Cell Phone Ban Nothing More Than An Arbitrary Tax - New Evidence Confirms - Granite Grok

Cell Phone Ban Nothing More Than An Arbitrary Tax – New Evidence Confirms

Samsung-Galaxy-S4-Black-Spin_11.0001Let’s assume for a moment that the members of the NH Legislature that voted for HB 1360 (Restricting the use of cell phones in motor vehicles) are almost, but not quite as smart as they think they are.

Even under these more than gracious circumstances, voting to ask law enforcement to randomly fine people in New Hampshire, for engaging in conversation with an electronic device, when holding that device up to their ear, in their motor vehicle, while driving, a practice the majority of them have engaged in thousands of times individually, millions and millions of times collectively each year without incident, must be viewed in its proper context.  It is an arbitrary tax on talking.

There was never conclusive evidence of any sort that a cell phone ban would reduce accidents or save lives by itself so what else could it be?There was ample evidence that this was just a Potemkin village.  A meaningless facade.  The appearance of action cloaked in false empathy, when doing nothing would have had the same results, with but one exception.  This bill will waste the time of police offers who will have to arbitrarily cite violators, who may waste court time arguing about the circumstances, after which there might be some new revenue when the cited driver pays the fine (having seen hundreds of others dive past, unpunished, almost daily).

It would be cheaper and more effective to simply ticket more speeders, speed being a certified factor in fatalities.  But that’s not en vogue.  Legislators are possessed, as if by evil spirits.  They must legislate.  So when rent seekers or stake holders dangle a juicy piece of fruit like a cell phone ban before their wanton eyes, they are not just quick to take a bite, they feel the urge redistribute the tasty ignorance.

I’ve been beating this dead horse for years.  Cell Phone bans do not do anything.  There is, nor has there ever been, any reliable, verified, peer-reviewed research that connects banning cell phone use while driving to a reduction in accidents or fatalities.

The cell phone era, on the whole, has actually seen a significant decrease in total annual vehicle related fatalities.

It is well document that conversation with a person in the vehicle is as distracting (or even more so) than talking on a cell phone.  But legislators are clever.  They know people can see other people using their phones when they drive.  They have seen people talking on their phones who are not paying as much attention–at that point in time–as they are.  Getting distracted, on their road, during their commute.  Shouldn’t ‘they’ be punished?

It is also well know that the average citizen has a shallow sense of consequence when they either demand that legislators ‘do something’ or they as citizens simply refuse to look deeper into reports of proposed laws laws and how they might affect their own lives.

 “Dennis, did you know that the New Hampshire legislature is trying to pass a cell phone ban?”

Dennis (Talking on his  hand-held phone while driving): “Good these idiots don’t have a clue what they are doing.”

And so we have a cell phone ban, with loopholes, exceptions, and provisos, all of which complicate enforcement, whose result, confirmed by a recent bit of peer reviewed research about such bans out of California, is for naught–unless the real goal was to pass a talking tax to generate revenue.

The researchers looked at the average daily number of collisions, verifying that other factors such as the number of miles traveled, rainfall and gas prices did not affect the numbers. The final figures also accounted for holidays, as the numbers show accidents fell 15 percent because people drive less on those days. No matter how the numbers were analyzed, the results did not change.

“When we go to the data we just didn’t see any evidence that accidents actually declined in the six months after this ban that was put in place,” Kaffine explained.

More research, also c/o Hot Air

Use of mobile devices was the least prominent distraction observed, being overtaken by “adjusting controls, personal hygiene, communicating with someone outside the vehicle and reaching for objects in the vehicle,” according to the study.

“Electronic device use and other distracted driver behaviors were strongly associated with looking away from the roadway, although electronic device use was only weakly related to serious incidents,” the authors concluded.

Distraction is a significant cause of accidents, yes, but even the NHTSA still wont point the finger definitively.   But Cell phones make a great  scapegoat.  Witch!  Burn Them!

192 NH House legislators went for it, (31 of that sum Republicans) despite readily available data on how such bans won’t do what the legislators claim.

There wasn’t even any solid evidence in New Hampshire, but they went with the ban anyway.

The NH ban does not go into effect until mid 2015, by the way.  Time to get re-elected before the real impact.  Time to elect different legislators who might see the stupidity and repeal it, enough of them to override a veto should the plague of Democrat governors continue.

And in case you missed it, the number of driving related deaths in New Hampshire plummeted for no reason last year, absent the cell phone ban, and very likely despite increases cell phone use.

Such is the nature of the nanny state.  They did get their Papal Bull from Ray LaHood not long ago, and what statist worth their Marx would pass up on the opportunity to generate revenue while appearing to act in the public good.   Note to the novice pundits–plunder of any kind to a Marxist, under whatever guise, is  claimed “for the public good.”

HB1360 is nothing  more than a new tax on talking, that can only be arbitrarily applied.

Now might be a good time to get some “I support the (insert name of) Police” Bumper Stickers.  Short of repeal, it might be all that stands between you and some other bloke getting cited when the officer looks up and has to make the choice.

>