Sarahfeena – just out of curiosity, do you think that a ban on using cell phones while driving is a good law or a bad law?
On the cellphone thing, it says she was “reaching for it,” not that she was “speaking on it.” The law she sponsored allows the use of headsets and hands free cell phones when driving. I’ve never actually used either, so I’m not sure exactly how they work. Don’t you still need to manipulate the cell phone in someway to use them? You don’t hold it up to your ear, but you still have to press a button on it or something, right? It seems that it’s possible that what she was doing with that cell phone in no way violated the law she helped pass.
Is that anything like cauliflower ear?
I’m generally against these kinds of laws.
Why? Cellphone use while driving puts other drivers at risk, just like driving drunk. I understand not wanting to legislate morality, but this is a matter of public safety, not individual choice.
As far as the hypocrisy goes, I don’t see the big deal. If someone says “stealing is wrong,” and then is caught stealing, it doesn’t make stealing right. Migden’s actions make her look foolish, but they don’t invalidate distracted driving laws.
I’m not familiar enough with the relevant statistics to say if cellphone usage is really a risk to other drivers (any more so than, say, having a radio or eating in the car is). If it is, then I would be more inclined to agree with the law.
No, they do not invalidate distracted driving laws. When I answered Ravenman’s question as to what my opinion is of these laws, I thought about asking how it was relevant to the subject, and now I see I should have. Whether or not someone agrees with the law makes no difference in her level of hypocracy. My opinion of her has nothing to do with the fact that she advocated the law…it is that she advocated it, and then committed the very act she thinks should be outlawed. If the act is wrong, it is wrong…for EVERYONE.
My wife has one, and you do have to press a button on the headset itself to answer, but don’t need to touch the phone itself.
I’m not sure how much of an improvement the headsets are, really, since I recall reading that the distraction comes much more from the conversation itself than from having to hold the phone up to the ear— and judging from the number of lane-drifting idiots I’ve swerved to avoid who are jabbering gaily into their headsets (punctuating their points with passionate hand gestures), it sounds credible enough to me.
The other question, of course, is does your wife routinely wear the headset while she’s not using the phone? Or more to the point, does Carol Migden, and does reaching for the headset as opposed to the phone negate accusations of hypocrisy? (Assuming, of course, that she was reaching for a headset and not the cell phone itself.)
There may be more to this story than meets the eye. Migden has now revealed that she has leukemia which was diagnosed in 1997 and for which she is being treated with chemotherapy pills. She says she doesn’t remember anything about the multiple accidents in which she was involved, and that perhaps the medication was a factor. Just another excuse? Possibly, but it seems more likely to me that something did go haywire with her health – her behavior seemed extremely erratic and the breathalyzer was negative. There’s a whole other level of hypocrisy and deceit in keeping your medical condition secret from the voters for 10 years (she’s my state senator), but the fact that she has now decided to come forward indicates to me that she probably does believe that her behavior was related to her illness/medication.
I asked because you seemed rather motivated to criticize this woman, beyond the level of interest one might expect for an average person’s criticism of run-of-the-mill hypocracy. Just seemed to me there was another ax to grind.
And for the record, if for example a legislator votes to toughen drunk driving laws, and then gets busted for violating them, I personally don’t particularly care to make character judgments based upon his supporting laws that he violated. In such a case, I’d think he voted the right way on a proposed law, and should be punished as the law directs, and leave it at that. As has often been said, even hypocrites can be right.
Nah, not really. I don’t know this woman from Adam, and while I generally am against these kinds of laws, I’m not passionate about it. As I said, if given solid statistics, I could be persuaded to change my mind about a given law.
Truthfully, I just despise hypocracy in politicians. Don’t care what side of the political spectrum they are from. It’s sort of a pet peeve of mine. So if I’m motvated to criticize, that would be the reason.
Sure. Again, I am not making a judgement on the law itself, or making a character assessment based on supporting that law. Not at all. I merely believe that those who support it should act accordingly.
Can’t speak for Carol, but my wife does indeed hang the thing from her ear the whole time she’s driving. It’s a little disconcerting, but I just pretend she’s bionic, or an android “pleasure unit.”
IIRC, Janklow had a dozen or so speeding tickets before he killed the motorcyclist. That was a big part of the uproar.
Does Migden have a history of poor driving?
Obviously she has a problem, and can’t control it. Of course it is the responsibility of the government to protect morons from themselves. Standard California Democrat response.
The latest news story.
If that’s the case, we could take cell phones out of the equation entirely. How is it any different from carrying on a conversation with another person in the car?
The other person in the car with you often shuts up when you are about to crash into something.
Not in my experience. They usually scream “Look out, you idiot! Look OUT!..Aieeeeee!!..”
Which I find disconcerting, as I am an excellent driver.
How is it hypocritical or deceitful for her not to disclose her medical condition? Even if you are one of her constituents, how is it your business?
Or when you land a solid punch across his or her jaw. But I guess that goes back to the “use of hands” thing again.