Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
For F's sakes, I've lost count of how many things in this post annoy me ... where to start.
There have been dozens of studies that show that driving while on the phone is equivalent to being 1.5 to 2.0 times over the legal limit. Bluetooth is about 1.0 to 1.5. In all studies it shows that cell phones are different than passengers in terms of its impact to your driving because passengers react with what is going on, on the road. Be it pausing when needed or relevant inflictions in their voice that recognizes what is going on around the driver ... obviously on a phone that is impossible. Passengers are an extremely small distraction compared to being on the cell phone.
You ask why the government should regulate it, I can only assume you figure the gov't should care about human life and protecting dumb people from themselves, and if you do, at the very least thing of hte cost damages and the time of public resources, like the EMS folks who have to scrape these people, and their victims off the road.
|
First, you're assuming the passenger is another adult educated in the rules of the road, and not someone ignorant of such things, like a child. Especially if this conversation is taking place from a backseat (which is should be, since children are at a high risk of lethal injury in a frontseat).
Second, the studies I've read say it can be as bad as driving drunk, depending on the person and how they react. We're not talking alcohol where its pretty much a universal constant. With that, comparing it to driving drunk is pretty simplistic... alcohol impairs more than reaction time, it impairs judgment, mobility and coordination.
As for the why should governments regulate it? I guess we come from different sides of the coin here. I think overprotective governments make people stupid more often than not, just like spoiling one's kids make them lazy and directionless more often than not. Why think when someone else will do it for me? There are certain univeral things that governments need to enforce, but when it comes to some things, like driving and talking on a cellphone (let alone something as absolutely ######ed as texting and driving), something in people's heads really should say, "hmm... this isn't safe, unless I (insert intelligent thing to mitigate danger)." So, I guess, is not forcing people to make smart decisions for themselves the mark of a caring government? Its a sad state when you see people doing clearly stupid and dangerous things, and their excuse is, "if it was that bad, there would be a law against it."
As for the finance issue... the question is (and there isn't really an answer for this floating around to my knowledge) what is actually cheaper long term, enforcement of this rule (cost of officers, vehicles, equipment, loss of man hours in a different branch of law enforcement (ie: downtown/east village patrols to which the police already claim to be shorthanded on)) or the clean-up and healthcare cost of the occasional exclusively cellphone-related accident. (I know this sounds very cold and heartless but that's the rationale for the financial issue, versus a more humanist point of view)