Editor:
Now that the Havre City Council has decided to reconsider its restriction on drivers using cellphones while driving, I think we should look again at Ward 3 Councilman Rick Dow's column explaining his opposition to the cellphone ordinance (Opinion page, Feb. 2).
Mr. Dow begins his column with an absurd example: an overworked driver going home warms his ears at a stop light and because his lips are shivering, a cop nearby stops him for cellphone use. A really silly, made-up example. First, it's unlikely that a policeman would be so obtuse as to make that mistake. Second, all the policemen I know listen to an explanation, as in Mr. Dow's example, so what's the harm? And anyway, Havre has a good court system.
Give me a break, Mr. Dow. I don't think anyone believes that someone would receive a ticket if they call on their cellphone in a genuine emergency. Or couldn't you write the ordinance so that calls made in emergency situations, such as to law enforcement or the hospital, are exempt from prosecution. If the ordinance exempts police and official emergency personnel, surely you could compose an ordinance that would exempt all citizens during emergencies.
Mr. Dow's second — and only additional argument — is that the ordinance would be redundant because we already hold distracted drivers accountable. Really, Mr. Dow! Many laws overlap each other without being unimportant additions to law enforcement. The point of the ordinance is to call attention to a driving habit that has been repeatedly shown by statistical studies to greatly increase danger to passengers, other cars and drivers as well — to say nothing of increasing all of our car insurance rates, as has already occurred.
Isn't this ordinance like the seat belt law? Some drivers think it interferes with their rights, some don't observe it, but it has been clearly shown to be a genuine lifesaver.
I call on the reasonable heads on City Council. Ignore Mr. Dow's foolish ranting, which he appears to think passes for patriotism. Pass a reasonable version of this ordinance.
Bill Thackeray
Havre



Let me tell you about your "drivers" here, pal. I've been nearly ran into more times in Havre than I have ANYWHERE else I've ever lived. I've had to get out of my car to stop the person behind me to see if they were drunk or even had a license. I see these wonder moms with 5 kids bouncing around SEATBELTLESS inside the car like dogs. I literally saw a child HANGING out of a window of a car the other day. I've had a kid fly past me on 5th doing at LEAST 60mph. Only to swerve into the Taco John's lot less than 100yds later. Honest to God. Don't talk to me about drivers and skills from other states. I've actually spent time in BOTH of the other states you mentioned. And felt safer, tyvm.
Safety checkpoints, you say? That's a joke. Not only is that a violation of your 4th Amendment civil right against unlawful search and seizure, but the LAST thing I've seen around here is "SAFETY". A SAFE stop would involve actually moving the stopped car AROUND THE CORNER instead of sitting in the middle of oncoming traffic on 5th on icy roads in the dark of a winter night. Perhaps if raging alcoholism and drug abuse were not quite so commonplace around here, there wouldn't be such a pronounced need for all those "safety stops". But hey, who am I to say? I "ain't from these here parts". I come from a place where "PROBABLE CAUSE" exists.
Even though there has been CONCLUSIVE evidence that shows that cell bans accomplish NOTHING, this stupid debate rages on. All anyone is going to do is hold their phone on speaker and below the window level so that it's not obvious it's being used. To simply outlaw everything we can't find other ways to influence is pointless. But Bob, you and the rest of Havre know better, huh? Good thing they haven't outlawed IGNORANCE yet...
Apparently none of these ban supporters have ever considered that there is NO less distraction as a result of the little bambinos bouncing around your car while you smack them with one hand and have a lit cigarette in the other. I have LITERALLY seen this happen...in Havre. Nor do they seem to be concerned with things like people's stereo noise, vigorously arguing with another person, someone placing their hands over the eyes of the driver(saw some HHS students doing that a few months ago), playing with an ipod, lighting cigarettes and smoking, having your DOG all up in your face LICKING YOU IN THE MOUTH while driving (ewwww...) - well, I think my point is made. Suffice it to say that phones are of no more or less distraction value than any of the afforementioned offenses. To waste time and taxpayer money worry SO much about ONE thing is just assinine.
I've tried very hard to encourage logical and rational THOUGHT about things through my posts. This seems to fall on mostly deaf ears. This and apparently it also solicits internet stalkers that like to make idle threats, having NO idea who they are talking to. So, riddle me THIS: So you made texting/talking on your cell illegal. SO WHAT? You think it will make any real difference? Or is it just one more pathetic way to increase COMMERCE between policy enforcement and the citizens and create one more repugnant line of division? I will let you chew on that one for a while.
Ask the youth of this town, your future leaders, how they feel about being called things like "teeny boppers on phones". Maybe parents should go back to being parents and not treat their kids like adults and OVER privelege them. This lack of parenting is what leads to the "extracurricular" activities that of late were going on in the Junior High. I wonder how many parents know what their kids were doing IN the school...
This is NOT a public safety issue. Were it so, the law would apply to EVERYONE, equally. Do police not have enough things going on in their cars distracting them? Am I some how beneath them that I cannot distinguish between a safe and unsafe time to use my phone? What have they that makes them superior to me? How do you know what things I've done in life? Perhaps my life has given me skills far surpassing that of a local policeman. (No offense, just making the point.) Nope, we need a LAW to tell you what you can and can't do. But...you're "free". Yup, we get a little freer every day, don't we?
Be lead around by a legal "ring" in your nose all you wish. I don't need or desire that much control over my life from people who are neither responsible enough nor worthy. My life is my own to do with as I please. It was given to me by God Almighty, and frankly that's all I need to know. What man is better than another so much so that they should have the privelege of having THAT much CONTROL over another?
I've been in Havre long enough to have watched jobs and properties as well as virtually everything else get passed back and forth. For discretion's sake, I won't mention what I see passed back and forth most - but it sure ain't real estate. When you make such archaic statements as "I bet you ain't from these parts, is you boy?" - the only image that conjurs to a sane person is that of a scene from "Deliverance". Is there a pig squealing in your back yard or is that just prejudice against someone you don't know who may have helped you at some point? Maybe even defended your right to your freedom of speech? So with that said I will only say that you are correct. I "ain't from these here parts".
You would be wise to at least ponder the viewpoints of people from other places, and see how perhaps their perspectives could assist your community in growth. Ever considered just how dead this town would be without the school, railroad, USCBP and a WalMart? Just like all the outlying towns...it would fall apart almost immediately. Your town is COMPOSED of "outsiders", Bob. Savvy? Good. Let's move on.
I come from a place called the Really Real World. Save your cheek for someone who hasn't seen places other than this and doesn't know better.