Well-meaning laws (or: I'm not a libertarian, but...)
Yesterday, a law went into effect banning using cell phones and other "wireless communication devices" while driving. Out of protest, I made a silly comment to my Twitter account claiming that I was driving as I was posting it. (I actually just pressed one button on my phone as I was turning into my driveway, and typed the rest after I stopped my car... just so it would be "technically" true.) To my surprise (because I didn't realize anyone actually reads my Twitter posts), a bunch of people threw a fit. So, to anyone that was offended: It was meant as a joke, but my opposition to this law is very real.
I don't text while driving. The most I've ever texted while driving is perhaps a short message like "I'm on my way home" while stopped at a stoplight. I also don't talk on the phone while driving, hands-free or not. The most I've ever talked on the phone while driving is probably something like "I'll call you back, I'm driving now." The reason I do this has nothing to do with the law; I do this because I try to be a safe driver on the road and I take driving seriously. I have a phone mount in my car which I use for turn-by-turn navigation and to play music. Sometimes I might press a button on the phone while driving to change my route or change the song that is playing. This isn't "texting," and since the law only specifies texting and phone calls, and specifically allows turn-by-turn navigation but doesn't say anything about whether you're allowed to touch the phone while using navigation, at this point I have no idea if I'm breaking the law or not. As far as I'm concerned, it's not different than changing the station on a car stereo, which is perfectly legal as far as I know.
I don't want people to talk on the phone or text while driving. However, making this the law completely misses the point... there are thousands of things you can do in a car that are distracting. Anyone who is stupid enough to use their phone while driving to the extent that it could cause an accident is also probably stupid enough to cause an accident because they were distracted by trying to read a billboard or because they saw a "pretty birdie" on the side of the road. Talking to your passenger could be just as distracting as talking on the phone while driving. There are tons of things you can do that are distracting in a car: Eating, shaving, reading, putting on makeup, using a laptop computer, using a phone for things besides making calls and texting (you know phones have a lot of features now), really passionately singing along with the song on the radio, deeply contemplating your own existence, trying to get a lipstick stain off your collar so that when you get home your wife won't know you were with another woman, thinking about how badly you have to pee... I could go on and on.
There's a reason we don't have laws regarding each one of these individual things. When you get a driver's license, it's because you've shown you have the judgement and skill to operate a car safely. At this point, it becomes your responsibility to decide what is and isn't safe. It's not government's job to hold your hand and tell you what you are and are not allowed to do while driving.
People will always get into accidents, and there is a near-universal reason for that: At least one of the people involved in the collision did something stupid. Anyone who got into an accident because they were screwing with their phone is probably also stupid enough to get into an accident for any other dumb reason. Don't believe me? Check out this article: Insurance group: Cell phone driving bans don't work (emphasis added).
[Highway Loss Data] Institute spokesman Russ Rader suggested that laws attacking particular types of distraction may be ineffective because there are simply too many distractions available to drivers for laws dealing with just one to have much impact.
"Whatever the reason, the key finding is that crashes aren't going down where hand-held phone use has been banned," [Institute President Adrian] Lund points out. "This finding doesn't augur well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving."
That's not to say there is no role for government in automobile public safety. I completely agree with laws outlawing driving while drunk or otherwise intoxicated, because such conditions present a physical impairment that can't be dismissed. I agree with DUI laws for the same reason I don't think you should be allowed to drive if you are blind, or have no arms. If you do not have the physical ability to operate a vehicle, it should be against the law for you to try to do so.
"Distracted driving" is an entirely different concept. EVERYONE gets distracted while driving occasionally. We all have the power to stop doing or thinking about whatever is distracting us and refocus our attention on the road. As licensed drivers, the government has essentially said "We trust that you will make good decisions while driving (and you've paid us money), therefore you may drive on our public roads." Picking one particular source of distractions (in this case, phones) and hastily amending existing law just because people don't like it when they see people driving and using their phones is not how you write law. It might "feel good" and make you feel like you've addressed an issue, but it's not sound public policy.
The cold, hard truth is this: You can't legislate being a good driver. You can set conditions for getting a license, you can set speed limits and put up traffic lights and signs, but you can't by law force people to pay attention to the road. The state government is completely within their rights to try to pass silly stop-gap legislation for each individual "bad thing" you can do while driving; I have no doubt that this law is constitutional and valid. It doesn't mean I think it's a good idea, however, and I'm completely within my rights to oppose it. I will follow the law, but I will also speak about why it's a stupid idea.
