Phone ban would lessen dangerous driving

By Jeff Trull

Owners of “get off your cell phone and drive!” bumper stickers may soon get their way in Massachusetts. State lawmakers have recently crafted a bill, which has already been passed in the Massachusetts House, to outlaw handheld cell phone use and text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. However, drivers using hands-free devices would still be allowed to talk while driving. This bill comes in response to recent accidents involving cell phones. In December, a teenager in Taunton was struck by a van and killed. The driver of the van was text messaging at the time and mistook hitting the pedestrian for knocking over a mailbox. With new fuel for passing legislation, outlawing cell phones on the road may be closer than ever.

I’m willing to bet that everyone has been bothered by a driver talking on a phone while on the road. Personally, I can’t tell you how often this annoys me. Whether it’s simply a classic cut-off move or that driver going ultra-slow in the middle lane while chatting, the cell phone certainly plays a role. Whenever I see a driver make a dumb move in traffic these days, I assume that the driver is talking on a cell phone until proven otherwise! My bad experiences with drivers on phones are not limited to when I’m driving, either. I’ve seen plenty of drivers fly through pedestrian crosswalks, including here at UMass Dartmouth, seemingly oblivious to anyone that may be crossing the street. After my numerous experiences, I don’t need any more convincing whether or not drivers on cell phones are dangerous.

The next question is whether or not we need a law to ban cell phone use while driving. While I am typically against laws that limit personal freedoms, such as requiring all adults to wear seat belts, I do believe that a law at least limiting cell phones in automobiles is necessary. If an individual using a phone wants to put his or her own life in jeopardy by using their phone, that’s his or her choice. But I have a problem when others are put in danger because of that person’s poor choice.

Simply because individuals have a right to their own freedoms does not mean that they may infringe on other’s rights by putting others in danger. Massachusetts is not the first state with the idea, either. Two other states, Washington and New Jersey, explicitly outlaw text messages, while those two states and three others have laws limiting cell phone use while driving.

Opponents of the new bill have already argued there are plenty of other ways drivers can distract themselves while in the car. These distractions include in-car conversations, adjusting the radio, eating and even reading. First off, anyone who attempts to read while operating a vehicle is definitely unfit to drive and has extreme multi-tasking issues. As for the other causes, I do not believe these actions are as distracting as cell phones. I think these in-car activities either require less attention from the driver, less time to complete, or both. For instance, changing the radio station may require only a few seconds while a phone conversation may go on for minutes.

I realize there are lots of variables as to how and which is more dangerous. However, I believe that cell phone usage is easier to outlaw and will be more effective in reducing dangerous driving. Also, the bill still allows some cell phone usage! Allowing drivers to still talk on their phones as long as one of these hands-free devices are used is a fairly generous concession to those who are against outlawing cell phone usage while driving. I am skeptical of the difference in distraction level caused by holding a cell phone in-hand versus using a hands-free device.

Those opposed to the current bill also point to unfair punishment for drivers who are caught using their phones. Drivers would be fined $100 for their first offense, $250 for the second and $500 for the following offense. Drivers under 18 years old would face license suspensions if caught. I am not opposed to these fines and the biggest fuss from lawmakers is not over these numbers, either. An amendment to the bill, which allows insurance companies to assess surcharges to drivers who break the new law is attracting more complaints. According to Taunton Rep. James Fagan, this would cost drivers an extra $140 per year for six years. With expensive insurance policies already in place in Massachusetts, the last thing drivers want to look forward to is additional costs for operating their cars.

Despite the bill passing through the Massachusetts House, the bill is by no means a done deal. It must still be passed by the Senate and, if that occurs, signed by Governor Patrick. Already there seems to be some doubts as to if the bill will survive the Senate, especially since similar bills in recent years have not. Regardless, the time is now to place limitation on cell phone usage. We have seen what the carelessness of drivers using cell phones can do. It is unfortunate that it takes a law to force drivers to be responsible with cell phones while on the road, but the lives lost are already too many.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

Observing honor in the UMass Dartmouth community

Where do we feel our honor?

Recently I watched a film about the Naval Academy. The subject of cheating came up. A midshipman was dismissed for doing so, although the infraction seemed very minor. The point of the dismissal wasn’t so much the weight of actual damage as it was the disregard of honor. I was thinking about honor on our campus. Do we feel it? I have been feeling proud of our basketball team lately. It makes you feel good to see a number of new buildings being constructed and progress evident in the campus “Strategic Plan” development. We also like it when many degrees are awarded in the spring. But where do we feel “honor?”

Honor is something we need to grow on and around our campus. We possess a dedicated and highly qualified faculty and administration. We have a beautiful campus. But honor doesn’t come from faculty or buildings. Honor needs to be found and nurtured within our hearts and heads. In fact, more deeply, it comes from our spirits. We need to be committed, in stated ways, to living honorably. We need to guard each other’s honor and our own as individuals. We need to craft an intolerance with any choices that defraud or diminish another person’s dignity and achievement. It is honorable to celebrate each other’s successes (I love it at the Academy’s graduation when they collectively throw their caps in the air!) It is honorable to say “No” to the offer to be given stolen intellectual property. It is honorable to advocate for higher honor than happens by default or just accidentally because we must pay tuition. The Religious Resource Center is pondering this. May we be an honorable institution and community of the highest grade in Massachusetts.  May we explore this further in the months and years to come.  

Rev. Neil Damgaard
Protestant Chaplain

Live and study with integrity

This week’s section of the Hebrew Bible, read by Jewish People all over the world is “Mishpatim”, Exodus 21:1-24:18. “Mishpatim” means “laws.” Prohibitions and punishments against murder and manslaughter, kidnapping, causing bodily harm, harm to property, theft and many other statutes are contained in this section of the Bible. In the world of the Hebrew Bible, law is not considered restrictive, on the contrary, law can liberate us from some of the nastier characteristics of human nature.

One of the less pleasant aspects of human nature may be the desire to take and destroy the things around you, even if they are not yours (otherwise known as theft and vandalism). Who is not troubled by the theft of parking passes and computers and by vandalism to photocopy machines and to dormitories? Every penny spent repairing and replacing copy machines cannot be spent on student scholarships, or on keeping the campus beautiful, or on student activities, or on an assortment of other priorities which make UMass Dartmouth a better place to live, study and work.

Yet how can we stop it? We can have police watching all of us all the time, while we invest in bigger, stronger locks to keep us safe. But do we want to live that way? On the other hand, what would happen if each of us decided that theft and vandalism are not acceptable? And policed ourselves? What would happen if students choose not to do it, or to allow their friends to do it? And then we used all the money saved for student scholarships?

How might a “code of honor” improve our community? Honor, according to the “Encarta Dictionary of English,” is personal integrity, a strong moral character or strength, and adherence to ethical principles. Can we instill a code of honor here where we live, work and study? Can we enforce it ourselves? Wouldn’t a community where people chose not to steal or vandalize be a better one?

Rabbi Jacqueline Romm Satlow, Director, Center for Jewish Culture