I Wanna Defy the Logic of All Texxt Laws*
David Weigel | November 21, 2007, 10:37am
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.
Salvius | November 21, 2007, 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.
Salvius | November 21, 2007, 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.
Salvius | November 22, 2007, 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.
