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)
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.