While I could go on and say how wonderful the new initiative to ban texting while driving is, I’m not so sure I agree with it entirely. And, as far as I’m concerned, there really is nothing that warrants taking this drastic measure. Now before all the anti-texters - yes, mom, that means you - out there get their panties in a bunch, allow me to give my reasoning and clarify my point.
First, let’s look at this initiative from a lawmaking standpoint. Banning texting while driving doesn’t mean that people are going to cease doing it while they are behind the wheel. If you don’t believe me, take Prohibition as an example. Just because it became illegal to manufacture, export, import or sell alcohol, people didn’t quit drinking altogether. All they had to do was become more sneaky if they wanted to wet their whistle. And once the smuggling and rum-running began, it wasn’t long before organized crime took over the distribution of alcohol. In the end, Prohibition turned out to be a giant failure.
OK, that may be an extreme example to use, but the same goes for texting. If Wisconsin legislators do decide to ban the act of sending and receiving text messages while driving, it doesn’t necessarily mean everyone who has a cell phone is going to stop texting the day it goes into effect. All it means is that people are going to try harder to avoid being caught texting while they are operating a motor vehicle ... making the roads even more unsafe. And while I don’t foresee the same methods of rebellion as in the 1920s and ‘30s, I do think the result will be the same: failure.
Now, if you look at the situation from an enforcement standpoint, it will become clear how unnecessary banning the act of texting while behind the wheel really is. First of all, police officers already have the authority to stop and cite individuals for inattentive driving. I’m pretty sure texting while driving would qualify as inattentive driving, so what’s the point of banning it? The fines would be the same if the initiative was approved. Also, just because texting would be made illegal while in the driver’s seat, it doesn’t mean that officers will be able to seek out and ticket everyone who does it. Drunk driving is illegal, but, lo and behold, people still do it ... and oftentimes get away with it.
From the texter’s point of view, this whole initiative is poppycock. In this day and age, multi-tasking is not only the norm, it’s expected. If people are allowed to have cell phones and a driver’s license, chances are they will be used simultaneously, however great the risk. After all, that’s likely how the car radio came about. People just got tired of trying to drive while playing the banjo. But, all jokes aside, I don’t think texting while driving is any more of a nuisance than trying to drive with other people in the vehicle with you. Talking with even one other person (let alone parents who have to deal with their children) while behind the wheel is a distraction. So what now? No more carpooling? No more family trips?
Clearly, those things won’t happen in today’s society, especially with the whole green mentality in place. But, to me, it just doesn’t seem necessary to put a ban on texting while driving. And if it does pass, I say we look into banning eating while driving as well. Sorry Burger King, Wendy’s, McDonald’s and all you other fast food joints, it’s a distraction; you’ll have to discontinue to-go orders. And about that drive-thru window ...
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A Huntin' I Won't Go
I don’t hunt. I never have and, most likely, never will. In fact, the closest I’ve come to deer hunting is hitting those swift buggers with my vehicle. If that’s the case, I’ve had a couple hunt me as well. But, in all honesty, I just don’t see the point of killing poor, defenseless creatures. Yes, I hear all of you out there simultaneously murmuring about controlling the herd and all that, but my mind is made up on that topic.
Regardless of how I feel about it personally, I’m not the kind of person who would chain myself to an animal to protest hunting or anything. If people want to hunt, so be it. After all, that’s how our ancestors survived. But what I don’t agree with is the Department of Natural Resources’ recent slew of cockamamie ideas to alter the hunting regulations.
Earn a buck? I say, if hunters are lucky enough to see one while out in the blistering cold, freezing their you-know-whats off, he or she shouldn’t have to earn it. It should be a given. I mean, it’s the least that could be allowed for those who still get a thrill out of the hunt. And now our friends at the DNR are suggesting the 9-day season be extended to 16 days?
In an effort to reduce the whitetail population, the DNR has proposed starting the gun-deer season one week earlier. And while the first four days would be restricted to antlerless deer, I don’t think starting the hunt an entire week before normal is a good idea. In my experience, the gun-deer season has always coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday. And that makes a great deal of sense. In addition to gathering with relatives, the hunters in the family have the opportunity to get in some early-morning bonding time.
And if the state does decide to extend the season, what about the kids? Typically, students get out of school for at least three days to celebrate Thanksgiving ... and to go hunting. When I was growing up, attending school the other two days after the gun-deer season began was pretty much optional; the teachers would usually just pop a movie in the VCR (no, that’s not a typo) because over half of the class was expected to be absent.
Surely the school system wouldn’t think too highly of young hunters who don’t attend classes the week before and the week of Thanksgiving. And I doubt parents would want their children to miss out on that quality education either. Sure, maintaining the herd is a superb and necessary idea, but I have a feeling that, if the state wants to continue having successful hunting seasons and encourage youngsters to get out and hunt, then maybe this isn’t the right approach. Giving hunters another full week out in the woods would, unquestionably, decrease the herd; but how long will it be before that herd is large enough to provide a healthy hunting season again?
My guess is hunters would like to maintain the current regulations or tweak them a little in order to have prosperous hunting in the future. At least that’s what I would want if I were to ever venture out into the woods in late November wearing blaze orange and wielding a shotgun.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Regardless of how I feel about it personally, I’m not the kind of person who would chain myself to an animal to protest hunting or anything. If people want to hunt, so be it. After all, that’s how our ancestors survived. But what I don’t agree with is the Department of Natural Resources’ recent slew of cockamamie ideas to alter the hunting regulations.
Earn a buck? I say, if hunters are lucky enough to see one while out in the blistering cold, freezing their you-know-whats off, he or she shouldn’t have to earn it. It should be a given. I mean, it’s the least that could be allowed for those who still get a thrill out of the hunt. And now our friends at the DNR are suggesting the 9-day season be extended to 16 days?
In an effort to reduce the whitetail population, the DNR has proposed starting the gun-deer season one week earlier. And while the first four days would be restricted to antlerless deer, I don’t think starting the hunt an entire week before normal is a good idea. In my experience, the gun-deer season has always coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday. And that makes a great deal of sense. In addition to gathering with relatives, the hunters in the family have the opportunity to get in some early-morning bonding time.
And if the state does decide to extend the season, what about the kids? Typically, students get out of school for at least three days to celebrate Thanksgiving ... and to go hunting. When I was growing up, attending school the other two days after the gun-deer season began was pretty much optional; the teachers would usually just pop a movie in the VCR (no, that’s not a typo) because over half of the class was expected to be absent.
Surely the school system wouldn’t think too highly of young hunters who don’t attend classes the week before and the week of Thanksgiving. And I doubt parents would want their children to miss out on that quality education either. Sure, maintaining the herd is a superb and necessary idea, but I have a feeling that, if the state wants to continue having successful hunting seasons and encourage youngsters to get out and hunt, then maybe this isn’t the right approach. Giving hunters another full week out in the woods would, unquestionably, decrease the herd; but how long will it be before that herd is large enough to provide a healthy hunting season again?
My guess is hunters would like to maintain the current regulations or tweak them a little in order to have prosperous hunting in the future. At least that’s what I would want if I were to ever venture out into the woods in late November wearing blaze orange and wielding a shotgun.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)