[ back ]
DEAN'S LIST 09/03/2008
(by Dean Naddeo - OpEd Columnist - September 03, 2008)
Hang up or pay up
Regular readers of “Dean’s List” should be acutely aware by now that this columnist is a regular defender of personal liberty, frequently challenging the wanton infringement upon an individual’s rights by the escalating power of big government. Hence, when I first questioned the need for a specific cell phone law in an editorial to NJ COPS magazine (“New Cell Phone Law is a Waste of Time,” December 2004), it should have come as no surprise to anyone.
The firm stance I took then has barely moved now four years later: In my opinion, there is a plethora of precarious activities that New Jersey drivers engage in on a daily basis, and most of them are intrinsically more dangerous than simply talking on a cell phone. Applying eye mascara southbound on Interstate 287, for instance, or eating soup with a spoon are each actual examples that I have recently witnessed. Yet, no laws exist specifically restricting these risky activities, and hopefully none ever will. Instead, New Jersey motor vehicle law has long addressed the issue by providing for a careless driving statute (Title 39: 4-97), which can be applied to a multitude of dangerous driving activities at a police officer’s discretion.
What has changed since the law’s inception is that as of March 1 of this year, use of a handheld cell phone device has become a primary traffic offense. This means that a police officer may pull you over for manipulating a cell phone even if you are not breaking any other laws. So in essence, drivers were granted nearly four years of a grace period to learn how to comply with the cell phone statute. Yet, despite this generous opportunity, it is clear that a large number of vehicle operators are still brazenly refusing to obey the simple law.
This is where my position begins to list decidedly to the right. Regardless of one’s opinion of a particular law, once it becomes effective, it should be obeyed. The sheer number of drivers that continue to flagrantly utilize handheld cell phones simply flies in the face of law enforcement, effectively disrespecting the law, the justice system, and the police officers themselves.
The fact is, continued handheld cell phone use is inexcusable considering the number of low-cost wireless accessories that are now readily available, including inexpensive headsets and Bluetooth devices. Despite their availability, many operators blatantly and mysteriously refuse to employ them. Simply put, if you can afford the phone, you can also afford the wireless device.
In response to the lack of voluntary compliance, maybe the State of New Jersey should consider a new “Hang Up or Pay Up” enforcement initiative in the mold of their “Click It or Ticket,” “You Drink .You Drive. You Lose.” and “Obey the Signs, Pay the Fines” campaigns. Judging by the success of these current programs, this initiative should be able to emulate their accomplishments by both educating the public and increasing compliance.
And despite my usual libertarian leanings, I propose that the state begin confiscating the cell phones that police officers witness in use. My reasoning here is simple: The cell phone itself is crucial evidence of the offense that the officer has alleged. An examination of the list of calls dialed or received will serve to prove whether the device was actually in use at the moment the officer observed the violation. Of course, the property owner can get his or her phone back after the court has determined guilt or innocence. But by then, the operator will have been substantially inconvenienced to hopefully serve as an effective deterrence to future law breaking.
[ back ]
