MADD - Why no Outrage against Cell Phones??

[sgeeeee]

Just to follow up on CT's point . . . Here's Charles' argument with only a few words altered:

I know this is politically incorrect, but please ... don't we have enough laws regulating our behavior? I'm sick of it. If I'm driving recklessly, passing inappropriately, speeding, running a light, etc. ... ticket me, as I'll deserve it. But if I've meerly had a few drinks and am on the freeway, leave me alone. Hold me responsible if I commit a transgression against a fellow citizen.

Nothing fallacious about this analogy.

I happen to think this argument has merit. And I am also against laws restricting cell phone use while driving or laws agains gun ownership. (That one surprises a lot of you). Laws that make the potential to perform harm illegal need to be scrutinized very carefully.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Just to follow up on CT's point . . . Here's Charles' argument with only a few words altered:

Nothing fallacious about this analogy.

I happen to think this argument has merit.  And I am also against laws restricting cell phone use while driving or laws agains gun ownership. (That one surprises a lot of you).  Laws that make the potential to perform harm illegal need to be scrutinized very carefully.

And, if carried to nutty excess (which the gov. and PC types do
consistently), virtually everything has the "potential" to cause
harm, real or imagined. Your child read a book and was traumatized,
or ate BIg Macs and got fat. You smoked and got sick. Etc etc,
ad nauseum. The "potential" should not be a crime, ever; only the
commission. That is one reason I favor legal personal ownership
of all sorts of powerful weapons. Unless you injure someone,
they are no more dangerous than a potted plant, which by the way someone
could kill you with if they wished.

JG

 

[Martha]

John, (you ignorant slut ), it is not CT's argument that is the fallacy, it is yours.

CT's argument:

* We have decided as a society to make driving while drunk illegal because it is likely to cause an accident

* Driving while talking on a cell phone causes more accidents than driving while drunk

* So driving while talking on a cell phone should be illegal too.

This is a logical argument if the premise is correct; that driving while talking on a cell phone causes as many or more accidents as driving while drunk.

Instead of arguing that CT's premise is incorrect, or arguing that both drunk driving and driving while talking on a cell phone should be legal, you argue the slippery slope argument, which is generally a weak argument if not a downright fallacy.

You argue that:

* It might be bad to talk on a cell phone while driving

* It might be bad to eat too much meat

* If we make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving

* Then pretty soon it will be illegal to eat too much meat

* We don't want it to be illegal to eat too much meat

* Therefore it shouldn't be illegal to talk on a cell phone.

The problem with this argument is that the links between the third and fourth steps are tenuous if existent at all.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

John, (you ignorant slut  ), it is not CT's argument that is the fallacy, it is yours.

CT's argument:

*  We have decided as a society to make driving while drunk illegal because it is  likely to cause an accident

*  Driving while talking on a cell phone causes more accidents than driving while drunk

*  So driving while talking on a cell phone should be illegal too.

This is a logical argument if the premise is correct; that driving while talking on a cell phone causes as many or more accidents as driving while drunk.

Instead of arguing that CT's premise is incorrect, or arguing that both drunk driving and driving while talking on a cell phone should be legal, you argue the slippery slope argument, which is generally a weak argument if not a downright fallacy.

You argue that:

*  It might be bad to talk on a cell phone while driving

*  It might be bad to eat too much meat

*  If we make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving

*  Then pretty soon it will be illegal to eat too much  meat

*  We don't want it to be illegal to eat too much  meat

*  Therefore it shouldn't be illegal to talk on a cell phone.

The problem with this argument is that the links between the third and fourth steps are tenuous if existent at all.

I'm sorry that I can not respond to this as I am not too sure
you have a point. CHP?

JG

 

[Martha]

The point to bringing up smoking, big macs, etc. appeared to be a slippery slope argument, which is a very weak argument. If both drunk driving and talking on a cellphone while driving are equally dangerous, then there are very few ways to argue that talking on a cellphone while driving should remain legal. One is the slippery slope argument--too weak, really a fallacy. A second possible argument is that people in general will not follow the law so it is bad public policy to make that law. The last argument is that drunk driving should be legal too.

You did not directly say that driving while drunk should be legal. Is that what you are saying? If that is the case, it still does not make CTs argument a fallacy because society did in fact decide that driving while drunk should be illegal.

So, your attack should not be that CT made a fallacious analogy. Instead, your argument should have been that drunk driving should be legal because of x, y and z. I invite you to make your argument.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

The point to bringing up smoking, big macs, etc. appeared to be a slippery slope argument, which is a very weak argument.  If both drunk driving and talking on a cellphone while driving are equally dangerous, then there are very few ways to argue that talking on a cellphone while driving should remain legal.  One is the slippery slope argument--too weak, really a fallacy.  A second possible  argument is that people in general will not follow the law so it is bad public policy to make that law.  The last argument is that drunk driving should be legal too. 

You did not directly say that driving while drunk should be legal. Is that what you are saying?  If that is the case, it still does not make CTs argument a fallacy because society did in fact decide that driving while drunk should be illegal.

So, your attack should not be that CT made a fallacious analogy.  Instead, your argument should have been that drunk driving should be legal because of x, y and z.  I invite you to make your argument.    

I am not defending drunk driving. Agree it should be illegal.
The question is, where do we stop? Cell phones? Eating a sandwich?
Drinking coffee?
Tuning the radio? Talking to your passengers? Gazing at the sunset?
Looking at the birds? Smoking (still legal
but endangered)? Opening the glove box? Adjusting your seat?
Come on Martha. I know you are smarter than this.

I probably should add that what "society decides" carries no weight
with me whatsoever.

JG

 

[sgeeeee]

JG -- danger ahead!!!  Martha's fixin to whup your ass on this one.   

He's so arrogant oblivious, he won't even know it happened.

 

[Martha]

I am not defending drunk driving. Agree it should be illegal.
The question is, where do we stop? Cell phones? Eating a sandwich?
Drinking coffee?
Tuning the radio? Talking to your passengers? Gazing at the sunset?
Looking at the birds? Smoking (still legal
but endangered)? Opening the glove box? Adjusting your seat?
Come on Martha. I know you are smarter than this.

I probably should add that what "society decides" carries no weight
with me whatsoever.



JG

So you are making the slippery slope argument?
I already refuted that argument in my first post.

Or, you could be arguing that there are already too many laws, so no more. Not even if an activity is more dangerous than already illegal activities. Are you making that argument?

Come on JG, give me some logical analysis. Greg got me off the couch and away from an interesting novel for this.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Or, you could be arguing that there are already too many laws, so no more.  Not even if an activity is more dangerous than already illegal activities. Are you making that argument? 

Come on JG, give me some logical analysis.  Greg got me off the couch and away from an interesting novel for this.   

Martha, I love you (strictly cyberspace/platonic). Yes, I am saying there
are way too many laws now, and yes............even if an activity is
"more dangerous" the lawmakers (mostly morons anyway) should lay off.
Clear now? We're a nation of whiners who want someone to protect us from all perils and compensate us if we have some bad luck. Go back to your novel.

JG

 

[AltaRed]

FWIW, I hate people talking on cell phones while driving than virtually any other road behavior. They wander in their lanes, they do not match trafffic flow and quite frankly are an accident looking for a place to happen. Martha and C-T have my strong vote on this one.

It is pure bulldung that those who use cell phones for their businesses suffer. The phones have a voice messaging system. Use it.

I blast such idiots with the horn as I drive beside them and give them that "look". Sometimes it has the needed effect and other times it doesn't.

 

[Cut-Throat]

JG,

I just went to the movie "Good night and Good Luck". It probably has a 'hero' of yours in it. Joseph McCarthy. - He used a lot of the same reasoning you do. Almost exactly when you claimed that the Uof W at Madison should have a hammer and sickle for their emblem.

I suggest you see the movie. - They use actual footage of McCarthy, so it's not 'distorted' by Hollywood. The only person that plays McCarthy is McCarthy.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Ok dammit, since theres obviously a conspiracy involved here to force me to post something, here ya go.

Please allow me to clear up a few misconceptions I see here, and make a few other notes and observations. This whole topic actually came up a while back, but nobody has a good memory so....

Point #1: There are absolutely no 'studies' that show that driving with a cell phone causes accidents. In point of fact, there was *a* study that i'm aware of that measured people sober, on a phone, and legally drunk. In that test, in fact the cell phone driver was worse than the drunk driver. Both were also negligibly different from the 'sober' driver. The whole test is worthless because the 'sober' drivers (and the others) were well aware that their driving skills were being measured, so all were on their best behavior. I'm betting that the average driver doesnt drive as well when they're not on a simulator being measured.

Point #2: Since studies that self-immolate their results and trying to determine the cause of accidents is fairly fruitless, this calls for a 'prarie dog' analysis. Pop up out of the hole a minute and note that cell phones in cars were fairly non-existent 10-15 years ago. Hence, as cell phone adoption increased, we should see a fairly linear and related increase in car accidents. *BZZZT*...accidents per driver per mile have been dropping in the last 10-15 years, not increasing.

Point #3: In every country or state that has banned driving while talking on a cell phone, accident rates have remained just about the same or gone up.

Point #4: The california legislature decided to push for an outlaw of driving with a cell phone. They charged the california highway patrol to analyze accident data to find the correlation between talking on a cell phone and getting into an accident. The CHP couldnt find one. They looked really hard in fact. Unsatisfied with this obviously incorrect result, incorrect because it didnt back up their intiuition, they asked the CHP to change the way they looked at the data such that if a cell phone was present in either car after an accident, it was listed as a causative factor. Even if it wasnt being used. Then there was a nominal causative factor attributed to driving while talking on a phone.

Point #5: Some half decent studies have found no difference between the distractive factors of talking on a cell phone, talking to a passenger, changing the radio station, looking at a billboard, or simply daydreaming. I'm aware of no studies that show that theres a less distractive distraction than the cell phone.

Drawing correlations between MADD and the anti cell phone effort is well taken. MADD is an anti-drinking organization, not an anti-drunk driving organization. The nice lady that started the outfit (lived a few streets over from me before I moved) walked away from them a few years ago when they started turning into what they are now. They twist an awful lot of data. And who the hell will walk into the line of fire to question madd mothers? Nobody.

Two examples: a sober driver gets rear ended at a light by another sober driver. One of them has a few empty beer cans on the floor in the back seat. A woman drinking a glass of wine at an outdoor table is hit and killed by a sober driver who jumped the curb. Both are classified as alcohol related accidents and the latter as an alcohol related fatality - due to the presence of empty cans in the former and the fact that the victim was drinking alcohol in the latter.

The NHTSA is also a wonderful source of absolute horsepuckey with regards to accident data. A few years back the GAO wrote them an official document asking them to stop wasting the taxpayers money running bogus study after bogus study.

Most people are considered legally too drunk to drive after two 16oz glasses of beer or two restaurant poured glasses of wine or regular bar drinks consumed in less than 2 hours. The state DMV's give you a nice chart that says you can probably have 2 or 3 drinks with no problems, but four might put you over .08. Look hard at that chart...some of them specify 5 or 8oz beers (nobody here sells 5 or 8 oz beers), 3 oz of wine, and a drink with 1oz of hard liquor. Tell me you'd ever order another drink at a bar or restaurant that poured you a lousy 3 oz glass of wine or put 1 oz of booze in your cocktail? The chart also specifies that you have one drink per hour.

The bottom line is that most people who stop for a couple of quick ones on their way home from work are driving home legally drunk.

That .08 thing is also interesting. Back 3 decades or so ago when the government first started considering drunk driving laws, the American Medical Association was charged with determining the point at which someone was too drunk to safely operate a motor vehicle. They came back with .15 BAC. A few years later when MADD was pushing for .10, somehow the AMA was convinced to drop their findings to .10. A few years after that when MADD was pushing for .08...well...you can guess what happened.

So whats it all about? People are easily distracted. You take one distraction away, they'll fill it with another. For years we yapped with our buddies in the car, changed the radio station, checked out the hot babe on the sidewalk, tried to read that bumper sticker, daydreamed...now we talk on a phone. Since a lot of people hate people walking or driving around in public talking on a cell phone, it becomes a causative factor.

The data doesnt agree with that, however.

One thing for sure, our government friends will keep making things illegal so they can keep collecting fines to keep supporting foolish levels of spending...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

One thing for sure, our government friends will keep making things illegal so they can keep collecting fines to keep supporting foolish levels of spending...

Something else we can count on (along with "death and taxes")
Excellent excellent post!

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

JG,

I just went to the movie "Good night and Good Luck". It probably has a 'hero' of yours in it. Joseph McCarthy.  - He used a lot of the same reasoning you do. Almost exactly when you claimed that the Uof W at Madison should have a hammer and sickle for their emblem.

I suggest you see the movie. - They use actual footage of McCarthy, so it's not 'distorted' by Hollywood. The only person that plays McCarthy is McCarthy.

No "hero". A demagogue and all-around nut job. However, I will see
the movie and report back. I should add that while I agree with neither
his methods nor his conclusions, he did have some good ideas. But,
so did Hitler.

JG

 

[bruce1]

I blast such idiots with the horn as I drive beside them and give them that "look". Sometimes it has the needed effect and other times it doesn't.

Heck with the horn I want a rocket launcher mounted on the hood of my car. I don't really think talking on cell phones while driving should be made illegal though. It strikes me as a flavour of the month problem ...er cover up.

I concur with the nation (s) of whiners. People should be taking a lot more responsibility for their own selves and not seeking compensation and protection for every real or imagined injury, danger or slight.

At the same time short sighted next quarter results driven corporate entities would be foisting more garbage on us than they already are if there were not some control over their activites.

Government vs corporations ah heck they little guy is done like a goose.

Luckily I have to go shovel snow or this could turn into a rant.
have a good day
Bruce

 

[Dawg52]

Below is a link to the NCSL concerning this subject. It's a fairly long article. This is their conclusion........

"Conclusion
State legislatures continue to take the lead in response to driver distraction concerns.  Although many things and activities can divert a driver's attention away from the road, the high visibility of cell phones, public opinion, local ordinances and judicial activity have made the cell phone the focus of much state legislative activity.  As cell phones and other wireless devices in motor vehicles continue to increase in popularity, state legislatures will be increasingly challenged to examine and react to concerns about the relationship between phones and traffic safety.  Driver distraction legislation, however, has expanded well beyond proposals to prohibit all cell phones in cars.   More frequently, legislatures are considering proposals that target specific drivers or cover a wider range of potentially distracting activities.  It is a trend that is likely to continue as state legislatures start their 2006 session."

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate05.htm

I for one welcome the review of all distractions in motor vehicles. I'm sure others, as already expressed, will take the opposite view. 

 

[Martha]

Ok dammit, since theres obviously a conspiracy involved here to force me to post something, here ya go.

Please allow me to clear up a few misconceptions I see here, and make a few other notes and observations. This whole topic actually came up a while back, but nobody has a good memory so....

Oh I remembered. I did point out in my discussion with JG that no one was arguing against CT's premise that using cell phones caused more accidents than driving while drunk.

EDIT: I think one of the biggest problems with making cell phone use while driving illegal is that people are now so used to using them while driving that they won't follow the law. Or will use hands free versions which are more difficult to spot. And I have read that there is no evidence that hand's free cell phone use is safer than using a typical cell phone. The talking is the distraction--not the holding of the phone.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I for one welcome the review of all distractions in motor vehicles. I'm sure others, as already expressed, will take the opposite view. 

Be careful what you wish for.

JG

 

[Martha]

Be careful what you wish for.

JG

Yes, if we eliminate all distractions then drivers will fall asleep and have an accident.

 

[HFWR]

I vote for the rocket-launcher!!

"If I had a rocket-launcher, some son-of-a-bitch would die..."

Bruce Cockburn

 

[sgeeeee]

No "hero".  A demagogue and all-around nut job.  However, I will see
the movie and report back.  I should add that while I agree with neither
his methods nor his conclusions, he did have some good ideas.  But,
so did Hitler.

JG

Okay, I'll bite. It seems to me that Hitler's government was more intrusive than anything we face today by a long shot. McCarthy was a similar architect of intrusive government. This is something you regularly rant against.

What specific good ideas do you think these two men offered?

 

[REWahoo]

Okay, I'll bite. It seems to me that Hitler's government was more intrusive than anything we face today by a long shot. McCarthy was a similar architect of intrusive government. This is something you regularly rant against.

What specific good ideas do you think these two men offered?

SG, I'll bet when you were a kid you could never walk past a hornet's nest without throwing a rock at it, just to see what would happen...

 

[sgeeeee]

SG, I'll bet when you were a kid you could never walk past a hornet's nest without throwing a rock at it, just to see what would happen...

Only if the hornets were being pompous fools.

 

[Nords]

Okay, I'll bite.

What specific good ideas do you think these two men offered?

Didn't you have this conversation reciprocated diatribe already with *****?

(Edited to reflect SG's good point!)

 

[sgeeeee]

Didn't you have this conversation already with *****?

Does anyone really ever have a conversation with *****?

On the surface, it appears similar to a conversation. You address things he says. He says more things -- a lot more things. You point out that he hasn't addressed your questions. He says more things. He says still more things. He rants. . . But it's not really a conversation, is it?