Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).
thinking they are using their car phones responsibly because the
definition of “negligent driving” is vague.
As of December 2000, twenty countries were restricting
use of cell phones in moving vehicles (Sundeen 8). In the United
States, it is highly unlikely that legislation could be passed on
the national level, since traffic safety is considered a state and
local issue. To date, only a few counties and towns have passed
traffic laws restricting cell phone use. For example, in Suffolk
County, New York, it is illegal for drivers to use a handheld phone
for anything but an emergency call while on the road (Haughney
A8). The first town to restrict use of handheld phones was Brook-
lyn, Ohio (Layton C9). Brooklyn, the first community in the
country to pass a seat belt law, has once again shown its concern
for traffic safety.
Laws passed by counties and towns have had some effect,
but it makes more sense to legislate at the state level. Local laws
are not likely to have the impact of state laws, and keeping track
of a wide variety of local ordinances is confusing for drivers. Even
a spokesperson for Verizon Wireless has said that statewide bans
are preferable to a “crazy patchwork quilt of ordinances” (qtd. in
Haughney A8). Unfortunately, although a number of bills have
been introduced in state legislatures, as of early 2001 no state law
seriously restricting use of the phones had passed--largely because
of effective lobbying from the wireless industry.
Despite the claims of some lobbyists, tough laws regulating
phone use can make our roads safer. In Japan, for example, acci-
dents linked to cell phones fell by 75% just a month after the
country prohibited using a handheld phone while driving (Haugh-
Daly 5
Daly explains why
US laws need to
be passed on the
state level.
Transition helps
readers move from
one paragraph to
the next.
Daly cites an indi-
rect source: words
quoted in another
source.
Daly counters a
claim made by
some opponents.