Today’s Boston Herald takes the legislature to task for focusing on stupidity, specifically, legislating stupidity.
In an editorial titled Driven to Distraction the Herald correctly points out that the legislature’s newest, biggest activity is an attempt to ban text messaging while driving and that the state already has laws that prohibit reckless driving.
Hello? Anybody home? How about spending some energy on the budget problems? Why not take up and quickly kill the casino bill? Legislators focused on safety may want to focus on things like 550 bridges labelled “structurally deficient” or a mass transit system that doesn’t function well or perhaps the murder rate? Maybe some time should be spent on any of Governor Patrick’s proposals that appear to have a brick wall?
When a law is passed, people talk about it. Laws have effect just by existing as laws. If it was suddenly specifically illegal to text while driving, people might realize that it wasn’t just another form of talking or changing the radio station, it was actually illegal to do. This law is a good idea that will save lives.
Strikes me as a form of legislating stupidity, as the Boston Herald stated. Should the legislature enumerate all the things one shouldn’t do while driving?
<
p>Thou shalt not fornicate while driving.
Thou shalt not roast a pig on a spit in the passenger seat while driving.
Thou shalt not read the paper while driving.
Thou shalt not prepare a triple latte with light foam whilst driving….
<
p>Has society reached a level that we need/want legislators to tell us what is stupid and unsafe versus what not?
And it’s very dangerous, and lots of people are doing it. I know because I’ve tried to do it myself, but thanks to God’s personal approval of me, I didn’t kill anyone. Now, I generally don’t follow any laws unless they happen to conform with what I feel like doing anyhow, but it might change what I feel like doing, and it might stop some other drivers from doing it too.
<
p>It’s hard to understand why people think that enacting a law halts progress on other things. It doesn’t. If anything, accomplishing a few quick and easy things gets momentum happening for other decisive actions. That’s my experience with tasks, anyhow. The Herald, on the other hand, could find lots of better things to complain about.
a law should be written so people don’t use it while driving? Those laptop dvd players that people bring on airplanes – a law should be written that you can’t watch one while driving? Game boys? Wii? Computers? If I can’t text on my phone can I IM on my laptop while driving or should we write a law?
<
p>How about old school? If I want to write the next great American novel is it okay if I do it behind the wheel of a Lincoln Navigator?
<
p>Catch my drift? Rather than studying, writing and debating this legislation can’t we just continue saying that reckless driving is illegal and make sure the safe drivers don’t get hurt when the bridge falls down instead?
Don’t you know that people have been killed by this already? It’s obviously a real hazard, and text messaging is a brand new and growing phenomenon. If there was a growing threat by DVD watching in cars, then sure, a law for that would be useful too.
<
p>There is nothing to study, debate, or write here. People should not be allowed to text message while driving. Do you disagree? Why are you opposed to a law? Is it that you text while driving?
I thought it was pretty clear from my original post that yes, I am very aware that someone was killed by texting while driving. That is, after all, the reason for the bill.
<
p>If you truly think that there is nothing to study, debate or write here you should tell that to Rep. Canessa who said that
<
p>
<
p>Require hands-free use on cell phones but text messaging is akin to using a computer. See above for similar items I don’t think one should use while driving.
Press release from the staties: A dozen people in court tomorrow after being arrested for texting while driving.
<
p>No need for legislative time! No need for clogging up the General Laws with useless garbage! What’s not to love?
It’s about telling people they aren’t allowed to do it. Right now people are allowed to do it.
The finction of the General Laws is not to be a list of helpful tips and hints.
<
p>If you drive while typing for goodness sake, you are driving recklessly. No, you are not allowed to do it. So enforce the existing law, rather than spending people’s time and money to make some other law that everyone can safely ignore.
The problem is that not all people consider it reckless, or know that they are not allowed to do it. In fact, unless there is some legal statement that defines it as always reckless, then in fact people are allowed to do it, just not recklessly. They’ll use their judgement like people do with reading books and putting on makeup, and we all know people do that too often. Why do we have speed limits and alcohol limits if “reckless” covers everything?
<
p>Enacting a law sends a message, and in this case especially, that message needs to be sent: people need to know that it is very reckless, it is illegal and it isn’t OK to do. It isn’t just another way to drive slightly recklessly.
<
p>Even if the enforcement and punishment does not change (though I bet any law would increase enforcement, and maybe the law would increase the punishment), the effect would be felt, there would be less texting while driving. The alternative way to achieve this effect is a few more news stories about people dying.
<
p>And where do you get this idea that there is some law stating what the function of a law is? They pass laws that do all sorts of things, like dedicating days and declaring solidarity with causes, things like that. Maybe some statements are a waste of time, but this one isn’t.
I have an automatic turner on my passenger seat spit setup. I can still pay attention to the road while the spit turns itself.