Wow, as a young adult (now only 23) I can tell you that there is a reason for singling out teens in driving legislation. You even mentioned it yourself Phil! That is what this all comes down to, when we are younger we feel just as competent as most of our adult friends and family. It is only until you grow a bit out of the situation that some faults are acknowledged. Believe me Phil I've seen just as many young teens on the phone almost hitting people as I have seen older adults, it comes down to the fact that most adults do have more driving experience, so even though there is the same level of distraction in the event of something going wrong an adult (in theory) can react safer and use a more tested out decision making process. It all comes with growing up man, but it has been shown that younger drivers (and the elderly) have a higher incidence of getting into accidents due to their lack of experience and skill sets. Washington realizes that cell phone use by anyone is a dangerous activity on the road and that's why our law includes everyone. I think that Oregon just doesn't have the balls to pass an all encompassing law like that yet, but I think sooner or later they will. Either way I'm more afraid of a young teenage girl yapping on the cell than an older business man, but that's just me.
Oh and how the heck can you compare this cell phone law or other teen laws to singling out a while race of people? At least when you get older they don't affect you anymore and perhaps sometimes will agree with a law that was trying to protect you. But seriously, you can't stop being a minority in a society that is persecuting you!
While it is true many teens develop a "superiority complex" ("no one understands me wahhh"), that doesn't really apply in this situation. Insurance companies, based on statistics, charge teen drivers more for insurance. That is fine, because theirs is a business of numbers. In government, however, it is different. As I have an income, I pay the same taxes as any adult, and I can join the military, yet I am treated differently? That doesn't seem constitutional; however that is whole other argument.
In this case, all one has to consider is that cell phones are distracting to everyone, regardless of experience. They are comparable to alcohol; it doesn't matter how many times you've driven the indy 500, talking into a cell phone can distract you to a point you can hit another vehicle, just as alcohol can cause even the best of drivers to do stupid things (sources: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html, http://bicycleuniverse.info/cars/cellphones.html.)
I'm not saying teens shouldn't be banned from talking while driving, I'm saying everyone should be. Being afraid of a young teen yapping vs. a businessman yapping is personal opinion, and while it may be valid for you, it is an unethical basis for a law.
I think the reason Oregon didn't pass an all encompassing law is because they wouldn't have been able to dredge up enough voter support. Notice how this law targets those unable to vote, and therefore enable to speak in their own defense? It seems to me that the adults of this state are the ones with the superiority complex, who use teens as scapegoats but refuse to restrict themselves.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
nwskier @ Jan 18th 2008 2:28AM
Wow, as a young adult (now only 23) I can tell you that there is a reason for singling out teens in driving legislation. You even mentioned it yourself Phil! That is what this all comes down to, when we are younger we feel just as competent as most of our adult friends and family. It is only until you grow a bit out of the situation that some faults are acknowledged. Believe me Phil I've seen just as many young teens on the phone almost hitting people as I have seen older adults, it comes down to the fact that most adults do have more driving experience, so even though there is the same level of distraction in the event of something going wrong an adult (in theory) can react safer and use a more tested out decision making process. It all comes with growing up man, but it has been shown that younger drivers (and the elderly) have a higher incidence of getting into accidents due to their lack of experience and skill sets. Washington realizes that cell phone use by anyone is a dangerous activity on the road and that's why our law includes everyone. I think that Oregon just doesn't have the balls to pass an all encompassing law like that yet, but I think sooner or later they will. Either way I'm more afraid of a young teenage girl yapping on the cell than an older business man, but that's just me.
Oh and how the heck can you compare this cell phone law or other teen laws to singling out a while race of people? At least when you get older they don't affect you anymore and perhaps sometimes will agree with a law that was trying to protect you. But seriously, you can't stop being a minority in a society that is persecuting you!
Rich @ Jan 18th 2008 12:03PM
You are right, it is women who should not be allowed to talk on the cell phone while driving.
Phil @ Jan 18th 2008 12:22PM
While it is true many teens develop a "superiority complex" ("no one understands me wahhh"), that doesn't really apply in this situation. Insurance companies, based on statistics, charge teen drivers more for insurance. That is fine, because theirs is a business of numbers. In government, however, it is different. As I have an income, I pay the same taxes as any adult, and I can join the military, yet I am treated differently? That doesn't seem constitutional; however that is whole other argument.
In this case, all one has to consider is that cell phones are distracting to everyone, regardless of experience. They are comparable to alcohol; it doesn't matter how many times you've driven the indy 500, talking into a cell phone can distract you to a point you can hit another vehicle, just as alcohol can cause even the best of drivers to do stupid things (sources: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html, http://bicycleuniverse.info/cars/cellphones.html.)
I'm not saying teens shouldn't be banned from talking while driving, I'm saying everyone should be. Being afraid of a young teen yapping vs. a businessman yapping is personal opinion, and while it may be valid for you, it is an unethical basis for a law.
I think the reason Oregon didn't pass an all encompassing law is because they wouldn't have been able to dredge up enough voter support. Notice how this law targets those unable to vote, and therefore enable to speak in their own defense? It seems to me that the adults of this state are the ones with the superiority complex, who use teens as scapegoats but refuse to restrict themselves.