Cell phone bill (HB 229) should be vetoed, not modified

A recent topic of conversation in Delaware has been the recently-passed ban on using hand-held cell phones, CB radios, two-way radios, or other communication devices while driving. H.S. 1 for H.B. 229 was sponsored by Rep. Scott (D-Dover). While the lawmakers who favor this legislation, as well as the major newspaper in the state, seem to be able to find hordes of drivers who are eager to take away other drivers' freedom to use a hand-held cell phone on the road, I have yet to speak to anyone in person who favors this bill, which will almost certainly become law. The general consensus is: "Yeah, it's better not to use a cell phone on the road unless you have to, but the government doesn't need to make this decision for drivers."

Proponents of the bill have ignored the fact that it is already illegal to drive while distracted by anything. Inattentive driving is against the law. This bill would not crack down on inattentive driving; rather, it seeks to control the behavior of attentive drivers who are making or taking a call, or operating a CB radio.

If signed into law by Governor Markell, this bill would make it a primary offense to use any of these devices while driving, meaning that a police officer could stop and ticket a driver simply for using his phone, even if he is obeying all other traffic regulations. A first-time offender would be fined $50, yet, oddly enough, no points would be assessed to his license. This is proof that this bill is about one thing, and one thing only: generating revenue for the state. The inept jokers in Dover are unable to control their maniacal spending of our tax dollars, so they turn to Delaware drivers for "assistance."

Before the bill was passed, Rep. Ruth Briggs King sponsored H.A. 5, which would have exempted "FCC-licensed amateur radio operators from the restrictions of the act." This reasonable proposal was defeated; Rep. Schwartzkopf (D) voted against it along with nearly every Democrat in the House. Some of our local representatives who voted for this amendment are Lee, Short, Atkins, Hocker, and Carey.

Question: Why? Since when is FCC-licensed amateur radio operation a partisan issue? Did the Democrats who shot down H.A. 5 truly feel that these radio operators pose a threat to drivers? Or did they irresponsibly (and immaturely) vote against the amendment simply because it was sponsored by a Republican?

With that amendment out of the way, the bill was passed, exempting only police officers and emergency personnel. I don't have a problem with that. Police officers and emergency personnel should be allowed to use their cell phones while driving...but so should everyone else! It is the responsibility of every driver to use a hand-held cell phone only when it is safe and/or necessary to do so; it is not the government's place to decide that it will never be safe or necessary.

From WGMD.com: "It’s already illegal for motorists to use hand-held cell phones in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington..." In other words, the most restrictive states in the nation. If we're looking to those states as models, then the people of Delaware are doomed.

Interestingly enough, the bill, once signed into law, will not be enforced until January 2011. After this year's election. Coincidence? You decide.

Question: Who stood up for Delaware drivers? Who voted against this bad bill?

Lee (my representative), Atkins, Hocker, Carey, Wilson, and Outten. I applaud them.

Question: Who voted for this bad bill?

Nearly every Democrat in the House, including their rascally ringleader, Pete Schwartzkopf. This was to be expected. I was surprised and disappointed, however, to read on legis.delaware.gov (which I assume is accurate) that Dan Short, Ruth Briggs King, Deborah Hudson, and Greg Lavelle also voted for this bill. They're usually good about freedom issues; I want to believe that the website listing the votes is incorrect. I look forward to hearing them explain to the citizens of Delaware why they felt it was necessary to implement a nanny-state ban of this type, robbing drivers of the freedom to make responsible decisions of their own free will, rather than modify their behavior out of fear of a hefty fine. In fact, I expect this explanation. Don't worry, I'll wait.

[Final Jeopardy music]

While we're waiting, let's take a look at a recent development in this story. After local talk show host Dan Gaffney blasted the bill for banning CB radios (he opposes the bill in its entirety, but found the ban on CB radio use to be especially unreasonable), and lawmakers received a barrage of phone calls from angry truckers and workers in the service industries, a new bill was introduced by Rep. Briggs King that would allow the use of CB and two-way radios.

From WGMD.com: "The bill is a reaction to a pending law that will have the unintended consequence of outlawing the use of such radios by Delaware drivers in early 2011."

Unintended consequence? I don't believe for a second that Rep. Schwartzkopf, or any of the other jokers who voted for this bad bill, didn't realize that it would outlaw the use of these radios, which have been used safely for decades, and continue to be used by workers in many industries (including my own!). They knew. I think they're so out of touch with the real world, so far removed from the working man, that they didn't have the slightest idea that everyone from truckers to service technicians still use such communication devices. Caught off guard by a wave of outrage over these unreasonable restrictions (the entire bill is unreasonable, but to ban CB's would be especially malicious), lawmakers are scrambling to reverse them.

They might as well say to constituents, "We screwed up. We voted for a bad bill because we're arrogant elitists, so now we're going to fix our blunder with another bill."

Here's a better idea, boys and girls. The bill, as it stands, is unnecessary and unfair. It's simply bad legislation. There is no way to fix it, any more than one can fix a boat constructed out of chicken wire. The bill has more holes in it than Mike Castle's voting record; it doesn't need to be amended, it simply needs to be scrapped.

Governor Markell should veto the bill immediately, then proceed to personally slap the faces of every lawmaker who voted for it, for wasting time and tax dollars--not to mention grossly overstepping the boundaries of their authority. Otherwise, it will be up to the voters of Delaware to relieve the supporters of this bill from their positions. November approaches.