3 comments

• 

  eric

  2 years ago

  I'm sorry, but as a driver, a passenger, and a pedestrian, I am on the side of safety first. Frankly, the things I see on the road frighten me. There are already enough distractions for the driver without adding more. It is good you pointed out aftermarket devices. We'll need to ban them, too.
  
  I'm all for freedom -- off the public streets. Your position is doctrinaire -- a classic example, in fact.
  
  In the end, you will lose this argument, and I will tell you why: It's for the children. Good or bad, that trumps everything nowadays, it seems.
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  Eric... Thanks for commenting, and as the father of two young children I can appreciate your concern.
  
  If my position was truly "doctrinaire," however, I would be opposing ANY law enforcement steps to address this problem. But as I made it clear toward the end of my essay, I would support law enforcement efforts aimed at cracking down on reckless and negligent driving.
  
  But I generally cannot support technology- or activity-specific prohibitions within the cabins of our autos. And it's not just because it represents an infringement upon our personal liberty, it has more to do with the significant enforcement costs entailed with the sort of regulatory regime that the Center for Auto Safety is proposing. You fail to address that issue in your response but I think that such a cost-benefit analysis must be conducted before imposing such a regulatory regime.
• 

  eee_eff

  2 years ago

  I'm sorry, but as a driver, a passenger, and a pedestrian, I am on the side of safety first.
  
  Me, too. There are legitmate restrictions of freedom, like restricting the freedom to drink and drive.
  
  These devices could be every bit, even more dangerous than drinking and driving.
  
  Adam: using your logic, the drinking and rivng rules should have never been enacted, right?