The National Nanny Council

Having evidently dealt with all of the more serious threats, the National Safety Council demands that the federal government “persuade” state governments – and private businesses, too – to ban talking on cell phones while driving. Declares the Council’s president, “When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It’s time to take the cell phone away.”

The rationale for such a ukase is that “your head is in the conversation and so your eyes are not on the road”. Sounds plausible to me, but these nannies haven’t thought the matter all the way through.

If cell phone chatter is distracting, well, so are car radios – perhaps not when tuned to soothing classical musical, but most drivers listen to news, sports, talk shows, etc., all of which have a high potential for engrossing attention and raising blood pressure. Isn’t it time to ban these devices too, or at least limit their reception to federally approved “mellow” stations?

Now that we’ve turned off the radio, what about the passengers? Someone nattering at your elbow must be as attention-hogging as a phone call. Square or cube the problem if the passengers include children, teenagers, backseat drivers and so on.

What safety requires, clearly, is a law compelling drivers to sit in sound-proof cocoons. Then they will be safely undistracted.

Also bored. A bored driver becomes inattentive and sleepy.

Okay. That will be the issue for next year’s nanny.

Comments

[Tom Veal]

And getting back to cell phones, I agree that driving one-handed is a terrible idea. The National Nanny Safety Council does not, however, want to crack down only on that practice. It also want to ban hands-free devices, which seem to me no more dangerous than listening to the radio or talking to passenger.

[Tom Veal]

They told me that if I voted for John McCain, Bush Derangement Syndrome would never abate.

I see that, in the case of Mr. Hodges at least, they were right.

[pbh]

"these nannies haven’t thought the matter all the way through."

Let us suppose that the new administration REFUSES to interfere with the judicial process.

Let us suppose that credible evidence of TORTURE is presented to the appropriate legal authority.

Let us suppose that the evidential trail is pursued without POLITICAL impediment.

Let us suppose that the President of the United States is presented with indisputable evidence that members of the previous administration KNOWINGLY BROKE THE LAW.

What should that President do?

Your thoughts?

[B. Stronghart]

Sorry to disagree with your re cell phone use while driving. I have seen people making turns while juggling their cell phones and not seeing what was in front of them very dangerous.