Cell phone users public ememy No. 1
While driving the streets of Whitefish I can, should I choose, do any of the following: make a sandwich, eat that sandwich, read this newspaper, apply makeup, shave, and allow my dog to roam anywhere in the car, including my lap.
Note, I did not say I would or should do any of these things, but legally I could.
What I will not be legally able to do soon is call my wife and ask her if I need to stop for groceries or return a call to a client. Please note that again I did not say these are things that I should be doing; to be sure, it is simple enough to call my wife before I leave work or to voice dial that client with my Bluetooth headset, but, if that was your answer, then you might be missing the point.
The city of Whitefish rarely misses a bandwagon or the chance to jump on one. Lately that bandwagon is full of city councils and state legislators waving pitchforks and carrying torches, hell bent on taking a stand against evil cell phones.
Yes, admittedly that was a tad hyperbolic. Wagon riders are quick to point out that they are not against cell phones exactly, only their use while driving.
Similarly, I might say that I am not against small dogs or people who own them, exactly, only those who choose to drive with said yapper in their lap. I might also say that I am not adverse to sandwiches or the people who enjoy them but oppose those who eat them while driving.
In truth, I have no real problem with a sandwich in your mouth or a dog in your lap (or vice versa for that matter), assuming it does not affect your ability to drive, and there we arrive at, or at least near, the point.
Whether you believe using cell phones while driving is dangerous is not germane; let's concede, for sake of argument, that it is — as are so many things we do each day which distract us from driving. It would be hard to argue that rolling with little Fifi on your lap is much less dangerous — especially for Fifi.
Still, Whitefish City Council and the others on the bandwagon apparently feel the need to point pitchforks at cell phone use and to ignore so many other dangers.
Why? Is it only because the bandwagon is rolling that way? Maybe-at least in part — but is the larger issue here really about revenue rather than public safety?
What's worse, like so many other cities who have ridden this wagon, Whitefish allows cell phone use as long as a hands-free device is used, as if the act of holding the phone to your ear presents the only danger. This waters the law into mud and goes further toward making it seem to be only a speed trap aimed at unsuspecting visitors.
Whitefish is no stranger to nonsensical rules. Shop too long in our fine shops and Whitefish will thank you with a parking fine that is the highest in the area — higher, in fact, than any major city in Montana except Bozeman, which matches it.
Surely this was meant to solve a known problem in a town with an ever decreasing number of parking spaces — at least it was sold that way. No. This quadrupling of the parking fine was intended to boost revenue; so too is this new move by the city.
Logic be damned, under this law a police officer who thinks little Fifi's joyride is putting others in danger has no authority to stop that driver. Meanwhile, my attention to the needs of a client make me public enemy number one, whether anything in my driving warrants notice or not.
Of course, locals can simply learn to ignore that call until we pass the city limits sign — business can wait. Tourists, on the other hand, might see this as a fine “how do you do and welcome to Whitefish.”
Don't get me wrong — I don't condone bad driving. When the bandwagon changes course toward the forest of bad driving rather than weaving from one opportunistic stand of trees to another, I will jump on, pitchfork as my instrument. Until then I'll pass, thanks. So too should Whitefish have.
— Shannon Hanson
Whitefish