone drive. Yet you ARE driving in panic, shock, or overwhelming emotion. Meanwhile, Joe in the other lane doesn’t know you are mess.

Hands-free cell phone usage also impairs your hearing while you are driving. You don’t pick up on the sirens behind you, or the funny noise your car is making, or the other various noises you instinctively tune-in to while driving. Sooner or later one or all will catch up with you.

SB1613 is a step in the right direction and this is coming from an on-the-road cell phone users/texter. It’s for your own good, and no matter how talented you are at multi-tasking, you aren’t talented enough – no of us are.

–Monica T.