[ddw]

I have a problem w/ the cell phone veto though because that involves other people. I've read studies that say that being distracted by your phone while driving can almost be as dangerous as being drunk. So what's the victim of such an accident supposed to do? Notice that someone is on their cell phone and stay away from them?

[jhrobert]

I've read studies that say that talking to a passenger is distracting, hence dangerous.

Well... I haven't read such studies actually, yet. But I feel like it's safer to stay at home, and shut up, and let the villains rule the world. Kidding.

I believe that trading liberty for safety is the true danger. That's because there is no point in expecting a sense of responsibility in the mind of people without freedom. Freedom and responsibility go together, remove the former, you remove the latter.

[bryanlarsen]

Actually, studies have shown the opposite, talking to a passenger is less dangerous than driving alone. A passenger is part of your shared environment and reacts to road conditions. They also keeps you awake and alert.

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends when it comes into contact with my nose." I think this trite phrase applies here. You're not just risking yourself, the risk to others is very high and demonstrable.

[waffle_ss]

The problem with trying to regulate every type of driving impairment is that you can't be exhaustive (alcohol, cell phones, sleep deprivation, medication, talking to a passenger... where does it end?). The better way to handle it is to simply increase the civil/criminal penalty for reckless driving generically, as all of the examples fall into this category.

There's an interesting article on abolishing drunk driving laws written by a libertarian which touches on some of these points here, if you're interested: http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...

Ron Paul 2012!

[ddw]

Don't get me wrong, I think the snowboard helmet law whatever is ridiculous too. There was probably a highly publicized story about a kid snowboarding and that's no reason to pass a law. But every law should be considered on its impact. If I told you that thousands of crashes occur a year because people being distracted by their phone, does that still not warrant a law that may stop such behavior?

No offense but I'll take actual data analysis over some kind of Ayn Rand principals every time. The goal is to prevent crashes. I think it's dangerous to just wave things away with "not every human problem deserves a law." Again, Brown was probably right with the helmet, but not always. And in the case of cell phones he wrote "current fines and penalty assessments should be sufficient deterrent" so maybe he isn't using the same libertarian principle.

[mentat]

Is the goal really to prevent crashes? There is a limit on how much you're going to be able to do about any random societal ill. A friend recently linked Goodhart's Law [1] to me and I think it's relevant in this. What is the goal? To save human life? To save humans from a particular possible death?

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_Law

[ddw]

Yes, the goal is to prevent car crashes, particularly fatalities. What else could it be?

There's data and facts behind the thought. Crashes are happening because someone was talking or texting while driving.

Come on, this isn't a civil liberties issue. I'm right there with Ron Paul on the government phone taping U.S. citizens and other Patriot Act issues, but not this one.

[mentat]

Crashes are happening for many reasons. Are talking and texting the top one? Are they in fact results of other causes? Will raising fines with such low enforcement rates (as far as I've seen) actually have any impact beyond fundraising for the state?