America, Land of the Hands-Free

I spend nearly 10 hours a week in the car traversing the expressways, turnpikes and single-lane shortcuts that get me from Washington, D.C., to New York City and home again. Over the past year, I've crossed increasing swaths of terrain where the law forbids me from holding a cell phone in my hand while driving.

It's a real pain -- literally -- to wear the headset all the time. It's a figurative pain to scrabble for the headset after I dump it on the passenger-side seat and it rings while I'm trying to mind my driving manners at 80 mph near the Joyce Kilmer rest stop.

You might think that makes me a driving menace, and you'd be right. Still, local and state governments prefer this to performing motoring activities with one hand instead of two. (Try having a handheld cell phone conversation while driving stick shift in a traffic jam). Chicago is the latest city to pass a law of this nature, and it's raising a fair amount of fuss.

Here's the gist, from the Chicago Sun-Times: "Beginning July 8, Chicago will become the nation's largest city to prohibit motorists from using cell phones without a hands-free device, which allows the driver to keep both hands on the wheel. Only three exceptions will be permitted: law enforcement officers and operators of emergency vehicles 'on duty and acting in their official capacities,' motorists calling 911 or other emergency numbers, and drivers using their cell phones while parked. Everybody else using a cell phone while driving will face a $50 fine. If the violation happens 'at the time of a traffic accident,' the fine will quadruple -- to $200."

The objections come from some of the city's aldermen who complain that their colleague and the measure's sponsor, Burton F. Natarus, pushed the ban through on stealth mode at a City Council meeting Wednesday.

Here are some excerpts from the Chicago Tribune: "Natarus, who has a flair for the dramatic, has taken to constantly wearing a wireless hands-free device in his left ear as he walks about City Hall and at public events around town. The Motorola wireless headset was firmly planted in the veteran alderman's ear throughout Wednesday's meeting. The vote came without any debate Wednesday after Natarus employed a parliamentary maneuver to pass the ordinance without explicitly mentioning what issue was being considered. Several foes of the ban cried foul, saying they did not realize what had happened until it was too late. The opponents 'were asleep at the switch,' said Ald. Edward Burke (14th), who backed the phone ban."

Mayor Richard Daley, quoted in the Tribune, said he supported the ban. So did plenty of people on the streets, including this man who noted that hands-free talking isn't always that safe either: "Mark Gruen, a Chicago businessman, purchased a wireless headset with a new phone he ordered. 'My gearshift always gets tangled up with the cord,' he said." Another driver tells it like it is: " Georgia Giannakopoulos, a pharmaceutical sales representative who spends about 3,000 minutes a month on her cell phone--often while driving--said she supports the ordinance as long as she can continue to use her ear piece. But even with that, she says she is often distracted while driving. 'It's not about the headpiece,' she said. 'It's about your mental focus, and your mental focus is not the same even with the headpiece.'"

If you wonder why there's such a furor over cell phones when you (like me) have seen drivers applying makeup, reading the paper, eating cold cereal or shaving, Aldermen Edward Burke and Patrick O'Connor introduced another bill that would ban "personal grooming," among other activities, while driving.

Tribune columnist Eric Zorn called the law moronic. "As I've noted before, nearly every scientific study shows that there is no safety difference at all between hand-held and hands-free devices for cell phones. None. Zero. This new law is analogous to a law that forbids the possession of open liquor in a moving car, but says drunk driving is just fine."

The Sun-Times quoted Alderman Brian Doherty as saying the law would hurt people from other parts of greater Chicagoland: "There's not signs that say 'Welcome to Chicago' on the side streets. When you cross invisible boundaries, you'll be in violation of the law. ... All you need is one rogue police officer to decide that he is going to write tickets that day, and you'll have [people] from Norridge, Harwood Heights, Park Ridge and unincorporated Norwood Park driving through St. Eugene's parking lot on the phone, and they'll be in violation of the law."

In Case of Emergency...

... Don't be so sure your cell phone will bail you out. The Wall Street Journal ran a good story today on how, despite the billions of dollars spent on homeland security, 911 services have not benefited. It leads off with a compelling but ultimately tragic illustration: "In November 1993, Jennifer Koon, under attack by a vicious assailant, dialed 911 from her cellphone. But the dispatcher in upstate New York could only listen helplessly for 20 minutes as the 18-year-old, unable to give her exact location, was beaten, driven to an alley and shot to death. The technology wasn't available to find her."

Here's more: "No federal agency has the authority to drive the local, state and federal governments, as well as dozens of wireless and local-phone companies, toward a solution. The cellular industry initially reacted slowly because of costs and liability concerns. Public-safety officials estimate it would take $8 billion and at least four more years to modernize the nation's 911 system for wireless calls. And that doesn't include the costs of updating the system to handle Internet phone services. Meanwhile, cash-strapped states have diverted funds earmarked for 911 to balance budgets and pay for unrelated items, including winter boots and dry cleaning for the New York State Police. While Congress passed a law last year to pay for some upgrades and stop the state raids on 911 money, President Bush, facing his own budget problems, has declined to fund that initiative."