Richmond City Council unanimously passed a measure Monday, banning hand-held devices while driving that will take effect in six months. This action reveals that City leaders are ignoring the facts in an attempt to make citizens feel safer (even though they will not be).
Most of us have little patience for people not driving forward when the light turns green because they are on their phone. I’m guilty of yelling at them while walking by and use my horn when driving, probably too much. Hey, I’m a work in progress…and I’m working on it.
But this all-too-familiar scenario is by and large an annoyance, not a safety concern. People are distracted in their lives as never before. These habits extend into the cars they drive every day when they are eating, talking, keeping kids entertained, playing with the radio, or putting on makeup.
Studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Cambridge Mobile Telematics show Council’s actions are not rooted in fact and are merely window dressing to make citizens believe that banning handhelds will make them safer. IIHS found no difference in crash rates before and after such laws took effect in other states. They also found no difference in overall crash risk between hands free and handheld use of a cell phone.
Cambridge found “there is only a modest correlation between states that have strong penalties against all handheld phone use, and the average number of minutes spent distracted per 100 miles of driving.”
Translation: it is as equally dangerous to talk on a cell phone hands-free as it is holding it in your hand.
If nothing more than unsubstantiated facts support the hand-held ban, the ban is then, by definition, arbitrary. And these arbitrary laws can have damning effects. Hands-free laws place a burden on people and families who do not drive new vehicles equipped with hands-free. While a problem for many people, this disproportionately affects lower income families who cannot afford to spend money on these new technologies or buy newer cars.
More importantly, the arbitrary amount of the monetary fines imposed by Council walks a dangerous line with respect to income. Fines need to be sufficiently large to try and change driver’s behaviors, but small enough to not send a person to bankruptcy. In the City, first offense fines are $125; each subsequent offense will be $250. Gulp.
These high fines function as another regressive tax for many people who work several jobs trying to make ends meet but still hover at or below the poverty line. The fines help perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
This new law stands in direct opposition to the City’s recent focus on reducing Richmond’s eviction rates for lower income individuals. It is both frustrating and concerning that no one on Council or the Mayor’s office seems to understand that.
Politically speaking, it is apparently more advantageous to stand on the steps of City Hall and proclaim, ‘at least we tried to do something to help’. Council and the Mayor, however, should be in the facts and evidence business if they want to help improve the quality of citizens’ lives. To Richmond’s detriment, however, recent evidence suggests they currently reside in the ‘win popular opinion, win elections, and attempt to ascend the political ladder’ business.
houckOUT 