• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Speed and cell phone laws - Self-Inflicted Drag on Productivity

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
688
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The invention of the automobile and the creation of modern high-speed highways were a great stimulus to the nation's economy, from enhanced productivity and the connection of remote markets to each other. Far less time was wasted with the uncertainty of horse, bicycle or train transportation. I would argue that the low-inflation boom of the 1950's and 1960's largely resulted from making the automobile truly useful. Ditto air travel.

LOW SPEED LIMITS

The environmental movement, unofficially kicked off with Earth Day in April 1970 marked a certain guilt that many had with our affluence. There were gains, so to speak but did we deserve them and/or were they worth the cost?

What followed was the National Maximum Speed Limit ("NMSL") of 55 mph (first 50 as imposed by Nixon). The initial impetus for that was the "energy crisis," also self-inflicted but the topic for another thread. Parenthetically Nixon had urged a low speed limit for some time before his "excuse" arrived in the form of the Arab Oil Embargo. The NMSL was supposed to be temporary but didn't end until December 1995. I suspect the real motive was a "hair-shirt" mentality; that self-abnegation may feel good for the soul and for the conscience if not for the economy.

CELL PHONE USE RESTRICTIONS


Back in the 1950's there were "car phones" but they were hard to get and expensive. A story, which may be apocryphal, has Lyndon Johnson envying Sam Rayburn's (Speaker of the House) having a car phone, and pined for the day when he could call Mr. Rayburn from a car phone, when he could get one. Finally that day arrived and he made the call to Mr. Rayburn. Mr. Rayburn answered and said "hold on a minute, I'm on the other phone."

Few care to remember the days of the use of payphones when out of the house, or having to ask a business or personal host to "borrow" the phone, incurring message unit or toll charges. Cell phones became ubiquitous by the mid-1990's and smart phones, in the form of Blackberries, not too long after. The gains in productivity were immense. People could actually work while traveling. They could make or return business calls, set up meetings, and let people know when they were running behind schedule. This, plus other aspects of the high-tech revolution has caused a 1950's and 1960's like boom, and also without inflation. Times, except for the 2008-9 sharp recession have been good.

America's instinct for Puritanical self-doubt and guilt led to a similar "hair-shirt" mentality, followed first by laws against use of hand-held cell phones, which made and make little sense, and then more sensible laws against texting behind the wheel. But the law makes no distinction between texting, hand-held use of a cell phone for talking or changing a music selection, which is much like changing a radio station. Nobody ever discussed restricting car radios back in the day. Maybe people had more cajones then and wouldn't accept a nanny state.

CONCLUSION


Sensible safety laws are fine. But they should be tailored to allow activities that are safe, and not be used for either "feel-good" expiation of guilt, or to fill localities' coffers.
 
But the law makes no distinction between texting, hand-held use of a cell phone for talking or changing a music selection, which is much like changing a radio station. Nobody ever discussed restricting car radios back in the day. Maybe people had more cajones then and wouldn't accept a nanny state.

The simplest reason for this I think is enforcement. Say there was a distinction between texting and changing music. How would a cop prove that you were texting and not changing music? So that would either lead to cops not pulling people over at all for fear of it just being challenged in court or more court being used to challenge whether you are changing music versus texting. Obviously they are wanting to combat people texting so to accomplish that they make the law cover just holding your phone as that can be proven with video in many cases. this saves the trouble of someone trying to challenge what they were doing with the phone and decreases (hopefully to them) texting while driving.

To add further to that in Nevada you can be fined for even having your phone in hand at a stop light while you are stopped.
 
Back in the 1950's there were "car phones" but they were hard to get and expensive. A story, which may be apocryphal, has Lyndon Johnson envying Sam Rayburn's (Speaker of the House) having a car phone, and pined for the day when he could call Mr. Rayburn from a car phone, when he could get one. Finally that day arrived and he made the call to Mr. Rayburn. Mr. Rayburn answered and said "hold on a minute, I'm on the other phone."


I miss the days when political oneupmanship was an art form
 
Perhaps you have never been run into by someone using their phone instead of using a hands-free device - I have, it did not matter if she was talking or texting, I was dead stopped along with three other lanes of cars waiting for a signal to change.

Her excuse - I did not see you were stopped, said as she was still holding her phone. Didn't matter what she was doing, she was distracted for a couple of seconds, a it takes for an accident.

In my cars that are not equipped with built-in hands free, I have a $25 hands free device that clips on the visor and works perfectly. If you can afford the phone you can afford a hands free device.

If that means the laws are being part of a nanny state I'm all for it, in fact I wish there was stronger enforcement, had I been on my motorcycle I would not be typing this now.
 
The simplest reason for this I think is enforcement. Say there was a distinction between texting and changing music. How would a cop prove that you were texting and not changing music? So that would either lead to cops not pulling people over at all for fear of it just being challenged in court or more court being used to challenge whether you are changing music versus texting. Obviously they are wanting to combat people texting so to accomplish that they make the law cover just holding your phone as that can be proven with video in many cases. this saves the trouble of someone trying to challenge what they were doing with the phone and decreases (hopefully to them) texting while driving.

To add further to that in Nevada you can be fined for even having your phone in hand at a stop light while you are stopped.
If the phone is held to your ear it's obvious you are not texting. An officer can watch a person for a period of time to see what the person is doing.

What we don't want is the ability to issue tickets on a mass basis. That is called "trapping" or "shooting fish in a barrel."
 
If the phone is held to your ear it's obvious you are not texting. An officer can watch a person for a period of time to see what the person is doing.

What we don't want is the ability to issue tickets on a mass basis. That is called "trapping" or "shooting fish in a barrel."

A phone to the ear is an indication of not paying attention to the road....
 
And talking to a passenger is paying attention to the road?

You do not have to take you eyes off the road or your hands off the wheel to talk to a passenger.
 
Nothing wrong with driving with one hand on the wheel.

Of course not, unless you need to make a quick turn to avoid a problem or the problem I see with most, can't use turn signals because the phone is glued to their hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom