Why Am I Opposed to Cell Phone Bans?

With a growing number of Cities and States implementing 'Fine-Based' bans on hand held devices while driving I feel it is important that the data used to base the decision of such legislation be accurate and unbiased. Furthermore I feel it is import that these bans actually address the problem and do not create additional problems; either by way of adding undo finical strain on innocent motorists or by over-extending those involved with enforcing the bans and indirectly creating more harm than good. I think most would agree it is not advantageous to take away the personal freedoms of citizens and/or fine those who do not abide by the ban when there is little to no benefit of implementing or enforcing the ban. Nor is it beneficial for police officers to be apprehending cell phone users instead of violent criminals, especially when the decision to do so is based off of flawed, biased, or incorrect data.

Thus far I have found multiple studies that paint a distorted picture of the dangers related to cell phone use while driving and feel it is unfair and irresponsible for legislators to even consider implementing any type of bans based upon this data. Additionally I have found no evidence that cell phone and texting bans have a positive effect in areas that have implemented them. Typically proponents for these types of bans complain there is no positive effect due to lack of enforcement while enforcement officials argue that they are either enforcing the bans but it is having little effect or that the bans are too difficult to enforce. Whether you feel cell phone use while driving is dangerous or not, there is more and more evidence that banning these devices, in any capacity, is not accomplishing the intended goal and merely adding undue hardship on citizens and law enforcment officials in those communities that implement these bans.

Definitive Arguments Against Cell Phone Bans

If you are Pro-Cell Phone Bans ... you should know this:

Accident rates keep dropping while cell phone use sky rockets.
http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html

Bans don't solve anything in places that have them:
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cell-driving-ban,0,4721082.story

People won't stop using their cell phones:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/14/local/me-maria-drive14

Accident rates won't change:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/29/cellphone.study/

Stop saying using a cell phone is like drinking and driving. If you believe that study proved cell phones are really as bad as drunk driving; you should know the same study also proved it's safer to drive drunk than it is to drive sober. (it's a REALLY POORLY DONE study with a flashy headline): http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html

The "studies" on this topic are REDICULIOUS! You really should read them! REALLY! Just because some place called; The National Institute Of We Think We Know Some Stuff Council put out a report doesn't mean it's not total crap. You should READ IT and not just skip to the "conclusion" (BTW, the most insane stuff is almost always AFTER the conclusion):
http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/distractiongov-website-and-cell-phone.html

"Distraction by cell phone" is not a option on a police accident report so a large majority of the numbers people spout off as being fact are either made up or from questionable sources: http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html

To summarize ... Cell Phone Bans don't work and only accomplish the following:

• They encourage road rage towards those who choose to use a phone while they drive
• Criminalizes over 98.5% of people who are not guilty of any moving violation
• Over extends the duties of law enforcement because now they are chasing down cell phone users rather than violent criminals, etc.
• Gets those who support the ban all-fired-up because they feel the ban is not being enforced (Weather it is or not! Which is not surprising since they didn't look into reasons for supporting the ban so why would they look to see if it is actually being enforced? The same people who use "I saw a guy doing something bad on a cell phone" as their logic to punish everyone are the same people who will use "I saw a cop drive by a guy on a cell phone and not give them a ticket" as their logic to say the ban isn't being enforced.)
• Lastly, It adds to the hyper inflation of the danger on the subject. Thus creating a greater bias and more problems ... such a this: http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx?googleid=279248

Most of the information to draw these conclusions has existed for a long time (http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html) but everyone chooses to ignore it in favor of studies that nobody actually reads or questions ... but they keep telling us to use common sense while supporting a law that clearly won't solve anything!

Let's not forget most places are combating this "problem" with *FINES* ... But I guess if we had to only punish those that actually were involved in an accident, then that would limit our punishments to the guilty instead of those that might be guilty at some time in the future.

Obviously speculative correlation with draconian fines is our only hope.

Sure we are going to fine hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who didn't hurt or endanger anyone, but this is the cost of the extremely remote chance it might save one life. Think of the children!

(How remote you ask? Take your odds of being in an accident then factor in your odds of being on a cell phone at the time of being in the accident)

Apparently; Education is useless and punishment of the guilty is just too hard.

Still not getting it? Answer this:
Have you ever driven in a city where there isn't a cell phone ban and even with the "super crazy increased danger that driving and cell phones create"; you did it anyway? ... Why was it was worth the "risk" when it was YOU who had to give up a personal freedom? Will you stop driving in places that don't have a call phone ban?

There is a clear bias to get these bans passed ... here is an example video:

- Around :30 seconds into this video, the driver who almost hits someone IS NOT on a cell phone while those who are on a phone aren't doing anything dangerous. But when you slice the video up in this mannor it leads people to think otherwise.

- The kid at 2:18 just speeds up and runs into the video game car in front of him on purpose ... what's that about!?

Here is the reality:

Here is what Cell Phone Ban Supporters seem to think is happening everywhere and most also act like this guy wouldn't get a reckless driving ticket:

Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax (continued - Part 3)

Killing "Pennsylvanians" One Pack at a Time; by Craig Friebolin
I got a cut-and-paste response from the Governor’s Office today and you can see my response below:

"Thank you for your recent correspondence about the 10-cent per pack cigarette tax increase that I included in my budget proposal for the coming year. As you know, Pennsylvania and all other states are feeling the impact of the national recession, and 2009-10 budget represents a momentous challenge to ensure fiscal discipline while making critical invests that grow our economy and protect Pennsylvanians who need help during this economic storm.

The federal government and every state in the U.S. impose some sort of tax on cigarettes,
usually for two reasons. First, cigarette taxes help raise the price of the product, which discourages consumption, especially by kids. Second, cigarette taxes are enacted to fund public programs for the common good, and often the programs that benefit from cigarette tax revenue are directly related to health care initiatives. Here in Pennsylvania, the largest portion of our budget goes toward funding health care, and the increased cigarette tax will help us meet those obligations.

Pennsylvania’s current cigarette tax places it in the middle of all states and Washington, DC with the 21st highest cigarette tax, and less than neighboring states New Jersey, Maryland and New York. Raising the tax rate by 10 cents will increase Pennsylvania’s ranking only marginally, to 19th place.

Inexplicably, Pennsylvania is also the only state in America that does not tax smokeless tobacco – chewing tobacco, cigars and cigarillos. I have proposed taxing those products as a fair, common-sense way to generate needed revenue.

The cigarette tax was first enacted in Pennsylvania in 1935 and it supplies a substantial source of funding for public services provided by the commonwealth. The tax rate has increased nine times over the past 74 years to provide sufficient funding to the General Fund and programs such as a health insurance plan benefiting Pennsylvania children, a fund that helps reduce medical malpractice costs for healthcare providers and a farmland preservation effort.

The proposed cigarette tax increase – the first in five years – and the first ever tax on smokeless tobacco will benefit Pennsylvania by further reducing tobacco use and funding important programs on which many residents rely.

In the long run, reductions in tobacco use will provide public health benefits that will reduce the cost of health care in the public and private sectors, reduce sick leave usage and lengthen the life spans of many Pennsylvania children and adults.

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion on this issue."

My Responce:
What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support? You have a 75% failure rate on the only one I could find and it doesn't cost NEARLY $600,000,000+ a year to run.

My point is ... Use tax money from the general population to support programs for the general population. Do not single out one group (smokers) to fund projects that are not specifically related to that group (smokers).

So help me god if you tell me the money goes to "Healthcare" assuming that broad definition will be satisfactory; you will have severely insulted my intelligence. Your current logic is like saying you're going to tax black people just for being black; give the money to the Klu Klux Clan; then say the tax is used to support "Diversity Programs". You have no REAL programs in place to reduce the amount of smokers in PA and you use smokers as a piggybank to fund projects that sound vaguely related but aren't related AT ALL.

So here's the deal... I propose you fund a Nicotine Replacement program that subsidizes the cost of Nicotine Patches, etc. and pass a law that requires any Cigarette/Tobacco retailer to carry, stock and prominently display the low-cost subsidized Nicotine Replacement items. Because your current "Give us your money and we'll try to fix you AFTER you get sick if there's any money left over" model is stupid!

Or am I missing a good answer to the question: "What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support?"

Thank You for Calling PA Governor Ed Rendell's Office … Now Go F#*K Yourself

How Edward G. Rendell Personally Wastes Your Time; by Craig Friebolin

So I decide to call the Governor and show him the error of his ways with regard to the Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax (Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office: (717) 787-2500) A woman answers the phone with a bad attitude and a long-story-short I state my case to the woman and I’m told that “my comment will be passed on”. I follow up by asking “will someone be calling me back to discuss this further?” and I’m once again told “my comment will be passed on”. When the call is over I feel like I was just brushed off as being insignificant. I stew over it for a minute or two and get increasingly angry and decide to call back with the intent of insisting that I speak to someone. Another woman with a bad-attitude answers the phone, I state my case again, and again I’m told “my comment will be passed on”. And once again I ask “will someone be calling me back?” to which she replies “What do you mean?” …. Oooooh … now I’m just mad. I take a moment to explain the difficult question of “will someone be calling me back?” to the confused young woman with the chip on her shoulder and she tells me I need to put my comments in writing. “And THEN someone will contact me back?” I ask. I hear her sigh in frustration at my question and now I’m really getting irritated … “I don’t want to waste my time putting it in writing if it’s not going to go anywhere because I have other s*#t to do” once I said that she seemed almost excited to say “we don’t tolerate that kind of language” and she hung up on me because she’s not smart enough to answer simple questions and obviously not smart enough to know I’ll be calling right back … which I did … and the conversation continued like so; “Why did you hang up on me?!” … “Because we don’t tolora… ::click click click ring :::” and I realize I’m being transferred. A man answers the phone and I fumble through saying something to the effect of “Where am I? I think I was transferred but I’m not sure why … do you do something with the cigarette tax?” he says “I can help you” and for the third time now I state my case but this time emphasizing that I would like to speak to someone about the matter. The reasonable man gives me honest answers “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I explain to the man that this is my third time calling and the first 2 women I spoke to told me my comment would be passed on. He responds with silence. “So what you’re telling me is those 2 phone calls were a complete waste of time” he responds in an empathetic tone, “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I’m taking the hint so I too am now speaking in an empathetic but confused manor “Do you have a pen? Or a computer? Why not just write what I’m saying down?” he tells me “honestly … it’s what the Governor wants. He’s the chief and we’re just the little Indians”.

So here it is Eddy … all written down … it took about 7 hours to get all my facts straight and type this up for you … and now that I’m this invested I’m not letting it go. I didn’t get paid for this time and as I stated to your office earlier “I have other s**t to do” so hopefully your office will correct this common sense mistake and not make any more so I don’t have to put my life on hold to spell them out for you because you refuse to empower your staff with a God damn pen. Maybe you could gouge the smokers of Pennsylvania a bit more to donate some of its $613,000,000.00 in annual tax revenue to buy them computers?