Huffington Post
This highlights the current problem with the Federal Government here in the United States. A couple outliers mean that they first recommend and likely later demand a one size fits all solution that limits the freedom and enjoyment of everyone.
California is very strict on cellphone use. I'm pretty sure we are among the strictest states in the nation with no use allowed by underage drivers, no texting and handfree use for driving. While I'm not in complete agreement about the hands free aspect, I'm free to try to make a change to my view within the state context. The reason I'm in as much agreement as I am with our current state law is we have some profoundly busy freeways with heavy use and they demand more driver attention then many other stretches of road might.
That said, if I were a long haul trucker driving across Oklahoma, the last thing I'd want is to never be allowed to use my cellphone. The conditions, level of traffic, etc are all completely different and that state and it's residents ought to be able to decide for themselves what is best for them. That should be true on a state to state basis.
Finally the claim that basically the only acceptable level of risk or loss is zero is utopian nonsense. It is a nice bumper sticker sound bite that isn't workable with reality. There is risk and loss associated with all human activity. To declare we all must give up our rights until the number is zero just means we get the right to do nothing. Someone is going to die from peanut butter this year. Someone will die from a flight of stairs. Someone somewhere will somehow choke to death on their own toothbrush. Zero as a number is to high a cost and too radical a concept to use when deciding broad public policy. Everything includes trade-offs. Anyone who can't understand that shouldn't be governing or determining policies for the rest of us.
Quote:
The National Transportation Safety Board disagrees, and it declared Tuesday that texting, emailing or chatting while driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States.
The board is urging all states to impose total bans except for emergencies following recent deadly crashes, including one in Missouri after a teenager sent or received 11 text messages within 11 minutes.
The unanimous recommendation from the five-member board would apply even to hands-free devices, a much stricter rule than any current state law.
NTSB chairwoman Deborah Hersman acknowledged that complying would involve changing what has become ingrained behavior for many Americans.
"We're not here to win a popularity contest," she said. "No email, no text, no update, no call is worth a human life."
The board is urging all states to impose total bans except for emergencies following recent deadly crashes, including one in Missouri after a teenager sent or received 11 text messages within 11 minutes.
The unanimous recommendation from the five-member board would apply even to hands-free devices, a much stricter rule than any current state law.
NTSB chairwoman Deborah Hersman acknowledged that complying would involve changing what has become ingrained behavior for many Americans.
"We're not here to win a popularity contest," she said. "No email, no text, no update, no call is worth a human life."
This highlights the current problem with the Federal Government here in the United States. A couple outliers mean that they first recommend and likely later demand a one size fits all solution that limits the freedom and enjoyment of everyone.
California is very strict on cellphone use. I'm pretty sure we are among the strictest states in the nation with no use allowed by underage drivers, no texting and handfree use for driving. While I'm not in complete agreement about the hands free aspect, I'm free to try to make a change to my view within the state context. The reason I'm in as much agreement as I am with our current state law is we have some profoundly busy freeways with heavy use and they demand more driver attention then many other stretches of road might.
That said, if I were a long haul trucker driving across Oklahoma, the last thing I'd want is to never be allowed to use my cellphone. The conditions, level of traffic, etc are all completely different and that state and it's residents ought to be able to decide for themselves what is best for them. That should be true on a state to state basis.
Finally the claim that basically the only acceptable level of risk or loss is zero is utopian nonsense. It is a nice bumper sticker sound bite that isn't workable with reality. There is risk and loss associated with all human activity. To declare we all must give up our rights until the number is zero just means we get the right to do nothing. Someone is going to die from peanut butter this year. Someone will die from a flight of stairs. Someone somewhere will somehow choke to death on their own toothbrush. Zero as a number is to high a cost and too radical a concept to use when deciding broad public policy. Everything includes trade-offs. Anyone who can't understand that shouldn't be governing or determining policies for the rest of us.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
