Thank you for writing your letter to the editor. You have done a rare thing. You addressed my editorial point-by-point and actually discussed those points. My hat is off to you. Well done!
Since you asked some questions, please permit me the opportunity to respond. Sorry for its length. I shall quote you and interlace my responses.
Rich makes the bold statement that statistically speaking talking on a cell phone is not dangerous. Rich, I fear it is not a question of if, but instead when we will have a serious injury or death attributed to a driver using a handheld device. Should we wait until then to respond?
Most certainly we will have a serious injury or death attributed to cell phones. That is not being disputed. As I noted in my editorial, Bozeman already has a careless driving law. Therefore distracted driving is already illegal. We have laws against all sorts of other things, like theft and murder. We seem to love it when government passes laws as if doing so has solved a problem. But have those laws eliminated those activities?
I need to make clear, I am not arguing against having laws. What I am saying is, what is the factual basis for the Commission passing this law? Will it really reduce risk? There is always a risk in every activity we do. We continually make decisions, whether conscious or unconscious, as to whether the benefit outweighs those risks. We trust that the brakes will work in our car every time we use them. We take it on faith that the burger we are eating does not contain a razor blade. We assume it to be true that the person driving in the lane next to us is competent to drive.
You are concerned about one death, certainly noble. But Mr. Preston, if you place such a high value on that hypothetical single life, it would seem that you must then be in favor of eliminating all preventable loss of life. Therefore, driving ought to be banned entirely, because it is risky and a lot of people are injured or die from driving. McDonald's should be shut down for killing people with unhealthy food. And skydiving is way too dangerous to allow.
The fact is, we accept a certain amount of potential calamity in exchange for certain benefits. We allow death and injury in order to enjoy convenience, quality of life, and/or liberty. Risk cannot be eliminated. Some risks cannot be reduced without unacceptable tradeoffs. The freedom to travel outweighs the number of highway deaths that result from this freedom. The freedom to choose for ourselves how we live our lives means we can eat McDonalds as much or as little as we want. We walk down the street knowing that someone may rob us.
We mitigate those risks as much as we can, not only by our personal habits and diligence, but also by sensible and effective laws. Traffic lights, for example, are demonstrably effective at mitigating loss and injury, as well as maintaining a degree of order for efficient traffic flow. However, banning cell phones regulates a statistically low risk activity for undemonstrated benefits.
Rich feels that the City Commission, in an act of tyranny, solved a problem that doesn’t exist. Rich, I wish you could have been with me half way across Mendenhall (in the crosswalk) as a woman talking on her phone sped past and never even flicked her eyes in my direction. Ask around, Rich, there are countless examples people can give you.
Please quote me accurately. I wrote the problem doesn’t statistically exist. That is, by objective measure, it is not dangerous.
You example is what I referred to in my editorial as an anecdote. It is a non-statistical, unverified, unquantified account which does not establish the point being made. Further, what this driver did is already illegal. Another law will not change the situation.
I spend a lot of time walking myself. Almost every day I see someone doing something foolish behind the wheel. I would venture to say that much of that foolishness is already illegal. Interestingly, I have never observed someone on a cell phone causing an incident. But I note for the record that this is also anecdotal, which is why making laws based on nothing but anecdotes and emotion is perilous.
Rich is troubled by Commissioner Chris Mehl’s comment about the city having time to “educate people.” I was at the meeting when Chris made that comment and I assumed that he was referring to education pertaining to the newness of the law so drivers would be aware of it and thus avoid the consequences of breaking it. Luckily Rich, using his ability to spot a liberal conspiracy behind every bush, saw that Chris is deviously planning to send us all to some sort of re-education camp for brainwashing. I bet they’ll even use some “enhanced interrogation techniques” in their effort to warp our brains.
What you assume and what I assume matter little. Your conclusion went to one side, mine to the other. At least I had the good taste to admit that I may be overreacting. Nevertheless, after we make our assumptions we still need to ascertain what was actually meant. Neither of us knows, so I would suggest that you not in a position to ridicule me about my assumptions. And because the Commission seems to have a lot of power, why should we not be concerned about potential misuses of that power?
To those driving cell-phone users that fear that this is the end of life as they know it — life will go on. Your phone is not being taken away from you, but instead you are being told that the safety of others is a higher priority to our community than that call of yours that you feel can’t wait until you are not driving.
Well, actually, I would say that what we are being told is that the Commissioners can force us to do whatever they want, without any stated statistical justification as to how much risk there is. It isn’t specifically about cell phones, it is about the appropriate use of government power.
Yes, life will go on. This is irrelevant. Life goes on with anyone in any situation, no matter how oppressive the legal environment.
I applaud the commission for joining many other communities and states by taking this step toward making our community safer.
Evidence, please. How much safer? How many injuries will it prevent? These facts have yet to be disclosed, so we don't know if the community is safer now, let alone by how much.
No comments:
Post a Comment