[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?