On June 18 2009, Air Force One streaked by and almost hit the Statue of Liberty. The incident incurred panic in the citizens of New York City. Polly Esther describes her fear of feeling the vibrations and then seeing Air Force One scream by Lady Liberty. “I was shaking and feeling as if the jet was going to rip us apart.” Thousands of New York City citizens panicked and rushed out of the city’s sky scrapers. Joe Scmohe, a business analyst, describes his experience of seeing the presidential jet streaking towards him. “The jet came closer and closer. I yelled to my colleagues to get out of the building. I screamed it’s going to crash into us! I was worried that I was going to get involved in the next 9/11.”
The incident has spurned controversy and critism from both national and local leaders. The president ordered a full investigation of the incident on the 19th of June. The N.T.S.B. Board has issued its findings today. The major contribution was the pilots hands free communication device. The Air force requires its members to install and use hand free devices in their duties. The device was fully operational. The pilot became distracted when he received a phone call from his wife. Apparently she wanted a gallon of milk when he came home. The N.T.S.B. stated the pilot followed all procedures. The safety board recommended a change in policy forbidding receiving personal calls. Lt. Col. Steve Harley, the pilot, has been suspended without pay. He will be subjected to a court-martial. Is it really the fault of the pilot or is it the requirement that is responsible for the incident?
The black box recording was also released this morning. It is a very comical and party like scene in the cabin. You can hear the music blaring from the main part of the aircraft. You could hear the song “Y.M.C.A.” in the back ground. The warning sirens of the cockpit start blaring. Then you hear warnings from the air craft controller from J.F.K. Airport. The Co-pilot was in the bathroom at the time of the incident. The device dropped the call automatically when it sensed the sever drop in altitude. The aircraft cleared the statue by no more than 8 and half feet. The N.T.S.B. called the environment totally unacceptable. The distractive environment could lead to a deadly incident.
The device, model # 12 made by Crash Test Dummies Inc., there has been recalled multiple times for safety defects. Apparently, the shock collar idea was not reasonable for traveling at high speeds. This particular model has been blamed for large numbers of vehicular accidents. The device is implanted in the frontal lobe. It allows the user access to a mobile phone, G.P.S. directions and a calendar. The devices became popular when the states and localities banned hand held cellular phones while driving. It is interesting to note that the legislators who proposed those bans failed to secure any studies to ensure that hands free devices are any safer. Co-founders, Joe and Bob Dummies came up with the idea of the device during their employment at the crash safety ratings board. Psychologist Howard Quack states the problem with the hands free devices is they portray an image in your mind. You are having conversation rather than performing the task at hand. The situation can become dangerous, especially when the individual needs high cognitive abilities to adapt to rapidly changing conditions.
Long standing Senator Verizon is calling on members of congress to ban these devices. He is also leading the call for reinstating the hand held phones as the primary source of communication. We almost lost to one of our national treasures because of one wife asking for a gallon of milk. These hands free devices have proven to be unsafe and deadly. Legislators should be careful when they change and implement future laws so that they do not place lives endanger by their votes. Is it ethical to pass legislation that will do harm?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Reception is Hazy.
Cell Phones have become a vital part of our society. With the steady growth of cell phones use, there has been an increase in annoyances and problems pertaining to that use. The cell phone has become the whipping boy for a problem that has existed since the invention of the automobile. Those who are calling for a ban on cell phones while driving have a legitimate sconcern for safety. The real problem is distracted and reckless drivers. Drivers who talk on cell phones are at a slightly greater risk of causing accidents; however there are current laws that we can enforce now to avoid the expense of additional regulation and enforcement.
The number of states and localities that are banning the use of cell phones while driving are growing at a staggering rate. These include Washington and California. Oregon’s Senate passed the law on July 1st 2009, and sent it back to the house for revisions. This places the bill on the fast track. The main focus of having these bans is to get drivers to discontinue talking on normal cell phones and to utilize hands free devices. Those who are calling for this ban use the logic that having one hand on the wheel and one on the phone makes the driver unsafe. The proponents, mainly safety advocates claim that the use of cell phones raises the rate of car accidents. This new law would unduly forces an individual to purchase a hands free device, even though the safety of using such a device has been debunked. Dalhouise published a study on the behalf of one of their students, Yoko Ishigami, “Is a hands-free phone safer than a hand-held phone?” at the national conference of the Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals held last month in Whistler, B.C. She states, “She surveyed current scientific research on cell phone use, showing that talking on the phone, regardless of phone type, has negative impacts on performance, especially when the driver is confronted by complex or unpredictable situations. Performance while using a hands-free phone was rarely found to be better than that using a hand-held phone. some studies found drivers compensate for the harmful effects of cell phone use when using a hand-held phone—by driving slower or pulling over to finish a call—but neglect to do so when using a hands-free phone.” “People tend to be over confident with hands-free and drive faster. They’re thinking, ‘I’m OK because I’ve got on the headgear,” she explains.
There is evidence contrary to the idea that hands free devices are safer. Tara Parker Poe, a reporter for the Star News Online, brings attention to a study in her article “A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group Urges Phone Ban for Drivers,”: “we learn that the reason cell phones tend to cause accidents is not due to having one hand off the wheel it is the distraction it causes in the mind” (Poe 1). The proponents of a cell phone ban do not address the issue of distraction with a hands free device; in fact they advocate for the hands free device. Andrew F. Amendola, a respected lawyer and writer, presents evidence in his article that Cell phones are not as responsible for distraction as it is made out to be,
“In a recent study in Virginia, cell phone use ranked only ninth in a list of most common driver distractions causing accidents, following behind other distractions inside the vehicle (accounting for 26.3% of the accidents studied), driver fatigue (17%), rubbernecking(13.1%), other distractions outside the vehicle (10%), looking at scenery (9.8%), passenger and child distractions (8.7%), adjusting the radio, CD or tape player (6.5%), and eating/drinking(4.2%). Cell phone use accounted for less than 4% of accidents surveyed” (Amendola 339).
Cell phones compared to other distractions are small in numbers. Mr. Amendola brings the example that there were serious calls for banning car radios when they first came on the scene. If that ban would have gone into effect it would have severely impacted our daily life. Imagine no drive thru movies, or no music to soothe you during rush hour. In addition there has been a serious concern from citizens that government does not trust individuals to do the right thing. Sarah Glazer, a professional writer for CQ Researcher, writes, “In fact, light cell phone users -- those who use the phone 10 times a month or less -- had about the same accident record as non-users,” she says. “The main risk was with heavy users -- those receiving 55 calls per month or more. They were twice as likely to be involved in a collision as those receiving only one call per month” (Glazer 5). Cell phones provide a distractive and problematic situation.
Equally important are the economic dangers in creating redundancy in statutes. Currently we have two Oregon State revised statutes that cover distracted driving. Careless driving as defined by ORS 811.135, “A person commits the offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.” Reckless driving as defined by ORS 811.140 is, “A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.” Careless driving happens when there might be danger impose to others and property. Reckless driving happens when danger to people are property are in imminent danger or has occurred. These definitions differ slightly but can be used to stop and charge someone driving distracted because of a cell phone. Currently if a police officer in this state witnesses a driver who is driving recklessly due to a cell phone the officer can ticket or arrest if the offense is grievous enough. According to Harry Esteve, an editorial writer and reporter from the Oregonian, it is common place for Oregon Legislators to use “add backs” to stuff popular bills because they know that they will not be defeated (Esteve 1). Add backs are a legislature or member of his staff place in a bill at the last minute increase spending for their districts. It is a secret and dirty political trick. In fact, evidence is brought by Mr. Esteve’s article “Oregon Legislature approves last-minute 'add backs',” that it is not uncommon to see millions of dollars put in at the very last minute.(Esteve 1) This pork barrel spending as it is commonly called, does not include the cost of printing, implementing, informing, and enforcing the new law. The new cell phone law is being stuffed to the brim with pork. The legislatures are taking advantage of the whipping boy status of this bill. This new law will cause a lot of new spending when the state is in a recession.
Furthermore the enforcement of these cell phone bans is proving to be difficult. According to the report by Austin Jenkins, a TV reporter for channel KUOW news, in his segment “State Troopers Say Ban on Driving While on a Cell Phone Not Very Effective”; “Washington State is ready to celebrate its one year anniversary of passing its driving while talking bill. According to Washington State Troopers reports the majority of drivers are ignoring the law.”(Jenkins) When the majority of the population ignores a certain law it then becomes difficult and expensive to enforce. Currently there is a ban on aerial fireworks in the state of Oregon, but it is common knowledge that you can buy and set off fireworks in certain areas without getting caught. In fact the state and local government spend thousands of dollars trying to enforce the fireworks ban. When the cell phone law is enacted police officers will then have another law that they have responsibility to enforce on their already full plate. According to Robert Hahn and Patrick M Dudley, in their article, “The Disconnect between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones,” “Anecdotal evidence suggests that the New York City ban on calling and driving by taxi drivers is widely ignored (Hahn Dudley 32). Drivers appear to be unwilling to give up the valuable tool, the cell phone. Drivers typically have the same attitudes whether they are in New York City or downtown Portland.
In addition individuals would be called on to sacrifice personal connivance of having a valuable communication tool at their hands. What happens if there is a drunk driver in front of you? This new law will prevent you from reporting this serious incident to the police. Government interference into private life causes lost privileges.
In conclusion, the fact that cell phones cause a slightly higher distraction should not lead to stripping of individuals rights. The costs of individual’s rights and time outweigh the safety legislation would provide. The economical cost of this ban will be high. Police officers and law abiding citizens will be frustrated by the hard to enforce law. By passing this new law the Oregon legislature has thrown individual rights aside and put the state further into debt. The Governor is poised to sign this bill. If enough citizens call his office he will reconsider signing it.
Works Cited
Amendola, Andrew F. “Can You Hear Me Now?: The Myths Surrounding Cell Phone Use
While Driving And Connecticut’s Failed Attempt At a Remedy” CONNECTICUT LAW
REVIEW 41.1 (2008) 339-368 Web 5 July 2009
Dalhousie University. "Are Hands-free Cellphones Really Safer?." ScienceDaily 8 July 2008. 6
July 2009
Esteve, Harry. “Oregon Legislature approves last-minute 'add backs'” The Oregonian. [Portland, OR]. 4 July 2009 web 5 July 2009
Glazer, Sarah “Cell Phone Safety. Do they cause cancer and car accidents?” The CQ Researcher
Online. March 16,2001.Web. July 5, 2009.
Hahn, Robert W. and Patrick M. Dudley, “The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis:A
Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones” Aei-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies 2002. Web 5 July 2009.
Jenkins, Austin “State Troopers Say Ban on Driving While on a Cell Phone Not Very Effective.”
KUOW News. KUOW. 06/29/2009 Web 7/06/2009
Oregon, Legislator. “Careless and Reckless Driving.” “Chapter 811 Rules of The Drivers.”
ORS 811.35 Oregon State Legislator. 2007 Web 06 July 2009
Oregon, Legislator. “Careless and Reckless Driving.” “Chapter 811 Rules of The Drivers.”
ORS 811.37 Oregon State Legislator. 2007 Web 06 July 2009
Parker-Poe, Tara. “A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group urges Phone Ban for Drivers.”
Star News Online 13 January,2009. News Bank. Web. 5, July, 2009.
The number of states and localities that are banning the use of cell phones while driving are growing at a staggering rate. These include Washington and California. Oregon’s Senate passed the law on July 1st 2009, and sent it back to the house for revisions. This places the bill on the fast track. The main focus of having these bans is to get drivers to discontinue talking on normal cell phones and to utilize hands free devices. Those who are calling for this ban use the logic that having one hand on the wheel and one on the phone makes the driver unsafe. The proponents, mainly safety advocates claim that the use of cell phones raises the rate of car accidents. This new law would unduly forces an individual to purchase a hands free device, even though the safety of using such a device has been debunked. Dalhouise published a study on the behalf of one of their students, Yoko Ishigami, “Is a hands-free phone safer than a hand-held phone?” at the national conference of the Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals held last month in Whistler, B.C. She states, “She surveyed current scientific research on cell phone use, showing that talking on the phone, regardless of phone type, has negative impacts on performance, especially when the driver is confronted by complex or unpredictable situations. Performance while using a hands-free phone was rarely found to be better than that using a hand-held phone. some studies found drivers compensate for the harmful effects of cell phone use when using a hand-held phone—by driving slower or pulling over to finish a call—but neglect to do so when using a hands-free phone.” “People tend to be over confident with hands-free and drive faster. They’re thinking, ‘I’m OK because I’ve got on the headgear,” she explains.
There is evidence contrary to the idea that hands free devices are safer. Tara Parker Poe, a reporter for the Star News Online, brings attention to a study in her article “A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group Urges Phone Ban for Drivers,”: “we learn that the reason cell phones tend to cause accidents is not due to having one hand off the wheel it is the distraction it causes in the mind” (Poe 1). The proponents of a cell phone ban do not address the issue of distraction with a hands free device; in fact they advocate for the hands free device. Andrew F. Amendola, a respected lawyer and writer, presents evidence in his article that Cell phones are not as responsible for distraction as it is made out to be,
“In a recent study in Virginia, cell phone use ranked only ninth in a list of most common driver distractions causing accidents, following behind other distractions inside the vehicle (accounting for 26.3% of the accidents studied), driver fatigue (17%), rubbernecking(13.1%), other distractions outside the vehicle (10%), looking at scenery (9.8%), passenger and child distractions (8.7%), adjusting the radio, CD or tape player (6.5%), and eating/drinking(4.2%). Cell phone use accounted for less than 4% of accidents surveyed” (Amendola 339).
Cell phones compared to other distractions are small in numbers. Mr. Amendola brings the example that there were serious calls for banning car radios when they first came on the scene. If that ban would have gone into effect it would have severely impacted our daily life. Imagine no drive thru movies, or no music to soothe you during rush hour. In addition there has been a serious concern from citizens that government does not trust individuals to do the right thing. Sarah Glazer, a professional writer for CQ Researcher, writes, “In fact, light cell phone users -- those who use the phone 10 times a month or less -- had about the same accident record as non-users,” she says. “The main risk was with heavy users -- those receiving 55 calls per month or more. They were twice as likely to be involved in a collision as those receiving only one call per month” (Glazer 5). Cell phones provide a distractive and problematic situation.
Equally important are the economic dangers in creating redundancy in statutes. Currently we have two Oregon State revised statutes that cover distracted driving. Careless driving as defined by ORS 811.135, “A person commits the offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.” Reckless driving as defined by ORS 811.140 is, “A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.” Careless driving happens when there might be danger impose to others and property. Reckless driving happens when danger to people are property are in imminent danger or has occurred. These definitions differ slightly but can be used to stop and charge someone driving distracted because of a cell phone. Currently if a police officer in this state witnesses a driver who is driving recklessly due to a cell phone the officer can ticket or arrest if the offense is grievous enough. According to Harry Esteve, an editorial writer and reporter from the Oregonian, it is common place for Oregon Legislators to use “add backs” to stuff popular bills because they know that they will not be defeated (Esteve 1). Add backs are a legislature or member of his staff place in a bill at the last minute increase spending for their districts. It is a secret and dirty political trick. In fact, evidence is brought by Mr. Esteve’s article “Oregon Legislature approves last-minute 'add backs',” that it is not uncommon to see millions of dollars put in at the very last minute.(Esteve 1) This pork barrel spending as it is commonly called, does not include the cost of printing, implementing, informing, and enforcing the new law. The new cell phone law is being stuffed to the brim with pork. The legislatures are taking advantage of the whipping boy status of this bill. This new law will cause a lot of new spending when the state is in a recession.
Furthermore the enforcement of these cell phone bans is proving to be difficult. According to the report by Austin Jenkins, a TV reporter for channel KUOW news, in his segment “State Troopers Say Ban on Driving While on a Cell Phone Not Very Effective”; “Washington State is ready to celebrate its one year anniversary of passing its driving while talking bill. According to Washington State Troopers reports the majority of drivers are ignoring the law.”(Jenkins) When the majority of the population ignores a certain law it then becomes difficult and expensive to enforce. Currently there is a ban on aerial fireworks in the state of Oregon, but it is common knowledge that you can buy and set off fireworks in certain areas without getting caught. In fact the state and local government spend thousands of dollars trying to enforce the fireworks ban. When the cell phone law is enacted police officers will then have another law that they have responsibility to enforce on their already full plate. According to Robert Hahn and Patrick M Dudley, in their article, “The Disconnect between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones,” “Anecdotal evidence suggests that the New York City ban on calling and driving by taxi drivers is widely ignored (Hahn Dudley 32). Drivers appear to be unwilling to give up the valuable tool, the cell phone. Drivers typically have the same attitudes whether they are in New York City or downtown Portland.
In addition individuals would be called on to sacrifice personal connivance of having a valuable communication tool at their hands. What happens if there is a drunk driver in front of you? This new law will prevent you from reporting this serious incident to the police. Government interference into private life causes lost privileges.
In conclusion, the fact that cell phones cause a slightly higher distraction should not lead to stripping of individuals rights. The costs of individual’s rights and time outweigh the safety legislation would provide. The economical cost of this ban will be high. Police officers and law abiding citizens will be frustrated by the hard to enforce law. By passing this new law the Oregon legislature has thrown individual rights aside and put the state further into debt. The Governor is poised to sign this bill. If enough citizens call his office he will reconsider signing it.
Works Cited
Amendola, Andrew F. “Can You Hear Me Now?: The Myths Surrounding Cell Phone Use
While Driving And Connecticut’s Failed Attempt At a Remedy” CONNECTICUT LAW
REVIEW 41.1 (2008) 339-368 Web 5 July 2009
Dalhousie University. "Are Hands-free Cellphones Really Safer?." ScienceDaily 8 July 2008. 6
July 2009
Esteve, Harry. “Oregon Legislature approves last-minute 'add backs'” The Oregonian. [Portland, OR]. 4 July 2009 web 5 July 2009
Glazer, Sarah “Cell Phone Safety. Do they cause cancer and car accidents?” The CQ Researcher
Online. March 16,2001.Web. July 5, 2009.
Hahn, Robert W. and Patrick M. Dudley, “The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis:A
Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones” Aei-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies 2002. Web 5 July 2009
Jenkins, Austin “State Troopers Say Ban on Driving While on a Cell Phone Not Very Effective.”
KUOW News. KUOW. 06/29/2009 Web 7/06/2009
Oregon, Legislator. “Careless and Reckless Driving.” “Chapter 811 Rules of The Drivers.”
ORS 811.35 Oregon State Legislator. 2007 Web 06 July 2009
Oregon, Legislator. “Careless and Reckless Driving.” “Chapter 811 Rules of The Drivers.”
ORS 811.37 Oregon State Legislator. 2007 Web 06 July 2009
Parker-Poe, Tara. “A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group urges Phone Ban for Drivers.”
Star News Online 13 January,2009. News Bank. Web. 5, July, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
