Hang up and Drive! (Austin: horse, car, health)

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by UKjay

I had no concept of a "Nanny" state until we moved to the UK. Although we only lived in London for 3 years and it was a wonderful city; I can say that I will fight the intrusion of government into everyday life at every chance I get. Truely, if you've never lived in the environment you can't imagine what is lost. What is sad is the acceptance; those that put up a fight have no chance of changing the system. There are councils with "bin" police who monitor trash to assure that one doesn't throw away a recyclable. CCTV equiped SMART cars that drive around and photograph traffic/parking violaters, parking charges that are a function of one's car type (CO emissions), post code lottery health care (fatties need not apply for "lifestyle" related illness treatment).
I loved my neighbors and made great friends, the phrase (whether one believes or not), "God Bless America" rings true and Texas is where I call home after being raised in Pennsylvania.
Oh and again, thanks to all the board members who have advised me along the way. Round Rock was certainly not my first choice, but it beats living in Houston again.

This sounds remarkably like the novel 1984.

[UKjay]

Off topic, but worth a read.

A little loss of freedom here and there and after awhile and no one seems to mind; there you have it 1984.

Children tracked by sat nav to stop bad behaviour - Telegraph

[Mike78613]

Originally Posted by Mike78613

for starters, ban kids under the age of 18 to drive!

As I said: Serious Wreck Closes I-35 near 290 (http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/042309_Serious_Wreck_Closes_I_35_near_290 - broken link)

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by UKjay

Off topic, but worth a read.

A little loss of freedom here and there and after awhile and no one seems to mind; there you have it 1984.

Children tracked by sat nav to stop bad behaviour - Telegraph

I don't think the two issues - this thread and your link - are comparable at all. I think it is more a matter of a new technology, i.e. cell phones, adversely affecting the way people act (in this case driving) on a public roadway that creates a safety issue. Laws have to react to changes in society and technological advances in order to protect the common good and banning cell phones is a good example of this.

And yes the stuff they are doing in the UK is a little much...........

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

I don't think the two issues - this thread and your link - are comparable at all. I think it is more a matter of a new technology, i.e. cell phones, adversely affecting the way people act (in this case driving) on a public roadway that creates a safety issue. Laws have to react to changes in society and technological advances in order to protect the common good and banning cell phones is a good example of this.

And yes the stuff they are doing in the UK is a little much...........

They are, indeed, related in that people want to legislate against behavior and ignore civil rights. The difference, really, is that you, personally, approve of one kind of abrogation of civil rights because you disapprove of the behavior and want it stopped and want the government to do it for you, and either don't care about or disapprove of the abrogation of the other kind of civil rights because you see how it could impact you personally. Or that's usually the case when someone sees a violation of civil rights and excuses it on the basis of, "But that's different (than the violation of my own civil rights)".

[hoffdano]

The challenge of civil rights is that they are rarely absolute.

I am in general anti-nanny state. But a person's right to use a cell phone while driving risks the civil rights of other drivers on the road - who might reasonably expect other drivers to be focused on driving. At that point one person's civil right intrudes on another.

It is not possible to enforce all existing traffic laws. We cannot possibly put enough police on the road to ticket every driver who slows from 55 to 45 in the left lane while they are fumbling to dial a number. Or the driver wandering in an out of the their lane while texting. I think we would need one police car per mile of every busy road like 360 during rush hour.

So I think it is reasonable and cost effective to ban the use of cell phones while driving. I think requiring handsfree devices is a good start.

[TexasHorseLady]

We already have laws in place against unsafe driving, which theoretically provide the desired protection. (Weaving in and out of traffic and/or lanes for whatever reason, excessive speed, tailgating, etc.) Why do we need yet another more specific one?

Broad laws to ensure the public safety are one thing. It's when numerous laws to regulate things in minute detail (micro managing) are proposed/instituted that we wander into nanny-state territory.

[AustinExPat]

There is this difference: Nobody's civil rights include the right to drive.

But on the issue of legislating against behavior: all laws do that; it's the only thing laws ever do. Sometimes, though, a law will come along that just doesn't work out, like Prohibition. It was just too hard to do without alcohol, and there wasn't much, if any, benefit to having the ban. Other similar looking laws, like the laws against using heroin and cocaine, are working out, in part because requiring people not to use them does not impose a burden that rises to the level of losing an essential liberty (as in the Ben Franklin line quoted by TexasHorseLady). For still other laws, like the laws against smoking pot, things could still go either way. Seat belt laws and DWI laws seem to be doing okay. I think it's in part because as a practical matter, having to use a seat belt and having to refrain from driving under the influence are very small burdens. No essential liberty is lost when those burdens are imposed. What about a law against using cell phones while driving? The answer won't be determined by an abstract appeal to the evils of a nanny state. It will be determined by whether, when people actually have to deal with it as a practical matter, a cell phone ban turns out to be more like Prohibition or more like DWI and seat belt laws.

[TexasHorseLady]

AustinExPat, have you ever heard of the slippery slope? Or the paving stones of the road to hell and what they're made of? Do you think things in the UK got the way they are overnight?

"It's just a little violation," combined with, "Well, it's justified for this thing that I don't like, but maybe not so much for this other thing that I DO like," fits right into that category. When this comes up and it's that thing that you DO like, large or small, don't complain, don't even feel bad, because, after all, it's justified, by your own lights.

[hoffdano]

The slippery slope argument is used all the time. Sometimes valid, sometimes not. The NRA uses it all time to defend armor piercing bullets.

But cell phones are a great example of something that wasn't an issue at all twenty years ago. Technology created the issue.

I don't think everything is on a slippery slope.

It is plain as day every day I drive in Austin that cell phone use during driving is a major distraction for many drivers. Drivers have enough difficulty remembering to use their blinker. I'd like to see their hands free of holding the phone.