The question posed by this headline constitutes a heresy of sorts. An affront to the tenets – the beliefs – of the Safety Cut. It is analogous to Galileo’s E pur si muove – “and yet, it moves!” – which he uttered under his breath after being forced to recant heliocentrism, the observable evidence that the sun rather than the Earth is the center of our solar system.
It is equally observable that using a phone while driving does not – as such – constitute dangerous driving. Just as owning a gun does not – as such – lead to schools being shot up. The dangerous driving arises when a person who cannot safely use a phone while driving does it. Such a person is probably – almost certainly – a dangerous (because unskilled) driver to begin with, even with both hands on the wheel.
This truth gets drowned out by the ululations of hysterics who cannot (or will not) distinguish between that which is harmful and that which they feel is harmful.
This thread runs through so much of American life today that you could make a shirt out of it. A hairshirt. In the space of about 50 years, this country went from being one in which a possibility was not equated with an actuality to one in which a possibility is treated as a certainty. If you’re under 30 and reading this, you probably have no idea – and probably will not believe it – but it used to be legal to drink a beer in your car (while driving your car) on the way home from work. Today, of course, it is illegal for a passenger riding in your car to drink a beer – and the driver can be arrested (if he’s not 21 or older) if a cop sees an empty bottle of beer in his car. Even if the driver has zero alcohol in his system. It does not matter that he isn’t “drunk” or even that he hasn’t been drinking.
All that matters is punishing the driver for what amounts to apostasy.
The religious/dogmatic aspect of this ought to be as obvious as it is off-putting. It is one thing for a believer to believe; that is his business. The Heaven’s Gate people weren’t bothering anyone else. It is another thing for Heaven’s Gate beliefs to become enforceable – and that is what we’re dealing with as regards punishing drivers whose driving hasn’t resulted in harm.
This is, of course, a difficult pill for some to swallow. The ones who have been trained to regard risk – however abstract – as intolerable. Including risk assumed by other people. They are making life a henpecked Hell for people who aren’t members of the cult and aren’t interested in joining up. It’s like being pursued by Hare Krishnas at every turn, Hare Krishnas with guns and the legal power to “ticket” you if you do not dance and sing, too.
The person who is afraid to go for a swim because no lifeguard is present isn’t forced to got a swim when no lifeguard is present. His decision to stay out of the water imposes nothing on others. The insufferability arises when such a person insists it is “dangerous” for anyone to be allowed to swim when there is no lifeguard on duty. The insufferability arises from the implicit presumption that others are stupid, incompetent and reckless and must be restrained for their own good. The same species of insufferability arises in the context of having a beer – or using a phone – while driving, with the added insufferability of the presumption that doing these things constitutes a threat ipso facto to others. It is precisely the same argument used to advance what is styled “gun control,” which of course is not about controlling guns but rather people. Some people. Not the special people. The ones who are exempted from the control; i.e., the same ones who “pull over” people for nothing more than using a phone while driving.
The italics to emphasis what ought to be the determining factor as to whether there is “pulling over.”
If a person has done nothing more than something some other person doesn’t like then the person doing whatever it is ought to be free to keep on doing it, irrespective of how others feel about it.
Once again, it is a difficult pill for late-stage Americans (not all, but many) to swallow. They are the same kinds of people who had Galileo brought before the Inquisition and sought his blood. Nor because he’d done any harm but because they did not like what he was doing.
Because it affronted their beliefs.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.Â
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!Â
Our donate button is here.Â
 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
In other automotive news,
TyphoidEeeVee Mary announced higher quarterly profits for GM, but on 4.2% lower volume. Like her counterpart Lightning Jim Farley at Ford, she’s trying to make more money on fewer vehicles. So-o-o-o-o … prices must go up.The sad part is how much higher profits would have been, absent the EeeVee debacle. GM recorded $4.5 billion in EV-related charges so far this year, with the total impact rising to $7.2 billion when non-cash items are included.
‘Sales of the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Blazer EV, and GMC Hummer EV all fell sharply, although GM retained the No. 2 position in the U.S. EV market behind Tesla.’ — ZeroHedge
Being No. 2 behind Tesla in EeeVees is like being the second-largest printer of hundred-dollah bills after the US Treasury — a very dubious distinction!
Where have all the EeeVees gone?
Young girls wrecked them every one.
When will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Pete Seeger, Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
The whole problem is law enforcement. There is nothing inherently wrong with speeding, or texting, or drinking, or eating, or screwing while driving. Make them illegal if you want, but so long as they are private activities, taking place in the privacy of your vehicle while you exercise your right to be in it. When it becomes a problem, and contributes to a wreck and damage to someone’s property or person, is the only time when the legal system should be involved. And then only to proportionate to the damage incurred.
I can support my local police and know that law enforcement is the enemy. There is no contradiction in this, no cognitive dissonance, no irony, no nothing. Your local police are subject to local control. A local jury can and must intervene when they get uppity, and they must be easy to remove.
Law enforcement is a totalitarian concept, suitable to fascism, communism, democracy, and religious dictatorship. It is the 20th century version of the king’s guard, a standing army used by a ruler to rule a subject people.
They are different things, policing is a necessary evil and law enforcement is a monstrous evil to be fought at every turn, to the death.
The local police are the local arms of a fascist state, regardless of courts and any prevention of local oversight through elections etc. The reason? They receive federal money to.operate. Even local police are trained in IDF policing techniques, which is not very local. The federal money is raised through debt creation.which causes devaluation. We pay the bill in our freedom and our treasure. Burn it all down.
One argument I’ve heard for why cops can have an OPEN LAPTOP on their dash is because they’ve been “trained” on how to properly drive with a massive touchpad and keyboard operated screen beside the steering wheel.
OK, so they’ve established that drivers can be trained. So why not train people? Cell phones didn’t exist in the 1950s (although “car” phones did, along with two way radios, albeit not to the near-ubiquity of today), but technology advanced. Driving tests didn’t. If anything driving tests got easier because your test is administered in an automatic with warning sensors, backup cameras and a ton of other “aids” to help the driver maintain situational awareness. So why not add a “certification” for cell phone? Or a “certification” for manual transmission (like CDL drivers do)? I mean, if we’re going to have the panopticon anyway, why not make it useful? Cop sees you driving without a seatbelt and holding your iPhone 24. The facial recognition algorithm pulls up your credential showing that you’re certified to operate without seat belts and have the phone endorsement. Meanwhile, Sally Safety gets pulled over because she’s too stupid to pass the endorsement test.
Hi RK,
That’s sensible and sound. I remember once I got into a discussion with a cop about “speeding.” I pointed out that cops routinely “speed” and are allowed to. His reply? Well, cops are trained. Well, I replied, I have also been trained. I have taken multiple high-performance driving courses (Bondurant, etc.) and so how come I am not allowed to “speed’ as you are?
He didn’t have an answer.
Back in the days of car talk on NPR, Bob and Tom used to say “anything that takes your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel is bad “.
Personally, I stick by that axiom. Whether it be fast food, phones, screens, and modern cars, etc
I don’t think I can argue the legality one way or the other though.
Likewise, on arguing the legality. I favor as few laws as possible. I don’t text while driving. But this sounds pretty bad:
‘Texting while driving increases your crash risk by 23 times. This is because it creates a “deadly trifecta” of distraction: visual, manual, and cognitive. Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road for an average of 5 seconds—at 55 mph, that is the equivalent of driving the length of a football field completely blindfolded.’ — Goolag AI
Hi Jim,
Of course. The trick is to maintain situational awareness while multi-tasking. Some can do this; others cannot. Also, general skill is hugely relevant; i.e., a skilled driver has the advantage of skill, which is a compensatory factor. The unskilled are already operating at a low (marginal) level and so they’re already much more likely to cause an “accident.” It seems to me, then, that the thing to so is to deal with the unskilled drivers and leave the others be.
That sounds made up. That 23 x number only applies to the millisecond your eyes are off the road.
How do you quantify that over a long time frame?
Garbage AI.
Why should it be illegal to fuck with a touch screen on your phone but not the touch screen on your dash?
Equally distracting, in my view.
It would be one thing if said cell phone yapper was a good driver to begin with. I do not care, yap away. The problem is, too many are terrible drivers even without the phone glued to the side of their head. But then include the divided, competing attention, and I echo Mark’s sentiments: You go to pass said person, and they are completely oblivious to anything and everything around them. And if that is not bad enough, throw in some snowy, icy road conditions to the mix. That really makes for fun driving in the Winter.
Absolutely, Shadow!
But the thing that chafes for me is being brought down to their level. To be treated presumptively as if I were one of those people. I’m not. Riddick said it best: “I’m not with these people.”
True. And in the end, what it boils down to is personal responsibility, and knowing your limitations. One may be able to talk on the phone while driving with their knees and do fine. Works for me. But you get the ones who can barely drive a straight line trying the same thing, and it gets interesting in a hurry. Perhaps if individual responsibility returned, society would not have the government treating us like we are five year old’s. What is sad, is that this society would rather be nannied and have their hands held, and not have to be responsible for anything. Hence, the saaaaafety crap we are seeing in vehicles.
Indeed, Shadow –
I submit the solution to the putative problem is to hold people responsible for what they do. Not for what they might or because someone else is “concerned.” Accountability when applied every single time has a salutary deterrent effect. As an example to make the point: Imagine if anyone who so much as possessed a gun while committing another crime automatically got sent to prison for 20 years. And anyone who used a gun to commit a crime got life, no possibility of parole. Actually shoot someone (not in self defense, obviously) whether they died or not – and it’s the chair for you, amigo.
I expect “gun crime” would decline to next-to-none.
I have a hard time arguing the point you are making. No victim, no crime.
However.
When you get behind a glob of traffic snot only to find, when you finally get around it, that it’s being caused by some incompetent boob dickin’ around on their phone, you should be allowed to shoot them. Not kill them, mind you, but at least blow off an appendage.
I agree, Mark!
It’s ultimately about self-policing, if you want to avoid policing. That’s the exasperating thing for those of us who do self-police. I sometimes drive using my knees and – honestly – I am more able to keep the car within its travel lane using my knees than many Clovers are despite both hands on the wheel. I say the dumbing-down and one-size-fits-all’ing has got to be stopped – unless we all want to become Eloi and be eaten by the Morlocks!
If we wish to have a Civilization people need to behave in a civil manner. No amount of GovCo brutality can make a Civilization, it is anathema to the concept. Unless you hold that “From Savagery Springs Civility”.