Laws. They're everywhere and no where all at once. They regulate our traffic and keep us from killing each other.
We don't see them on billboards and they aren't played in between our favorite TV shows, but yet they are seared into our memory, building boundaries around all of our provocations and plans, imprinted darker than the cleverest of commercials.
They corral our most sporadic of thoughts to "keep the peace". They have been memorized since we could first understand our mothers' gentle "NO!"
Almost all laws, most would agree, are for a good cause and keep good stature. They keep civilization civilized. With law enforcement there to crack the whip on those coloring outside the lines, life can be pretty civilized in suburbia.
But what happens when we realize that some laws aren't dictated by safety, but by money? Where do our assembly women and men draw the line between what's good for their state and what's good for them?
What could one law, cloaked in safety, covering up the truth behind the pushing and logrolling, be hiding? What was the real reason for Senate Bill 1613?
The law requires that all Californians use a hands free device to talk on the phone, or face a first time offense of $20. From then on, the offender is faced with a $50 fine. The law seems futile and doesn't carry as hefty as a fee of a speeding ticket, or a red light violation, but the fine isn't what's really getting some Californians all twisted up in a fever pitch.
Mostly everyone who owns a phone in California either texts or knows about text messaging. So why is this not banned either? Text messaging requires both hands and eyes while talking on the phone requires just your ears and one hand. Both eyes are still fixed on the road. And if it's the conversation that's the killer, look at the dial of a phone and try to spell out a sentence such as, "No, I can't I'm busy". See how long it takes.
Now, with the advent of technology, there have been many modifications to the text messaging phenomenon such as full keyboards on phones and a word predictor called "T9". But even with all the new technology, text messaging while driving is still more dangerous.
No where in the California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act of 2006 does it mention anything about text messaging. Whoever wrote this bill could not have been so naive to not realize the dangers of text messaging while driving.
It seems that phone companies didn't want consumers to stop text messaging, or calling. So the solution? Why, this handy-dandy hands free device. And it seems as though if our congress men and women were really concerned with safety that they would have outlawed it all together, no questions asked.
The use of cell phones should either be completely forbidden while driving, or advocacy against driving and talking on the phone or text messaging should be implemented.
About Me
- Anne Morrison
- Anne stems from a short background of creative writing, and after recently graduating from Sacramento State University, hopes to utilize the right side of her brain in written word in various venues. So let the ink fly.
4 comments:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1027244.html
But we all know we can do it without looking anyway, right?
interesting post and very valid point. only thing i would suggest is getting to the point a bit sooner. your introduction to the topic is definitely a good read, but in column writing you don't want your readers to feel like they're reading an essay - they want to know what it's about right away. just a tip from an ex-column writing student...
ya, Prof. Fitzgerald wanted 600 words though, so its a bit you know.
This column starts making some solid points, but pretty far into the column.
The preliminary introduction was fine for an essay format, but not as effective as getting right to the heart of the matter - for a column.
The writer shows they have done some research, and asks a valid question about why the law was passed outlawing cell phone use (for talking) but allowing texting.
"What could one law, cloaked in safety, covering up the truth behind the pushing and logrolling, be hiding? What was the real reason for Senate Bill 1613?"
While the specter is raised, the answer isn't evident, though the writer does say:
"It seems that phone companies didn't want consumers to stop text messaging, or calling."
If that's true - and it could be - the columnist needs to support the statement with some form of proof. And barring that, some plausible reason for the phone companies to support a ban on talking, but not texting.
A follow-up column is probably in order for curious readers.
I look forward to reading the rest of the story.
Post a Comment