Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Banning cell phones in cars

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:35, 23 July 2008 (edit)
Jcrumley (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 20:06, 29 September 2008 (edit)
74.6.17.183 (Talk)

Next diff →
Line 189: Line 189:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Enforcement: Would a cell phone ban be enforceable?===+===Economics: What are the economics of a cell phone ban? ===
|- |-
Line 195: Line 195:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time.''' Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.+*'''[[Argument: Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses| Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses]]''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Economics-2301/Telephone.htm Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005] - "Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
 +:...That evaluation found that a ban would be worth about $43 billion a year, although the estimate is imprecise and researchers place the range of possible values anywhere from $9 to $193 billion. Those savings would be roughly offset by the economic impact of unmade calls, also estimated to be around $43 billion annually and to range from $17 to $151 billion."
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
====No==== ====No====
-*'''[[Argument: Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible| Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible]]''' This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.+*'''Cell phone bans result in costly court cases.''' [http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/06/21/lat_cells_in_cars_0620.ART_ART_06-21-08_A8_Q0AI46O.html?sid=101 Ralph Vartabedian. "California cell-phone ban could be costly in court". Los Angeles Times. 21 June 2008]
 +*'''Cell phone bans are harmful to employers.''' [http://www.swlaw.com/files/Publication/1895be3a-384e-46d8-8c96-211a12b398a4/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/709fd7a9-e172-4fb6-b4fb-24dd7484c9b3/June2008_New%20Hands-Free%20Cell%20Phone%20Law%20Affects%20Employers.pdf "New Hands-Free Cell Phone Law Affects Employers". Legal Alert. June 2008]
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Economics: What are the economics of a cell phone ban? ===+===Enforcement: Would a cell phone ban be enforceable?===
|- |-
Line 216: Line 217:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''[[Argument: Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses| Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses]]''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Economics-2301/Telephone.htm Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005] - "Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.+*'''New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time.''' Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.
-:...That evaluation found that a ban would be worth about $43 billion a year, although the estimate is imprecise and researchers place the range of possible values anywhere from $9 to $193 billion. Those savings would be roughly offset by the economic impact of unmade calls, also estimated to be around $43 billion annually and to range from $17 to $151 billion." 
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +
====No==== ====No====
-*'''Cell phone bans result in costly court cases.''' [http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/06/21/lat_cells_in_cars_0620.ART_ART_06-21-08_A8_Q0AI46O.html?sid=101 Ralph Vartabedian. "California cell-phone ban could be costly in court". Los Angeles Times. 21 June 2008]+*'''[[Argument: Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible| Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible]]''' This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.
-*'''Cell phone bans are harmful to employers.''' [http://www.swlaw.com/files/Publication/1895be3a-384e-46d8-8c96-211a12b398a4/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/709fd7a9-e172-4fb6-b4fb-24dd7484c9b3/June2008_New%20Hands-Free%20Cell%20Phone%20Law%20Affects%20Employers.pdf "New Hands-Free Cell Phone Law Affects Employers". Legal Alert. June 2008] 

Revision as of 20:06, 29 September 2008

Should all cell phone use in cars be banned?

YOU CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! SEE THE GETTING STARTED TUTORIAL.

Editing tasks

  • This article has a pro/con resources section (bottom) with articles that have not been read and from which arguments and quotations have not yet been drawn. Help do this. Learn how in the Debatepedia:Getting started tutorial.

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

In little more than a decade, mobile phones have become widespread in developed countries, changing the way people communicate and interact. Concerns over their use have tended to centre upon possible radiation’s impact upon the brain, but more recently mobile phones have been blamed for causing a considerable number of road accidents. As a result, a number of countries are seriously considering a ban on using a mobile phone while driving, following the lead of Eire and the State of New York in the USA. In the UK the government issued a consultation paper in August 2002, indicating that legislation is likely in the next couple of years.


Public safety: Is the use of cell-phones while driving a public hazard?

Yes

  • Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]
  • Society can't trust "judgement" of drivers with cell phones. "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction."
  • People should not explain in car on phone why they are running late. If one is late, there is little difference in apologizing while in their car over a cell phone and apologizing in front of their boss at the office. So, they should have the restraint to drive at the speed limit, arriving late, and being willing to apologize then; an apologetic cell phone call in a car to a boss shouldn't be the cause of one being able to then relax, slow-down, and drive the speed-limit.


No

  • Citizens' judgement should be trusted in using cell phones For example, it is responsible to use a cell phone while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. The driver should be taught to use cell phones on the road with discretion, rather than rigidly banning their use all together.
  • Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents."
  • Cell phone use in cars probably saves lives Using mobiles on the road could improve safety, for example, by allowing delayed employees to ring in to the office rather than drive recklessly in an effort to arrive more promptly. Drivers now often use mobile phones to report accidents to the emergency services, and alert the police to dangerous driving, stray animals, unsafe loads, etc.


Other distractions: Is cell-phone use uniquely distracting?

Yes

Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous.
But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now."
  • Passengers are less distracting than cell phones University of South Carolina Psychology Professor Amit Almor said that cell phone conversations and conversations with a passenger are very different. - "When you have someone sitting next you you, that person can, in fact, function as an extra pair of eyes. That person can respond to the changing road conditions."[4]

People are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit. http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1 Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.


No

  • Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones These include eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimizes mobile phone users under all conditions, while completely ignoring many other causes of accidents.

Also, note that drunk and sleep deprived drivers are at least an equal distraction to drivers. There is no way that police can moniter the amount of sleep drivers have had before they drive. Driving while falling asleep ought to be banned as well. Often, business people are using their phones to make important connections that cannot wait until they arrive at a stopping point. Cell phone banning singles out a particular group of people.

  • Teach drivers to minimize distractions is better than banning phones. John Walls, a vice president at the industry group, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association-The Wireless Association. - "We believe educating drivers on how to best handle all of the possible distractions when you're behind the wheel is the most effective means to make better drivers, and that legislation focusing on a specific behavior falls short of that well-intended goal and creates a false sense of security."[5]


Practice: Do users of cell phones get better with practice?

Yes


No

Importance: Is cell phone use in cars unimportant? Relative to risks?

Yes

  • Cell phone use in cars is unnecessary; people went without them before., and little else about life has changed radically enough to make them indispensable, so there is no real loss of personal liberty in having your ability to communicate restricted in this way. If there is a pressing need to make a call, then drivers can always pull over and dial from a parked vehicle. The ban will also protect drivers from pressure from bosses who call them while on the road, effectively requiring their employees to risk their lives for the company.
  • People should pull over to talk on their cell phones. The social benefits of cell phones are not significantly curtailed if people are required to pull over to talk on their phones.
  • People will adjust to not using cell phones. "Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain". Examiner. 3 July 2008 - "California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile."

Cell phones should only be used while driving in the most dire situations. http://www.nhtsa.gov Drivers should make every effort to pull over in a safe stopping point before using their telephones. In an emergency, drivers should use their best judgement about whether or not to use their telephones.


No

  • Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. "The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones." - "The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits."
One study conducted by Robert Hahn and John Hird estimated the costs of a ban at $25 billion, compared to the total economic losses, including deaths and injuries, of $4.6 billion.[6]

Hands-free phones: Are hands-free mobile phones just as dangerous?

Yes

  • Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[7][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.

Using hands-free devices while driving is not safe. Whether the device is hands free or hand-held it takes the same cognitive thought to use it.


No

  • Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.
  • Ban on hands-free phones improves driving in bad conditions. Jed Kolko, a fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California - "Hands-free laws clearly reduce fatalities in bad weather and on wet roads."[8]


Careless driving laws: Are careless driving laws insufficient?

Yes

  • Careless driving laws are inadequate; cell phone ban is necessary. driving without due care and attention is a limited charge that can be very difficult to prove. In any case, every time a driver of a moving vehicle uses a mobile phone a potentially dangerous situation is created, as they are much less able to react to events around them. This justifies a specific offence being introduced.



No

  • Cell phone ban is unnecessary; careless driving laws are sufficient This means that if someone is driving dangerously through inappropriate use of their mobile phone, then the police can already prosecute them. Rather than introduce a new law, the police should instead enforce the existing rules more thoroughly. This could be coupled with energetic advertising campaigns to warn people of a range of potentially dangerous driving habits.




Economics: What are the economics of a cell phone ban?

Yes

...That evaluation found that a ban would be worth about $43 billion a year, although the estimate is imprecise and researchers place the range of possible values anywhere from $9 to $193 billion. Those savings would be roughly offset by the economic impact of unmade calls, also estimated to be around $43 billion annually and to range from $17 to $151 billion."


No


Enforcement: Would a cell phone ban be enforceable?

Yes

  • New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.



No

  • Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.


State authority? Does the state have the authority to limit the liberties of citizens?

Yes

  • State has authority to regulate actions of drivers (by cell phone ban)., for example, through speed limits, rules against drink driving, etc. Dangerous driving meets the classic liberal test by endangering not just the individual but others, including drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and so society has a right to intervene to protect the innocent. A new law signals social unacceptability, and will send a message to drivers; the New York ban has already been highly effective.


No

  • Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties. Mobile phones don’t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones.
  • Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars. Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.


Traffic: Can traffic be blamed on cell phone use?

Yes


No

Reality: Is it possible to communicate well without using cell phones in cars?

Yes

People survived before cell phones. Before cell phones, people lived a successful life without cell phones, and, as society has not changed much, that should still apply now.


No

  • In the modern world the ban would be ignored by everyone. Craig Miller. "Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough to Enforce". NPR. 21 Aug. 2007 - "'We might come out to the vehicle and find 11 or 12 phone calls we have to return,' [Tom] Sherman says. 'So we have to choose between either doing business or following the law, which is pretty much ignored by everybody else also. It's kind of looked at like a jaywalking law.'"

Pro/con videos

Yes

No

Pro/con resources

Yes

No

See also

Motions:

  • This House would ban drivers from using mobiles.
  • This House would do more to promote road safety.
  • This House would tame technology.

In legislation, policy, and the real world:

External links and resources;

Books:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.