Cell phone use while driving should stay legal activity

-- Content -- • Rebuttals • Conclusion • References -- Rebuttals -- "In this statement, Mirza is comparing driving distractions to AIDS which seems to be a drastic comparison. Contracting or being born with a disease is not the same as choosing to engage in distracting driving behavior." This is false. My opponent said that cell phones are not the only driving distractions, so why ban them. I responded by saying that it is the same as saying that we should not find a cure for AIDS, because there are other diseases. This means that just because cell phones are among some other driving distractions does not mean that we should not find a way of dealing with them. Similarly, just because AIDS is not the only disease that can affect a person does not mean that we should not try to find a cure for it. "Why do we need a law to tell us that it's wrong and unsafe?" Without law, we would have extremely much increased murder, rape, theft, etc. Laws are there to protect people. When cell phones distract drivers as much as I have demonstrated, then the safest thing is to ban them until we find a better solution. With advanced technology in the future, such as a car automatically returning to a track if it is heading in the wrong direction, then maybe we can think of legalizing cell phone usage while driving, since it would not be as much dangerous. For now, a ban is the proper thing. "How about this... if we want to ensure that no one uses a cell phone in hand while driving, create a law that addresses the car and the cell phone companies. (...) Temptation removed, distraction eliminated. Why can't it be a law upon manufacturing companies instead of on the people?" Today, enforcing such advanced technology to be built would be extremely expensive. Built-in speaker phone, no use of cell phone if driving over 30 miles per hour, that is not cheap. It is not cheap for the manufacturers, nor for the customers. The average prices of cars would rise, and should there be technical errors, it would cost more to repair the car. Also, for the sake of argument, assume that the United States did enforce this law upon manufacturers in their country. What if a someone drove to the United States from neighbour countries, where cars are not equipped with this technology? Should those drivers from the neighbour countries, then, be allowed to use cell phones? No. The best thing to do is having a strict law, all until such advanced equipment in cars becomes basic technology, and fairly priced. "We are not allowed to drive on other people's property because it's other people's property. It's against the law because it's my property. The limits are in place because of rights of ownership, not because of safety." Yes, but my point clearly was that just because you have the right to drive does not mean that you have the right to drive everywhere. Similarly, you do not have the right to drive in a way that may harm others, in this case, being distracted by cell phone usage. "Road safety analysts predict that by 2030, when all baby boomers are at least 65, they will be responsible for 25% of all fatal crashes. In 2005, 11% of fatal crashes involved drivers that old. Should we place a law now to make it illegal to drive when you are older than 65?" Bad sight etc. all relate to driving problems. Elderly people usually have weakened vision due to their ages. However, instead of banning driving licences to people over the age of 65, why not make sure that they visit their doctor, and that he gives permission, if they are capable of driving safely? In fact, some studies suggest that accidents involving elderly drivers are decreasing.[1] "I'd still like to point out the mixed messages that many states are more than happy to tweet you with up-to-the-minute directions on how to steer clear of a traffic jam. At least 22 states that ban texting while driving offer some type of service that allows motorists to get information about traffic tie-ups, road conditions or emergencies via Twitter." This is not exactly related to the discussion taking place. I am not the spokesman of the states. In fact, if such services distract drivers, then they should be banned. I cannot tell why the states allow this while they ban texting, but it is not my job to defend them in this debate. "While I agree Rome was not built in a day, the baby steps in this war against distracted driving should not start legislating a device that will, in a couple years, be more advanced and will not be much of a factor." In this case I ask, why not ban them while driving until we actually reach the point where such advanced technology is the basic one? Surely, it is the same as saying that we should legalise intoxicants because in the near future, cars will drive on their own, so being intoxicated will cause absolutely no car accidents. Yes, but the present is different, and we should have laws dealing with present technology, not one we can guess having in 10, 20, or 30 years in the future. "More than 80% of drivers admit to blatantly hazardous behavior: changing clothes, steering with a foot, painting nails and shaving. (...) People also admit to eating, using mp3 players, applying makeup and engaging in other distracting behaviors." Yes, and this is an unfortunate fact. But, why not dote wise thing and simply outlaw some things, namely one like cell phone usage? We can also outlaw eating etc. for a driver, and even though it might be hard to detect that someone eats, at least people will be less motivated to do so if the law is very strict on that. But even if we simply outlaw cell phone usage, then we will still have a reduced amount of car accidents. "Education on how to ignore distractions and drive distraction free is what we should be focusing on." Indeed, but many people ignore potential harms. We should educate people on the matter, but until we are safe in letting people drive ad avoid using cell phones etc., we simply need to prohibit the usage, because many people ignore the risks.[2] Also, I would like to know why not ban the usage instead of just telling people that they should not drive while using cell phones? If we assume that every person avoided using a cell phone while driving, is having a strict law against it not the same thing, leading to only few drivers using cell phones? "Fatigue is a cognitive distraction that is extremely dangerous. Many accidents are caused by driver fatigue, and police officers even report pulling over drivers for DUI and finding out they are just sleepy. If you are drowsy―especially from medication―then you need to get off the road. It's not illegal." It should be illegal. In fact, if someone is on regular medication, then the same thing can be done as with regard to elderly people, as I mentioned above: Get permission from the doctor. Also, there is technology already that measures the level of fatigue, and if one is too tired, he will be able to see it in no time.[3] Using this, it can be part of cars, and a person will not be able to turn the car on if his level of fatigue is too high. Useful if you are alone and on rush to work! -- Conclusion -- I would like to tell my opponent that next time he debates, he should use quotation marks when citing arguments from other sources. Quite a lot of his arguments are directly copy-pasted, and you would think that he wrote it because there are no quotation marks, but he did nevertheless cite the references. We learn from mistakes! I conclude that these days, it is best to ban cell phone usage, because that will reduce the amount of accidents. I thank my opponent. -- References -- [1]http://www.boston.com... [2]http://www.boston.com... [3]http://www.gizmag.com...