Thread: YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED...RESISTANCE IS FUTILE...

I'm with JMS on this one. Personally, I find all sorts of these kinds of laws galling. If you can get home using your chin on the steering wheel while pushing the pedals with your hands, and do it without killing anybody else, then goody for you. I'd much rather have a law on the books that says that if you cause an accident while driving and talking on your cellphone (or any other stupid thing people do while driving, like putting on makeup or eating breakfast) and somebody dies, it's an automatic 1st degree manslaughter charge with no possibility of negotiating a lower charge or penalty (should you be convicted). Same thing with drunk driving, except there I'd make the penalty 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter. Operating a ton of metal and plastic at speeds of 55mph+ is already incredibly dangerous. Intentionally distracting yourself and then hurting or killing someone else while doing it is reckless endangerment at the very least, and ought to be a felony offense, at minimum.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I'm with JMS on this one. Personally, I find all sorts of these kinds of laws galling. If you can get home using your chin on the steering wheel while pushing the pedals with your hands, and do it without killing anybody else, then goody for you. I'd much rather have a law on the books that says that if you cause an accident while driving and talking on your cellphone (or any other stupid thing people do while driving, like putting on makeup or eating breakfast) and somebody dies, it's an automatic 1st degree manslaughter charge with no possibility of negotiating a lower charge or penalty (should you be convicted). Same thing with drunk driving, except there I'd make the penalty 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter. Operating a ton of metal and plastic at speeds of 55mph+ is already incredibly dangerous. Intentionally distracting yourself and then hurting or killing someone else while doing it is reckless endangerment at the very least, and ought to be a felony offense, at minimum.

The problem with this approach is that someone has already been killed/injured.

The idea is to make the dangerous behavior illegal in the first place, so that someone can be stopped before harm can happen to someone else.

If a loved one were killed/injured by some jackass who just couldn't wait to yammer away on his/her cellphone, or at the very least use a hands free version of it that would be a tradgedy.

By allowing the police to stop that jackass at any point prior to him/her being involved in an accident and issuing him/her a ticket is much more preferable, and will make the offender think twice about trying it again. "Hmmm, should I risk another $100 ticket, or just spend the money on a hands free?"

Is it really such an imposition to ask you to use a hands free cell phone adapter? A few years ago we all somehow managed to survive without cellphones in our cars at all.

I hate it when people call me on my iPhone while I'm driving. Between trying to get caught up on the SRP forum postings and my kids fighting in the back seat I don't need any more distractions thank you very much!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The problem with this approach is that someone has already been killed/injured.

And? People are injured and killed every day. Sometimes, it's someone's fault and they deserve to be held responsible for it, and sometimes it's not and they don't.

The idea is to make the dangerous behavior illegal in the first place, so that someone can be stopped before harm can happen to someone else.

But see, this is exactly the problem. What might be dangerous for me to attempt, might be perfectly safe for someone else who has more experience, skills or natural talent. Why should the law be written to limit the abilities of more competent people when less competent people mess things up? If too many incompetent people are doing stupid things while driving, maybe the qualifications for getting a driver's license needs to be made much harder. It's not like driving is a right, after all.

If a loved one were killed/injured by some jackass who just couldn't wait to yammer away on his/her cellphone, or at the very least use a hands free version of it that would be a tradgedy.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. It would be very sad, yes, and IMO criminal, but it would not be a "tradgedy" or even a tragedy. A tragedy occurs when a virtue of some individual turns out to be the cause of his or her downfall. Oedipus Rex and Hamlet are tragedies, The Day After Tomorrow and the events of 9-11 are not. Neither are car crashes caused by negligent disregard for others or reckless endangerment.

By allowing the police to stop that jackass at any point prior to him/her being involved in an accident and issuing him/her a ticket is much more preferable, and will make the offender think twice about trying it again. "Hmmm, should I risk another $100 ticket, or just spend the money on a hands free?"

Is it really such an imposition to ask you to use a hands free cell phone adapter? A few years ago we all somehow managed to survive without cellphones in our cars at all.

Preferable to what? Sure, you can make the case that getting a ticket is preferable to causing an accident, but that presumes that you know that the person getting pulled over was really going to get in an accident in the first place. Nobody can know that. What if the person were a trained race car driver who had impeccable instincts for the road? Why should they be held to the same speed limit as I, or be forbidden from having their hands otherwise occupied while driving? Moreover, the nature of such "crimes" is that the number of probable violators far exceeds the capability of law enforcement to detect those crimes and prosecute the offenders. This invites selective application of the law, according the best judgment of the arresting officer, and that's never a good thing. Because they can't get everybody who doesn't use "hands-free," they can and very likely will enforce that law against people they don't like or who were arrested for some other reason. There's far too much potential for abuse.

Remember, this is supposed to be the land of the free. Government should not be getting in the way of our choices, including the choices to be irresponsible and criminal. This means any program of crime prevention run out of the sheriff's office or the DA's office violates the spirit of free choice. You have to run that program out of the Department of Education and local school boards. What government should be doing is making sure the social consequences of our actions are visited back upon us, so that if you really harm others, you are harmed, and that if you really benefit others, you are benefited and both in proportion to the harm or benefit you really caused. But this means that Government shouldn't be getting involved until the social consequences of our actions become more or less clear. It's not the cell phone that causes the social damage in terms of property loss and injury or death, it's the accident. The cell phone can be a factor, and indeed the determining factor when it comes to assessing responsibility. But that doesn't mean cell phone use while driving is the cause of the harm.

Put another way, when we make things like speeding or prostitution or recreational drug use or using a cell phone while driving crimes, we diminish the effectiveness and austerity of government itself. These "crimes" are so prolific that enforcement becomes a matter of probability, making government seem ineffective, no one has ever specified real harms that come from them, merely an increased risk that some harms might occur, and worse, the punishments for these crimes is not proportionate to the crime itself (how could it be if no real harm was caused?) but to the harms that might, maybe result if other things happen too (things which might well be outside the defendant's ability to control). These latter two make government pernicious and mundane, mundane because it threatens to insert itself into each individual's daily lives as a replacement for his own power of judgment, after all, why not make sugary cereal illegal for much the same reasons? And pernicious because, in attaching penalties whose severity far outstrips the real harm done by doing these things, and instead matches the potential harm that might be caused, we make our laws and penalties look silly.

Treating a whole population as a single thing, where the rate of cell-phone usage while driving has a definite effect on the rate of serious accidents is fine if we're doing a sociological, anthropological or marketing research. But when it comes to the law and enforcement of the law, we must treat individuals as individuals and not as members or instances of a population. This means holding an individual responsible for only the harms he has really (not potentially) committed. Otherwise, you make every man guilty for any man's crime.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

By allowing the police to stop that jackass at any point prior to him/her being involved in an accident and issuing him/her a ticket is much more preferable, and will make the offender think twice about trying it again. "Hmmm, should I risk another $100 ticket, or just spend the money on a hands free?"

Not sure about the other places, but the law about to go into effect her in California makes talking on the phone a secondary violation. Meaning you can't be pulled over for it, but if you're pulled over for something else and are on the phone as well you get two tickets.

Edit: nevermind, I double checked and I'd misremembered. that was for drivers under 18 using a handsfree set. (btw, the fine is $20 the first time and $50 each other time. no points are added to your record.)

Quote:
The idea is to make the dangerous behavior illegal in the first place, so that someone can be stopped before harm can happen to someone else.
But see, this is exactly the problem. What might be dangerous for me to attempt, might be perfectly safe for someone else who has more experience, skills or natural talent. Why should the law be written to limit the abilities of more competent people when less competent people mess things up?

So true! I used to be very adept at driving while drunk. Never got into even one accident. However I was pulled over one time for having tinted windows, and happened to be drunk at the time.Why that officer didn't just cite me for the tinted windows and let me continue on my way is quite beyond me (note: heavy sarcasm required)

I never drove drunk again after that, let me tell you.

Quote:
If a loved one were killed/injured by some jackass who just couldn't wait to yammer away on his/her cellphone, or at the very least use a hands free version of it that would be a tradgedy.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. It would be very sad, yes, and IMO criminal, but it would not be a "tradgedy" or even a tragedy. A tragedy occurs when a virtue of some individual turns out to be the cause of his or her downfall.

OK, let's not sink to the internet game of one-upsmanship of picking on other's typos/spelling errors as a means to establish intellectual superiority, shall we?

And yes I think the fact that the virtue of some said person (in this case a self-absorbed type who simply MUST chat on his/her phone whilst driving) could quite possibly turn out to be his downfall, as they could now be responsible for injuring or killing a fellow human being.

Government should not be getting in the way of our choices, including the choices to be irresponsible and criminal.

Whoa!

Put another way, when we make things like speeding or prostitution or recreational drug use or using a cell phone while driving crimes, we diminish the effectiveness and austerity of government itself. These "crimes" are so prolific that enforcement becomes a matter of probability, making government seem ineffective, no one has ever specified real harms that come from them, merely an increased risk that some harms might occur, and worse, the punishments for these crimes is not proportionate to the crime itself (how could it be if no real harm was caused?) but to the harms that might, maybe result if other things happen too (things which might well be outside the defendant's ability to control). These latter two make government pernicious and mundane, mundane because it threatens to insert itself into each individual's daily lives as a replacement for his own power of judgment, after all, why not make sugary cereal illegal for much the same reasons? And pernicious because, in attaching penalties whose severity far outstrips the real harm done by doing these things, and instead matches the potential harm that might be caused, we make our laws and penalties look silly.

You make things like speeding, etc illegal because there is always the chance you may get caught and that acts as a deterrent. It is rather a ridiculous argument to say that because it cannot be 100% enforced, it is therefore useless. Have you ever recieved a speeding ticket? Yes? Did it make you reconsider speeding the next time?

This means holding an individual responsible for only the harms he has really (not potentially) committed. Otherwise, you make every man guilty for any man's crime.

So, by this line of reasoning I should be able to walk around the local college campus firing off various handguns, rifles, machine guns, and until such time as I actually hit anybody, the police should just leave me alone?

Originally Posted by mhailey

I actually like those when using them during driving or while I'm cooking. HOWEVER, I can't stand it when people just walk around with those things in theirs ear, just waiting for the important phone call, that they can't take the time to put the phone to their ear to answer. I almost refuse to talk to someone that has that in their ear, because they are sending the message that they are ready to interrupt any conversation they are having to take the next phone call, no matter what your conversation pertains to. I have actually directed someone to take it out of their ear before I would begin to speak to them about the subject matter of our meeting.

Matt

Amen................

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I'm with JMS on this one. Personally, I find all sorts of these kinds of laws galling. If you can get home using your chin on the steering wheel while pushing the pedals with your hands, and do it without killing anybody else, then goody for you. I'd much rather have a law on the books that says that if you cause an accident while driving and talking on your cellphone (or any other stupid thing people do while driving, like putting on makeup or eating breakfast) and somebody dies, it's an automatic 1st degree manslaughter charge with no possibility of negotiating a lower charge or penalty (should you be convicted). Same thing with drunk driving, except there I'd make the penalty 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter. Operating a ton of metal and plastic at speeds of 55mph+ is already incredibly dangerous. Intentionally distracting yourself and then hurting or killing someone else while doing it is reckless endangerment at the very least, and ought to be a felony offense, at minimum.

You can't agree with me KP, you'll ruin my reputation!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So true! I used to be very adept at driving while drunk. Never got into even one accident. However I was pulled over one time for having tinted windows, and happened to be drunk at the time.Why that officer didn't just cite me for the tinted windows and let me continue on my way is quite beyond me (note: heavy sarcasm required)

I never drove drunk again after that, let me tell you.

He shouldn't have pulled you over in the first place.

OK, let's not sink to the internet game of one-upsmanship of picking on other's typos/spelling errors as a means to establish intellectual superiority, shall we?

And yes I think the fact that the virtue of some said person (in this case a self-absorbed type who simply MUST chat on his/her phone whilst driving) could quite possibly turn out to be his downfall, as they could now be responsible for injuring or killing a fellow human being.

Rather than being an internet game of one-upsmanship, the point I was making was that by calling these things tragedies and emphasizing the pain that's caused and the fact that they were preventable, you're attempting to set up a mandate for government action in the form of criminalizing and punishing certain behaviors that, in themselves, are not harmful or crimes.

Whoa!




You make things like speeding, etc illegal because there is always the chance you may get caught and that acts as a deterrent. It is rather a ridiculous argument to say that because it cannot be 100% enforced, it is therefore useless. Have you ever recieved a speeding ticket? Yes? Did it make you reconsider speeding the next time?

I have, and it did, and so what? The government's job is not to make me a better or more conscientious person, but to maintain a social realm where people can choose to be conscientious or not based on the real effects that act has. What social harm did I cause by speeding that justifies the $50 fine I had to pay? Now if I were speeding and then hit someone and killed them, there's definite harm there, and I should pay the price for that. Things would be different if I killed someone, yet was following all the rules and being as conscientious as reasonably possible. And it is not the fact that 100% enforcement is not possible that makes these sorts of laws less than useless and downright harmful. After all, not all murders are detected, and not all murderers are caught and convicted. But the motivation to commit the "crime" of speeding is so pervasive, the ability to do it so ubiquitous, and the likelihood of being caught so low, that there practically is no deterrent effect from the law at the level of social abstraction which is supposed to justify the limit in the first place. Every day, in probably every major metropolitan area, there's an artery where the speed limit is 55 mph, and good luck going that slow, cause everybody else is doing 65 mph +. Smoking weed suffers a similar fate. So many people do it that the cops are literally a laughingstock in the marijuana sub-culture because they are fighting a war they cannot win.

So, by this line of reasoning I should be able to walk around the local college campus firing off various handguns, rifles, machine guns, and until such time as I actually hit anybody, the police should just leave me alone?

That's absolutely right. And when you actually hit somebody, the charge should be 2nd degree murder or worse, and the penalty should be several years, or decades, in prison, because of your stupidity and recklessness. But if you have a gun in a case in your dorm room, and your neighbor hits the wall hard, causing it to fall and discharge, killing someone, the penalty for that should be much, much less, if anything at all. After all, we have a Constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, you can fire a gun on a college campus in a safe and responsible manner, or you can do it in an unsafe and irresponsible manner. But we can't know beforehand which is going to be which. We have to wait on the consequences and the causal story that results before we can determine whether a penalty is justified.

Let me make this point another way: Justice (and government in its incarnation as legislator and enforcer of the law is imminently concerned with Justice) is always defined as giving to each what they are owed or deserve. How can someone possibly deserve pain (and punishment is definitely pain) when they themselves have caused none?

Originally Posted by JMS

You can't agree with me KP, you'll ruin my reputation!

Sorry man, but I have the suspicion that we agree on far more than we disagree on.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I'm with JMS on this one. Personally, I find all sorts of these kinds of laws galling. If you can get home using your chin on the steering wheel while pushing the pedals with your hands, and do it without killing anybody else, then goody for you. I'd much rather have a law on the books that says that if you cause an accident while driving and talking on your cellphone (or any other stupid thing people do while driving, like putting on makeup or eating breakfast) and somebody dies, it's an automatic 1st degree manslaughter charge with no possibility of negotiating a lower charge or penalty (should you be convicted). Same thing with drunk driving, except there I'd make the penalty 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter. Operating a ton of metal and plastic at speeds of 55mph+ is already incredibly dangerous. Intentionally distracting yourself and then hurting or killing someone else while doing it is reckless endangerment at the very least, and ought to be a felony offense, at minimum.

I have to agree with this as well.

I think we'll be getting this type of law here soon. I already have a handsfree device just because holding a tiny phone for a long conversation is annoying to me but I only use it when I know I'm making or taking a call that could be long. Fortunately if they ever tag me for it I'll just say that I was using my CB, thats still going to be legal to talk on.






Anyone wonder why no one has yet made a fish shaped Douglas Adams memorial Bluetooth headset?