To the editor:
Regarding "Phone ban loses favor" (Journal-World, June 6): Over the millennia, engaged citizens have debated a fundamental characteristic of civilized societies: the civilian's willingness to obey unenforceable laws. When John Ziegelmeyer Jr., Lawrence Traffic Safety Commission, cynically opines on "some real enforcement issues" about the cell phone ban, he insults the majority of intelligent Lawrencians who are willing to obey what he considers unenforceable.
I am quite willing to comply with any ban, partially because I was nearly hit this morning by a young woman who, with two children in the car, gripped her indispensable phone and attempted to turn right onto Sixth Street. Had she hit me, she may very well have injured four people, three of whom were innocent (I had the pedestrian's right of way).
Arguing with specious reasoning against the proposed ban, others have provided laundry lists of driving distractions which are not specifically proscribed by law (eating, fumbling with CDs, disciplining kids). There will always be spontaneous driving distractions about which we can do relatively nothing; banning the use of cell phones while driving is not one of them. A quick CD change is hard for a policeman to catch; a prolonged conversation is not. Phone records can be subpoenaed for prosecution.
Confirmation of a cell talker's dangerous distractibility appears on the front page of the LJW just below the phone ban article. The headline of the second article: "Driver on phone hits 8-year-old."
How many more have to be injured before we come to our civic senses and face our collective responsibility?