The Jan. 11 editorial, “We need total ban on drivers using cellphones,” calling for a ban on the use of mobile communication devices while driving is good example of the kind of thinking that gives me pause whenever I read a newspaper “Our Opinion” piece.

The editorial readily stated that we have two laws on the books that are ignored by many drivers: one against distracted driving, and one against texting while driving.

And what does the editorial call for? Another law, a new law to be ignored along with the two existing laws.

The paper calls for a new law, and then says a recent fatal crash that prompted it to ask for this law wouldn’t have been prevented by the law.

The editorial didn’t say why it felt the law wouldn’t have prevented the crash, so one is left to assume those who wrote the editorial believe the new law would be ignored along with the two existing laws.

If they believe the law would have no effect, why ask for it? The request is a feel-good response to a real issue — not a solution — and that is what gives me pause.

Is it asking too much for the editorial staff to put some thought into the issue at hand whenever they write an editorial instead of offering the first knee-jerk response that comes to mind, as they so often do? I fear so.

Mike Holt


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.