Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I Wanna Defy the Logic of All Texxt Laws*
The problem: People talk on cell phones while they're driving. The solution: Ban them from doing it. New problem: People unable to talk on cell phones while driving turn to text messaging. The solution: C'mon, guess.
[U]nder a law that becomes effective March 1, the use of hand-held devices such as cell phones and BlackBerries will be banned in New Jersey, and text messaging while driving will be expressly prohibited. Violators face $100 penalties.
(The new law makes talking on a hand-held device or text messaging a primary offense. Currently, talking on a cell phone is a secondary offense; drivers must be charged with a first offense for an officer to cite them for cell-phone use.)
By the way, the research shows no linkage between cell phone use and vehicle crashes. No clue why lawmakers didn't think to back and legalize that far less-distracting method of telling your wife you're picking up Connor and Haylie from soccer practice while speeding back from the Motel 6 off Route 33 between Trenton and Freehold.
*Headline reference here. I think I used this recently, but not as effectively.
|11.21.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Arizona has already begun giving tickets for texting while driving. I believe the first was given a few days ago.
|11.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Larry Craig was just trying to get around this law by using
Morse Code.
Yeah, that's it. Morse Code.
|11.21.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Young children in the backseat and/or a crabby spouse in the
passenger seat are much more distracting to the driver than using a
cell phone. What about playing with the radio to find the latest
Snoop diddy? Hugely distracting, especially in CT.
Morons.
|11.21.07 @ 10:52AM|#
the use of hand-held devices such as cell phones and
BlackBerries will be banned in New Jersey
Banned in New Jersey!? They must mean banned while driving. Don't
they?
R C Dean|11.21.07 @ 10:54AM|#
By the way, the research shows no linkage between cell phone
use and vehicle crashes.
This really surprises me. I can't remember the last time I saw
somebody do something really stupid in a car who didn't
have a cell phone plastered to their face.
Episiarch|11.21.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Why don't they just get to the point that they'll end up at anyway: banning "distraction" and basically giving the police carte blanche (beyond even what they have now) to pull you over for any reason at any time, with no possibility of contesting it as they can say you looked "distracted".
jimmydageek|11.21.07 @ 10:56AM|#
RC,
People do dumb shit while driving all the time...cellphone or no
cellphone. As I mentioned in another thread, it's just likely that
they will have a cellphone...just as it's likely that they'll be
wearing shoes...or chewing gum...etc.
|11.21.07 @ 10:57AM|#
I'll get worked up over seatbelt and helmet laws, but not something like this. If you're big enough of a jackass to drive down the road with one hand on the wheel and the other (and your eyes) on your Blackberry, then you deserve a freaking ticket.
|11.21.07 @ 10:57AM|#
(The new law makes talking on a hand-held device or text
messaging a primary offense. Currently, talking on a cell phone is
a secondary offense; drivers must be charged with a first offense
for an officer to cite them for cell-phone use.)
That didn't take very long. One of the things they made a big deal
about when states first passed cellphone laws was that drivers
would only get a ticket for cellphone use if they had already been
speeding, swerving, etc. Now we'll have to worry about doing
anything that come be construed as using a handheld device.
By the way, wouldn't dialing the phone come under "the use of
hand-held devices such as cell phones"?
|11.21.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Usually I'm on board with the car privacy thing, and standard
libertarian disclaimer number whatever, but texting?
It takes a special caliber of stupid to be texting while
driving.
A very special caliber...
|11.21.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Kind of agree with dcpotts. Do I think this should be a punishable offense? No. But on the scale of things? I find this significantly less egregious than... well pretty much everything else.
Billy Beck|11.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Warren: I'm with you.
I can't stand to read these stupid motherfuckers anymore because
they cannot write.
robc|11.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#
R C Dean
I can't remember the last time I saw somebody do something
really stupid in a car who didn't have a cell phone plastered to
their face.
The lady who made the left turn directly in front of me about 2
weeks ago didnt have one. She did have a smushed wheel well after I
finished taking care of her stupidity. I just received my check
from her insurance company, so I guess I can get my front end fixed
next week. She was lucky I had only been on the road for about a
block and wasnt up to full speed. She made a blind turn across a
major road because the guy in the left lane waved her across. I was
in the right lane.
I really need to figure out how to turn off the stealth mode on my
car. Since I got it a few years ago, I have been hit on the front,
back and left by people who failed to see me. This last one was the
first time I was actually moving during the accident.
|11.21.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I don't support the ban, but I don't buy studies that say that
cellphones don't screw up drivers. They most certainly do. Not all
drivers--at least, not to the same degree--but I've seen too many
examples of it. If nothing else, there is a category of cellphone
user who can't drive faster than 30 m.p.h. while using a
cellphone.
Of course, driving badly is a skill many possess, with or without
technological assistance.
|11.21.07 @ 11:06AM|#
I don't know, I might hold out for a "no texting while driving"
law.
I mean, talk about the fucking height of idiocy. People who do that
are a clear and present danger, every bit (and probably moreso)
than a drunk driver.
dhex is legend|11.21.07 @ 11:08AM|#
easier solution: kill everyone who wants a car.
at the very least i'd be living the high life! on a subway! EVERY
STREET A BUS LANE!
MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA
|11.21.07 @ 11:08AM|#
uh, I text and drive fairly often. I don't even need to look at
the phone any more.
Of course, I limit my texting while driving to 20 characters or
less with no symbols.
mith|11.21.07 @ 11:08AM|#
By the way, the research shows no linkage between cell phone
use and vehicle crashes.
Actually, there are a number of studies that link cell phone use
with driving impairment. The one linked study that couldn't prove
that people talking on phones was directly related to crashes, but
that only proves the people won't fess up that they were on the
phone when they rear ended the other person.
|11.21.07 @ 11:09AM|#
I guess my point is that I disagree with the "no cell phones while driving" law because that can easily be subsumed under careless driving statutes, whereas "TWD" and "DUI" deserve to have their very own special category.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 11:19AM|#
The solution is to impose sufficiently punitive actions against anyone that causes an accident for any reason. There is no real need to differentiate between the various causes of why a driver is distracted and causes an accident.
|11.21.07 @ 11:20AM|#
easier solution: kill everyone who wants a car.
I have a car, but I wish I didn't need to. Can I still live?
DavidS|11.21.07 @ 11:21AM|#
I think there should be some kind of prize for when a blog
assertion is directly contradicted by its link.
As in this case:
"while the authors' results are intriguing, the jury is still out.
The authors themselves concede that over 125 other studies argue a
causal relationship between phone use and accidents"
|11.21.07 @ 11:25AM|#
I live near an busy intersection with shops that appeal to women. My general observation is that bored soccer moms driving White Lexus SUVs with two kids in the back watching Barney DVDs will run an red light and almost take down grandpa with or without a phone plastered to their face.
|11.21.07 @ 11:26AM|#
uh, I text and drive fairly often. I don't even need to look
at the phone any more.
Of course, I limit my texting while driving to 20 characters or
less with no symbols.
Shouldn't that read:
"I txt n drv farly ofn! dnt evn need 2 lok @ teh phn!"
Reinmoose|11.21.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Pro Lib-
Word.
Seriously, people are bad enough drivers as it is without text
messaging.
Cell phone use definitely impairs driving because I've never seen
someone on the highway suddenly drop in speed by 20mph except for
when they're picking up and talking on the phone.
ed|11.21.07 @ 11:29AM|#
I'm wondering if there isn't any activity undertaken by a driver that the dedicated libertarian would not consider sacrosanct. How about sleeping while driving? Should that be illegal? I'm almost afraid of the answer.
Episiarch|11.21.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I'm wondering if there isn't any activity undertaken by a
driver that the dedicated libertarian would not consider
sacrosanct. How about sleeping while driving? Should that be
illegal? I'm almost afraid of the answer.
How about if people get punished for things that actually happen,
and not for possibilities? That would be nice.
|11.21.07 @ 11:35AM|#
I think cell phones do impair driving, but I must admit I
sometimes talk and text while driving anyway. I have a hands free
device and I don't really have to look at my phone to text, so I
would suspect it would be hard to enforce a cell phone ticket
against me.
When things get tricky in traffic, though, I do usually tell the
other person to shut up or that I will have to call them back.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.21.07 @ 11:36AM|#
given a choice between facing a driver texting or talking, I'll
take talking.
The ones you really gotta beware of are blond chicks driving black
or red Suburbans (espc 4 Whl Drives). Those babes WILL mow you down
without a second thought as they charge onto the freeway, cell
phone welded to the left ear.....
On a slightly different note, I had been told by Danny, my
bartender, that it was illegal to eat and drive in Az. Wonder if
that be true?
Reinmoose|11.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
< sings >
let the handcuffs slip off your wrists
I'll let you be my chaperone
at the halfway home
I'm a full grown man but I'm
not afraid to cry-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y!
< /sings >
|11.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
So I can empty my clip at a crowd of people and only get in
trouble if I hit one of them?
Um, I'll pass.
(And no, pointing out the quantitative difference between the
danger posed by the two activities does not refute the point that
it is foohardy to legalize the endangerment of others.)
|11.21.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Ed,
It's more that I'm uncomfortable with giving police another primary
infraction to write tickets for, especially when my state has
people trying to get the fine raised into the 300-500 range.
Considering that most cars have cellphones in them, how does a
person prove that he wasn't using it? Remember that with this NJ
law you no longer have to be exhibiting dangerous behavior, putting
your hand to your ear will be enough.
|11.21.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Negligence is negligence. There is no need to criminalize every
activity.
Should people text while driving? No.
Should we enact a law to prevent it? No.
Just because some politician says it will make us all safer
(debatable)or because it makes us feel better doesn't mean we have
to cede more power to the local municipalities or the States, so
that they might generate more revenue.
|11.21.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Just because some politician says it will make us all safer
(debatable)or because it makes us feel better doesn't mean we have
to cede more power to the local municipalities or the States, so
that they might generate more revenue.
Agreed. People who want to text while driving will continue to do
so. Only now, they'll hold it lower to avoid detection, taking
their eyes even further from the road.
So really, this law will make things worse. Ahh, central planning
is lovely, isn't it?
carrick|11.21.07 @ 11:44AM|#
So I can empty my clip at a crowd of people and only get in
trouble if I hit one of them?
Overreaching just a little bit there, don't you think . . .
|11.21.07 @ 11:46AM|#
So I can empty my clip at a crowd of people and only get in
trouble if I hit one of them?
Ol' hyperbole joe is at it again!
DRINK!
|11.21.07 @ 11:52AM|#
I have a hands free device
I'm not convinced that it's the physical placement of the phone to
the ear -- and not the engagement of the conversation -- that
causes accidents involving cell phones.
In that case, maybe we should ban all conversations in
vehicles.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 11:58AM|#
I'm not convinced that it's the physical placement of the
phone to the ear -- and not the engagement of the conversation --
that causes accidents involving cell phones.
In that case, maybe we should ban all conversations in
vehicles.
Early studies showed that conversing with someone on a cell phone
significantly distracted a driver while conversing with an occupant
of the car did not. The study was unable to determine why.
Urkobold™|11.21.07 @ 11:59AM|#
ED, YOU UNSHRIVEN FOOL, THESE LAWS ARE UNNECESSARY. IF THE
URKOBOLD CAN DRIVE HIS CAR WITH NO SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT WHILE
RECEIVING SERVICE FROM THE WEIBSKOBOLD, WHY SHOULD THE URKOBOLD BE
TICKETED? THE SAME QUESTION ARISES WHEN THE URKOBOLD WATCHES
REPO MAN WHILE DRIVING.
JOE, THE URKOBOLD PRESENTS YOU WITH A KŌAN: "WHAT IS THE SOUND OF
JOE'S SKULL CRASHING THROUGH A WINDSHIELD?"
DOES IT MATTER WHAT GOES ON IN THE CAR, SO LONG AS THE CAR STAYS
BETWEEN THE LINES? THE URKOBOLD THINKS NOT.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Hands-on versus Hands-free does not address the mental aspects that seem to distract a driver when conversing on a cell phone.
|11.21.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Joe - in order for your example to work, you have to remove the
element of assault. If you are firing at people or into a crowd,
that's a good example of an assault (it reaches the level of
reckless disregard for human life).
A better example is if you went hunting and accidentally shot
someone who looked alarmingly like a deer. While you might be
liable for that person's injuries, it is also likely that you
wouldn't be criminally charged (they call that the ol' Cheney).
ed|11.21.07 @ 12:10PM|#
how does a person prove that he wasn't using it?
Ask my sister. Her husband was driving in the great state of New
York when Smokey pulled him over for talking on his cell phone. He
wasn't, and protested, and Smokey told him to tell it to the judge.
Apparently he did not know my sister very well. She gathered the
receipts for that phone's usage on that particular day and proved
to the judge that it had not been used at that particular time.
Case dismissed.
Reinmoose|11.21.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Ask my sister...
How do we know he wasn't talking on someone else's phone,
huh? He was pulled over by a police officer, so he must have been
doing something wrong!
|11.21.07 @ 12:21PM|#
NJ driver here. I note that most cops are using hand-held
devices: either cell phones or police radios.
Recall that this was a secondary offense, but now will be primary.
They did the same thing with seat belt laws. To get a foot in the
door, it is promised to be only a secondary offense.
I suspect they next will try to ban tugjobs whilst driving. Most
likely first getting one, but once they get a foot in the door,
they will extend it to giving one.
|11.21.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Ask my sister. Her husband was driving in the great state of
New York when Smokey pulled him over for talking on his cell phone.
He wasn't, and protested, and Smokey told him to tell it to the
judge. Apparently he did not know my sister very well. She gathered
the receipts for that phone's usage on that particular day and
proved to the judge that it had not been used at that particular
time. Case dismissed.
And if he'd been using it on speaker-mode?
By the way, how much time and expense(lost pay, etc.) did they have
to spend in order to get the verdict they did?
LarryA|11.21.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I wonder if a law enforcement officer can be cited for inputing
license plate numbers via onboard computer?
I was coming into town recently and noticed brake lights flashing
at the top of the next hill. Cars were suddenly slowing, those
behind them aborting lane switches, things were bunching up, and in
general it looked like everyone was distracted.
Turned out to be a sheriff's patrol car doing the radar thing. Now
that's distracting.
|11.21.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Hands-on versus Hands-free does not address the mental
aspects that seem to distract a driver when conversing on a cell
phone.
Let me posit a theory.
When you're engaged in a conversation on the telephone, mentally
you're trying to imagine where the other person is, what they're
doing. In other words, you're trying to place the person in some
sort of context. That is distracting.
Whereas if they're right next to you, there are no such
considerations. Proximity matters.
Thoughts?
Captain Chaos|11.21.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Driving=all sorts of externalities.
Joe's point (despite desperate attempts to miss it) is completely
valid.
Let's go through this again: "I can keep it between the lines"
isn't good enough. It's the ability to make correct split-second
decisions and to act on them that matters. I'm sorry if the fact
that driving entails responsibility upsets some of you. Perhaps you
should take the bus.
ed|11.21.07 @ 12:28PM|#
How do we know he wasn't talking on someone else's
phone
The state did not prove their case. Dismissed. By the way, I have
no real problem with phones in cars and their users getting killed
in traffic, so long as they kill only themselves and the resulting
rubber-necking delays don't inconvenience me too much. I also think
one should be allowed to play scrabble while driving. Shaving,
tying your shoes, reading your mail, deep-frying some wings...you
name it. Everything goes. 'Cause when you're in your car, you
affect only yourself. Right?
|11.21.07 @ 12:35PM|#
No, noting the quantitative difference between the two
activities is not a rebuttal. The principle Episiarch is arguing
for is, in his words, "How about if people get punished for things
that actually happen, and not for possibilities?"
Argue the principle if you think it's so great, don't cry "No
fair!" because it looks bad when applied to a different
situation.
Kid Handsome,
I get what you're saying about assault, but the deer-hunting
example goes to far in the opposite direction.
How about, replace "into a crowd" with "randomly out my
window?"
|11.21.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Usually I'm on board with the car privacy thing, and standard libertarian disclaimer number whatever, but texting?
I think the issue is that people doing this is at least partially
the result of banning a less risky behavior.
Reinmoose|11.21.07 @ 12:37PM|#
I's only teasin, ed.
Privitize the roads and let the owners decide who can and can't
drive on them and under what conditions, and insure themselves
accordingly.
There, I said it!
R C Dean|11.21.07 @ 12:38PM|#
So I can empty my clip at a crowd of people and only get in
trouble if I hit one of them?
Do you consider getting shot in self-defense to be "getting in
trouble"?
I'm not convinced that it's the physical placement of the phone
to the ear -- and not the engagement of the conversation -- that
causes accidents involving cell phones.
In that case, maybe we should ban all conversations in
vehicles.
Its really odd, but this has come up in conversation a few times,
and I think most people would agree that it is more distracting to
talk on a cell phone than talk to a person sitting next to you in
the car.
|11.21.07 @ 12:41PM|#
A hundred bucks?
wtf? Somebody in Jersey (especially northern NJ) who has a
blackberry won't give a shit about a hundred dollr ticket, they're
making that in about an hour.
What about a fine equal to half a percent of their yearly income? I
think Sweden does that.
|11.21.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Do you consider getting shot in self-defense to be "getting
in trouble"?
Do you understand that this is a discussion of the activity's legal
status?
|11.21.07 @ 12:44PM|#
There's a vast difference between attempted murder, willfully dangerous acts, and gross negligence on the one hand and possibly negligent acts on the other. joe's analogy--with all due respect to joe (except when it comes to his use of italics tags)--is completely inapt.
|11.21.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Conversations in vehicles probably don't cause the same problem
quite as frequently because both individuals can see when the
surrounding environment requires more attention and they probably
both unconsciously moderate conversation according to needs. If
you're the person on the phone talking to the driver, you have no
idea what it's like.
There's also the fact that I bet 95% of the time someone is on a
cell phone in a car, both hands are NOT on the wheel. Another
distinction.
|11.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
This also comes down to how irresponsible can you be when
carrying out an activity that has the possibility of affecting
other people fatally? "I didn't MEAN to plow into the other car and
kill those kids!" can be used to excuse all sorts of behavior, from
drinking to driving while phoning to driving while dreadfully
tired.
The problem with waiting until the driver has already crashed up
himself and someone else through his irresponsibility is that it's
too late. Being able to bring a lawsuit against someone else is
cold comfort after your own kid is dead.
I know that Libertarians think that everything should be left to
the tort system, but most normal humans would prefer being able to
expect a little more intelligent driving from the other people out
on the roads.
|11.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Isn't the phrase "possibly negligent" repetetive? Doesn't
"negligent" already include the concept that it is possible that
the action will cause harm?
As for "willfully dangerous," something that makes you less able to
control a speeding automobile is both willful and dangerous - the
difference between the two situations being a quantitative one, and
not one that the principle I'm arguing against ("How about if
people get punished for things that actually happen, and not for
possibilities?") does not encompass.
Apt, sir. APT!
Seitz|11.21.07 @ 1:02PM|#
By the way, the research shows no linkage between cell phone
use and vehicle crashes.
Huh? Did you even read what you linked to, David? That post talks
about one study that couldn't find a link. It also referenced 125
other studies that argued there was a causal relationship.
As Tyler points out, while the authors' results are intriguing,
the jury is still out. The authors themselves concede that over 125
other studies argue a causal relationship between phone use and
accidents
Ryan|11.21.07 @ 1:11PM|#
I (gulp) agree with Joe here. If you want to argue from a
philosphical standpoint, then you have to argue either it should be
legal to both text-while-driving and fire a gun randomly
out a window in a populated area or that it shouldn't. In both
cases you are being irresponsible and putting others' lives and
property at a relatively similar level of risk.
If the degree of risk seems too dissimilar, vary the population
density of the place where you're doing the shooting until it seems
equivalent. The argument stands.
Ryan|11.21.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Clarification: You have to argue that it is within the proper roloe of the government to regulate both T-W-D'ing and shooting out a window randomly. Thus recognizing that judgement comes into play.
|11.21.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Aptless, I say, aptless. If I shoot a gun at random
where people are located, that's an inherently dangerous activity.
No question about it. In fact, it's worse than just gross
negligence, it's more properly classified as a "depraved heart"
murder (i.e., a murder that happens because the killer had a
"callous disregard for human life") if someone gets killed as a
result.
Cellphone use or any other possibly
distracting activity is not even in the same ballpark. I don't
doubt that there are people who can drive safely while using a
cellphone or doing something similar (if this were VM posting, he'd
say "batin'", but I'm not VM), so ticketing them just for the
activity alone seems inappropriate. That is, the inherent risk of
the activity is quite low (obviously this is true; otherwise, we'd
have hundreds of thousands of dead cellphone users and/or their
victims on our streets). I'd have less trouble with enhanced
penalties for people who do such things and drive into
trees, other cars, houses.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Alright joe.
The case of randomly firing out the window can be handled two ways.
In the first case, one can imagine every conceivable stupid thing a
person can do, and then we can write lots of laws saying that it is
illegal to do all those stupid things. In the second case, we can
say it is illegal to harm someone without just cause, then juries
can decide if any given stupid act justifies throwing someone in
jail.
The difference is thousands of laws versus one law, where the one
law is based upon the outcome of an individual's actions not the
specific actions themselves.
|11.21.07 @ 1:19PM|#
"""So I can empty my clip at a crowd of people and only get in
trouble if I hit one of them?"""
"At", is an important word here. Shooting at the crowd implies
intent to hit the crowd. Just because you got lucky and missed
every time would be irrelevant. I would expect that a judge would
be unmoved when you try to convince him/her that you were not
trying to hit what you were shooting at. You would be charged with
a crime for actually hitting one.
It's really a silly scenario.
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 1:39PM|#
If someone is weaving all over the road, endangering everyone
around him, because he's trying to drive while blindfolded, do we
have to wait until he actually runs into something before we can
make him stop?
Personally, I would argue that "increasing the risk faced by
others" is a sufficient imposition on others' rights to
(potentially) justify intervention, even under libertarian
political philosophy. It's not a question of principle (or at least
not that principle), IMO, it's a question of whether there
is enough increase in risk to justify the costs of
enforcement.
In the realm of unsafe driving, ideally, it should be judged on a
case-by-case basis: If someone is, as I said, weaving all over the
road (or any other evidence of unsafe driving), they should be
pulled over regardless of why they're weaving. OTOH, if (to all
outward appearance) they're driving safely, then why should I care
what else they're doing?
Ultimately, I want a market solution: In this day and age of
converging databases and such, I want the ability to pick up my
cell phone, punch in the license plate number of the idiot who just
cut me off, and have it ring his cell phone so that I can
yell at him.
Captain Chaos|11.21.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Let's leave the gun firing analogy aside. The fact is that driving is an activity that inherently affects other people. Given that, laws that actually lessen that danger can be defended, even by a libertarian.
Dave B.|11.21.07 @ 1:57PM|#
If shooting randomly out of your window was truly similar, it would be legal unless there was a specific law against it. Why is it then that we need to change the laws to make driving while talking on a cell phone illegal, while shooting out of your window randomly seems to be covered by existing laws?
Captain Chaos|11.21.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Dave B: Firing a gun out your window is gross negligence involving an immediate threat to the lives of other people. Texting while driving is dangerous and obviously negligent, it does not present the same level of threat. In other words, the law establishes a lesser penalty (fines/points) to suit a lesser offense.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 2:01PM|#
The fact is that driving is an activity that inherently
affects other people. Given that, laws that actually lessen that
danger can be defended, even by a libertarian.
Sure, and those laws can be reduced to:
1-a) if you cause an accident, then you are finacially liable for
all the property that is damaged by the accident
1-b) if you cause an accident, then you are finacially liable for
the injuries that are sustained by all parties affected by the
accident
2) if a jury finds you guilty of gross negligence you go to
jail
Anything more complicated that that is simply a public jobs
initiative for laywers.
Captain Chaos|11.21.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Yes, carrick, but all of those things are ex post facto. There's
a long tradition, even within libertarianism, of tolerating laws
that attempt to limit danger to third parties.
Libertarianism =/= "leave everything up to tort law"
Captain Chaos|11.21.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a society that depended entirely on tort law.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Chaos, there is no philosophical difference between banning
internet gambling because some stupid prick will get addicted and
banning texting during driving because some stupid prick will cause
an accident.
The goal should be to punish bad behavior so that people will
choose intelligently how to behave rather than criminalizing high
risk behavior.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a society that depended
entirely on tort law.
2) if a jury finds you guilty of gross negligence you go to
jail
In my "libertarian" world, a drunk driver who kills someone get
convicted of a random pre-mediated act of viloence and does hard
time. The dope head down the street smokes in peace, and the state
doesn't waste party of my wealth to stop him from smoking dope.
R C Dean|11.21.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Do you understand that this is a discussion of the
activity's legal status?
Sure. Do you understand that engaging in activities that are
insanely risky tend to be, for lack of a better term,
"self-policing".
More substantively, shootin at people is generally considered
attempted murder. I personally have no problem with "attempt"
crimes. I personally don't regard driving while talking to be
"attempted reckless driving."
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 2:28PM|#
there is no philosophical difference between banning internet gambling because some stupid prick will get addicted and banning texting during driving because some stupid prick will cause an accident.
Sure there is: The gambling addict is endangering only his own
assets. An unsafe driver is endangering the assets of all the other
people/property owners around him.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Sure there is: The gambling addict is endangering only his
own assets. An unsafe driver is endangering the assets of all the
other people/property owners around him.
You simply looking at different consequences of bad behavior and
using that to justify different laws.
The real quesstion is and always will be whether or not to
criminalize behavior that has some non-zero probability that
someone will suffer harm versus punishing people after they have
caused harm. In other words, should everyone be banned from risky
behavior, or should guilty people be punished?
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 2:47PM|#
R C Dean: Can one drive recklessly without causing an actual
accident?
If so, can we make reckless driving a crime, even in those cases
where no actual accident occurs?
If so, then if research demonstrates that driving while talking is
per se "reckless", in terms of how badly it affects your ability to
drive, then could driving while talking be considered a
crime?
Every time something like this comes up, news media dutifully
mention the study (studies?) that claims to show that talking on a
cell phone impairs driving ability to the same degree as being
legally drunk (0.08 BAC). I tend to think this should be considered
evidence of how minor an impairment it is to be just
barely legally drunk, rather than evidence of how major an
impairment it is to talk on the phone, but other people have
different opinions.
My point is: Those who want to outlaw talking while driving don't
regard it as "attempted reckless driving" either, they consider it
actual reckless driving. Just like driving drunk.
|11.21.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Certain handicaps are greater impairments to driving than cellphone use and minimal drinking. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 3:17PM|#
The real quesstion is and always will be whether or not to criminalize behavior that has some non-zero probability that someone will suffer harm versus punishing people after they have caused harm.
First of all, your phrase "different consequences of bad behavior"
glosses over the distinction I was making: Whether the consequences
affect anyone who didn't consent to them (i.e., anyone
other than the person engaging in the behavior). That's a
philosophical difference, whether you recognize it or not.
Beyond that, I take it you would advocate legalizing attempted
murder? If I try to shoot someone in the head for looking at me
funny, but I am a lousy shot and I miss, I have caused no harm to
anyone, right? What I did had a non-zero probability of someone
suffering harm, but since no one actually did, it's presumably
OK.
Captain Chaos|11.21.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Of course we're not going to outlaw any behavior with a non-zero
risk to third parties. It does, however, make sense to prohibit
behaviors with a significant probability of causing harm. Legal
penalties, of course, should be scaled to the gravity of the
danger. In other words, texting while driving might merit a $100
fine, while emptying a clip out your window merits a significant
amount of time in jail.
Of course, people can differ about what constitutes a significant
threat, but I don't think that proposing that all legal action be
post hoc makes much sense.
Xanthippas|11.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Okay guys, if you're going to say something like:
By the way, the research shows no linkage between cell phone use and vehicle crashes.
Then your own post that you link to says this:
As Tyler points out, while the authors' results are intriguing, the jury is still out. The authors themselves concede that over 125 other studies argue a causal relationship between phone use and accidents, so don't expect the repudiation of these ridiculous laws any time soon.
You also fail to note that the "research" you're linking to is
merely a very loose correlation between an increase in
weekday minutes and accident rates.
So if you just are against these laws that's fine, but don't twist
the data to make it seem like preventing people from
talking/texting on cell phones wouldn't cause wrecks.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Beyond that, I take it you would advocate legalizing
attempted murder?
Let's see:
Texting while driving; accident possible but not probable (i.e.
probability far below 50/50); risky behavior to oneself (with
consent) and to others (without consent)
Attempted murder; intent certain; outcome dependendent on
competence; potential victim does not provide consent
Sure those look exactly the same to me. Gimme a break.
|11.21.07 @ 3:35PM|#
(And no, pointing out the quantitative difference between
the danger posed by the two activities does not refute the point
that it is foohardy to legalize the endangerment of
others.)
The quantitative difference makes all the difference in
the world. Almost everything we do outside our homes endangers
others. Getting in your car (even without a cellphone, food,
screaming kids, etc.) endangers potentially thousands of
pedestrians and bikers every time you pull out of the dirveway. You
can magnify that basic risk many times if you're driving after
dark. And, several times more if it happens to be on a narrow
street downtown as office buildings are emptying. Of course the
list of risky things you do that endanger other's lives is endless
and the only distinguishing factor is precisely the quantitative
level of risk you say is irrelevant to the point being made.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Of course, people can differ about what constitutes
a significant threat, but I don't think that proposing
that all legal action be post hoc makes much sense.
Over the course of the last 3 decades or so we have seen
enforcement against drunken driving go from basically tolerating
DUI so long as no one gets hurt; to focussing on getting serverely
drunken people (high blood alcohol) off the road; to focussing on
getting all people under the influence (mostly functional but
slightly impaired) to not drive; to stopping anyone from drinking
any amount and then driving (zero tolerance).
And by the way, we now have a legal framework that allows
roadblocks to check people for DUI without probable cause.
So on the one hand you have a very nice bright line legal concept
(harm versus no harm) and on the other a constantly wavering fuzzy
line that is driven by a politcal ambitions of a subset of the
population.
I choose the bright line framework. Your mileage may vary.
|11.21.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Wow! We actually have a valid argument running through this
thread. But one other point is overlooked: is banning risky
behavior such as talking/texting on the phone actually worth the
enforcement costs? If police are busy stopping drivers for phone
use, they have less time for taking care of other, real crimes. And
will enforcement of such a law actually reduce the risky behavior,
or will it have unintended consequences that increase risks in
other areas?
These practical considerations tell us that banning an activity
doesn't necessarily solve the problem. And while I can understand
people wanting something to be done proactively, there's nothing
that says other, non-legal actions aren't possible and more
effective than legal prohibition. The ever-(un)popular insurance
angle, for example, or even just public awareness and peer
pressure. Just because a ready-made market solution isn't obvious
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Attempted murder; intent certain; outcome dependendent on competence; potential victim does not provide consent
The outcome of reckless driving is also "dependent on competence",
and the "potential victim does not provide consent" in either case.
If the difference is intent, wouldn't that make it a thought crime?
You're talking about punishing someone for what they
wanted to do, not for what they actually
did.
Texting while driving; accident possible but not probable (i.e. probability far below 50/50); risky behavior to oneself (with consent) and to others (without consent)
You've inadvertantly supported my point, by specifying "probability
far below 50/50" as a way of distinguishing attempted murder from
texting-while-driving. That point being that this is not
primarily a philosophical difference, but merely a difference of
opinion about (A) where on the 0% to 100% scale of risk
texting-while-driving falls (a factual question), and (B) where on
the 0% to 100% scale of risk to draw the line (a pragmatic
question). If that's not what's at issue, then the fact that the
one activity's probability is "far below 50/50" is irrelevant. It
could be 98%, as long as the person doing it falls into that lucky
2% that causes no harm.
Do I think there should be a specific law against
texting-while-driving? Heck, no. Do I think there should be a
generic law against driving recklessly? Yes, as long as we're stuck
with public roads.
Michael Clem:
The ever-(un)popular insurance angle, for example, or even just public awareness and peer pressure.
As I said, I want to be able to punch someone's license plate
number into my cell phone, and have it ring their cell
phone so I can yell at them.
My other proposal: Paintball guns. We should be allowed to fire a
paintball at anyone who annoys us on the road. That way, when you
see someone with dozens of paint splotches all over their car, you
know to give them plenty of room.
dhex|11.21.07 @ 4:08PM|#
I have a car, but I wish I didn't need to. Can I still
live?
you will lose three fingers on your right hand.
also you will be forced to listen to "nerdcore" for no less than
three minutes a day and no more than seven.
anyway, it's pretty obvious that the greatest danger with driving
is that people are controlling the automobile.
also i wonder how distracting pulling a drive-by would be if you
had one of those bluetooth headsets?
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Sure those look exactly the same to me. Gimme a break.
If you can pretend not to see any difference between gambling and
reckless driving, then I can pretend not to see any difference
between reckless driving and attempted murder. :-)
Hey, you know what that means?
Gambling = Reckless Driving
Reckless Driving = Attempted Murder
therefore
Gambling = Attempted Murder!
carrick|11.21.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Salvius, I am not going to spend any more time discussing this
with you. I've seen too many people try to refute libertarian
concepts with statements like "so you want to legalize attempted
murder".
If you cannot differentiate between:
Punish harm resulting from risky behavior after the fact rather
that prohibit all people from engaging in risky behavior
versus:
Legalize an intentional, but failed, attempt at direct physical
harm against another individual simply because no harm actually
occured
then:
There isn't much point in conversing with you any more.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Different nannies have differing priorities, but they all want to prevent other people from doing risky things because someone might get hurt.
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Punish harm resulting from risky behavior
I simply think there is a good argument that imposing additional
risk on others is itself harm.
If I impose risk on someone else, then in order for that person to
mitigate that risk (i.e., to restore themselves to where they were
before I increased their risks), they must pay an actual cost
(e.g., insurance, barriers, etc). I have, therefore,
harmed them.
From a risk analysis point of view, I've harmed them by the cost of
the potential damage, discounted by the probability that the damage
will not actually occur. This is true even if the risk never
materializes into actual damage.
I have absolutely no problem with the "harm versus no harm"
standard. We differ on how inclusive a definition of "harm" to
use.
And I self-identify as libertarian. I've read, and agree with,
Friedman and Mises and Rothbard, etc. I'm not trying to refute
libertarian concepts. I'm trying to refute your concepts.
And perhaps I could also say:
If you cannot differentiate between:
Risky behavior that risks only the person engaging in the
behavior
versus:
Risky behavior that risks the person engaging in the behavior and
everyone else around them
then:
There isn't much point in conversing with you any more.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 4:55PM|#
And I self-identify as libertarian.
That's good, I was afraid you were just Dan T in a left over
holloween mask.
Paul|11.21.07 @ 4:58PM|#
I'm on a bit of a statistics tear today, so please forgive but,
has anyone studied the rate of automobile accidents, taking into
account the number of trips, and compared them to the rate after
cell phones became widely available? Oh wait, maybe I can perform
this feat. Let's see.
Let's start with 1999:
# of deaths: 40,965
Population: 279,040,181
Crude rate: 14.68
Age adjusted rate: 14.66
Year 2004:
# deaths: 43,432
Population: 293,638,158
Crude rate: 14.79
Age adjusted: 14.66
Hmm, looks like a slight uptick in the crude rate of motor vehicle
deaths since 1999, where text messaging has arguably become much
more prevalent.
Well, I guess the ban is a good thing, then. I expect to see
dramatic drops after the imposition of said ban.
|11.21.07 @ 5:03PM|#
Pro Lib, you're missing the point.
Look at Episiarch's principle; do you see anything about people's
feelings, motives, or hearts in there?
Once you set that aside, all you are aguing is that the degree of
risk is higher - and I agree with you, the degree of risk militates
for treating the situations differently. That's the variable we
need to consider, not whether a bullet or car has hit somebody
yet.
|11.21.07 @ 5:07PM|#
carrick,
The goal should be to punish bad behavior so that people will
choose intelligently how to behave rather than criminalizing high
risk behavior.
Shooting out my window IS bad behavior that should be punished so
people will choose to intelligently how to behave, whether I've hit
somebody yet or not.
|11.21.07 @ 5:12PM|#
In other words, should everyone be banned from risky
behavior, or should guilty people be punished?
The guy who accepts the dare to drive five blocks blindfolded and
gets lucky had committed exactly the same act as the guy who does
so and kills somebody. They made exactly the same decision,
undertook exactly the same act, and put other people in exactly the
same danger. The only difference is pure luck, which should be of
no consequence whatsoever when considering the morality of the
drivers.
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Brian Courts:
Almost everything we do outside our homes endangers others.
Thanks for making this point, btw. It was sort of a sidetrack from
the points I was arguing, but it needed to be said. Heck, stuff we
do inside our homes endangers others - I could flip on a
light switch, an electrical short could start a fire, and the fire
could spread to my neighbor's house. Of course the
quantitative level of risk is relevant.
Michael Clem:
is banning risky behavior such as talking/texting on the phone actually worth the enforcement costs?
My answer: No. Especially keeping in mind that the costs of
enforcement include loss of liberty, such as the ones carrick
mentioned at 3:52 in the context of DUI laws.
However, banning risky behavior like being obviously on the verge
of losing control of your car, for whatever reason
(drinking, texting, waffle-making, etc)? That's another
story...
|11.21.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Wouldn't the elimination of such laws, and the use of
endangerment laws in their place, involve empowering the police to
use their own discretion a lot more?
Is this one of those "torts should replace regulation," "we neet
'tort reform'" type of situations?
Salvius|11.21.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Joe:
Yes. I think police should be empowered to use more and more of
their own discretion, over smaller and smaller realms of
wrongdoing. :-)
Oh, and "discretion" does not extend to violating anyone's rights,
for any reason. Obviously (I would hope).
|11.21.07 @ 5:48PM|#
There's a great deal to be said for that argument, Salvius, even
from a libertarian perspective.
For example, there's the elimination of the zero-tolerance
phenomenon.
|11.21.07 @ 5:55PM|#
"Freedom" does not mean you have the right to impose your
risk-taking on others.
As long as enough people who vote in a community decide they'd
prefer to have legislation getting the cell-phone texter off the
road, why in the heck do Libertarians feel the cell-phone texter
shouldn't have to obey those rules? If the cell-phone texter feels
that strongly that his/her right to talk on a cell phone while
driving is infringed, there are two actions which can be
taken:
1) convince enough voters in the community to allow cell-phone
texting while driving, or:
2) create his/her own private road between the locations he/she
wants to go.
There IS no rule that says "all stupid behavior can only be dealt
with by torts after the fact." If a community decides it wants to
put in other nanny mechanisms by banning what it considers risky
behavior, what's the fuss?
Libertarians talk a lot about "leaving decisions up to the local
community" but certainly yowl to high heaven when the locals don't
vote the way Libertarians think they should.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 6:05PM|#
The urge to ban risky behavior comes from the same place in the
human pysche regardless of who suffers the consequences of the
risky behavior. Calls to ban self-destructive behavior, such as
online gambling, frequently justify those bans based on the
collateral damage caused by addiction, not just the harm to the
individual that engages in the risky behavior. So, I see no
meaningful difference in the calls to ban online gambling and the
calls to ban texting while driving.
The guy who accepts the dare to drive five blocks blindfolded
and gets lucky had committed exactly the same act as the guy who
does so and kills somebody.
I disagree.
The only difference is pure luck, which should be of no
consequence whatsoever when considering the morality of the
drivers.
Morality isn't the issue, punishment is the issue. The guy that
kills someone goes to jail for life without parole in my opinion
for he is far worse than the man that kills his wife in a fit of
rage over an affair.
If everyone knows that life in prison is the punishment for killing
someone when driving blind on a dare, far fewer people will accept
the dare. Those that do are psychopaths that will do harm
regardless. Dealing with psychopaths before or after they commit a
crime is a topic for another day.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Shooting out my window IS bad behavior that should be
punished so people will choose to intelligently how to behave,
whether I've hit somebody yet or not.
And a jury should convict you for endangerment. A separate law
saying "thou shall not shoot out of your window" is not
necessary.
The guy who accepts the dare to drive five blocks blindfolded
and gets lucky had committed exactly the same act as the guy who
does so and kills somebody.
What is it with you and Salvius anyway.
The topic of discussion is "should a special law be enacted to ban
texting while driving" because it increases the marginal
probability that you will have an accident.
You discuss shooting out a window and driving blindfolded as some
equivalent type of infraction. And Salvius thinks that I want to
legalize attempted murder.
My position is straightforward.
One law should be used instead of many. This law should state that
you will be held responsible for stupid behavior. Separate juries
may be empowered to determine if your stupid behavior results in
civil liability for harm caused or if it amounts to a criminal
infraction.
The law can and does distinguish between risky behavior that
increases the marginal probability that you might hurt someone "by
accident" and clearly criminal intent to do harm. Intent to do harm
is now and always should be banned.
And before Salvius gets going again, texting while driving is not
intent to do harm.
|11.21.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Morality isn't the issue, punishment is the
issue.
Actually, what you said before was "The goal should be to punish
bad behavior so that people will choose intelligently how to behave
rather than criminalizing high risk behavior," which incorporated
both morality and punishment. In fact, it was a clear statement
that punishment should be brought to bear in the service of
dissuading people from a certain species of immoral behavior - the
endangerment of others.
If everyone knows that life in prison is the punishment for
killing someone when driving blind on a dare, far fewer people will
accept the dare. True. And if everyone knows that 3 years in
the clink is the punishment for driving blind on a dare, even fewer
people will accept the dare. And let's face it, nobody accepts that
dare expecting to kill somebody, so it's the latter case where the
effect will be more pronounced.
The topic of discussion is "should a special law be enacted to
ban texting while driving" because it increases the marginal
probability that you will have an accident. Well, no,
Episiarch made a statement about whether there should be any
punishment for people who endanger others but haven't caused harm,
and some of us went off on that tangent.
carrick|11.21.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Well, no, Episiarch made a statement about whether there
should be any punishment for people who endanger others but haven't
caused harm, and some of us went off on that tangent.
Returning to the tape:
Episiarch Said: How about if people get punished for things
that actually happen, and not for possibilities? That would be
nice
joe replied: So I can empty my clip at a crowd of people and
only get in trouble if I hit one of them?
So I believe you are the one that escalated the scope of the
discussion out into la la land.
But let's follow through anyway:
First and foremost -- No Victim, No Crime
Risky behavior that has some marginal increase in the probability
of an accident is not endangerment
Dangerous behavior with blatant disregard for public safety
associated with a high probability of harm to someone else may be
criminal even without a victim
However I argue that this dangerous behavior can be suppressed
better by an adequate level of punishment for those cases that
actually do have victims
Salvius|11.22.07 @ 1:45AM|#
Risky behavior that has some marginal increase in the probability of an accident is not endangerment
What, precisely, would you call it, then? It may be
negligible endangerment, but that's not the same as saying
it is not endangerment.
Earlier, you said:
The real quesstion is and always will be whether or not to criminalize behavior that has some non-zero probability that someone will suffer harm versus punishing people after they have caused harm.
I can't find any way to reconcile that with:
Dangerous behavior with blatant disregard for public safety associated with a high probability of harm to someone else may be criminal even without a victim
My entire line of argument here has been that the distinction
you're trying to make, between "harm versus no harm", is not the
bright line you make it out to be. You've just admitted that a
"high probability of harm...may be criminal even without a victim",
which is what I've been saying all along, so it really does just
come down to where along the 0%-to-100% scale we decide to draw the
line (and the factual question of where along that scale
texting-while-driving actually lies).
And I'm forced to agree with joe: I've been talking about
"whether there should be any punishment for people who endanger
others but haven't caused harm". I've tried to make clear several
times that I would oppose a "special law... to ban texting
while driving", just like you, because I think this is better dealt
with by a more generic law against "dangerous behavior with blatant
disregard for public safety". Talking on a cell phone while driving
doesn't (usually) rise to this level. Texting while driving
might rise to this level, in some specific instances,
depending on the level of distraction, the individual's skill in
both driving and texting, etc.
|11.24.07 @ 12:21PM|#
carrick,
The tape shows exactly what I said it does - Episiarch making
beginning the discussion of the "no one killed, yet"
argument.
As for the rest of your post, you make two points. First, you
distinguish between "some marginal increase in risk" vs. "a high
probability of harm." I understand this distinction - it's actually
the one I was arguing for against Episiarch's position. I brought
up the gunfire example to demonstrate exactly that point.
Now, about the efficacy of only punishing when people get killed -
I invite you to think back to your teenaged years. Young adults do
a lot of stupid things, and they do them for the specific reason
that they don't think they will kill themselves or others. They
drag race down the street, they climb up on buildings, some of them
rob stores and take PCP. That's why I don't think punishing
dangerous behavior only when someone loses an eye is going to have
much of a deterrent effect.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245