Safe driving not a partisan issue

It's dark. I'm in a hurry. Only 15 minutes separate me from one end of the University of Alaska Anchorage campus, where I have just gotten out of class, and the opposite end, where my next one starts. Although it's an evening class and the traffic has somewhat dissipated, there is still a definite early-semester buzz in the air: confusion, anxiety, tension. Well, I probably shouldn't try to limit that to campus life.

Throwing my backpack into the passenger seat, I turn on the engine, and slowly begin to back out. This is the part where I almost lose the back half of my truck. If not more.

As I see the car fade off into the distance at speeds that tout the immortal feeling of youth while falling well short of promoting a healthy lifestyle, I notice the single hand firmly cupping the driver's cell phone to their ear, and a detached conversation taking place which presumably bore no mention of the fact that it could have been their last.
It's happened to you. Don't lie. It doesn't have to be at UAA. It happens in the Fred Meyer parking lot, or Costco, or Wal-Mart. Good God does it happen at Wal-Mart. It doesn't have to happen in your car, either. You've seen the mock space shuttle launches when trying to cross the street; inches separating your toes from a random Hummer's tires.

It's not a partisan issue. Just as cross walks and stop signs are not partisan issues. Or as the old saying goes: "There's no such thing as a Republican or Democratic pothole."

But not according to the Alaska Standard contributor, Alex Gimarc, who mounted a pious partisan hack job of an attack article regarding proposed legislation that would join Alaska with 23 other states in having laws that attach restrictions to cell phone use while driving.

Instead of appealing to legitimate Libertarian values that arguably give teeth to questions regarding whether this legislation steps over a boundary from the standpoint of government interference with our every day lives, Gimarc has chosen to threaten civil disobedience in response to (not exactly the most popular Democrat) Rep. Mike Doogan's proposal (which also begs into question the argument that we should limit the legislation to require hands-free devices in lieu of an all-out ban. But that didn't carry enough anti-establishment vitriol, apparently), and is furthermore appalled by Republican representative and candidate for lieutenant governor Jay Ramras, who according to Gimarc, "fell all over himself promising to give this important topic a fair hearing in the Legislature this session."

Wouldn't want to have the bill discussed, pondered, or improved, would we?

Gimarc offers a very pander-heavy perspective:

"Make no mistake. This argument is not about whether cell phones are a good thing or not. Rather it is about the age old argument between liberty and safety. Are we Alaskans prepared to give up yet another slice of our freedom -- the ability to talk on the phone while driving -- for safety -- some unspecified reduction in accident rates on our highways?"

How much time did you spend reflecting on whether or not this issue, this proposal, was about the good or bad nature of cell phones?

An exercise conducted by The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in Salt Lake City, Utah conducted a well-cited study back in 2006 entitled"A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver." The following is what they found, and what has inspired more and more case studies that continue to trickle into the public domain:

"Method: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume).