4 ms·

To be somewhat devil's advocate: There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots. There are plenty of data points now that show that

To be somewhat devil's advocate: There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots. There are plenty of data points now that show that texting related accidents and deaths went up when the bans were enacted because instead of doing the sensible thing and NOT texting while driving, these people simply moved the phone into their lap instead of in a place where they could still kind of see the road ahead. It's an unfortunate fact that people have tendencies to be extremely stupid under the guise of "I can do it, it won't cause me to crash", and no law will fix this.

nknight 15y ago
Your arguments pretty much apply to drunk driving, don't they?
cstross 15y ago
There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots. This isn't about protecting people from being idiots; it's about protecting people from idiots. DUI bans aren't about the drunk drivers, they're about the innocent third parties they kill and maim. Ditto the requirement to hold third-party insurance when driving a vehicle. I suspect that what's needed is not merely a ban, but a public education campaign to ram this point home. ("Do you want to be maimed by an idiot who can't pull over to answer a text? If not, don't do it to other people!")
- BigZaphod 15y ago
  No, the point is that even if you ban it in order to protect "everyone else", people who insist on being unsafe will find new ways to do so regardless of the law. Banning behaviors is only effective if the ban is actually observed by the people who are most likely to cause the behavior you're trying to ban in the first place. Edit: And yes, I agree with your last point about a PR campaign. Personally, I'm not convinced we should go about banning every little behavior (especially in cases like this which are effectively unenforceable) but instead spend the resources on education about why a behavior is undesirable, uncool, dangerous, etc.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Most people do not insist on being unsafe, and will avoid behaviors that they are told are unacceptable and have concrete consequences. Getting a ticket or even going to jail is a lot more concrete for most people than accidents, which happen to other people.
redthrowaway 15y ago
>There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots. If the only people impacted were the idiots, I'd agree with you. When some 21 year old valley girl kills a 5 year old kid because she was texting, or some 50 year old investment banker runs down a pregnant woman because he was screaming at someone on his cell phone, then it's not just the idiots who get hurt. Government shouldn't protect you from your own stupidity, but it should protect other people from it.
jameskilton 15y ago
Ok didn't expect the rate down. I ask you who did and who've replied, how does this law protect the innocent bystanders? It's still the driver who's doing something stupid, and most of the time they only get caught when things go really really bad. Do you want roving scan vans on highways looking at every driver on the road for these infractions? Massively increase police presence on all roads (and gl getting anyone to pay for that these days)? Yes the Fed can try to make a full electronics ban, but that won't stop people from using the devices and still causing deaths that shouldn't have happened. People are selfish by nature. They don't care about how their actions affect anyone else. Trying to put more and more laws in place to try to stop this just leads to societies that have already existed and failed under this massive weight of "there's a law covering absolutely everything you could possibly do". So really, what is this Fed law going to stop?
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  how does this law protect the innocent bystanders? By making drivers a bit more paranoid. Massively increase police presence on all roads Not needed. Police manage to enforce seatbelt laws quite effectively without any special technology or vast budget increases. It's pretty easy to see when someone is using a cellphone; I notice it all the time without having any special training whatsoever. You could also use evidence of a phone/text conversation as evidence in accident lawsuits, leading to increased damages or charges of criminal negligence where it can be shown that the driver was operating a phone at the time of the accident. This would probably provide an even larger disincentive than issuing tickets: where the action is unlawful, then liability for an accident involving that activity is much easier to prove and win damages for, so the cost of causing an accident becomes much higher and insurers start looking for ways to discourage drivers from engaging in cellphone use too, such as refusing to provide coverage where it is shown that the driver was on the phone. Emergency use would still be available as an affirmative defense. So really, what is this Fed law going to stop? It's not a fed law, it's an encouragement to the state governments to pass laws against cellphone use (and similar). If you read the NTSB report (executive summary: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.ht...) you'll see that they've anticipated many of the issues you raise and considered the problem in context. Personally, I think the NTSB is one of the best government agencies, along with NIST and a few others which have a strong engineering focus.

nknight 15y ago

Your arguments pretty much apply to drunk driving, don't they?

cstross 15y ago

There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots. This isn't about protecting people from being idiots; it's about protecting people from idiots. DUI bans aren't about the drunk drivers, they're about the innocent third parties they kill and maim. Ditto the requirement to hold third-party insurance when driving a vehicle. I suspect that what's needed is not merely a ban, but a public education campaign to ram this point home. ("Do you want to be maimed by an idiot who can't pull over to answer a text? If not, don't do it to other people!")

BigZaphod 15y ago
No, the point is that even if you ban it in order to protect "everyone else", people who insist on being unsafe will find new ways to do so regardless of the law. Banning behaviors is only effective if the ban is actually observed by the people who are most likely to cause the behavior you're trying to ban in the first place. Edit: And yes, I agree with your last point about a PR campaign. Personally, I'm not convinced we should go about banning every little behavior (especially in cases like this which are effectively unenforceable) but instead spend the resources on education about why a behavior is undesirable, uncool, dangerous, etc.
- nknight 15y ago
  Most people do not insist on being unsafe, and will avoid behaviors that they are told are unacceptable and have concrete consequences. Getting a ticket or even going to jail is a lot more concrete for most people than accidents, which happen to other people.

redthrowaway 15y ago

>There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots. If the only people impacted were the idiots, I'd agree with you. When some 21 year old valley girl kills a 5 year old kid because she was texting, or some 50 year old investment banker runs down a pregnant woman because he was screaming at someone on his cell phone, then it's not just the idiots who get hurt. Government shouldn't protect you from your own stupidity, but it should protect other people from it.

jameskilton 15y ago

Ok didn't expect the rate down. I ask you who did and who've replied, how does this law protect the innocent bystanders? It's still the driver who's doing something stupid, and most of the time they only get caught when things go really really bad. Do you want roving scan vans on highways looking at every driver on the road for these infractions? Massively increase police presence on all roads (and gl getting anyone to pay for that these days)? Yes the Fed can try to make a full electronics ban, but that won't stop people from using the devices and still causing deaths that shouldn't have happened. People are selfish by nature. They don't care about how their actions affect anyone else. Trying to put more and more laws in place to try to stop this just leads to societies that have already existed and failed under this massive weight of "there's a law covering absolutely everything you could possibly do". So really, what is this Fed law going to stop?

anigbrowl 15y ago
how does this law protect the innocent bystanders? By making drivers a bit more paranoid. Massively increase police presence on all roads Not needed. Police manage to enforce seatbelt laws quite effectively without any special technology or vast budget increases. It's pretty easy to see when someone is using a cellphone; I notice it all the time without having any special training whatsoever. You could also use evidence of a phone/text conversation as evidence in accident lawsuits, leading to increased damages or charges of criminal negligence where it can be shown that the driver was operating a phone at the time of the accident. This would probably provide an even larger disincentive than issuing tickets: where the action is unlawful, then liability for an accident involving that activity is much easier to prove and win damages for, so the cost of causing an accident becomes much higher and insurers start looking for ways to discourage drivers from engaging in cellphone use too, such as refusing to provide coverage where it is shown that the driver was on the phone. Emergency use would still be available as an affirmative defense. So really, what is this Fed law going to stop? It's not a fed law, it's an encouragement to the state governments to pass laws against cellphone use (and similar). If you read the NTSB report (executive summary: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.ht...) you'll see that they've anticipated many of the issues you raise and considered the problem in context. Personally, I think the NTSB is one of the best government agencies, along with NIST and a few others which have a strong engineering focus.