Cell phone ban proves Orwellian

The secret is out: Driving can be dangerous.

I remember hearing in driver's ed that two in five drivers will eventually be involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. I never knew where my instructor got that statistic, and I haven't been able to find the same statistic since, but it probably doesn't matter much since his point was well taken: There is substantial risk involved in driving.

The objective, of course, is to reduce this risk, and this is what driver's education is all about. Wear a seatbelt, drive a vehicle with airbags (or, if you're too short, don't), keep a safe following distance, stay attentive, never drive while tired or angry or drunk [HTML_REMOVED] the list goes on.

Depending on how recently you took driver's ed, there might have even been something mentioned about cell phone use, probably along the lines of "Don't use a cell phone while you're driving."

Even so, counsel from driver's ed instructors notwithstanding, many drivers use cell phones while on the road anyway. Ours is a generation of multitaskers, and many of us view cell phone use on the road pretty casually [HTML_REMOVED] perhaps commensurate with listening to music or conversing with passengers in the vehicle.

Unfortunately, several Washington state legislators aren't buying this reasoning, and a new push has been made to pass legislation banning the use of cell phones (or at least handsets) from use on the roads. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that there are three proposed House bills addressing cell phone use by drivers.

And although the only bill likely to have a chance at passing this legislative session is one banning the use of cell phones by teen drivers (following a study which demonstrated that teens are four times more likely than adults to be distracted by cell phones on the road), the point that the issue of driver cell phone use gains increasing interest with each passing year is a significant one.

Statistics indicate that less than 1 percent of all motor vehicle accidents are attributable to cell phone use.

At less than 1 percent reported, and even if the actual statistic were higher, I have a tough time endorsing any legislation to ban cell phones on the road.

It's not that I don't think cell phones can compound the unavoidable other distractions that drivers encounter. It's not that I don't think most calls could be made at other times. It's not even that I don't want to lose the freedom to talk on my cell phone while I'm driving (I don't have a cell phone).

Rather, it's that I don't think legislation is the appropriate solution to a problem like this. A cell phone ban would be a large step toward governmental regulation run amok.

Why just cell phones and driving?

Why not food and driving? Why not coffee, or pets in the vehicle, or electric shavers, or makeup, or music or passengers?

What about driving while tired? "Falling asleep at the wheel" accounts for many more accidents annually than cell phones. Could maximum drowsiness level be legislated like maximum blood-alcohol content has been legislated?

Of course these suggestions are ridiculous.

So is the one about cell phones.

It is the responsibility of drivers to ensure that they manage distractions on the road safely. Governmental regulation in this case will do nothing but give state patrol officers another opportunity to hand out frivolous tickets.

There is no data to set cell phones apart from other driver distractions. Public acceptance of the proposed legislation now or in the future would signal a breakdown in the way we are doing democracy. When elected officials attempt to pass laws under the guise of public safety that are more controlling than protective, there is a real problem.

I've always thought that the alarmist interpretations of Orwell went over the top, but situations like this make me hope I always will.

Reach columnist Andrew Brown at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.