“The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we all believe that we are above-average drivers.”
– Dave Barry

As much as I see a cellphone ban as “government meddling,” I don’t know what the answer is. There are people who can drive and talk on a phone at the same time, no problemo… but there are plenty of people who can’t drive and chew gum at the same time! And they’re out there on the highways and byways, yappin’ on the phone and killing and maiming innocent bystanders. (I’m not aware of anybody, including cops, who can competently drive while looking elsewhere and fiddling with a keyboard. SCARY!!)

I agree with LJ but the current statute needs to include some wording to include cellphones and distracting communication devices.

Is it hyperbole, or hypocrisy when you say “We have yet to find a copper–or any other human who can look down and right while also looking straight ahead scanning the highway”

Have you never looked down and right when talking to your significant other while driving?

Have you never looked down and right to find your french fries after going thru the drive thru?

Have you never looked down and right when changing the channel on the radio? Or worse hunting for that eight track tape you dropped and fast forwarding it to you favorite song?

LJ is right, we have existing law that covers the problem.

LJ, the “inattentive driving” law is often cited as a reason why we don’t need specifics like texting or cell phone use… but inattentive driving is a judgment call by a law enforcement officer.

The problem is, everybody thinks of himself as a better-than-average driver (see Dave Barry observation above), and assumes he can handle the distractions fine. Since cops are “trained,” they are probably more likely than most to assume that distracted-driving law is for normal drivers, not for them.

Many drivers are frequently guilty of reckless driving: “without due caution and circumspection, and … in a manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property.” I see it all the time! A disproportionate percentage are using their electronic devices… I see that all the time, too.

I would TOTALLY support Paul’s proposal. Change the wording to something like this: “Reckless/Inattentive Driving includes, but is not limited to, using a cellphone or other electronic device, staring at your device screen instead of up the road, clicking little buttons on gizmos that require you to remove one or both hands from the steering wheel, sleeping, reading, screaming at the brats in the back seat, eating a double quarter-pounder with fries, drinking that Big Gulp, fiddling with your radio or CD player…” (Am I forgetting anything?)

An unfortunate reality is… there are some people who think anything that isn’t specifically regulated by rules is okay. They are the ones that cause rules to be imposed on the entire populace.

Police In General (PIG’s) have a radio and a computer to stay in touch with dispatch and each other…I understand there using those devices while driving but, why do they need to have their cell phones glued to their ears while at work? Most jobs dont allow this type of behaivor..(PIG’s)should not be allowed to do what they will cite others for. Am I a hater… yes and no.. do I hate(PIG’s)as people no what I hate is that for the most part they are not treated the same as every other citizen.

Reference Rick’s comment. You assume the police are using their personal cell phones for personal business. I’m sure that happens, but I also know police handle numerous calls (theft reports, vandalism reports, citizen questions, etc) over the phone…often while they are driving to the next call.

I spent the first 10 years of my law enfocement career not having an “MDT” (computer) in the car. When I finally worked at an agency that had acess to one I was stunned at the abilities it provided for gathering further information enroute to a call, coordinating responding units, veifying locations and directions, communicating with other officers as well as running plates and individuals without using up limited air time. I now work in a mountainous area without the needed coverage to have an MDT and it severally limits my capabilities to more easily and effectively do my job. Just as before I had one, it doesn’t keep me from doing my job, an MDT just allows an officer to do their job easier and to be more effective.

With that being said, officers are NOT exmpt from following too close or inattentive driving violations if their actions cause a collision and I know of several cases where officers have been charged. There has been no study conducted by NHTSA nor any other entity which shows an increase in collisions by officers using an MDT as opposed to those not using them. Until such data exists, obviously agencies have decided that the risk outways the reward as far as public and officer safety is concerned. There are more expensive alternatives on the horizon as technology gets smaller and user friendly (ie Heads Up Display, etc)and as they become more cost effective I would look for them to be used more often.

My undeucated self…
editor.. are you saying that if I state an opinion the chief will come looking for me? Im sure if he does you will be oh so happy…as I said I dont hate cops…just the double standard

EDITOR NOTE–
(MOST OF THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED. BOTH RICK AND SUMF HAVE BEEN TOLD TO PLAY NICE. THIS FORUM IS FOR DISCUSSION, NOT BICKERING.)

Get the cops a much smaller car and they will keep an eye out.

LJ although some of the officers are using the phone for official buisness it is safe to say the the majority of use is personal… and your “taking a report” comment is laughable.. am I to believe that they are on the phone taking a report while going to a call. how were they writing/typing this info…lol

Rick: You didn’t even manage 1 complete sentence without contradicting yourself. Here’s a tip-there is a reason this site gives you those three minutes after you click submit

Dave, I appreciate the attempt to maintain a respectable journalistic contribution, but your readers reflect your writing. If you find yourself with the same 10 “degenerate” single-minded fans (which is not helping your supposed cause), consider publishing articles a little more to the center to widen your base. You already know this so perhaps I’m just making a request for both our sakes; my desire being to have local print more accurate and less predictable than the Daily. It’s a thoroughly investigated and thought provoking headline that is supposed to fire the people up-most of your routine fanatics log on looking for a fight.

EDITOR NOTE–Murph, the only cause is truth and transparency in government. Our readership is way way up, but comments do indeed seem to come from a core group. Our records, however show 1/3 of all comments are new. The cop stuff is presenting a dilemma for us. They have 2 pr spinners who pump out DUI and kiddie porn stories about arrests, but there is NO ONE looking over the shoulder of the coppers–even those who get fired for bad stuff on duty, never to wear a badge again.

pmurphy, thanks for the grammar lesson. I will try to rise to your level. There was no complete sentence in my last post, nor was there a contradiction however, there was a typo that you failed to catch. Complete sentence to follow.
My point since you seem to have missed it in your zeal to bash was only this, I do not have either a parole or probation officer. Gramar checked by a english major prior to posting.

Brian, This is an executive order, meaning that it only applies to federal employees. However, with all of the recent interest generated I think that it will only be a matter of time before we see NHTSA and/or congress push this down to the states like they did the speed limit 55 and .08 BAC. That is, they will tie federal highway funding to a state falling in line with federal guidelines.