driving under the influence...of an electronic device
From the editorialists of the C-J a few weeks ago...
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is holding a two-day summit in Washington this week to discuss a national scourge: the hazards posed by drivers using mobile communications devices. The participants have a lot to talk about. Use of cell phones, and texting in particular, are not merely irritants for more conscientious motorists; they are mortal dangers.
According to The New York Times , extensive research in multiple studies shows that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers. Indeed, the likelihood that they will crash equals that of a driver with a blood alcohol level at .08, the point at which drivers in all states are considered to be intoxicated. A Harvard study in 2003 estimated that distraction from cell phones cause 2,600 deaths a year and 330,000 accidents that result in severe or moderate injuries, and use of mobile devices has increased significantly since then...Texting, the Times reported, is at least twice as dangerous as talking on the phone....
It's interesting that neither market nor government mechanisms have dealt with this previously. From the market side, one could imagine insurance arrangements that would tailor a policy for whether one was using electronic devices. (Is there a market limitation here-- or some regulation which prevents an optimal [market] outcome? Is it too difficult to observe post-accident?)
On the government side, one could imagine "DWT" laws-- prohibitions or at least stiffer penalties for people who cause an accident or even, are driving while "under the influence".
Two other thoughts:
DWT is different DWI. For example, one could DWT in a traffic jam with no adverse effects. So, the two are not equivalent.
It's interesting to consider people who are uptight about speed limits. Is it safer (more moral) to drive the speed limit but read something, text someone, or do one's nails while driving?
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 11:54 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Relative morality as well as the justification for speed limits is debatable.
There are lots of laws I don't like - the tax code is one of them.
Speeding is also against the law.
Why would people, esp. Christians, try to justify habitually breaking this law? My best guess is that they just don't want to obey.
There are types of immorality which are a.) independent of; and b.) dependent on legality.
The point I was making extends beyond the law.
Driving at the speed limit while texting is not illegal, but is immoral if it increases the probability that I will damage my neighbor.
Yes, right...
I was commenting on your last line, which asked us to consider people who are "uptight" about speed limits, and so was wondering out loud if making oneself accountable to the law (speed limit) is any different from being uptight about it.
Aha!
I'd say "uptight" would relate to how one dealt with *others* and their treatment of the speed limit.
So "uptight" means expecting other citizens to obey the speed limit?
Well, there's expecting-- and then there's Expecting. For example, I "expect" people not to cuss in public. But unless there are kids around, I'm not passionate about it.
No, I don't spend time worrying about how others drive-- as long as they're driving in a reasonably safe manner. In the realm of driving, I'm far more bothered by people who drive slowly in the fast lane (also a law) or people who don't have their headlights on when it's relatively dark out. Both are, nominally, matters of law-- but both are unnecessary and dangerous driving behaviors.
So you personally would have no expectation that people obey the speed limit, unless they are putting others in danger.
Hmm... wonder that works in real life?
Some Confessions from a chronic bad driver of the past:
I have been to court once (had a bench warrant issued for my arrest because I didn't show up) for doing 91 in a 65, which was my habit
traffic school three times
among other collisions, I had two rear end acccidents in a 6month time period both of which were my fault (I was experiencing emotional stress at the time).
I also used to drive down the Interstate, late for work, putting my makeup on using the rear view mirror.
I had an accident during my first pregnancy (my fault again) - no harm done though, thankfully.
At this point, I considered giving up my driver's license.
It's been better since I've had kids and now drive a minivan (versus the sports car)
Anyway, simply put, as a Christian, as far as the laws are concerned, here is the bottom line:
habitually and purposefully ignoring/disregarding the law = nonsubmission to the state, which I don't think is what the NT has in mind.
Like you are saying, concern for my neighbor should be my primary motivation, thus we should try to avoid driving under the influence of cell phones, blackberries and make-up mirrors.
Driving an automobile places you, and the other people out there, directly in a life/death situation, therefore I don't find speed limit, cell phone, DUI laws constrictive or anti-libertarian.
It seems to me that laws are there to deter and also punish wrongful behavior. Maybe I'm less Libertarian than I thought!!
Anyway, you do raise an interesting point considering moral equivalency. I think some states have banned cell phone use while driving.
A key on this issue is whether this is (or can be) seen as "spirit of the law". As another example, should one come to a full stop at every stop sign?
I don't see this as a Libertarian thing per se. Laws that work for the common good are appropriate under the Constitution and within most visions of a Libertarian society.
And aside from people going over the speed limit by varying amounts, the existence of a standard/norm tends to lump drivers within a certain range of speeds, which should increase overall safety. (Note also that the efficacy of a speed range is implied by minimum speed laws as well.)
Eric, that was a nice Wrap-Up.
So you (kind of) agree with me!!
Your conclusions are satisfying and I guess I can keep being a "conservative" Libertarian - [an "oxymoron"? :-)]
I will say this -- it's hard to allow yourself the "spirit of the law" exemption when you can get a ticket for cautiously coasting through a stop sign.
Bob Russell, former pastor of a large church in Kentucky, once told an interesting story about being on the road at 5:30am and getting stopped by a red light that didn't seem to know he was there. After sitting a couple of minutes, he decided not to be a legalist and to go ahead and drive through. The exact moment he lifted his foot off the brake in order to depress the gas pedal, a biker casually passed right in
front of his car.
...Makes you think
Anyway, hopefully this discussion will be an impetus for us all to take driving more seriously!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home