Argument: The Ban is Unenforceable

This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws. [1]

[1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13781479

Candidate 1: "Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks. [1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads. It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible.

Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer. [2]

[1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414

[2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414"
Candidate 2: "Cell Phone Use is not necessary in vehicles.

In the past the economy has not had to deal with mobile phones in cars and has been fine without their use in cars. There is no great loss in liberty or freedom when you are unable to make a mobile phone call. In fact, if you do have a pressing need to make a call, all you need do is pull over and park the vehicle, which is often not a great problem.

Further, people adjust and will adjust to the inability to use phones in cars. When the restriction was implemented in California, people were simply able to give up their phones because it emerged that they were not truly necessary. [1]

[1] “Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain.” Examiner. 3/07/2008"
Candidate 3: "The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way

The state places rules upon its citizens for the overall betterment of society. However, whenever possible the state also affords citizens liberty.

This is the case because the state sees that when people are free to do what they want they are able to make better decisions for themselves and further are able to interact with the state better. They do this because they feel that the state is allowing them to make their own decisions and as such the state is showing its trust in its citizens. This bond of trust between the state and the citizens as well as the state giving the citizens their own responsibilities means that citizens respect the state for the fact that it does not limit them.

To examine this from a point of view that does not rely on moral consequentialism and a utility based principle, it is possible to say that the state should afford people liberty and freedom because the starting point of any rational moral calculus should be the admission that an individual is the best judge of what is in his own interest. To not give people choice is ultimately an idea that dehumanises people. As such, the only time where freedoms should truly be restricted is when allowing the freedom results in a greater level of dehumanisation among the people. So for example, we prevent murder because allowing people to kill one another results in allowing some people to entirely remove other people’s ability to choose on purpose."
Candidate 4: "Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.

Further, "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed. [1]

[1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story"
Candidate 5: "Some studies have placed the economic cost of a ban on cell phones in cars at around $25 billion in total economic losses, including deaths and injuries set to cost $4.6 billion. [1]

The reason for this is explained in the first opposition counterargument. Being able to call and manage business on the fly is a valuable convenience, given the frantic nature of competitive business in the world today. As such, more transactions at a faster rate leader to a much more powerful economy. [2]

[1] “Editorial: No Strong Case for Ban on Driving With Cell Phones.” Hlbr.com 16/07/2002

[2] ibid"
Candidate 6: "The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose.

It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose.

However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them.

Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t.

The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual."
Candidate 7: "New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped."
Candidate 8: "Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S.

Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car. [1]

[1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395"
Candidate 9: "Many other things such as radios within cars are just as distracting as mobile phones. Although it is easy for police and prosecutors to prove that a mobile phone was in use during a particular period of time, it is difficult to monitor the use of mobile phones in most situations. Enforcing a ban on mobiles would be as impractical as a ban on arguing with a spouse.

Further, the point of the ban on mobile phones is to minimise distractions. However, a simple ban on mobile phones is likely to create a false sense of security among road users.

Objects similar to cell phones are not subject to bans, despite the fact that they might be distracting as well. For example, a tablet PC in the passenger seat would not be under this ban, but could easily be as distracting. This false sense of security could practically cause drivers to be less conscious of distractions and thus hurt in the long run. Whilst the law might incorporate these bans into the system, the prevalent message that will get to the people will typically be centred on a mobile phone ban. This is because mobile phones are the single most prevalent item that would be banned under the proposition. As such, even though the law covers all distracting goods, it might still breed complacency in people, causing them to ignore other items in the car that might be distracting and assume that they are legitimate. [1]

[1] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414"
Candidate 10: "Cell Phones are worse than other distractions

Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use.

Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed.

Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required. [1]

[1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395"
Candidate 11: "Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.

Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle. [1]

[1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90"

New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.
