I'm all for civil liberties, but don't you think allowing the use of hand-held phones, laptops, cameras, or activities such as reading and drawing for a person who is simultaneously operating a car causes severe risk of injury or death?
Of course I certainly support the second clause here.
Civil liberties are the motive behind this bill, but not for reasons that you (or others) might suspect.
I don't necessarily hold that one has the right to drive while doing distractful activities such as these. However, I'm concerned about the implications of this law's enforcement and the spirit of it, rather than the letter.
The lynchpin of this bill - as I'm sure we can all interpret - is texting while driving. I'm sure every member of this assembly has a resident busybody in their circles who prattles on about the dangers of "texting while driving." However, how does one enforce that? For instance:
Hypothetically speaking this bill would prohibit people from looking at their phone to check the time or using an app. Seems reasonable, but again - how does one enforce that? Heavy-handedly, in some instances.
citationIt's also worth noting that
a court has recently ruled that police officers need warrants to search cellphones. What police officer in their right mind would go through such an exercise for a pedestrian offense which is punishable by community service, when they could devote more time to actual violent offenses such as murder and rape?
The spirit of the law seems well-intentioned. We're all aware of the old adage regarding good intentions, and in some cases laws such as these are actually
dangerous.citationFor the rest of the bill - how does one enforce a prohibition on
reading while driving, or
grooming while driving? Seems like too much low-hanging fruit for police officers to pull people over.