It seems that some people are constantly trying to push boundaries to increase government influence. Evidence of this is the ban that makes it illegal to talk on cell phones while driving. There is a misconception within the reasoning of this ban and the scientific studies that support it contains bias information and may seem misleading. Due to the misrepresentation of this ban and the false reasons of implementation, I oppose such an infringement and believe there are better ways to insure safety rather than giving the government the power to legislate decision making.
Supporters of the ban on cell phones argue that many drivers who have been involved in accidents were talking on cell phones at the time of impact. Therefore the distraction of the cell phones must be responsible for the collision. This is a widely acceptable theory that is inevitably inaccurate. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association there are over 231 million people who have subscribed to cell phones in the United States of America. There are over 300 million people in America. Also the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. took a survey of 1,200 drivers and found that 73% of them talk on cell phones while driving. Everyone knows that accidents occur for many different reasons. This being the case, is it possible that drivers of the 73% might have a wreck at the same time they are talking on their cell phone, yet the cause of the accident has nothing to do with the cell phone? Ive heard it said that everyone has a cell phone. So if the majority of drivers engage in conversation on cell phones while driving, then naturally there will be accidents where one or more of the drivers were using their cell phone at the time of impact, regardless of the cause of the accident. I do not want to come across as radical, but this concept is equivalent to some one surveying drivers who were involved in an accident while wearing a red shirt. After discovering there are indeed people who were wearing red shirts during an accident, the person then tries to prohibit fashion while driving. There is no denying that cell phones are a distraction to drivers. But is the distraction such a danger that it should be illegal to use them while driving, and is it more distracting that other situations that occur while driving? A study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that reaching for a moving object while driving increased the risk of a crash or near – crash by 9 times, where as talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone only increased the risk by 1.3 times. So if talking on cell phones while driving is not as dangerous as other possible distractions, then why are people pushing for government intervention? Unfortunately this ban is not just to correct human error.
E.J Dionne written an essay called “Tough Call on Cell Phones.” This essay seems to weigh both sides of the argument, but Dionne makes it clear that he supports the ban. He tries to connect on a personal level with his reader by stating i would hate it if big government told me I could no longer use my cell phone in my car. But, also I would hate it even more if my wife or my children were hurt by a driver who was so engaged in making phone calls that he forgot to remember he was driving.” People who are not aware of Dionne’s background might pass this essay off as a reasonable approach toward the ban on cell phones and they may be influenced to take the same standpoint. This is exactly the reason Dionne wrote this essay. What Dionne does not want his readers to know is that he would like nothing more than a big government telling people exactly what to do. Dionne is a liberal writer, who in my opinion widely supports the secular progressive movement. Evidence of this is in one of his publications. “They only Look Dead: Why Progressives will Dominate the next Political Era.” Progressives believe that there should always be a big government and the government should regulate every one. So what better way for Dionne to push forward his progressive view point of full government control by using the ban on cell phones as a stepping stone. He also states “You can think about whether individual rights trump the common good” in order to persuade his readers that maybe individual rights really are not that important as an American. he also writes a reference to Felix Ortiz, who was one of the front runners for the ban on cell phones five years ago. Many know Ortiz as the man who banned smoking in public areas and also the one who is trying to pass the “fat tax,” which is a tax on anything that promotes obesity, such as junk food and even video games. This issue of whether or not cell phones should be banned is strictly an opportunity to promote a political agenda as are many other issues which are being debated. Situations like these are damaging the American society and must be stopped.
Unfortunately progressives do not have to do all the work themselves. Sometimes they receive help from their ultimate rivals, the conservatives. Paul Mulshine, a conservative opinion writer, written an essay called “End the Hands – Off Policy on Cell Phone Users.” This essay rants and raves against people who use cell phones while driving. Yet Mulshine’s essay is substantially suspicious. Mulshine is a conservative, yet much of his essay criticizes conservatives. After stating his reason for supporting the ban, he writes “this rather obious point is lost on the many radio talk – show hosts and other self-proclaimed conservatives. Is it possible that Mulshine deliberately used the cell phone ban just for another reason to degrade Limbaugh? If not then there is no reason why he would have criticized just certain conservatives who believe the ban denies individual liberties. Libertarians also oppose the ban for the same reason. The problem with essays like this one, is that the public mistakenly buys into it, which inadvertently helps the progressive movement move forward.
The ban on cell phones should not be implemented, nor should any restriction that is similar in effect. The ideology behind this ban is without a doubt corrupt and is feeding the American public false propaganda. Driving while engaged in conversation with a cell phone is most definitely distracting. But it is not the worse distraction nor is it significant enough to be illegal to do so. The best way to reduce the distraction from cell phones is through education not government control. Ask the question which is more effective toward keeping a child from taking drugs, informing the child of the possible dangers and teaching him or her how to prevent getting into tough situations or just telling them if they do it they will be in trouble? Teenagers should be required to know how to deal with distractions before they ever receive their driver license. Acquiring this knowledge would be much more effective than just being prohibited by the government. This ban is evidence of worse things to come. America is called the land of the free for a reason and it should not be changed regardless of what progressives think.
