This is your Profile page. Use it to check replies to your comments, keep track of comments
you've made or endorsed, and manage your regulation room account.
I agree that the law should apply to all drivers. Nonetheless, this is a good start. Whether or not the law is readily and easily enforced does not negate its value. Besides providing punitive measures for disobedience, the law also provides guidance about what society expects. So the statement of our expectations that no one shall engage in the distracting behaviors of text messaging while driving serves as fair warning. The inclusion of penalties for disobedience tells everyone about our degree of seriousness. The stiffer the penalties, the more serious we are. Furthermore, the difficulty of proactive enforcement does not devalue the consequential enforcement. In other words, although it may be difficult to effectively catch drivers in the act of text messaging, the ability of forensics to determine if text messaging was a factor in a traffic accident or violation has tremendous value especially when a law exists to issue a suitable penalty. After a significant number of citations are issued, and horror stories make the news, the word will travel that text messaging while driving has significant negative consequences. Usually its the combination of a law with teeth, effective marketing by interested policies, and a few significant horror stories that brings about the desired change in societal behavior. This was the formula for the transformation in society’s attitude towards and use of seat belts. The first step is the implementation of a well-written law with teeth. So I support the passing of a law that bans text messaging while driving as long as it has clear guidelines and suitable penalties. I wish it would apply to all drivers, but I understand the reasons for why the federal government is focusing on commercial drivers.
I agree that the law should apply to all drivers. Nonetheless, this is a good start. Whether or not the law is readily and easily enforced does not negate its value. Besides providing punitive measures for disobedience, the law also provides guidance about what society expects. So the statement of our expectations that no one shall engage in the distracting behaviors of text messaging while driving serves as fair warning. The inclusion of penalties for disobedience tells everyone about our degree of seriousness. The stiffer the penalties, the more serious we are. Furthermore, the difficulty of proactive enforcement does not devalue the consequential enforcement. In other words, although it may be difficult to effectively catch drivers in the act of text messaging, the ability of forensics to determine if text messaging was a factor in a traffic accident or violation has tremendous value especially when a law exists to issue a suitable penalty. After a significant number of citations are issued, and horror stories make the news, the word will travel that text messaging while driving has significant negative consequences. Usually its the combination of a law with teeth, effective marketing by interested policies, and a few significant horror stories that brings about the desired change in societal behavior. This was the formula for the transformation in society’s attitude towards and use of seat belts. The first step is the implementation of a well-written law with teeth. So I support the passing of a law that bans text messaging while driving as long as it has clear guidelines and suitable penalties. I wish it would apply to all drivers, but I understand the reasons for why the federal government is focusing on commercial drivers.
In my prior comments, I meant to write “effective marketing by interested parties.” It has been a long week.