Representative Carolyn McCarthy has proposed a new law to outlaw texting while driving. Called the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act, awkward but necessary to come up with the really cool acronym ALERT, She argues for her law in US News & World Reports, While laying the emotional argument on thick, and beating the daylights out of the obvious, she does present some of the empirical support for the proposition that texting while driving is an awfully dangerous thing to do.
It is hard to dispute the realities of distracted driving. In a study published this summer, Virginia Tech University found that drivers are 23 times as likely to get into an accident while texting. Another study, published by Car and Driver magazine in June, concluded that texting while driving can be more dangerous than drunk driving. Other studies of distracted driving have yielded similar results.
Having identified an evil, McCarthy leaps to the conclusion that a law against it is, therefore, necessary. Despite an absence of discussion about difficulties enforcing such a law, or the unintended consequences, she contends:
Often, it is the legality of an issue that is the impetus to effect behavioral change. For those in states that do not ban texting, there is little incentive to encourage people to stop, aside from an accident itself. We in Congress have an opportunity to create this law and keep our federal regulations up to date with evolving technology’s unintended dangers.
In other words, making it illegal, despite the tacit attendant problems, is the first step to changing the culture of texting while driving. Radley Balko, however, sees McCarthy driving down the road to perdition. With a sense of humor that McCarthy could only dream about, Balko writes:
TOBAL is short for “There Oughtta Be a Law.” Here’s the progression of symptoms: Wrenching anecdotes about the effects of some alleged new trend make national news. A panic takes root in the media. Earnest editorialists scrawl urgent pleas for action. Politicians grandstand. Soon enough, we have our new law or regulation. It doesn’t matter if the law is enforceable or may have unintended consequences. Nor does it matter if the law will have any actual effect on the problem it was passed to address. In fact, it doesn’t even matter if the problem actually exists. The mere feeling that it exists is sufficient.
Who doesn’t love a good acronym? Radley first questions whether the problem is real or a matter of public panic. He doesn’t question that it’s stupid to do, or that we would be better off without it, but that it’s hardly the killer that its opponents claim it to be. This is significant since the banning of something that simply doesn’t do that much harm won’t make the roads that much safer.
Radley notes that texting is merely one of many things that distract us while driving, and that the others, whether watching the GPS system, reading your mapquest print-out, or eating a drippy burrito while the kids fight in the backseat, remain lawful. But the real problem comes into play when police try to enforce the law. As in, how the heck would you do it?
Radley notes that texting is merely one of many things that distract us while driving, and that the others, whether watching the GPS system, reading your mapquest print-out, or eating a drippy burrito while the kids fight in the backseat, remain lawful. But the real problem comes into play when police try to enforce the law. As in, how the heck would you do it?
That brings us to the enforceability problem. Maryland just passed a texting ban, but state officials are flummoxed over how to enforce it. The law bans texting while driving but allows for reading texts, for precisely the reasons just mentioned. But how can a police officer positioned at the side of a highway tell if the driver of the car that just flew by was actually pushing buttons on his cellphone and not merely reading the display screen? Unless a motorist is blatantly typing away at eye level, a car would need to be moving slowly enough for an officer to see inside, focus on the phone, and observe the driver manipulating the buttons. Which is to say the car would probably need to be stopped—at which point it ceases to be a safety hazard.
Given the multitude of acts that remain lawful but will prove impossible to distinguish from texting, the law making texting illegal will subject drivers engaged in fully lawful conduct to being stopped, essentially at will, and prosecuted when committing no wrong.
Of course, underlying Balko’s contention is that the texters aren’t, in fact, texting, since the obvious retort would otherwise be that they deserve to be stopped and, to the extent that results in fines, they deserve to pay them for breaking the law. The solution to Radley’s dilemma would be for people to stop texting while driving and then have no fear of a stop or fine. Problem solved.
On the issue of whether texting is a problem, McCarthy clearly has the upper hand, and Radley doesn’t seriously argue otherwise. While there hasn’t been a deluge of road deaths caused by texting, there’s little argument in favor of the desperate need to text while driving to justify even a single death. It’s just not a fair trade, and no one has to text that badly that it’s worth the cost of a life.
Balko’s secondary argument, that texting is but one of many activities that distract drivers, seems more an argument to expand the scope of illegal conduct than avoid regulating texting. That the relative balance of distracting conduct distinguishes texting from, say, noisy kids, doesn’t mean that anything goes. By outlawing the things that are least utilitarian and needlessly dangerous, the law seeks to limit its prohibitions to those acts which present the greatest danger with the least reasonable justification. Just because you can’t make driving perfectly safe is no reason not to try to make it safer. Fewer accidents is a good thing, Just ask anyone who would otherwise die in a car crash.
But Radley’s arguments about enforcement present a more difficult hurdle. While my anecdotal experience suggests that it isn’t quite as difficult to tell when someone is texting while driving, particularly when they haven’t looked up at the road for 3 minutes, he’s right about there being a fairly broad array of activities that would remain legal and yet be easily mistake for texting. This would theoretically result in people being stopped, a significant constitutional restraint, who have committed no wrong. Not something to be taken lightly.
However, it appears that much of the potential for police impropriety can be resolved via regulation of police conduct and, in the context of vehicle stops, is something of a tempest in a teapot. If the law were subject to a “no stop” provision, such as applies to seat belt use in some states, it would alleviate the concern that law-abiding drivers would be wrongly stopped. Even without it, stops based on cellphone use, already unlawful in New York, are exceedingly rare even though some drivers continue to use their hands-on phones.
As for the revenue raising aspect, it’s a common misunderstanding that statewide laws inure to the financial benefit of local municipalities. And since the locals pay for the cops, and the revenue goes to the state, there’s little financial incentive to abuse enforcement. Even so, this could be addressed by making the fine relative modest, such that it’s not worth the cops’ time to aggressively enforce the law for revenue raising purposes, leaving police free to taser handicapped drivers for refusing to sign tickets.
On the flip side, the concern that police will wrongly stop drivers must be considered in context, knowing that any cop can find a reason to stop any person in any car for a violation at any time. Traffic laws are so amorphous and easily played that by merely claiming he observed a car cross the center line, an officer can effect a “legal” stop. And the fact that it never happened isn’t going to change things, since the cop is invariably believed despite the absence of any proof beyond his say-so. It’s not good, but it’s life as we know it. Adding texting to the mix of bad things to do won’t change much as far as an officer’s ability to seize someone if the mood strikes.
McCarthy’s point, about using the law as an impetus to behavioral change, smacks of nanny-statism, but isn’t without its point. By making texting while driving illegal, many people inclined to obey the law, and not merely because they fear getting caught but because obeying the law is just an inherently decent thing to do, will stop texting while driving. This is a societally beneficial thing to do, especially if you happen to be in the line of fire of their gasoline filled, 2 ton missile. True that not every texter is a killer, but at what point does the death of a loved one justify the sacrifice in the name of the texting god?
While the concerns Balko raises are valid, and McCarthy does little to address them by laying the emotion on thick while ignoring the legal ramifications that one would hope a Congresswoman would recognize, a little tweaking of the law to limit the exposure of lawful conduct to mistaken stops would appear to fill the legitimate enforcement gap that the law ignores. But given that texting while driving is such a wholly unnecessary activity, and certainly one rife with the potential for harm to others, the value of making it illegal exceeds the potential that it will be abused, at least any more so than any other traffic law.
In all fairness, I am one of those Philistines who would feel no remorse if texting had never been invented, so it sits pretty close to the bottom on my list of worthwhile things to do with your time. That said, I really don’t want to die because you are busy texting behind the wheel and didn’t happen to notice the red light in front of you.
And here’s Scott Henson’s take at Grits for Breakfast.
Here are two things these bans will do: They’ll give police officers another reason to pull people over, and they’ll bring in revenue for the municipalities that aggressively enforce them. I think both are arguments against a ban.
Of course, underlying Balko’s contention is that the texters aren’t, in fact, texting, since the obvious retort would otherwise be that they deserve to be stopped and, to the extent that results in fines, they deserve to pay them for breaking the law. The solution to Radley’s dilemma would be for people to stop texting while driving and then have no fear of a stop or fine. Problem solved.
On the issue of whether texting is a problem, McCarthy clearly has the upper hand, and Radley doesn’t seriously argue otherwise. While there hasn’t been a deluge of road deaths caused by texting, there’s little argument in favor of the desperate need to text while driving to justify even a single death. It’s just not a fair trade, and no one has to text that badly that it’s worth the cost of a life.
Balko’s secondary argument, that texting is but one of many activities that distract drivers, seems more an argument to expand the scope of illegal conduct than avoid regulating texting. That the relative balance of distracting conduct distinguishes texting from, say, noisy kids, doesn’t mean that anything goes. By outlawing the things that are least utilitarian and needlessly dangerous, the law seeks to limit its prohibitions to those acts which present the greatest danger with the least reasonable justification. Just because you can’t make driving perfectly safe is no reason not to try to make it safer. Fewer accidents is a good thing, Just ask anyone who would otherwise die in a car crash.
But Radley’s arguments about enforcement present a more difficult hurdle. While my anecdotal experience suggests that it isn’t quite as difficult to tell when someone is texting while driving, particularly when they haven’t looked up at the road for 3 minutes, he’s right about there being a fairly broad array of activities that would remain legal and yet be easily mistake for texting. This would theoretically result in people being stopped, a significant constitutional restraint, who have committed no wrong. Not something to be taken lightly.
However, it appears that much of the potential for police impropriety can be resolved via regulation of police conduct and, in the context of vehicle stops, is something of a tempest in a teapot. If the law were subject to a “no stop” provision, such as applies to seat belt use in some states, it would alleviate the concern that law-abiding drivers would be wrongly stopped. Even without it, stops based on cellphone use, already unlawful in New York, are exceedingly rare even though some drivers continue to use their hands-on phones.
As for the revenue raising aspect, it’s a common misunderstanding that statewide laws inure to the financial benefit of local municipalities. And since the locals pay for the cops, and the revenue goes to the state, there’s little financial incentive to abuse enforcement. Even so, this could be addressed by making the fine relative modest, such that it’s not worth the cops’ time to aggressively enforce the law for revenue raising purposes, leaving police free to taser handicapped drivers for refusing to sign tickets.
On the flip side, the concern that police will wrongly stop drivers must be considered in context, knowing that any cop can find a reason to stop any person in any car for a violation at any time. Traffic laws are so amorphous and easily played that by merely claiming he observed a car cross the center line, an officer can effect a “legal” stop. And the fact that it never happened isn’t going to change things, since the cop is invariably believed despite the absence of any proof beyond his say-so. It’s not good, but it’s life as we know it. Adding texting to the mix of bad things to do won’t change much as far as an officer’s ability to seize someone if the mood strikes.
McCarthy’s point, about using the law as an impetus to behavioral change, smacks of nanny-statism, but isn’t without its point. By making texting while driving illegal, many people inclined to obey the law, and not merely because they fear getting caught but because obeying the law is just an inherently decent thing to do, will stop texting while driving. This is a societally beneficial thing to do, especially if you happen to be in the line of fire of their gasoline filled, 2 ton missile. True that not every texter is a killer, but at what point does the death of a loved one justify the sacrifice in the name of the texting god?
While the concerns Balko raises are valid, and McCarthy does little to address them by laying the emotion on thick while ignoring the legal ramifications that one would hope a Congresswoman would recognize, a little tweaking of the law to limit the exposure of lawful conduct to mistaken stops would appear to fill the legitimate enforcement gap that the law ignores. But given that texting while driving is such a wholly unnecessary activity, and certainly one rife with the potential for harm to others, the value of making it illegal exceeds the potential that it will be abused, at least any more so than any other traffic law.
In all fairness, I am one of those Philistines who would feel no remorse if texting had never been invented, so it sits pretty close to the bottom on my list of worthwhile things to do with your time. That said, I really don’t want to die because you are busy texting behind the wheel and didn’t happen to notice the red light in front of you.
And here’s Scott Henson’s take at Grits for Breakfast.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ll bet you’d be really pissed if some inattentive texter banged up your Austin Healy. I know I would be.
One hidden issue here: the idea that texting is worse than “drunk driving”, which may be true when drunk driving is defined as .08% BAC or more, whereas it used to be more rationally defined somewhat higher – .15% not that long ago. Maybe it wouldn’t be worse than drunk driving then.
You betcha. Even an attentive texter.
I think it’s a shame that we’ve devolved to the point where we have to tell people not to drive with their eyes closed, but clearly we have. Whether this is a reflection of technology, the Slackoisie’s sense of entitlement, or just the dumbing down of the species, I dunno. But if people are too darn stupid to realize not to do things that endanger them and others, I’m just not prepared to die (or have my Healey banged up) so they can diddle with their thumbs.
Actually, to resolve Radley’s concerns a driver would have to stop texting AND all activities that might be mistaken for texting, which is of course an unknowable set of mostly legal behaviors.
And why is making something illegal the “first step” toward changing the culture? Aren’t there many ways to change the culture? Most cultural change occurs without the force of law. Why must a legal ban be the “first step,” especially when we know it’s virtually unenforceable? I think it should be the last step, after the public has been thoroughly educated on the topic. But education COSTS money, while writing tickets generates revenue.
And speaking of revenue, in Texas these laws have been local municipal ordinances where the locals get most of the revenue, so there is definitely a revenue factor there that IMO you dismiss too lightly, at least in some jurisdictions. And it’s fine to say fines COULD be set low. But they won’t be, because one of their primary goals is revenue generation.
It’s actually hard for me to believe you wrote “the potential for police impropriety can be resolved via regulation of police conduct.” Is this really Scott Greenfield? Has an impostor taken over this blog? Between the blue wall of silence and weak-ass IADs, further regulation of police is just wishful thinking, not an actual constraint in the real world. Puh-leeze!
I’m also unimpressed with the argument that pretext stops are already common so why not facilitate more of them? That’s an unsound POV.
Finally, your last graph is telling. You’re mostly willing to ban this common behavior because it’s not something you engage in personally, even if millions of others do. Tell us what activities you do in the car (GPS, radio, etc.) and then let’s see you support banning those activities to reduce driver distractions.
Perhaps John R is right that texting is more dangerous than driving drunk at .08 BAC. But I’m willing to bet the same could be said of putting on makeup, fiddling with the radio or GPS, eating, drinking, disciplining kids in the back seat or rocking out to loud music so you can’t hear horns, sirens, etc. Every risk in life does not merit a criminal law, especially redundant ones that are already covered under reckless driving and other existing laws.
As Radley pointed out, “Since 1995, there’s been an eightfold increase in cellphone subscribers in the United States, and we’ve increased the number of minutes spent on cellphones by a factor of 58. What’s happened to traffic fatalities in that time? They’ve dropped—slightly, but they’ve dropped. Overall reported accidents since 1997 have dropped, too, from 6.7 million to 6 million.”
If cell phones were as dangerous as the fearmongers say, the trends identified in those numbers would be quite different.
You’ve packed an awful lot in there, so I’m going to be bit selective to keep this from running on far longer than anyone will care to read.
The issue has nothing to do with resolving all of Radley’s concerns. Some are more significant than others, and few (if any) laws are perfect. The point is that many of his concerns exist regardless, and the absence of this law won’t change problems such as improper seizures, pretext stops, etc. If we’re suffering the consequences of bad or improper policing anyway, I have no problem with making texting illegal though it suffers from the same flaws as many other traffic laws.
I never said it ws the “first step,” nor I believe does anyone else. Impetus means an impelling force, a push toward a goal. There has already been a push through the MSM to inform people of the dangers associated, and this will add to the behavioral change for those who don’t have the sense to avoid doing dangerous things simply because they’re dangerous. We can disagree where, along the spectrum of potential solutions, this should fall, but making something that is dangerous and unnecessary unlawful presents no issue at all.
As to revenue, things are obviously different across the nation. I have no plans to be killed by a texting driver because Texas remains an ass-backward state.
As to regulation of police, I don’t think you understood the gist of my point. Making texting a no-stop violation would eliminate the problem (as well as other problems you raise about resolving all of Radley’s concerns). I never forgive or ignore police impropriety, but fear of impropriety can’t be the driving force in the passage of laws. If that were the case, we would have chaos.
As to pretext stops, it’s not a justification, but rather an explanation for why I don’t find the argument adequate to justify rejection of the law. The distinction is subtle, but important.
As for my personal view on texting, I include that to be frank about my perspective. Why else would you think it was there? It’s not hiding a secret, but revealing my perspective. That’s what it means to have integrity. But you’ve taken a bit of honesty in the exact opposite direction. I don’t text. If I believed it to be a critically important thing, which no one has as yet argued (unless you’re trying to say that the right to text is something worth dying for), then it would alter the balance between safety and freedom. It’s not, unless the texter is a 12 year old girl, in which case she shouldn’t be driving (Texas excepted).
If it were up to me, a lot of activities done while driving wouldn’t be lawful, but some have greater social utility (like having children in your car, even though they may fight and scream, in order to move them from place to place), or significantly less risk (like changing radio stations by pushing a button). I think putting on make-up, reading the newspaper, or reading a GPS system while driving is similarly foolish, needless and dangerous. And I think texting is absolutely, utterly, totally unnecessary while driving. It presents a huge risk and nominal societal benefit. I know, in Texas people should be able to do whatever they want to do, no matter how many people they kill doing it, except when they’re Hispanic, in which case anybody can shoot them at will. That’s their right. I’ve heard it all before.
And finally, Radley’s stats are no better than McCarthy’s stats. They fail miserably to isolate cause and effect, there having been many changes happening at an incredibly rapid pace. The supposition that there should be more deaths is sheer assumption, failing to note a broad swathe of other changes happening simultaneously. While I’m not saying that this proves the point, perhaps in the absence of cellphones and texting, traffic fatalities would be down 47%, in which case there’s a hidden 47% increase in fatalities. I have no clue whether that’s the case or not, but neither side has the ability to isolate the causes, so they provide no support either way. Of course, there are isolated stats as to the impact of texting while driving on ability, and they are devastating.
I realize that you’re used to me being against overcriminalization, but that doesn’t mean that I’m against every law or that nothing should be illegal. There are some things that are just so unimportant to do, and dangerous, that there’s no reason that they should happen. Texting while driving is one such thing. If people are too stupid to not do it on their own, then a law is not an inappropriate means of changing behavior. And frankly, given now insignificant the social benefit of texting while driving is, and how dangerous it is, I don’t think that anyone should be harmed or killed so that 12 year old girls and Texans have the freedom to text at will.
Re: “first steps,” I was referring to the line in your post that said “In other words, making it illegal, despite the tacit attendant problems, is the first step to changing the culture of texting while driving.” Perhaps that sentiment should have been properly attributed to the Congresswoman, but you seemed to adopt and share her POV. If that’s not your view, should these laws be delayed?
Also, FWIW, in most places this is being enacted, it isn’t a “no stop” violation. Saying that solves all the problems is irrelevant if it’s just not how the statutes play out in the real world.
Since you say that both McCarthy and Balko’s data “fail miserably to isolate cause and effect” on the danger of texting and driving, it’s hard to see how you also conclude that “On the issue of whether texting is a problem, McCarthy clearly has the upper hand.” In the face of inconclusive data, how can you reach that conclusion, much less propose a law?
Finally, you think texting while driving is of insignificant benefit mainly because it doesn’t benefit YOU. Does somebody with a daily hour commute each direction who replies to email on their Blackberry while stalled in traffic or at a red light feel equally that there’s little benefit? If you spend 2+ hours a day in traffic commuting, taking care of business via phone or the occasional text while you’re in the car actually has significant social utility. Maybe not for New Yorkers who live where there’s plenty of public transport, but the laws apply to other people too.
Luckily, it’s unenforceable, grandstanding foolishness, not a real public safety initiative, so maybe the potential problems won’t amount to much, but that will only be because the law is seldom used and has little practical effect except generating PR for politicians.
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t adopt McCarthy’s arguments, but agree with her outcome. I don’t think the enactment of the law should be delayed, as making this conduct illegal will have a significant influence on behavior, but I do, as in the no-stop position, think the law needs tweaking to make it more effective and less intrusive and burdensome. This isn’t a far-fetched proposal, being the case in many states with the mandatory seat belt laws.
As for the data, the comparative data is useless, but the specific Car & Driver date which isolated the impact of texting was very clear as to the impact of texting on driving abilities. About that there is no question. Texting has a huge impact on driving ability, though it’s impossible to attribute a specific number of deaths or accidents from generic data to it.
As for it benefiting me, I think you’re way off base on this. We survived a long time without texting. Almost no adult I know texts, though all the teenyboppers love it. Maybe it’s different in Texas, but even so, your emails will still be there when you get to wherever you’re going. There is no emergent need to text as you drive. Why not watch your favorite TV shows while you drive so you don’t have to waste time at night? I mean, that’s personal convenience at someone else’s risk for utterly no reason. It’s not a NY/Texas thing, but a stupid, selfish thing. You don’t get to operate a missile and risk everyone else’s life because, hey, it would be fun and convenient to text at the same time. One man’s transitory fun or convenience is not a justification for the death of another man.
Whether this will ultimately result in significant enforcement or not much of anything has yet to be seen, but it would be far more utilitarian to argue that if people didn’t engage in dumbass conduct, we wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not to outlaw it. Texting while driving, like putting on mascara while driving, is just plain foolishness. Absolute, total foolishness.
I could take this argument – “One man’s transitory fun or convenience is not a justification for the death of another man” – and argue for banning all sorts of things that might occasionally cause accidents but usually do not. That argument justifies banning cars entirely. They’re a huge source of accidental deaths, so obviously we should get rid of them. The convenience of getting where you’re going faster than walking isn’t worth another person’s life … right?
You also write: “Almost no adult I know texts, though all the teenyboppers love it.”
This belief, I think, is a source of significant error. Right now I’m in the middle of a major home rehab. I get text messages from our general contractor 3-4 times a day. I’m currently consulting for a political campaign and received three texts from them already this morning! Your assumptions that texting is just for teenyboppers is a misconception.
Did the Car and Driver data compare texting to adjusting the radio, changing CDs, consulting GPS, eating while driving, or any of the other perfectly legal activities that distract drivers? Comparing texting to DWI at .08 BAC is good PR, but in reality many other common behaviors likely carry just as much risk – possibly more except no one bothers to measure it.
The logic doesn’t follow. One has a direct correlation, while the other confuses cause and effect. At the same time as you challenge my position because I don’t text, you open yourself to the same challenge, because it’s convenient for you. Are you saying that your life would fall apart if you weren’t able to immediately text 24/7?
And now that I know you’re such a big texter, I have only one thing to say: For a teenybopper, you look terrible. You should take better care of yourself.
There’s a big problem here with the Fed making what are essentially city laws. Will the FBI and DHS create a Texting While Driving (TWD) Joint Task Force (JTF)? Will repeat violators be getting tim in a federal prison?
I understand that there is a blurring of lines with the various levels of law enforcement but this is just silly.
What Constitutional basis is there for Washington D.C. to even spend time on this? People drive cars across state lines and phones are shipped across state lines so every concievable thing that can be done with either are subject to federal legislation?
Think condition for receipt of federal highway funds. It’s very simple and shift the responsibility for compliance onto the state.
Scott, I actually rarely text except in response to others. However I’m not of the opinion that just because I don’t participate in this or that activity that it’s okay to ban it for those who do. I feel the same way, e.g., about deer hunting and bungee jumping.
I’d also maintain the logic about walking to avoid accidents is exactly on point, not confusing cause and effect at all. Driving is dangerous and accidents happen. People who drive for a living are about 5+ times as likely to die on the job as the rest of us. The difference is you WANT to drive, so you’re willing to overlook the increased risk, while you don’t particularly care if you text or not.
You’ve misconstrued things here. I use cellphones, but have no problem with the law prohibiting driving while using a cellphone. I don’t text and have no problem with prohibiting driving while textings. You misunderstood my disclosure that I don’t text to mean that it was the controlling factor in my position. In other words, you added two plus two and came up with 17. In other words, you’ve assumed a direct connection between the two because it facilitates your argument, even though it’s wrong.
Same with your logic on trucking. People who drive for a living are 5+ times as likely to die doesn’t mean driving is dangerous, because you haven’t isolated the factor and prefer to lump everything in one big pot and blame the pot. What about exhaustion from the hours they drive? What about the amount loss of attention from monotony? What about deterioration to their equipment from use? What about the risks inherent in big rigs carrying huge tonnage? What about being on the road for greater lengths with others who are driving while texting? What about highway driving (high speed, high traffic, long stretches) versus local driving? You need to understand the connections and isolate things that have a direct correlation from mere generalized or irrelevant correlation, or assume a cause and affect relationship when the connection is merely coincidental.
For example, all people who die of cancer were breathing before they died. Does that mean breathing causes cancer? It’s the same bad logic. These are logical fallacies, and they remain logical fallacies whether you believe them or not. They simply don’t make logical sense.
Scott, I never said that was a “controlling factor” in your position, just that it seems to contribute to your nonchalance in dismissing the concerns of all texters as “teenyboppers,” or whatever you called them.
You can say it’s a logical fallacy that driving is dangerous, but you’re wrong. People of all stripes who drive for a living die more often on the job than lawyers or political consultants. Not just long-haul truckers but taxi drivers, bus drivers and even cops, for whom 2/3 of on-the-job deaths are traffic related. You can call it a “fallacy” if it pleases you, but traffic accidents are one of the top causes of death nationally. It was that way long before cell phones came on the scene and there was no measurable increase in vehicle fatalities as a result of cell phones’ introduction (in fact, traffic deaths decreased), even if you think it seems logical that would be the case.
Here’s a possibility: Maybe traffic deaths didn’t go up when cell phones came around because if distractable people weren’t distracted by the cell phone, it’d be messing with the radio, picking out CDs or something else.
You’re right. You know when it gets really scary? When your son who was accident prone as a boy turns 16, and you imagine him in command of 1 to 2 tons of metal hurtling down a road at 50 MPH or more. Absolutely freaking heart stopping terrifying.
I told him that for three months he couldn’t have any friends in the car and couldn’t listen to the radio, but I encouraged him to drive, and drive attentively and responsibly and follow those rules. These directives were honored primarily in the breach, of course.
If texting had been common then I probably would have killed him just to get it over with and stop the torture.
People need to be serious about driving. It’s so dangerous. OTOH, can’t be over cautious, either. It can be a hard balance.
Like calling someone “drunk” at .08% when a few years ago it wasn’t even a violation to drive at that level. I tell people a 21 year old at .08% probably has better reflexes, alertness, etc. than a stone cold sober 70 year old.
I’ll tell you this. I would much rather share the road with a lot of people at .08% BAC than a lot of people who were texting or watching movies while they were driving.
Logical fallacies are commonly accepted false lines of reasoning. It’s not about driving being dangerous per se, but was an attempt to explain why your reasoning was wrong. It still is, no matter how many times you say the same thing. Perhaps if you check out the link it will be clearer.
I think you were a bit disingenuous in saying that the possibility of such a law being yet another excuse for police to make baseless traffic stops could be resolved by regulating police misconduct. I know from being a regular reader that you generally have a low opinion on police wilingness to obey the law as it is, so how can this suddenly be different?
I thought I had explained this adequately in the post, but obviously not. My thought is that a hard rule, a no-stop rule for texting violations as is the case for seat belt violations, would serve to vitiate the problem of police stopping people for what might appear to be a texting violation but is in fact one of the many lawful things people can do that might present a similar appearance.
To the extent that police will use pretext stops, or simply fabricate violations, it would be no different than what happens already. This is a reflection of inherent police impropriety, not of any fault with prohibiting texting per se. The solution to police impropriety isn’t to stop prohibiting unsafe conduct by drivers, but addressing police impropriety in all its forms.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
I know this is an old post, but I thought I might add a comment from the point-of-view of a truck driver:
I feel strongly that texting while driving should be banned, and I would also support a ban on all cellphone use while driving. However, I’m worried that legislation being proposed might eventually include GPS navigation systems into the mix.
While I would agree that a truck driver looking at a GPS is momentarily distracted from the road and therefore less safe than a driver not using a GPS device, I would also say that forcing a truck driver to pull over before he can use his GPS creates a far more dangerous situation. Regardless of whether the driver is pulling over and coming to a stop on the side of a highway or a country road, it takes a considerable amount of time for the truck to speed up to the rate of traffic when it rejoins the road. Non-truckers are notoriously poor at judging the speed of semi-trucks relative to their own vehicles, causing smaller vehicles to rear-end semis when they realize their misjudgment too late to effectively slow down.
Forcing truck drivers to pull over to view their GPS nav device will create an unsafe situation for other drivers on the road, and I hope any legislation that is passed takes this into account and includes an exception for the drivers of commercial vehicles.