WHEN a constable in West Hampton Dunes pulled over a woman who had sped through a stop sign while talking on a hand-held cell phone recently, she held up a finger to signal him to wait while she finished her conversation.
Yet "a two-thirds majority of Americans support restricting the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, but more people oppose (50%) than support (46%) an outright ban on using any type of cell phone (including hands-free) while driving," the AAA Foundation found last year.
A few small American municipalities, most recently Marlboro, N.J., have banned the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers.
The Suffolk County Legislature voted to make driving while using a hand-held cell phone punishable by a $150 fine, unless the phone has an earpiece or works as a speakerphone.
To the dismay of some representatives of the wireless industry who favor a uniform state policy on cell phone regulations, the lawmakers voted, 19 to 0, to make driving while using a hand-held cell phone a crime, carrying a $100 fine.
Almost eight months after becoming the first municipality in New Jersey to make it illegal to use a hand-held cell phone while driving, Marlboro last week began erecting signs warning drivers of the ban.
In Connecticut, legislation has been introduced for the second year in a row that would limit the use of hand-held cell phones to three minutes and carry a fine of $100.
A law restricting the use of any and all cell phones generally received the lowest levels of support, while a law restricting only hand-held cell phone use was more popular, and a law against text messaging or emailing while driving received virtually universal support across all three age groups.
Still, "there is moderate social disapproval toward using a hand-held cell phone while driving," the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found.
In his opinion essay ["Piecemeal Attack on Cell Phones," Dec. 24] opposing the imposition of local prohibitions against the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers, Tom Levin's lawyerly instincts have overruled the need for common-sense approaches to the problem of how to motivate action by state government.
