 "Photo:")
 "Photo: Illustration by Lindsay Chedester")
The nature of the law is counter-intuitive at best. We follow edicts handed down from on-high, even if we don’t understand them. Sometimes they are just plain silly — in Chico it is unlawful to own a green or smelly animal hide and, until Dec. 16, 2008, it was illegal to bowl on the sidewalk — but despite the levity these laws may offer, some of them are reprehensible.
My first encounter with such a statute was during the winter of 2008. I was flying down Highway 280 and a flashing sign caught my eye, the AMBER Alert system. I guess no children went missing that day because it was broadcasting a warning informing people it had become illegal to talk on the phone while driving, unless, of course, you have a hands-free device. I thought it was peculiar, so, in direct violation of the new law, I immediately called a buddy of mine to try to sort it out.
How strange that they outlawed talking but not texting and had a hands-free exception. Six months later, texting while driving became illegal as well. Nevertheless, it clearly wasn’t an issue with having only one hand on the wheel — as you can still legally use a hand to dial numbers — and the hands-free rule proved it wasn’t a problem with the distraction of having a conversation. I just couldn’t understand it. Drivers are still allowed to eat while driving. Doesn’t eating a hamburger or searching for that elusive fry distract you just as much as talking or texting?
It is this inconsistency in legislation and regulation that concerns me, and at the heart of it is lobbyism. Sometimes lobbyism is to the benefit of the masses. For instance there is a higher education lobby — a group of groups that fights to create public policy which aids colleges and universities. On the other side of the same coin, however, are lobbyists who push for legislation, which serves a private monetary interest, such as boosting Bluetooth or hands-free sales.
This is how we end up with laws that do things such as force people to buy a hands-free device if they want to talk while driving.
The inherent danger in this is one of the fundamental aspects of our Constitution is that we do not uphold different sets of rules for different groups of people.That is essentially what has happened with the hands-free law. If the alleged reason for the law is public safety then everything that presents a clear and present danger while driving must be regulated.
Consequently, these regulations on cell phone operation make no sense when contrasted against the relative absence of other driving restrictions and further investigation of these laws unearths hypocrisy. For instance, there has yet to be a law banning or even regulating the consumption of food while driving.
If we cannot gain control and institute a fair set of standards and regulations, we risk losing the very freedom we hold so dear. A nation whose laws are governed by those who have the most money will never be an equal, opportune and free place.
James Jelenko can be reached at
jjelenko@theorion.com
2 comments