NJ Gov. McGreevey is apparently in favor of moving ahead with a handheld cellphone ban in NJ, similar to the foolish (and flagrantly violated) law which NY passed last year. He is apparently interested in promulgating such a law by January, 2003. I've enclosed a snippet from a recent AP article on NJ's Cell Phone Ban. Being (vehemently) opposed to this proposed ban as well as NY's current one, I've set up an e-mail address which will automatically fax Gov. McGreevey e-mail responses in opposition to the ban. Below the AP article, I've also enclosed a "pre-packaged" template response which you may use. It details, IMO, a cogent argument against the ban. You may utilize the statement as is in it's entirety, edit it as you see fit, add your own thoughts, etc. Our experiences in lobbying efforts in the past have shown that the greater the variation and the accentuation of various aspects of the response the more weight the recipient (in this case Gov. McGreevey) will place in your letters. (Please mail me with typos or grammatical errors so I can update the template as needed. Thanks!) Should you wish to express your opposition, you may use the template in full, or edit it as you wish, and then mail it to: mcgreevey@interpage.net ...or... nonjban@interpage.net ...and your response will be immediately faxed to Trenton to the Governor's Office. Hopefully, a sufficient response will give the Governor cause to at the very least reconsider his position. THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR THIS SERVICE -- You may use it to send your thoughts in opposition to the ban to the Governor at no charge to you, and we will not use your e-mail addresses for spam, solicitations, etc., nor send you political mail, etc. We are solely interested in gaining support to defeat the proposed ban. Mails with offensive/inappropriate language will be deleted and not converted to a fax. This document is also available on the Web at: http://www.wirelessnotes.org/cellphone-ban-nj You may freely distribute this document if needed, print it and fax it yourself if you like, fax or mail it to Sen. Jon Corzine (US Sentate) as he is trying to push something like this at the Federal Level, or use it to wrap fish if you like! :) If you have any *constructive* comments or would like to assist in opposing the proposed ban, please mail to: Additionally, if you know who the legislative proponents/opponents of the bill are please let me know and I can add them to the fax distribution. Thus, when a fax is sent to either of the above adresses the relevant legislative members will simultaneously receive a fax along with the one to the Governor. d2@interpage.net Thanks! -Doug d2@interpage.net http://www.interpage.net P.S. Please not we do not (directly) work for any cell carrier nor do we have a vested interest in their positions in this matter. We simply object to the proposed ban and hope to solicit the opinions of like-minded people to prevent its implementation. ----- Tuesday, October 15, 2002 Governor pushing for cell phone limits By KATHY HENNESSY Associated Press TRENTON Gov. James E. McGreevey wants New Jersey to be the second state in the nation to ban talking on hand-held cell phones while driving. While the state is still collecting data to track the link between accidents and cell phones, McGreevey is pushing to enact the ban by January. With more people using cell phones, the risk of accidents is rising each day, he said. "The documented evidence substantiates hand-held cell phones contribute to accident rates, and the goal is simply to enhance safety on New Jersey roads," McGreevey said. A 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study found talking on a cell phone quadruples the risk of an accident, which is about the same as the risk of driving drunk. Other studies have also noted the increased risk. If New Jersey enacts the law, it will join New York state, which has had a ban on hand-held phones for drivers since January. In New York, drivers caught talking on hand-held units can be pulled over and ticketed with fines up to $100. ... ----- To: Gov. James McGreevey, Governor, State of NJ Fr: Via Fax to (609) 292-3454 Dear Gov. McGreevey, I have recently been made aware of your intention to pursue a handheld cellphone ban in the state of New Jersey. I am writing to you to voice my opposition to this or other similar measures for the following reasons: 1. It is an unnecessary and unwarranted further government intrusion into the personal liberties of myself, all NJ residents, and those who travel through NJ. It forces motorists to utilize often inconvenient, obtrusive, and often uncomfortable hardware in order to enjoy the freedom and mobility of having a portable cellular telephone. 2. It may contribute to a *greater* number of accidents as most if not all headsets used in with hands-free operation have wires which connect to cellphones, and many have separate charging wires which plug into the car's cigarette lighter/DC-utility outlet. These wires can become entangled amongst themselves and/or in the steering wheel or gear-shift level, causing a significant threat of an accident as a driver tries to reach for a phone to answer/place a call. Additionally, as many motorists do not wear a headset (eg, they do not place the headset on when they enter the car), it is likely that a given driver will be forced to place the headset on his/her head when he/she needs to place a call or receive one, which is more distractive and dangerous than placing a significantly smaller and untethered device to one's ear. Moreover, motorists from states which do not require hands-free devices will undoubtedly attempt to connect headsets and/or mount their phones in often ill-placed speakerphone adapters as they enter NJ, causing more distraction and the potential for serious injury. In the case of hands-free speakerphones, motorists often have to shout and repeat themselves to be clearly heard, increasing driver distraction and time spent on the phone (which, in part, according to the rational of the anti-cellphone argument, is part of the problem). 3. It reduces public safety in that motorists may not be familiar with what does and does not constitute an emergency situation, and thus hesitate to call law enforcement to alert officials of stranded cars, obstacles, or other dangers on the road. The added inconvenience of having to utilize and headset may dissuade motorists from reporting situations thus delaying help to parties in need. Additionally, your proposed ban provides an incentive for drivers to keep/obtain vehicles with darkly tinted windows (or import them from other states) so as to mask their use of handheld cellphones during daylight hours. It also makes the job of law enforcement more difficult on traffic stops, etc., especially during nighttime hours. SUV owners also maintain an advantage as it would be difficult if not impossible for law enforcement to discern compliance with the prospective ban while following such a vehicle. 4. It encourages alternate means of communication -- often more distractive and thus dangerous -- to be utilized, such as messaging from the cellphone keypad (allowed since dialing must be allowed), two-way pagers, Palm and other pad-like devices, and dictation recorders which require buttons to be manipulated while recording a message. Additionally, devices which will not be banned, such as walkie-talkies, CBs, "HAM" Radio units, etc., are generally of less utility from a public safety perspective as the auto-location technologies which are being employed by cellphone carriers/manufacturers are not innate in the above, and thus encouraging the use of said (non-cellphone) devices by making it more difficult to utilize cellphones raises additional, less obvious personal and public safety concerns. 5. Depending on how the law is written, it forces customers to abandon "push-to-talk" services such as Nextel's DirectConnect or Sprint's similar upcoming product. If a "push-to-talk" enabled hands-free headset is used, the caller must still keep a hand on a "push-to-talk" button on the headset cord in most cases (and at times ALSO manipulate the phone), essentially vitiating the purpose of the ban. As "push-to-talk" services are to a great extent utilized by businesses, especially cost-conscious small to medium sized ones, the inability to utilize these services puts NJ businesses at a disadvantage to those in other states. (And if "push-to-talk" devices are exempt from the ban, those devices will for all practical purposes be exempt in a more traditional "cellular" mode, as officers will be forced to gauge how far away a given cellphone was from a motorist's ear and a motorist could raise the defense that s/he couldn't hear the speakerphone but was in "push-to-talk" mode. This and other exceptions in any ban which attempt to satisfy carriers with "push-to-talk" services begins an endless reductio ad absurdum which emasculates any such ban and makes it impossible to enforce.) Moreover, cellphone owners in rural areas who rely on stronger analog 3-watt phones are generally not able to utilize modern hands-free devices, thus effectively barring the use of their phones on NJ state roads where coverage is weak and where more modern digital/.6 watt phones will not operate in a satisfactory manner. (There are still significant areas of NJ where coverage is so poor that 3-watt analog phones are the only reliable way to effectuate mobile cellular communication.) 6. A ban will undercut carrier revenue, which in turn reduces NJ's income from telecommunications taxes, and has a negative impact on carriers which are major employers in the state of NJ. 7. There has been no conclusive study to indicate that talking on a handheld cellphone is any more dangerous than having conversations with others in the car, carrying (noisy) children, eating, or embarking upon many of the admittedly distractive activities which motorists regularly undertake. Focusing on one aspect of distraction -- one which is probably less distractive than many of the above and which has significant safety benenfits as well -- is a foolish and punitive waste of resources. In addition to the aforementioned points, a handheld cellphone ban is hard to enforce, easy to violate (as seen in NY on a regular basis), deceptively unpopular (many on first thought may think it is a good idea but in practice violate the law regularly), and is reminiscent of the oppressive 55 MPH limit. That law, as a result of the public's sensibly flagrant disregard for the the unrealisticly low limit, raised the public's collective disrespect of the state's governance and it's "out-of-touch" unresponsiveness to the actual needs of motorists to near comical levels. With the growing "US-1"-ization and destructive widening of US-206 in place of a completed I-95, with increasing tolls on the NJTP and very few service improvements planned, with the apparent abdication of any leadership towards removing tolls from the GSP, with $6 tolls on PA Bridges and Tunnels, with the lack of plans for improved access to current trans-Hudson and Philadelphia Metro facilities, and with the horrid road conditions in the state's urban areas, there is plenty which the state can do to dramatically improve driver safety, of which, unfortunately, little seems to even be within the scope of consideration in this administration's agenda. A cellphone ban, which may superficially have the appeal of a public safety measure, would, for the reasons enumerated above, do significantly more harm than good on a multitude of levels. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived problem which is only a small part of (if at all) the larger problem of driver inattentiveness and distraction. If the State of New Jersey were serious about improved road safety and driver attentiveness it should spend its resources on dramatically improved road maintenance while promulgating additional capacity, and not politically easier "quick fixes" which encumber the public and which at best are of little utility and at worse cause many more problems than they attempt to solve. I urge you to direct your efforts accordingly and reject any such ban. Thank you, or