In the world of politics, phrases like “getting the camel’s nose under the tent” and “half a loaf is better than none” resonate with a fervor akin to religion. Last week’s bill on hands-free cell phone use, House Bill 222, is a good example of why these tired phrases are revived in Annapolis every legislative session.Efforts to ban the use of handheld cell phones while driving were started by Delegate John Arnick in 1999 House Bill 37. Those efforts were unsuccessful until 2010’s Senate Bill 321 “The Delegate John Arnick Electronic Communication Safety Act of 2010.” In the 11 years between the introduction and passage of the bill, Delegate Arnick left office, took another position, and, in 2006, passed away.
The 2010 success was by the thinnest of margins. Final Senate approval was by a vote of 24-23.
To get it passed, supporters accepted “half a loaf” by making the use of a hand-held cell phone a “secondary violation.” This meant the police could not enforce the law unless first they caught you committing another violation, like speeding. However, now, the “camel’s nose was in the tent.”
Fast forward only four months from the time the ban took effect. 2011’s HB 222 proposes to remove the “secondary violation” language that was a key to the bill’s 2010 passage. Strong arguments support this change. For example, while eight states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of hand-held cell phones by all drivers while operating a motor vehicle, only Maryland makes it a secondary violation. A September 2010 study by the University of North Texas Health Science Center estimated that talking on or texting from cell phones while driving killed 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007.
While good reasons may support the change, it is only possible in 2011 because the acceptance of “half a loaf” in 2010 allowed “the camel’s nose in the tent.” Eleven years to pass half a bill, but only four months to get the rest? That’s why those sayings are revived each year.
No comments:
Post a Comment