David Boaz discusses nannyism and texting while driving on ABC

[HayateAzekura]

People still text and do phone calls. A law doesn't make a difference. it's just the government always trying to get more into our lives

[mikheii]

I'm a total libertarian, but there is a big difference between seat belt legislation (which I oppose) and texting laws. Just last summer, we had a helicopter land in our pasture to airlift out two motorcyclists who were run over by someone texting (and died), and our 92 year old neighbor was killed while getting her mail by someone texting while driving.

Texting is a public safety concern, and isn't nanny-ism. But yes, food laws and helmet laws and such are.

[Wormtail81]

Confronting people with a camera is probably not real journalism.

[fishflaps]

Texting while driving has been illegal here in Australia here for years... If you are caught operating the phone in anyway you will be fined up to $200

[DaveC86]

its a $500 fine now. your car doesn't even have to be running, some dude got fined because he was texting while his keys were in the ignition but the engine wasn't running.

fuck the nanny state.

[goose1077]

That's going too far.

[whoo689]

Texting and talking on the phone are not equivalent. Anyone with half a brain knows it's BS to equate the 2. If you have your phone in one hand and are good at driving with the other, and you can concentrate on the road, great! Some people can't concentrate while on the phone, and those people shouldn't drive. But to mandate banning cell phones while driving is just silly. '

I'm a little torn on texting, though. While I agree with Boaz on nannyism, there's a big safety issue, too.

[whoo689]

A person's totally distracted while texting, and while texting will not be totally eliminated with a law, I think it would be a good start.  Of course, it should NOT be a federal law, as the federal gov't has gotten way too involved in this kinda shit as it is. The individual states or localities should figure something out for their citizens.

But a SUMMIT on texting while driving?? This is madness! The number of accidents caused by texting has got to be pretty miniscule overall.

[soakupthesunman]

This summit is due to the Dem habit of polling for whatever folks are buzzing about then trying to grab it for attention - and hopefully, votes.

The other extreme - when popular opinion is NOT in favor of something the admin. is doing - shows us the SouthSide of Obama. They can't make a coherent argument in favor of the laws they want - instead, they lie about the nature of their opposition. This shows their lack of respect for the electorate - especially the Dem portion.

[torresut]

This definitively a sad statement about our country, a nation of children that have refused to grow up.

[anoniab]

State responsibility. I have to say there ought to be stiff fines. I'm a pedestrian more than a driver and I've come so close to being hit because someone had their phone glued to their ear instead of paying attention to their surroundings it isn't ever funny.

[ZuzoFriend]

Texting while driving is fucking stupid. The State can't stop stupid, but it can strip away all our freedoms trying.

[ChrisTheTruckDriver]

Texting is more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving, though I would oppose a law against it.

In my line of work, there are times that talking on the phone while driving is necessary to get the job done. That said, I try not to talk on the phone while in busy traffic or in the city, and instead save my talking for on the open road where there are fewer risks.

[goose1077]

Where there is nobody to hit

[CountArtha]

One of those guys was a in witness protection or something. lol

[FatLibertarian]

That reporter, sticking a microphone into drivers cars is putting people at risk. LOL, nannystate whores. People, we have to take some responsibility for ourselves. If you try to text while driving, you are a moron who should be sued if you kill someone as a result. But the Federal government should STFU and stay out of it. They can't BAN it anyway. It won't do anything. Just need more education about it...

[ForTehNguyen]

whats next they are going to ban looking away from the road in front of you? Thats dangerous too when driving

[chevydriver1123]

Some of you are missing the big picture. Its not that the activity is dangerous (which it is), is that people are trying to make it federal law. Laws regarding driving is the responsibility of the states not the feds

[aaronrpowell]

I do hope people will pay attention to what David Boaz, my Cato colleague, actually said.

He didn't argue that laws against texting while driving were nannyism -- though the non-Boaz portions of the video might leave that impression. He only criticized making it a FEDERAL law.

He did, however, criticize real nanny-state laws like seatbelt, helmet, and food mandates.

[uche007us]

This 1st time am going to disagree with Cato, but I think reckless behaviour like drunk driving and having a T-rex in a residential areas should be banned or punished atleast until we have private.

roads

Atleast with a law in place when such crashes occur they are punished both in criminal and civil courts. Cato is way wrong on this one, this including any so called libertarian supporting him

[troybr79]

Targeting texting is just more government control. What about all the people that get in accidents while drinking coffee, changing the radio, hell some women put on makeup and some men read the paper. Are we going to outlaw EVERY possible distraction? No radio, no coffee, no Big Mac, next it'll be no kids in the cars because they'll be fighting in the back. Where does it stop?

[Pvtjamesryan2]

how in the hell can you text while driving? That's same damn skills son!!

[ForTehNguyen]

if people arent deterred from causing an accident or killing someone while celling/texting, how is a $50 fine going to deter them.

[uche007us]

If we go by your line of arguement, if people arent detered by prison time, why punish murderers? no measure even death sentence will deter all the people all the time

Its not like you can prevent stupid

Guys we are taking it too far with this personal liberty issue, we going to need some law and order to create our free market paradise

[mitchblatt1dot1com]

Preventing morons from crashing into you isn't nannyism.

Or in words that you might understand:

OMG TTYL My BFF Jill.

[picapauengracado]

Many activities are dangerous. Driving itself is dangerous. The question is one of balancing benefits and costs. There were some economists that actually tried to do that: evaluate the enjoyment of being able to use the cellphone in the car against the added probability of an accident, and how people would evaluate the two if they had to consider all externalities. (tell me if you want the paper)

It might well be the case it's not worth it, but because it's dangerous by itself it no argument.

[mitchblatt1dot1com]

It's not a question of whether the activity is dangerous to the person involved, but whether the activity is dangerous to other people. Some TTYL moron will kill others, not just himself.

[picapauengracado]

Sure, there are externalities. There are externalities in driving itself! As in many other activities. If you want to think like an economist, consider: would you say cellular use should be forbidden if there were only 1 related accident every year? It might very well be the case that prohibition is beneficial in net; it's a matter of doing the econometric work. If you want, I'll find you the paper I referred to previously that does such proper work.

[picapauengracado]

To clarify, I'm not defending Boaz. If I'm noisy in the cinema, the management has the prerogative to throw me out. In the case of highways, if I'm drunk or using cell phone, that's the govt. But it's all a matter of cost-benefits: customers of the cinema probably don't want not be able to make sporadic comments with their friends. In liberutopia, highway mgnt has the right incentives: and if ppl feel strongly one way or the other, the solution may be split lanes (like smoke restaurnt).

[picapauengracado]

In the paper I referred to (which AFAIK has been the only attempt to figure out what people would decide in a Coase world), the authors found that people would prefer the benefits of talking over the cellphone over the reduced probability of being the victims of an auto-accident. They did leave out a lot that might change the balance, as they acknowledge, so it's not authoritative by any means, but it's interesting.

[picapauengracado]

Another note: Through the USA only free hands use is allowed, which has reduced risk little. The problem with cellphone use is not that it occupies your hands, but that it occupies your mind. (otherwise, the ban should extend to one-handed ppl.) The driver is more pressured to be responsive when on the phone than when eg talking with someone that is also on the car. The fact that the full ban is not political feasible shows I think that people feel the pleasure is worth the extra deaths.

[HubertPaetz]

Is there a word "FREEDOM" in your dictionary?? Life is not a property of the government.

What would you ban next? Fast food, alcohol, salt, all of them cause tens of thousands of deaths (vascular related). So what.

Of course if one person kills another the answer is simple, court.

It's not about pleasure, it's about freedom from the govt.

[picapauengracado]

To the extent, that government is trying to protect people from themselves, these rules are idiotic. You can't protect fools from themselves. Now, for good or worse, highways are managed by the government, and if you don't know how to drive, you drive while drunk, or whatever, you impose costs to the other drivers, and so, like a cinema manager keeps the prerogative of kicking you out if you are noisy and disruptive, so can the government have standards of use as the highway manager.

[HubertPaetz]

Do you understand how this will end up if the government prevents HIS herd of cattle from misusing HIS land, HIS children, HIS roads, etc.

The govt should stay out of roads, healthcare in the first place.

[Thorbie]

I think this video showed that you basically can't prevent morons from crashing into you period no matter what law you have.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

bloody fools, really a summit on texting while driving ? overthrow your governments my yankee cousins, this is too much.