This shows our difference in a nut shell

Reader comment on: Cellphone While Driving Ban
in response to reader comment: Worse than alcohol

Submitted by ben (United States), Dec 14, 2011 13:32

This harkens back to a disagreement on the Gulf Oil Spill. I would prefer to have regulation in place that will diminish the prospect of a negative event taking place, be it an oil spill or a drunk driving death. An output based response would say that if a company spills oil, or a person kills another in a crash, they should be punished. Perhaps the company goes bankrupt, and the person goes to jail. The problem with this way of thinking is that in the first example, the Gulf Coast is still destroyed, and in the second example the other driver is dead. If we know that something makes a person much more likely to kill someone, then that activity should not be allowed, whether it is drunk driving or texting. By your logic, I could go hunting in Central Park so long as I was careful (and perhaps used a silencer so as not to make too much noise). Of course, the one time the Central Park Hunter is not careful and kills someone, oh well, put him in jail. The person is still dead.

As for banning old people from driving, we already do this is they show they cannot pass a driver's test. If an older person can drive differently to compensate for their age and do so safely, no problem. Perhaps if we had driving tests that allowed people to prove they could text while driving (or drink, or get stoned etc) I might say it is ok to allow special drunk driving licenses - but I think the current system is probably better - ban those things that are shown to hurt a driver's ability to drive safely.


Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

The Future of Capitalism replies:

I actually think very few states require road tests for older drivers. My point on reckless driving is that you can and should enforce laws against dangerous driving behavior — like swerving in and out of lanes, speeding, driving too slow, running red lights or stop signs, tailgating — before it causes a deadly accident. That way you don't discriminate on the basis of whether the behavior is caused by cellphone use, child in the back seat, riveting Tom Friedman book on tape in the cassette player, coffee drinking, religion, age, Vietnam-era veteran status, recent breakup, whatever. Another take on the central park hunter analogy, would be a regulation requiring every central park jogger to be in a kevlar suit to prevent against the chance that there might be a hunter on the loose with bad aim. That's how I see the ban on all cellphone use, even handsfree, by drivers — an overreach.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Bring back drunk driving? [17 words]benDec 14, 2011 08:20
Actually, I think we should [185 words]Tom ElliottDec 19, 2011 00:34
Keep your Government out of my life! [84 words]C. GlaslDec 13, 2011 18:13
Worse than alcohol
[w/response] [83 words]
benDec 14, 2011 09:29
⇒ This shows our difference in a nut shell
[w/response] [284 words]
benDec 14, 2011 13:32
Exactly my point
[w/response] [156 words]
benDec 14, 2011 16:44
You are going to mandate insurance!!! [2 words]benDec 14, 2011 22:00

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to This shows our difference in a nut shell by ben

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.