3 ms·

I agree with your philosophy, but the problem is that all the costs aren't borne completely by the driver choosing to be distracted. Oftentimes, they'll cross

I agree with your philosophy, but the problem is that all the costs aren't borne completely by the driver choosing to be distracted. Oftentimes, they'll cross the centre lane and take someone with them. That's the paradox: I want MY freedom within my vehicle, but I also want to be sure other drivers on the road are not being negligent. I want the rules to apply to them.

windexh8er 15y ago
That's part of the problem - people think they're entitled to these guarantees. Even if this is law, there's no guarantee. Example: my sister went on a road trip with someone she did not know was bi-polar. That someone had not been taking their medication and had an episode while driving. She threatened to drive the car into a tree, luckily this didn't happen. So should bi-polars be required to prove they are medicated before driving? That's one heck of a rabbit hole (and my original point)! Point being, you have no control - no matter what the rules are. You also have no guarantees so you can never be sure. In fact, the only way to be sure is to avoid the situation at all costs. Banning all electronic devices will not ever provide that warm fuzzy you're looking for, rules or not.