Freedom to Kill with Your Car

The Minnesota Legislature is finally coming close to outlawing phone use while driving. This session, there's a bill that has a good chance of passing that would make it illegal to make hand-held calls (or text, etc.) while driving. Hands-free phone use would still be okay.

Personally, I think that's a half-measure and the idea that hands-free is safe is not supported by research. But at least it's some movement in the right direction.

Today there was a letter in the Star Tribune from John Windsor of Apple Valley who disagrees with both the law and me. He wrote:

The electronic-device usage legislation making its way through the Minnesota Legislature should be soundly rejected. Creating victimless “crimes” when no death, injury or other harm has in fact occurred seriously erodes our freedom.

Both common and statutory law already provide adequate remedies for this issue. Manslaughter is a crime at common law, and juries already employ what are known as “aggravating factors” to impose stiffer criminal penalties when such are deserved. Think the current law is too lenient? Prosecuting people who are merely engaging in behavior that’s considered risky isn’t the answer. Instead, stiffen the maximum penalties when death, injury or other harm does occur. Don’t ruin the lives of individuals who haven’t actually harmed someone else merely because they’ve engaged in an otherwise innocent activity.

Want to cut down on traffic deaths? Lower the speed limit on all Minnesota roads to 35 miles per hour. Oh, you don’t like that idea? I figured as much. But it makes as much sense as criminalizing the use of electronic devices while driving.

Living in a free society inevitably entails some level of personal risk; nothing in this life is guaranteed. Assuming personal responsibility solves a lot more problems than do government diktats. Let people know the possible penalties for actual crimes, then let them decide whether they are willing to accept the risk. Such is far preferable to life in the nanny state.

Rather than dismiss John out of hand because he used phrases like "government diktats" and "nanny state," I find it more instructive to try a substitution exercise on his argument. Research clearly shows that people using a phone are impaired drivers. Texting is the equivalent of having drunk four beers  (which would put me under the table, by the way). Talking on a phone clearly causes more serious driving errors as well as lack of awareness that the errors had taken place.

So let's take John's letter and replace phone use with drinking alcohol:

The alcohol usage legislation making its way through the Minnesota Legislature should be soundly rejected. Creating victimless “crimes” when no death, injury or other harm has in fact occurred seriously erodes our freedom.

Both common and statutory law already provide adequate remedies for this issue. Manslaughter is a crime at common law, and juries already employ what are known as “aggravating factors” to impose stiffer criminal penalties when such are deserved. Think the current law is too lenient? Prosecuting people who are merely engaging in behavior that’s considered risky isn’t the answer. Instead, stiffen the maximum penalties when death, injury or other harm does occur. Don’t ruin the lives of individuals who haven’t actually harmed someone else merely because they’ve engaged in an otherwise innocent activity.

Want to cut down on traffic deaths? Lower the speed limit on all Minnesota roads to 35 miles per hour. Oh, you don’t like that idea? I figured as much. But it makes as much sense as criminalizing the use of alcohol before or while driving.

Living in a free society inevitably entails some level of personal risk; nothing in this life is guaranteed. Assuming personal responsibility solves a lot more problems than do government diktats. Let people know the possible penalties for actual crimes, then let them decide whether they are willing to accept the risk. Such is far preferable to life in the nanny state.

The thing John doesn't seem to realize or care about is that the risk imposed by the drunk or phone-using driver is not their risk alone: it's shared by everyone around them, probably even more for the pedestrians and bicyclists they might hit than it is for the driver with airbags. And science facts tell us that the risk to others is real and significant, both for drivers using alcohol and devices. The distracted or drunk driver isn't just walking down a street, in which case, I agree with John. Have at it, drunk or texting walker! The driver, however, is moving a two-ton chunk of metal at killing speed.

John wants to wait until someone's dead to serve as a cautionary tale for others. We already have that scenario, and it's not working: the incidence of distracted driving is going up, as are the accidents caused by distracted drivers.

And John exaggerates when he says the new law would "ruin the lives" of people who haven't harmed anyone. What's the penalty imposed by this new law? It's a fine like any other moving violation, right? Which I suppose can ruin someone's life if it becomes a cycle of nonpayment and jail time, but how is that different from speeding tickets? Should we get rid of the speed limit too? (John would probably yell "Freedom!" and say yes.)

Personally, I'd much rather have police stopping and ticketing people for cell phone use than for broken tail lights.