Personal choice to live overrides cellphone freedoms
Shame on House Republicans for weakening the proposed bill to make cellphone use by drivers of any age a primary offense [“Distracted driving: House of wimps,” Opinion, March 6]. Their rationale is, [according to] Rep. Mike Hewitt, “I don’t like the government being in all aspects of our business.” Rep. Dan Roach says, “The libertarian in me comes out with these types of issues. It’s not a Democratic or Republican issue. It’s a personal choice issue.”
So if I understand this careless, arrogant and tiresome rhetoric correctly, the “personal choice” of a driver to drive a multi-ton piece of metal while distracted — according to scientific research, it is a greater risk than driving while intoxicated — trumps my personal choice and that of my family, my neighbors and all Washington residents to live.
There is no piece of information so important and no call so critical that justifies texting or talking on a cellphone while driving — no matter how important you think you are. The free world won’t collapse if you’re unreachable while you get to your destination. Face it, your call and your text message can wait, but a bill to ban cellphone use and texting while driving as a primary offense for all ages can’t wait.
— Beth Shepard, Kent
A ‘common-sense’ law
Reading about the legislative maneuvers to all but kill a more sensible law for cellphone use while driving helped me appreciate why so many people are cynical about government.
Do the Republican opponents of this bill really think we can’t see through their absurd, illogical arguments? By this logic, we should get rid of drunk-driving laws — or for that matter make red lights optional.
I love freedom as much as anybody, but if you want to use the public roadways, there’s nothing tyrannical about some common-sense laws to protect public safety. And no one can honestly deny that driving is not impaired if you’re trying to hold a phone to your ear.
— Rick Kosterman, Seattle
More dangerous than drunken driving
I’d like to ask Reps. Mike Hewitt and Dan Roach, if they have a problem with laws that make it a crime to shoot at drivers from freeway overpasses? Do they object to making drunken driving illegal? The threat to innocent bystanders from drivers distracted by texting is greater than either of those.
It’s one thing to tout one’s “libertarian” instincts, but it’s quite another thing to thoughtlessly take it to the extreme of turning an ideologically “blind eye” to behavior that clearly endangers non- participants. If this pair can’t see something that obvious, one has to wonder what they’re doing as lawmakers.
— Sidney Schwab, Everett