Democracy for Vancouver

Image via Wikipedia

I was traveling south on Andresen Road last Thursday and in the lane next to me I could not help but notice a white pickup truck with a huge Senator Don Benton sign propped up in the truck bed. Looked over at the driver and noticed our very own Senator Don Benton himself chatting away on a NON-HANDSFREE cell phone while driving. He continued to carry on his conversation for at least the several miles he and I were side by side going down Andresen. He did not appear to be swerving or in any other way to be inattentive even though he was definitely under the influence of the cell phone.

Out of curiosity, I looked up how he voted on Senate Bill 5037 outlawing use of a cell phone while driving in Washington State effective July 1, 2008. He was the only Senator that was excused from voting on the bill.

So I guess our Senator Benton is excusing himself from this traffic law in more ways than one with regard to cell phone use while driving. But according to the letter of the law, unless you are committing some other infraction while driving, you are not in fact breaking the law by talking on your cell phone.  So Senator Benton was not actually breaking the law until he swerves, forgets to put on a blinker or rear ends someone.

This rather IMO thoughtless disregard for the presumed intent of the law on the part of Senator Benton caused me to think about the wisdom or lack thereof of passing laws that are only enforceable when something else bad happens. Would we ever even think of passing a law that it is legal to drink and drive so long as you do not swerve down the road or hit and kill someone? Of course not.

Isn’t it already illegal to swerve while driving down the road (careless driving) regardless of whether you are holding a cell phone to your ear?

If we need a law that makes driving while holding a cell phone to your ear illegal IF you happen to rear-end someone, then does it not logically follow that we also need a law making it illegal to hold a big mac to your mouth while you are driving.

And one for blowing your nose? And one for rubber-necking? And one for putting on lipstick? And one for combing your hair? And one for reading the newspaper? And one for changing your kid’s diaper? And one for yelling at your passenger? And one for singing along to the music on your radio? And one for…? You get the picture.

It seems to me that laws should be laws. If they are to be enforced they should be enforced without a condition precedent. How do you explain to young people that something is only illegal some of the time?  Why should we respect the law if it only applies some of the time?

Please someone explain to me why our legislature thinks this is a good use of THEIR time?

Link to the actual bill that passed the legislature (PDF).