TheAgitator.com
51 Responses to “I Debate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Over a Federal Ban on Texting While Driving”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- Advertise
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- Traffic Stats
- RSS Feed
Buy One- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Quite a contrast between her essay and yours. She makes the classic logical fallacy of appealing to popularity, while you cite traffic statistics, and she handwaves over the near impossibility of enforcing it. In supporting handsfree devices she seems behind on the research indicating it is the conversation, not the device itself, that distracts.
I wonder if bringing up the possibility of racial profiling, based on subjective officer interpretations of phone use, would have made your argument more compelling to liberal readers.
To be a counterpoint, wouldn’t she have to actually respond to some of the points you made?
A modest proposal. If texting is truly more dangerous than DUI at levels of .08 or .10, then lets pattern texting laws after DUI. Cops should be allowed to pull you over for little or no reason to see if you are texting. You will give the officer your phone so he/she can check the log. If you refuse, we will seize your driver’s license and forcibly take your phone from you. No calling a lawyer, either. Kidding of course, but we tolerate that crap for DUI enforcement.. why not for something that the same people argue is more dangerous?
Excellent article Radley,
Your article is logical, well thought out and appeals to reason and not hyperbole.
Therin lies the problem.
What we as Agitator readers tend not to understand, and what people like Carolyn McCarthy and Glenn Beck understand VERY well, is that the vast majority of people are NOT CAPABLE of these complex thought processes. They’ve been watching infomercials and sound bites all their lives, and these are the only things they can grasp.
I have no doubt a great number of them would read your article and respond, ‘But but, texting is DANGEROUS’.
Lastly, I want to point out one thing. I would NEVER advise you to use the argument that something is difficult to enforce. TRUST me, they WILL find a way. Here’s something I can dream up right now – A law that requires cell phone companies to monitor text inputs into cell phones in real time. These are then cross checked with mandatory vehicle GPS and speed sensors that every car will be required to be fitted with. If they show that there is texting in a moving car belonging to the cell phone owner, it’s an automatic felony. I’m thinking a $1000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. But that’s just my early version of the bill.
For the record, I am in favor of pretty girls in the passenger seat.
Instead of piecemeal laws on what you can/cannot do while driving, I would like people to actually take the act of driving seriously. Carelessly driving is the same as randomly shooting off a shotgun (I spend a lot of time riding bikes/motorbikes) and should be punished as such; I don’t care if its the crazy kids in the back, digging on the radio, texting, or whatever.
Pay attention out there, you’re killing people.
Great logical piece that was! I agree with Henry. Some counterpoint with no points countering your points.
Along the lines of Henry’s comment above, I was wondering whether U.S. News gave each of you a rough draft of the other’s argument so you could respond to their points. If they did, Rep. McCarthy should be embarrassed for completely ignoring every cogent point you made (of course, I guess that’s what politicians do).
Given that most states (probably all states, in fact) already have laws that say not paying attention while driving is a violation, and in some states a criminal act, what does anyone think a redundant federal law will do?
Slightly off-point: Rep. McCarthy’s piece might be the worst writing I have ever seen published. That is mind-numbingly awful writing. The first sentence suckered me in, then the second one got me right in the kidney. Someone please tell me that a high-school intern wrote it.
Yes, that is clearly more of a “point/different point” piece…
If 90% of the population supports banning texting while driving, and states are already starting to enact legislation, why do the feds need to strongarm it?
And seriously though, can’t a member of congress come up with a more compelling argument than “I’m a mother”?
(These are both rhetorical questions, natch…)
What we as Agitator readers tend not to understand, and what people like Carolyn McCarthy and Glenn Beck understand VERY well, is that the vast majority of people are NOT CAPABLE of these complex thought processes. They’ve been watching infomercials and sound bites all their lives, and these are the only things they can grasp.
Good grief. Self-satisfied much?
I didn’t read the Congresscritter’s counterpoint, but I didn’t have to to know that she woudl throw the ol’ “bbbbbuuutttt….it’s for teh children!” in there.
When I read the headline, I thought you meant that you were actually driving while you debated her. Which would have been very funny.
You do realize once they ban texting while driving, they will then invade your privacy by accessing your cell phone records to prove it was texting you were doing.
Oops. Looks like #3 beat me to it. Thats what i like about this place. Full of thinkers.
Errrr #4 i mean.
:(
I’m curious about one thing. The difficulty of enforcing the ban is among your central points, but you also say “they’ll bring in revenue for the municipalities that aggressively enforce them”. How can both be so? Wouldn’t bringing in revenue that way suggest that the ban is being effectively enforced?
That said, yes, Rep. McCarthy’s argument is childish sophistry.
So what about the Bus Drivers you mentioned two weeks that drive, text, crash, and aren’t dismissed? Aren’t they caught? Aren’t they not punished? Just because you can’t catch everyone, or even a majority, mean those who are caught shouldn’t have a set punishment.
Here are two things these bans will do: They’ll give police officers another reason to pull people over, and they’ll bring in revenue for the municipalities that aggressively enforce them. I think both are arguments against a ban.
That’s an argument against revenue seeking police departments, not the law. People with authority can use their position to exploit any law, good or bad. That’s a call for ethics and oversight, not for doing away with every law that is exploited regardless of the merits of the law.
#17
There is a difference between “effective” enforcement and “aggressive” enforcement, the term Radley used. “Effective” enforcement would mean that the law actually solves the problem it targets, is not used to harrass or otherwise discriminate and does not interfere with citizens doing nothing wrong. It would also mean that the problem is actually serious enough to warrant federal intervention. “Aggressive” enforcement means Sheriff Cletus of Bumf*ck, MS gets to line his pockets even more than he does already.
I’m not sure I get the point here. Let’s all agree those bus drivers should have been fined. Does that state already have statutes against distracted driving? Reckless driving? I bet it does. I also bet it has a significant body of negligence law in operating motor vehicles. Assuming that there is some valid federal jurisdictional hook for a statute prohibiting texting (which I seriously doubt), what does the addition of a federal law do as a practical matter?
#18,
Those bus drivers were in a very different situation than the average American driver. They’re constantly being observed up-close, so enforcement of many rules is trivially easy, which in turn makes those rules a strong incentive to change behavior. What’s more, they weren’t just texting. They were texting, driving wrecklessly (which is somewhat easy for police to notice), and crashing (which is extremely easy for police to notice). So they came to the attention of police, and subject to discipline from employers, independent of any rule against texting.
Finally, Balko suggested increasing penalties for wreckless driving in cases where the driver is objectively known to have been texting. That approach applies equally well to bus drivers as to ordinary drivers.
There is no contradiction.
I heard she’s opposed to the thumby-thing that goes up.
@erico49:
HEY… I know you were kidding, but don’t give them any ideas, okay?
Wow…she sounds like a congress-critter. Talked a lot and said absolutely nothing. I was looking for one reason that this is necessary in addition to the behavior that is prohibited in preexisting careless and reckless driving laws and she offered nothing but emotionally charged ‘I am a woman and a nurse’ bullshit.
In Florida some legislator’s relative drowned in a pool, so a law was passed that all pools had to have a “toddler fence” installed around the perimeter. I haven’t had a toddler in my house for 20 some years, and don’t know anyone with a toddler, but still had to pay the $750.00 for the fence, which I promptly took down.
I’m too lazy to look it up, but many toddlers have drowned in bathtubs, canals, rivers, teaspoons of water, 5 gallon pails, and lakes since the passage of this law. Why, oh why is the government doing nothing about this?
We should ban water before anything else. It kills more people than cancer and texting combined.
I couldn’t even read her article, typical politician pablum. I love how they all start out with how great they are for passing common sense legislation.
I think some congresscritters stumble upon acronyms for bills (like “ALERT”), then try to make up some legislation to fit.
Arkansas just passed the same law, and my comments were just like Radley’s: it cannot be enforced until after the fact. And after the fact, there already existed a law against distracted driving.
Jesus is that elitist.
I think most people are capable of reasoned thought processes they just tend not to use them all that much. Its an issue of training. I often think, “What are the unintended consequences, how can I get around it, is it even doable?” when I hear about a policy. If people would just ask those questions they’d realize most of the legislation that is passed these days is just crap.
Jeff,
Not sure if you are directing this at Radley or not, but he did mention upping fines for those who cause accidents while texting. Phone logs can be checked and the time of the accident is also known.
As one of the article commenters stated, it seems these were not point/counterpoint but independent statements. You did a much better job of anticipating and rebutting her arguments than she did. In fact, you smoked her. I would be interested to know if she has a rebuttal. Keep us informed.
They could probably nail someone like this guy pretty easily. Anything beyond that would be a little rougher.
Every time I hear of a law like this I think it’s just another reason to search cars. That and to tazer people for “resisting”.
“You were texting, I saw you!” “No sir, I was looking at mapqu…” *zzzzzzzzzzztttt*
Well done. I was pretty much shocked at the lack of facts or statistics in the Congresswoman’s article. Her article suggests that this stuff is being legislated more on beliefs than facts.
Three emetics, and just before dinner.
Thanks!
This is a no-brainer. Texting while driving could be THE most dangerous act in the universe, but the federal government should not ban it. Our Constitution established a federation. We have 50 states that can pass their own laws about texting while driving. They can establish their own criteria for texting, or they can just rule that performing any voluntary action that distracts you from driving (texting, calling, looking at a map, applying makeup, lighting a pipe, playing with your kid, etc.) is a moving violation subject to penaties. Some states have such laws already, and tacking a federal violation on top is unwanted and unneeded.
My response, posted on the US News site:
Approximately 90 percent of American polled want marijuana legalized for medical use. So why isn’t it legal already?
I believe in marijuana legalization. I don’t believe in more laws against texting, using cell phones, and other devices. People will find ways around the law. And even politicans and their relatives are hypocritical on this issue: Maria Shriver was recently photographed using a phone while driving.
You can’t and shouldn’t legislate everything by polls. As Anatole France warned, “If 50 million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.”
Argument FAIL
Agreed that roping in pot legalization was a bit of apples and oranges. I wanted to make a point that there are times when Congress doesn’t give a flying fuck what the majority of Americans want, except when it dovetails with their lust for power and control
Man, would I like to edit the above. I’m ready for LivePodium now!
Yea, damn those over-zealous “there outta be a law” politicians! If you can’t catch em all, why bother? While we’re at it, let’s just get rid of DUI laws too. If people wanna drive drunk, let em.
What exactly constitutes “texting”? If a phone beeps to indicate a message, would glancing at the first page to see if it concerns one’s current trip (e.g. “Hey honey–can you stop at the store on the way to get some eggs?”) be considered “texting”? If the phone offers a one-button way to reply yes or no, would that be “texting”? If a situation requires an immediate reply which can be made without thought, would it always be safer to work one’s way over to an area where one could park briefly, or would it be better to just send the reply?
#36,
You wrote as though DUI laws are slam dunk, but DUI laws are enforced in two ways, broadly speaking:
A) Drunks drive erratically, the police pull them over for driving erratically, the police notice concrete indicators that the driver is drunk. With this approach, DUI laws work like severe enhancements of wreckless driving laws. The same could be done for texting, as Balko suggested. The quibbling comes when discussing burden of proof and appropriate punishment, not in whether it should be legal to drive wrecklessly while drunk.
B) Random checkpoints, made-up police testimony, criminalizing harmless levels of alchohol, making driving contingent upon forfeiting fourth amendment rights, and prohibition-inspired broad alcohol restrictions. Some people will defend each of these, but they’re far from obviously good.
So DUI laws are either A) consistent with Balko’s position, or B) not obviously good. Argue the issue based on its merits instead of shallow sarcasm.
McCarthy lost me in the first paragraph once she started blatantly re-campaigning for office and bringing up terms like “common sense legislation” while citing anecdotal evidence and ignoring most of Radley’s arguments.
As I’ve gotten older I’ve come to the conclusion that most politicians are simply stupid people with horrible ideas who really aren’t worth listening to unless you enjoy getting pissed off.
Please excuse the off-topic post, but I just wanted to mention that American Violent was just released on DVD today, for those who haven’t seen it at the theater. I just started watching it and my blood is already boiling.
UCrawford already touched on this, but I pretty much think that anytime you hear the term “common sense legislation” in a politician’s discourse you can stop listening and just go straight to the anti column on the issue.
It’s simply one of those weasely little terms used when they’re about to take something else away from you. You don’t really even need to know what they’re taking away in order to oppose it.
Yeah. Simplistic thinking and all. But some things you really can put on the “default to this behavior” list and be correct the better part of the time. Saves a lot of effort.
Radley Balko, you’re an ignorant slut.
#28 | Steve Verdon | October 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I agree that most people are capable of reasoned thought processes; however, I don’t think many use them that frequently. My grandfather taught me that a person is smart but people are dumb. It’s the least common denominator theory that people in a group tend to “think down” to the stupidest person’s ability. While I do not like generalizations, I think that, by and large, the American people have become accustomed to snippets of information. Headlines, if you will. Because of our immediate gratification mentality, we want results as quickly as possible. We read headlines and ignore the stories so often because we’re crunched for time that it has become habit, even when we have time to spare. If the news isn’t processed, digested, and regurgitated over and over to us, we don’t internalize it, just ignore it.
I have caught myself doing the headline reading and moving on. I have to remind myself to read the articles to get the full body of information. It is the main reason I stopped watching 24 hour news channels because all they do is glance over some stupid Paris Hilton headline and ignore the real stuff.
The American people will overwhelmingly support a ban on texting because “texting is bad” therefore there should be a law against it. You know, if only for the children. God forbid someone has a 10,000-to-1 chance of being in a given situation, they want a ban on it because they heard it on the news and it’s “scary.” The American people, on most things, have become reactionary, mostly to their fears. Rational thinking just doesn’t play the role it used to.
I think you’re naively giving people way more credit than they deserve. I think when you add up the collective IQ of some groups, you actually get a number smaller than the lowest IQ in the group. But , I wouldn’t expect anyone to believe that without indisputable concrete examples, so I usually just refer them to Congress and every state legislature in the country.
Yep. Gotta agree with that. That’s precisely why I hate it when we, as libertarians, argue against a law only by countering the supposition that the outlawed thing is bad, therefore the law is legitimate. That allows proponents of the law to frame the debate in their terms. As some have already said here, the fact that texting makes driving more dangerous isn’t, by itself, reason to ban it. If that’s all it takes to ban something, then everything can be banned and there is no freedom.
That’s the irony of democracy. Although almost universally considered a means of ensuring freedom, democracy also guaranties that no activity of man is immune to the tyranny of the majority.
Now that I’ve thoroughly depressed myself, I think I’ll go knock back a tall shot of hemlock.
You won the argument, but she had the best laugh line:
“As a member of Congress, I work to pass comprehensive, common-sense legislation that will benefit average Americans.”
“most politicians are simply stupid people with horrible ideas”
I realized long ago that the best and brightest this country has to offer – say, Ed Whitten or Steve Jobs – would never DREAM of going into politics. Elected office is for the underachievers and dim bulbs who have been told they’re hot shit because they’re tall or good-looking or can deliver a decent oration.
If you are going to go this far, then you need to ban radios in cars. You need to ban drinking even coffee or another standard drink. You need to ban passengers and talking. You need to ban…stupid people driving.
Feckin ejits!!
1) Pull head out.
2) Wipe brown shite from eyes
3) open eyes
4) Say DUH!!!!!
Why would they? They’re not screwups…they’re smart enough to make money on their own without whoring their vote out to interest groups.
Seriously, though, after college I was involved in politics for awhile (worked for my state legislature and worked several campaigns) and I noticed two distinct types of politicians…those who had primary private sector careers before politics and went into public service as a way to “give back” (and usually understood the ramifications of most of the legislation they were proposing) and those who chose politics as their primary career or who had rarely or never worked in the private sector (and dealing with them was like conversing with a brick wall covered in talking points). Figured out pretty quickly which group was the one worth talking to.
Carolyn McCarthy… oh yes, she’s the brilliant one that was sponsoring legislation to ban guns with that “shoulder thing that goes up”.
to #31:
Her article suggests that this stuff is being legislated more on beliefs than facts.
That’s just how Carolyn rolls. Facts rarely support her case. ;)
#38 Roy: “wreckless driving laws”. If that was intentional, my hat’s off to you.
Good points made, Radley, but I still don’t see a problem with some type of law on the books that would at least allow for an additional punishment after an accident if one was found to be texting (somehow…..phone on floor with half completed reply, etc.).
And I think that if an officer were to see someone texting while driving, careless driving already applies, so there is no need for a new law for a stop. Police can already stop anyone they want, whenever they want, almost.
But seriously…and it doesn’t at all make it right or acceptable, but how many of the hundreds/thousands of laws on the books ARE just symbolic and basically useless/overlap other laws that would already apply?