John, as always you make persuasive reasoned points. But all that still begs the question of enforcement. When people have hands-free or nerve transducers or thought analyzers, they'll be able to yak away undetected.
The research shows that it's the yakking process, NOT holding a cellphone, which is the problem.
The proponents of BANNING EVERYONE seem to ignore that fact, which is fundamental.
fundamental = fund + a + mental
You see, it's a matter of science and maths and a law of nature. People's funds are depleted by a false mental process.
Just as aircraft in the first 50 years involved death and destruction on quite a grand scale, and so did car driving, without cellphones, people accept the risks because there is so much value in the activity. We know that we'll overcome the problems, learn to handle the risks and adapt to the way of doing it more safely.
If the idea of having somebody walking in front of cars had taken off, in the interests of safety, yes, deaths from cars would have been very few. But what an opportunity cost that would have entailed. If speed limits were cut to 40 kph, that would save a lot more lives than banning cellphones. But we don't do that because the cost is too much for us. We want to happen. Some people can't drive at 100 kph, let alone 50 kph and they crash their cars frequently. That cost takes a lot of them off the road [it costs them too much to crash cars - buying another gets expensive].
You are right of course. I didn't mean to say that only deaths are the cost of using cellphones. As you point out, the costs circumnavigate the planet and reverberate down through eternity. Those costs, like the future earnings of a company discounted to today, need to be totted up and brought to today's value.
That cost is a LOT more than just the few dead as a result of the distraction.
The best point you made is that there is a Commons Cost. The old problem we increasingly have [in our complex democratic world] of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits.
When somebody can get a benefit but passes cost on to everyone else [such as a traffic jam because they slow down to make a call] they have no incentive to forego the benefit. That's a weakness of democracy - people vote for benefits for themselves and don't care that major costs fall on everyone else.
The answer is to ensure they incur the cost of their selfish action. Charging people for use of congested roads is a good start, with varying tolls depending on how busy it is. If they crash into the back of somebody they should incur the cost of the shambles. That'll make them more careful about causing problems and more circumspect about having even minor prangs.
If hitting your towbar caused them a $50,000 fee, people would drive further back, avoid crashing and would buy a car with a safety clearance auto-braking system [now available on the latest Mercedes].
I admit that I don't know whether the damage caused by people using cellphones exceeds the benefits or not, but even if it does, banning them might not be the answer. Perhaps requiring cars to have auto-braking devices fitted would be a better answer and if they crash into the back of somebody they are charged a big fee [which they'd have to have on deposit to use the road]. Or something.
Putting the costs on people causing the problems is essential.
On busy highways, much better traffic management is essential. I think electronic car control will be the main answer. Tolls is another component. Banning hand-held cellphones won't make a difference because people will just go with a hands-free system and they'll still drive with only half their mind on the job.
A bit more careful analysis is needed than a few anecdotal observations that people crash while using a cellphone. There's enough suffocating stupidity by people claiming to be improving safety.
I don't have people crashing into the back of me, even if they are on their cellphones. There's a thing called defensive driving - it's about managing the lower quartile of drivers, often without them even being aware of it.
Mqurice |
