The Shotgun Blog
« Seeds of Liberty: The Marc Emery Story (Peter Jaworski) | Main | Hello Mullah, Hello Faddah »
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Saskatchewan bans hand-held cell phone use while driving; are car radios next?
According to Wikipedia:
In 1930, the Galvin Corporation introduced one of the first commercial car radios, the Motorola model 5T71, which sold for between $110 and $130 (2009: $1,700) and could be installed in most popular automobiles.
Thanks to the bold vision of Paul Galvin and his brother Joseph Galvin, drivers were spared the monotony of the road, and having to talk to their spouses.
But I can’t help wonder how the development of the car radio would be met by today’s nanny statists. Tuning a radio takes your eyes of the road; your favourite song might have you thinking of margaritas and sunsets instead of the four-way stop ahead; and, the wail of emergency vehicles is often scarcely heard over the din of rock ‘n roll ballads.
Car radios, in short, are distracting, and distractions kill, at least that’s what June Draude is telling us.
Legislation banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving passed through third and final reading of the Saskatchewan legislature today and will become law Jan. 1, 2010. "Distracted driving is a serious road safety issue," insists Draude, the minister responsible for Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). "With the passing of this law we are fulfilling our commitment to make provincial roadways safer."
The new law prohibits all drivers from using hand-held cell phones to talk, text, email or surf the Internet while driving.
Experienced drivers will be allowed to use hands-free devices while driving. New drivers, meaning drivers in Saskatchewan's Graduated Driver's Licensing program, will not be able to use cell phones of any type while operating a motor vehicle.
The penalty for an offence associated with this law will be $280, which includes a victims' surcharge of $60, and four demerit points under the Safe Driver Recognition and Driver Improvement programs.
Since there are already penalties for careless and reckless driving in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, drivers who have not mastered the art of driving and talking (or driving and listening to music) can be fined under existing laws, provided there is actually evidence of careless or reckless driving.
This legislation falls on the heals of another needless and intrusive legislative initiative in Saskatchewan – an anti-scalping law – and makes me wonder if hope for a limited government agenda under Premier Brad Wall was misplaced.
As for the new law, on New Year’s day, when the legislation takes effect, make a call from your hand-held cell phone, from the comfort of your car, to (306) 787-9433, and tell Premier Brad Wall that adults can be trusted with cell phones. It won’t do much good, but at least you will have started the New Year defying increasingly intrusive government.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 25, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Matthew,
"Since there are already penalties for careless and reckless driving in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, drivers who have not mastered the art of driving and talking (or driving and listening to music) can be fined under existing laws, provided there is actually evidence of careless or reckless driving."
I take it, then, that you do not think that drunk driving should be an offense either. After all, no matter how bombed you are, there is no problem so long as you are not actually driving recklessly. But if you do drive recklessly, there are already laws to deal with that. So all laws about alcohol and driving should be eliminated as well. Or so goes your logic.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-11-25 4:58:14 PM
Correct.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-25 5:00:57 PM
Addendum:
"As for the new law, on New Year’s day, when the legislation takes effect, make a call from your hand-held cell phone, from the comfort of your car, to (306) 787-9433, and tell Premier Brad Wall that adults can be trusted will hand-held cell phones."
Hell, do it at 2am New Year's morning with a dozen drinks in you and tell him you're drunk, too. That would really be defying government intrusion.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-11-25 5:01:01 PM
I like the way you think, Fact Check.
Of course, make sure you aren't actually impaired when you make that call, otherwise you might break existing laws against careless or dangerous driving.
Some people just can't get enough laws it would seem.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-25 5:21:16 PM
FC like all progressives holds the item responsible instead of the person. Ban guns instead of holding people using them responsible. The same applies with using hand-held mobile phones.
Yes, it even applies to 'drinking' and driving, especially since different people have different levels of tolerance before being affected.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-11-25 5:26:57 PM
The external effects on others of talking on cell phone while driving are pretty severe and similar to driving drunk.
As a driver or pedestrian, I think it is reasonable others on the road are prohibited from driving drunk, talking on a cell phones, since those actions are so dangerous as to violate my right to life and liberty.
Posted by: Doug Ransom | 2009-11-25 6:13:25 PM
Pro-price fixing, pro-burning cats and posting the vids on Youtube, pro-scalping, pro-selling drugs to children, and now pro-vehicular manslaughter.
That's quite an electoral platform you and your pals have there Matthew!
Posted by: Matthew Is Pro-Evil | 2009-11-25 6:25:43 PM
Unless we ban driving we will never remove all risks associated with it. I propose mandatory daggers mounted on steering columns. No need for cell phone laws, speeding laws, snow tire laws, red light laws...
Snow tire laws will not make a bit of difference on the roads of PQ, nor will the cell phone laws in SK.
Posted by: TM | 2009-11-25 7:44:08 PM
MIPE - I'm anti-price fixing, anti-animal cruelty, anti-selling drugs to kids and anti-vehicular manslaughter.
But it's not an electoral platform. It's an editorial position based on my best assessment of the issues according to libertarian principles.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-25 7:54:31 PM
Matthew this is what makes your libertarian ideals silly and reckless. You can not in a right mind compare talking on a cell phone to the same as listening to the radio. That is a one way communication not 2 way like a cell. Its stuff like this that makes many unable to take you seriously to be honest.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-11-25 9:41:47 PM
I think Matthew is right. Prescriptive rules only lead to more and more rules. Chaos ensues. Principles based regulation/legislation has far broader application and provides a balance between protection for society and individual liberty. After all, Moses had ten commandments not 10,000 rules.
Posted by: B | 2009-11-26 5:09:24 AM
"You can not in a right mind compare talking on a cell phone to the same as listening to the radio."
How about changing a CD? Can we compare it to that? You haven't addressed any of Matthew's points. How about starting with that?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-26 7:14:13 AM
Merle, the issue here is distraction, and I am more distracted by my radio -- I still don't know what all the buttons do -- then I am by my cell phone.
The point, as "B" mentions, is that we don't need to pile laws on top of each other.
Obviously we all want our roads to be safe, and we all want to be free from menacing drivers, which is why we have careless and dangerous driving prohibitions.
We don't need much more than this.
If two way communication is your concern, why not ban talking to passengers? It can get silly, can't it?
We must all resist the urge to over-govern, or to encourage others to over-govern on our behalf.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-26 10:45:01 AM
"The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." -Lao Tzu
Posted by: JC | 2009-11-26 3:54:22 PM
JC, great quote!
Posted by: TM | 2009-11-26 4:24:47 PM
Ah...the good old days when you had no cellphones, cd changers, satellite radios or GPS devices to distract you except perhaps the odd miniskirt or hot pants...
Posted by: Enno | 2009-11-27 7:26:51 AM
Our laws are filled with 'reasonable' rules - and it certainly is reasonable to decide that a person texting or dialing their phone is distracted to the point that they are not reasonably paying due care & attention to their driving.
Personally, I feel fine simply talking on the phone - I don't personally find that dangerous. But, there is no doubt in my mind that dialing, looking up a number in the contacts, texting or reading a text - that's all unreasonably dangerous and needs to be clearly against the law.
I totally agree that they could use existing 'care and attention' laws, but since they don't charge people under that law (or since it's difficult to convict under that law) then the need for a specific law is reasonable.
Posted by: Todd | 2010-04-13 11:06:21 PM
Thank you for contacting the Western Standard!
I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Matthew Johnston
Publisher
www.westernstandard.ca
Phone: 403-701-3045
Email: [email protected]
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2010-04-14 12:14:12 AM
Limited government doesn't mean lawlessness, Matthew. I don't know why libertarians insist on conflating the two. Are you arguing that drivers have a right to imperil their fellow motorists? I agree with M.I.P.E.--that's quite the electoral platform you have. Ever think that's why you guys never get elected?
If this law banned all cell phones, it would be going too far--you might as well ban chatty passengers at that point. But a handsfree law is a good compromise. I'd also like to point out that a handheld phone blocks peripheral vision on one side, makes you less likely to turn your head, and takes away one of your hands. Car radios, on the other hand, have had push-button instant tuning since 1936, and many can now be tuned with the steering wheel.
Why doesn't modern society trust adults to police themselves, Matthew? Because history has demonstrated they often do a poor job of it. And nobody is going to ignore all that history merely for the sake of your principles. Strange to relate, they value their own lives more; funny how that works, isn't it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-04-14 6:52:37 AM
How about changing a CD? Can we compare it to that?
Sure we can--and it's probably similar enough to this law that a separate one wasn't needed.
You're quite the spastic gadfly lately, Charles; I do hope nothing is wrong???
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-04-14 6:53:48 AM
Thank you for contacting the Western Standard!
I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Matthew Johnston
Publisher
www.westernstandard.ca
Phone: 403-701-3045
Email: [email protected]
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2010-04-14 6:53:57 AM
Snow tire laws will not make a bit of difference on the roads of PQ, nor will the cell phone laws in SK.
Based, no doubt, on the same kind of unimpeachable logic that, a few decades ago, predicted that seat-belt laws would not save a single life. We all know the end of that tale.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-04-14 6:55:06 AM
"The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu
Lao-Tzu (or more properly Laozi) was an anarchist who rejected society in its entirety and was called "the madman of Chu" and "the first of the irresponsible hermits." A modern equivalent would be BudOracle. Not the sort of source you should be quoting if you seek credibility.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-04-14 7:01:52 AM
But it's not an electoral platform. It's an editorial position based on my best assessment of the issues according to libertarian principles.
But us no "buts," Matthew. You'd like people to govern your affairs according to these principles, and you actively support political candidates who espouse them, the most notable being Marc Emery. To blink and stammer and suggest, out of the side of your mouth, that it is all simply a literary device, an "editorial position" when confronted with the inevitable real-world consequences of your neo-Jeffersonian fantasies, will convince no one. And I doubt Jefferson would approve of such obfuscatory bafflegab.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-04-14 7:07:11 AM
Sorry, that should be, "govern their affairs."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-04-14 7:08:07 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.