|
|
|
|
|
Risks vs. Rights
|
|
|
Risks vs. Rights To send or not to end that is the question facing our legislators; they must determine the fate of our wireless dilemma. This widely debatable issue "Should using a cell phone while driving be banned?" has received a tremendous amount of attention in the last few years. Special interest groups such as: Advocates For Cell Phone Safety say yes in favor of the ban due to the increased risk of accidents and fatalities (217). However, the opposition also has plenty of support from individuals like Economists Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock. They say no to the ban because using cell phones while driving is not the only distraction that drivers encounter and that the ban would not be economically feasible. Drivers participate in several activities that divert their attention and we cannot ban them all (217). Which side is right? Politicians are enacting laws based on what appears to be a common sense decision; however, data to support their rulings is insufficient and incorrect. Both sides agree that cell phones are convenient and can be very beneficial; the debate lies in whether these benefits outweigh the risks. Supporters of the ban want to gather the data for statistical proof to strengthen their argument and rivals believe the costs are too great and it should be left up to the user to decide. Neither party can deny there is a lack of statistical data directly linking cell phone usage to fatalities (Advocates, Hahn and Tetlock 217). In the Article "Should using a cell phone while driving be banned? Yes" Advocates for Cell Phone Safety suggest that the ban should be passed. "We have evidence that a problem exists. We don't have statistics". The collapse in the system lies in the fact that no standardized Watkins 2 procedure for the collection of this type of information has been developed or implemented.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
