Why Not? Everyone Else Does

Recently posted on Bruce-n-Ray's Biker Forum, the following article has once again prompted me to "anal-ize" people who still use cell phones while they drive, even when the law states you cannot use one without a headset (like that makes much of a difference - but hey, it's better than nothing, or is it?).

I've added my comments after the article.

This article was originally posted here.

Have you put down the cell phone? Neither have we

Chicago's ban on the use of handheld cell phones while driving hasn't deterred people from ditching the Bluetooth and going back to breaking the law. The problem? According to drivers, police aren't enforcing it enough

August 13, 2007
BY MONIFA THOMAS Staff Reporter

When the city banned the use of handheld cell phones while driving two years ago, Chicagoans rushed out to buy trendy Bluetooth phones and other hands-free devices.

I remember being one of them.

But some time between then and now, I lost the headset and never bothered to replace it.

There didn't seem to be a point, when almost every other driver on the road had gone back to gabbing on the phone without making the slightest attempt to hide it.

Aren't Chicago Police supposed to be handing out $50 tickets?

Apparently, they have been, but not too often.

Chicago Police say they've issued about 8,500 citations this year to drivers caught violating the cell phone ban. Last year, police wrote 13,400 tickets, or roughly 37 a day for phone violations.

By comparison, 2.8 million parking tickets were issued in 2006.

Chicago Police Sgt. Thomas West, of the traffic enforcement division, said, "We write our share of cell phone tickets."

But West Side resident Ernestine Funches disagrees.

"I've seen police who see you on the phone and don't do anything," she said. "People don't have any respect for [the ban] because police don't enforce it."

"I think they should," Funches added, "because I know how distracted I get when I'm on the phone."

George Summer, of Edgewater, would also like to see stricter enforcement of the ban but says police have bigger priorities.

"If they had nothing better to do, they could search for that. But I'd be disappointed if that was their single focus," Summer said.

An independent study on the effectiveness of New York's cell phone ban found that people changed their habits for a few months after the ordinance was passed in 2001 but then were back to their old ways three years later. Researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said people weren't obeying the law because it wasn't well-publicized.

Here in Chicago, people seem to be perfectly aware of the rule against cell phones. They just don't think it applies to them.

"I don't have a problem concentrating," said Don Ambrose, who admits to flouting the ban on a near-daily basis. "And even with a headset, you're still having a conversation. It would still be a distraction."

Asked whether he thought the ban had made a difference, West said: "Drive around the city, take a look around and tell me what you think."


The first word that comes to mind here is "denial". That wonderful state of mind people conveniently use when something doesn't suit them. I do it all the time, like every time I buy a box of hair color to cover my gray (c'mon I'm 51 for pete's sake), or whenever I eat that chocolate I'm not supposed to, and do anyway, cuz it's only one.

However, breaking the law because you are in denial, is criminal. Like ignoring cell phone bans when it's someone's life you may be taking because of it.

"Sure, it's a distraction, but everyone else is doing it, so I will too."

"Sure it's a distraction, but I can handle it."

or, pure denial at it's best, as "Doc", President of ABATE of Florida implies, "I can handle it fine, I use a headset".

denial (noun)

a refusal to allow people to have something that they want or that they believe they have a right to

This definitive phrase goes both ways:

Cell phone users believe no one has the right to take away something they want [selfishness] or believe they have a right to [holier-than-thou attitude].

I, as a motorcyclist, believe I have a right to ride safely [share the road with non-distracted drivers] without being flattened by a distracted cell phone user [the right to live].

Is my right to life more important than someone else's right to gab on the phone? Apparently not.

psychology a state of mind marked by a refusal or an inability to recognize and deal with a serious personal problem

This phrase applies to those who will not even admit that cell phone use is a distraction (Yo, Doc, catch my drift?). I am far more afraid of this type of person than the one who knows it's a distraction, but does it anyway.

In the article above, the author states early on, "But some time between then and now, I lost the headset and never bothered to replace it. There didn't seem to be a point, when almost every other driver on the road had gone back to gabbing on the phone without making the slightest attempt to hide it."

Apparently she thinks it's OK, because "everyone else is doing it". My mother used to smack me when I would tell her I wanted to do something because "everyone else was doing it". She'd tell me, "You're not everyone else! And you're going to do the right thing." The difference is, I was 12 years old, and this author has to be at least an adult of some indeterminate age.

Ernestine Funches disagrees that Chicago police hand out enough cell phone user tickets. She says, "I've seen police who see you on the phone and don't do anything," she said. "People don't have any respect for [the ban] because police don't enforce it."

Wrong, Ernestine. People don't respect those of us who might be maimed or killed because they're using a cell phone while driving. They don't respect you either.

Chicagoans obviously feel that police don't have enough to do, or too much time on their hands. How would Ernestine feel if police were giving out cell phone tickets and her relative was killed because police were otherwise occupied? Here's a thought, how about complying with the law so the police don't have to be looking for YOU gabbing on a cell phone while driving, and can get down to the business of protecting and serving?

This is another another law that people blatantly ignore because, if they are caught, it's just a $50 fine, paid and done. (Just be sneakier next time when you use your cell phone.) Kind of like the failure to yield the ROW [while gabbing on a cell phone] and using the canned answer, "I didn't see him [because you were gabbing on the cell phone]", minor traffic violation, court fine, done, you can go now, while the victim you killed leaves behind a grieving family [because you were gabbing on a cell phone!].

How many people would risk using a cell phone while driving if the fine was $500 or $1000? Not near as many. Hit them in the pocketbook and you'll see a difference, I'd bet. Says a lot about our society doesn't it? Pay big bucks, OK, I won't do it. I might kill someone, well "that won't happen", so I'll do it anyway. I think my life is worth a lot more than $50, or even $500 or $1000.

Ernestine goes on to say, "I think they should [give out more tickets], because I know how distracted I get when I'm on the phone."

Am I reading this right? I know I'm old (grandma age, just not a grandma yet), and my brain gets that CRS stuff sometimes, but did she just say people don't respect the law [cell phone ban] and then admit she uses hers and is distracted while using it? So, in effect, Ernestine is saying, "I use my cell phone while driving, it makes me distracted, and I don't respect the law [or the lives of others] enough to obey the ban".

Now this comparison on cell phone tickets versus parking tickets, I'm confused here. An illegally parked car doesn't move, can't be disguised as anything other than a car parked in an illegal parking zone. And don't most cities have meter maids? Then again, a parked car can't kill you, but a driver on a cell phone is likely to. Shouldn't cell phone tickets take precedence over parking tickets? Or is it just easier money to give out the parking tickets? What? Ya, I know, I'm asking for the moon. So sue me.

The article goes on to say, "Researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said people weren't obeying the law because it wasn't well-publicized."

Now that's a load of horse patooty. Give me a break here! Maybe 1% of drivers (and that's being kind) aren't aware of the cell phone ban. Maybe the ones passing through, or visiting, but 13,400, out of millions or billions using their cell phones while driving? C'mon folks, how many excuses do we have to have here? What are these guys researching, really? These guys probably belong to the "helmets save lives" club too. Oh wait, the "Insurance" Institute...? Now why does that make my skin crawl?

"Here in Chicago, people seem to be perfectly aware of the rule against cell phones. They just don't think it applies to them."

BINGO! That's the most intelligent and accurate sentence in the entire article.

Another citizen admits to the distraction, but apparently not for him. He's in full denial. (Sorry, this one's name is Don, not Doc.)

"I don't have a problem concentrating," said Don Ambrose, who admits to flouting the ban on a near-daily basis. "And even with a headset, you're still having a conversation. It would still be a distraction."

One thing I do get from this statement though, he is basically admitting that a cell phone IS a distraction with or without a headset. Wait, there may be a few more brain cells working in there than I thought.

I hope this person isn't a solid example of Chicago citizenry. He first says he doesn't have a problem concentrating. Is that when you take a leak, Don? Or maybe when you are trying to decide between a double latte or a mocha grande? What this really means is he feels slighted because he thinks he can use a phone either way, headset or not, without any impairment. Sorry Don, your brain is impaired even without the cell phone or headset.

Someone please explain to me how the Chicago Sun-Times editor in chief approved of this useless, amusing at best, article? But then, I guess this author was the best one to write this 5th grade article. After all, it's written about cell phone law avoidance, by a person who breaks the same law - because everyone else does. What fine upstanding citizens journalists are. I'm going to believe everything they say now.....NOT!

When will I see an intelligent and informative article about cell phone impairment, written by a journalist who understands the real repercussions of cell phone use while driving? Hopefully before I die at the hands (and wheels) of a cell phone impaired driver.

Now I'm gonna go out to eat, and steal me another ashtray. Why not? Everyone else does it.