I am pleased, no, thrilled, that my county (Suffolk; NY) was the 2^nd in the nation to pass a law prohibiting speaking on a hand held phone while driving. I am even more excited by the fact that a similar bill has been passed by my home state, New York.

When my cell phone was a novelty, I naturally assumed I could accomplish two things at once by having business conversations while on the road. I very quickly realized that I could not adequately concentrate on my driving. And of course, if the phone was in one hand, and the other was on the wheel, I certainly could not free a hand to click on the turn signal.

Being of Italian heritage, my hands are an essential part of any conversation. I quickly learned my lessons. Today, my cell phone's voice mail informs callers that I will call them back when it is safe. I must admit that under ideal circumstances, I flip the phone open, shout "hold on" and find a safe place to pull over, with those precious seconds and sometimes minutes ticking away, except that very few watches or clocks really tick anymore!

The NY cellphone ban has prompted spin-off debates. An obvious and legitimate one is that dialing a cellphone while driving is even worse than talking on one; two hands are needed. There are, of course, counter arguments. Naysayers claim that there is not yet enough scientific evidence to support a cellphone ban.

This dictates that so many people must die before a situation is taken seriously. There is, however, the argument that other distractions are just as dangerous. This includes having a conversation with a passenger, drinking (Such as coffee or soft drinks. We won't let anyone defend alcohol & driving.) It also includes adjusting the radio, eating, loading the CD, or lighting a cigarette.

Many of us like things to be quantified. A speeding ticket, for example, increases its penalty as the mph of the infraction increases. Let us therefore quantify distractions, using the cellphone as the benchmark. The act of dialing a cellphone while driving is the most serious distraction that a driver can commit, discounting certain indiscretions of youth. Let us assign it a value (the maximum) of 100 points. Based on that, speaking on a cell phone while driving should rate about 90 points. I am tempted to make speaking 100 points, and a special trip to the slammer for dialing, but I fear that might be an unreasonable expectation.

What about those less severe, and formerly taken for granted activities? Conversation, drinking, eating or selecting music?

My wife would insist that her presence makes me a better driver. How else would I know where to turn, or that a truck was tailgating me? And of course, I do not need to turn my attention from the road to read street signs. As long as the conversation remains one way only, this may earn me a 0 (A perfect score!) However, if young children are in the car, I don’t think the cellphone court would accept this scenario. I would probably be fined about 20 points per child, unless of course they were sleeping.

I wonder if my 24 year old son would be agreeable to compensating me, had I been fined for him constantly escaping his infant seat 22 years ago. If my quantifiable anti-distraction law existed then, he would have gotten me in plenty of trouble. It seems reasonable that he should be held responsible eventually, doesn’t it?

Drinking coffee. Black coffee is hotter than regular coffee, since it was not cooled by the cold milk. A spill or splash of black coffee would be far more distracting (and painful) than one of regular coffee. I say 25 points for black coffee, and 15 for regular. Deduct further points based on the ergonomics of your vehicle's cupholders. "Sport suspension" that causes your vehicle to take bumps more severely would add points. Be sure to have your vehicle build sheet when you go to court, so your auto will be accurately represented.

Eating. Anyone foolish enough to attempt to eat something that requires silverware while driving probably is a cellphone culprit as well. That rates 100 points, even if it is something as healthy as non-fat yogurt. A sandwich is only marginally dangerous. This does not include roast beef, dripping with mayonnaise. Dripping mayonnaise constitutes a serious infraction, unless you are oblivious to the dripping. This would require proof, such as previously stained clothing. I would say about 20 points for a sandwich, but about 40 points for a drippy sandwich while wearing clean clothing. I know of no one who takes a sandwich "to go" without taking a beverage as well. They might argue that they do only one activity at a time; eating or drinking, never both. Fortunately, that is why we have judges. With the wisdom of Solomon, he or she could decide this and might decide on either concurrent or cumulative sentencing of points.

Hot dogs & hamburgers. Now, here is a rather fine point. At a barbecue or refreshment stand, these items have approximately equal reputations. However, in the quantifiable anti distraction court, they are very different.

Consider the hamburger; flat and conventional in design. Its roundness is of no consequence. It is easily held in one hand, roughly parallel to the ground. Assuming no excessive amount of condiments have been used, it is no worse than a baloney sandwich. Now think of the hot dog. Its cylindrical surface is smooth; condiments do not adhere to it. They slide right off. If the seam on the bottom of the bun is broken (quality control is not what it could be; don’t be surprised if hot dog bun manufacture loses market share to the eager to please Asian manufacturers) the condiments slide right through. Furthermore, unlike the hamburger with its relatively straightforward adornments (slice of onion and spot of thick catsup) hot dog condiments are accidents waiting to happen. Sauerkraut, onions, and even mustard will escape even the most perfect hot dog bun. The shape of the hot dog further requires a different hand motion when eating. The hand must be held cupped, with the forearm nearly perpendicular to the ground. Unlike the hamburger eater, the hot dog connoisseur cannot easily use that hand, or even elbow, to flip the turn signal or to steady the wheel. Clearly hot dogs are in the upper echelons of non-legged distractions (children being two legged, and pets usually four legged.)

Considering that a cellphone is 90-100 points and a drippy sandwich is 40, I would have to rate a hot dog about 60. How could it be less?

Entertainment: Hmmm. Singing while driving is very common,. I am not aware of any hygiene problems or exceptional amount of shower accidents attributed to singing in the shower. This is an activity that has been going on for some time. There must be a grant available somewhere to look into this. I would say that singing while driving should garner very few points; 5 or so.

The act of selecting the music to sing along to, now that is another matter. Rummaging through a box of tapes or CDs is quite distracting. Perhaps we could have power locking cases that automatically deny access while the car is moving.

Music volume control is another issue. Cars of years ago had large dials that could be turned without taking ones eyes off the road. Modern radios offer so many choices that the dials have been replaced by controls that require concentration, excellent vision, and pinpoint accuracy to adjust. Unless a driver could prove that he did not touch the radio after entering traffic (A video recorder mounted in each vehicle would be his best defense), I think he would have to be assessed about 55 points or so.

Guns? Well guns don’t really enter into this. I assume that even in the crazy world I have described, a gun would be a more serious offense than a cell phone. However, the average person, if issued a gun, would find it very difficult to fire accurately. If they wanted to kill or injure someone, they would probably not be successful. Put that same person behind the wheel of a car. Put them on the highway doing 60 mph. Cut off their concentration, just as a car load of children with a similarly inattentive driver cuts in front of them, or possibly runs a traffic light. Suddenly, the automobile is a far more dangerous weapon than the gun.

Let the voice mail take the call folks.

Jim Intravia

Back to Article Index