Chicago just joined the list of jurisdictions that have enacted a ban on holding your cellphone while driving. Currently, three states – New York, New Jersey, and Washington D.C. have a ban on using a cellphone while driving, and there are a number of cities and counties that have their own ban.
Chicago’s ban prohibits the operator of a vehicle from using a handheld cellular telephone while driving. The fine would be $50, or $200 if involved in an accident. The ban does not prohibit a user from using their hands free device and there is one exception – if you’re dialing 911.
As an avid cellphone user, I take offense to such regulation. A few dumbasses ruin it for everyone. I don’t like using most hands-free devices as the cord gets in my way… and my cellphone isn’t Bluetooth capable, so I can’t use a cordless earpiece. But then again, I consider myself a relatively safe cellphone driver. I pay attention to the traffic first, and my conversation second. I’m ready to drop my phone in a second if it means I can avoid an accident. I only dial when the car isn’t moving (like at traffic lights). Unfortunately, I know many drivers are not like that.
Additionally, there are still elected officials pushing for “distracted driver” laws, which could also prohibit applying make-up, shaving, reading, and eating or consuming non-alcoholic beverages while driving. While I agree with the first three… there’s no reason you should be shaving, reading, or applying make-up while driving… but eating food and drinking soda is how I live on the road. It gives me something to do to break up the monotony of driving… NOT doing something makes me even more distracted, as I cease to pay attention to WHAT is on the road and just stare at the road itself. By occasionally making my mind think of something else (like: take a sip of water, or eat that mint) it wakes my mind out of that stupor.
The same day I saw this article in the USA Today, they ran a story on the front page regarding a health care company, Weyco based in Okemos, Michigan, that fires workers who admit to smoking and won’t hire people who do. They also have “smoke tests” like drug screens, and employees must submit to random searches of their briefcases/purses and desks. Another company, Investors Property Management in Seattle, won’t hire smokers, and existing smokers won’t get fired, but they also can’t get group health insurance.
Fortunately, not every state allows such abuse of workers. More than 20 states ban companies from using lifestyle decisions against the employee.
It doesn’t just stop at smoking, legal experts fear that this trend will continue into other lifestyle aspects, such as firing employees that are overweight, have high cholesterol, blogging, or participate in risky activities.
Outside of the workplace, it’s not really the employers business what an employee is up to, unless it is slanderous or libelous against the company, or if the employee is divulging secrets. As for the rest of it, your employer shouldn’t stick their nose where it doesn’t belong.
Hmmm, maybe I should be thankful my employer only micro-manages internal problems.
25/05/2005 at 9:27 am Permalink
Hey, I partly agree. I don’t want the government legislating my life, either. This is especially true with federal law over state law. We have some pretty stupid local laws that remind people they can’t leave their dogs outside all day. What the fark? They are DOGS!
Back on topic…this is where I disagree.
If a private company wants to exclude people in hiring, I don’t have a problem with it. I personally wouldn’t hire a smoker. Smokers are probably (slightly) more responsible for the rise in health care costs than personal injury lawyers.
Smokers indulge in a habit that they know will kill, or hurt, them. Then, they seek damages from the purveyor. Then, YOUR health insurance company pays for their treatment. Your rates rise because of this. Sounds fair, so some selfish person can have their puff of smoke, doesn’t it?
Discrimination isn’t always bad.
27/05/2005 at 4:14 pm Permalink
This is an interesting can of worms. Just how much is my employer entitled to know about me? Individual rights are starting to be subsidiary to corporate rights, and the profit margin of businesses.
Oh, and Michele sent me!
27/05/2005 at 4:55 pm Permalink
Instead of preventing smokers from getting jobs, why not charge them extra for health insurance? I think that this is only the beginning for a new form of discrimination.
29/05/2005 at 10:12 am Permalink
What else will they decide is for our own good? At least with cell phones there is possibly of a threat to other drivers, as accidents may increase with the distraction of talking on them while driving. I think seatblelt laws are worse. You’re not hurting anyone…driving at your own risk. The law started out that the cops were not allowed to pull over to check if you were wearing a belt or not, and now most places can pull you over at their whim and give you a whopping $ticket if your not wearing your seatbelt.
30/05/2005 at 11:19 am Permalink
Actually, seatbelts do save you money.
EMTs, firemen, police, etc… cost you money.
Litigation costs you money.
Those that end up in state care cost you money.
The handicapped survivors cost you money (public school resources, public building resources, etc)
Seatbelts just make sense. Maybe there shouldn’t be a law, I agree. BUT, some people are ignorant enough to think seatbelts decrease their chance of survival.