Help! I Need This Man to Protect Me! !! !!!! !

So in the spirit of civic involvement, I wrote to my State Representative about this mobile phone usage while driving bill. For some reason this little piece of legislation has gotten me all worked up. I don’t know why, maybe I have just had enough with the unnecessary laws (and unnecessary exclamation points) and random fines and fees and expenses that are foisted upon us for no damn good reason. The bill’s author--Representative Mike Jaros (DFL-Duluth) was quick to reply, so quick in fact that it is clear he didn’t read my letter. If anyone in Duluth is reading this, please… do something about this guy.

In the interest of open and transparent government/citizen interaction, I thought I’d share with you the detailed, measured and intelligent response I received. From the man who brought us the child safety harness for shopping cart legislation, I present the honorable Representative Mike Jaros (DFL):

>>> >>> >>> FROM: "Scott" 2/22/2008 4:58 PM >>>

Representative Paymar,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the pending legislation authored by Representative Mike Jaros that would ban handheld mobile phone usage while driving. The legislation is ill-conceived and unnecessary. As I understand it, it is already illegal to drive recklessly regardless of the cause. Representative Jaros argues that phone usage causes as many auto accidents as drunk driving. I think he may be right, but that sounds more like an argument for changing our draconian DUI laws that it does a justification for criminalizing yet another basic activity. This legislation will have the effect of forcing already struggling families to purchase equipment for their cars or phones they do not need, or pay hefty fines. It is not the guy the driving the new Lexus that this law will hurt, rather poorer people who can least afford this. His statement that going hands-free, with a dashboard device or headset, shouldn't be a difficult transition for drivers--"They're not expensive, much cheaper than the cell phone. You only pay it once, not every month."-- is laughable to someone driving around in 1988 Buick. I just don't think he has thought through the unforeseen consequences of this seemingly harmless legislation.

That aside, what about the other devices or distractions equally or more disruptive? Have you ever tried to use an iPod while driving? It's infinitely more distracting than a cell phone. Do we need a law that makes it illegal to remove a pull-over sweater while driving? He seems to think that if you don't have both hands on the wheel at all times you're a menace to the public. Obviously he drives an automatic and thinks everyone else does as well. The slippery slope is self-evident here. It may not be his intention to create a precedent that leads to more unnecessary laws, but as I am sure you can attest, someone else will use this law as an excuse to ban something else that will serve only to line the pockets of the state coffers or some specific lobbying interest with the hard earned money of those who can least afford it.

If he insists on pursuing this ridiculous legislation, I would encourage you to speak to the merits of the bill and suggest that if phone usage is as an egregious danger to our society as drunk driving it should carry the same punishments. I propose mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders. I mean after all, doesn't our safety outweigh everything else? Creating this culture of fear and sacrificing personal freedom and liberties in pursuit of our "security" or "safety" is right out of George W. Bush's playbook. I would expect a DFL legislator of Representative Jaros' tenure to understand the inherent flaw with this reasoning and I sincerely hope you do as well.

Thank you.

Regards,

Scott

cc: Representative Mike Jaros


>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>
-----Message-----
From: Mike Jaros [mailto:rep.mike.jaros@house.mn]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Scott
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Legislation

Hi Scott,
My bill would not ban cellphone use while driving. You only have to have "hands free" device to talk!!! MJ


>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> FROM: "Scott" 2/25/2008 1:18 PM >>>

Representative Jaros,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand the scope of your bill. I think I made that clear in the text of my correspondence. I hope that you took the time to read the entire letter before responding.

Although I can appreciate your desire to rid the world of distracted drivers, this is not the way to do it. Might I suggest doing some research on the real causes of the problem? Using a hands-free device does not markedly reduce the level of impairment. It does however, provide a mechanism for the State to levy additional fines and force consumers to spend money on hands-free devices.

In other words, your bill would not serve to increase public safety; it would merely serve to increase the financial burden on already strapped citizens. I urge you to re-consider.

If, after performing the necessary research on the subject, you still feel this bill has merit above the costs to your constituents, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But if you should find that perhaps there are some unforeseen consequences of such an unnecessary bill, I would urge you to withdraw it from consideration.

Thank you.

Scott

>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>
-----Message-----From: Mike Jaros [mailto:rep.mike.jaros@house.mn] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:26 PMTo: ScottSubject: RE: Mobile Phone Legislation

Thanks for your letter. I did not think that seat belts would be affective and that people would not use them.
They have been very affective and have prevented injuries and deaths. I believe my bill would do the same. I read recently that there are just as many people killed with cell phone abuse as drunk driving!!Best wishes, MJ

>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>
-----Message-----
From: Scott
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:07 PM
To: 'Mike Jaros'Subject: RE: Mobile Phone Legislation

Representative Jaros,

First, let me thank you for your prompt replies. It is refreshing to see a legislator who responds so directly and promptly--particularly with someone outside your district.

That being said, I think you will agree that the jury is still out on the root cause of the distraction, as the research shows most studies seem to conclude that it is the act of the conversation that is distracting not the holding of the device. This is my point. Having a hands-free device does not mitigate the distraction of the conversation. Further, there are much more insidious distractions out there to focus on. Finally, it is clear that you don’t have a lot of experience with mobile technology. There is no "hands-free" set for many phones out there. Some use headphones (like the iPhone) which are already illegal to wear while driving. Many do not support blue tooth devices. Integration of my phone into my car would cost me over $1,500... and that's only because I have a new car. If I had an old beater, I would have no recourse but to not use my phone at all. In other words, if you're rich go ahead and dangerously chat away. If you're poor, it's going to cost you.

So if you're poor and cannot afford a new car or a phone that supports some particular technological solution you can’t use your phone. Which we both know won’t happen. What will happen is that the people who get pulled over for infractions most frequently (minorities and the poor who drive older model cars) are going to have to pay the hefty fine.

I understand that you had proposed a bill banning their use all-together last session. Although I would be hard-pressed to support that, it would at least be consistent with what you are trying to do. I fear that what you wanted to do was to protect people and reduce accidents. Once it became clear that your bill would not pass as originally written, you compromised the usefulness out of your bill.

Now it is just an inconvenient and costly irritant to the poorest among us. Like I said, the guy in the new Lexus already has a "hands free" set built into his car. It's the poor guy in the old beater who can barely pay his rent that is going to get hit with this.

I thank you again for your reply. I do not want to take up any more of valuable time. If you choose to reply or offer your thoughts they are welcome. Otherwise, I appreciate the time you have taken to listen to my concerns.

Respectfully,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jaros [mailto:rep.mike.jaros@house.mn]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:58 AM
To: Scott
Subject: RE: Mobile Phone Legislation

Hi Scott; thanks for the information again. I realize that talking on the phone is a problem, but we have to get something on the books to make people think before they do such distraction while driving. Hopefully we can ban talking entirely some day, but it si tough to pass even this bill. Text messaging is the worst!!! Best.. Mike
-------------------------

Well MJ, I am just about done with this dialogue!!! It's clear that you're not interested in the details or the facts!! I hope you are clean on this. I hope your 401K doesn't own Verizon stock or that you're not an investor in some company that makes hands free devices!!! But mostly, I hope that voters of Duluth will wise up and find someone who actually thinks through the repercussions of the legislation they pass.