1
Kelsey Peters Professor Ross Christopher Feldman Capstone 4360.04 20 November 2014 Submission 3 Thus far, this paper has presented the arguments of the supporters and the opponents of the updated Austin ordinance on handheld electronic devices while driving. Now, it will analyze each issue to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments. Firstly, proponents of the ordinance argue that it will make Austin’s roads safer and reduce the number of crashes, injuries and deaths that occur as a result of using technology at the wheel. Drivers who are distracted (by technology or other means) are more likely to crash than drivers who are not. Presumably, a law preventing a hazardous activity would make roads safer. This argument is strong in that it cites data which supports this finding. Proponents rely on a study done in California, which has a similar ban on handheld devices. This argument is also strong in that it appeals to logos. Logically, if something is illegal, one would hope that it would be less prevalent. However, this argument oversimplifies the issue at hand, which is a weakness. Just because something is illegal does not mean that citizens will follow the law surrounding it. It is weak in that it does not consider that there is no definitive consensus on the rate of texting and driving. Data collected at crash sites is often incomplete or not collected at all. Because there is no way to know exactly how prevalent texting and driving is, it is impossible to say how much safer a ban would make the roads.
2
Secondly, proponents argue that bans in other places are effective, so the assumption is that a ban in Austin would yield similar results. This argument relies on statistical data, which makes it compelling. However, this argument is weakened by data the fact that it does not consider data supporting the opponents’ argument in that similar bans are not effective. This argument and the previous one go hand in hand. They work by arguing that if a ban is effective, it would make Austin’s roads safer. Lastly, proponents argue that all drivers have a personal responsibility to be safe, defensive drivers. This is a weak argument in that it relies heavily on pathos. It works under the assumption that all drivers are responsible and they have compassion for others’ senses of well being, which is not always the case. This argument does not rely on any statistical data or hard evidence. It has no real basis. On the other hand, opponents to a ban argue personal freedom, effectiveness, and they argue that it would create a slippery slope. The personal freedom argument is weak because it is rooted in the opponents’ values. Many opponents to this ban are conservative, meaning they value limited government interference. Those who do not share this value and believe similarly would not be persuaded in the slightest by this argument. Like proponents, opponents argue the effectiveness of a ban on handheld electronic devices. However, they argue that similar laws in other places are not effective. They rely on statistical data which is a strong basis for any argument, but like their counterpart, they fail to address data that supports the opposing position. However, in my own research, I found more evidence that supports the opponents’ position on this matter.
3
Lastly, opponents argue that this ban will create a slippery slope, and this is their strongest argument of all. This argument relies on statistics, which state that, in general, drivers are distracted 25-50% of the time and that not all of the distraction is due to electronic devices. There are countless ways in which a driver can be distracted, but it is neither possible nor ethical to outlaw each and every one of them. This part of the argument is strong because it relies on logos, or logical reasoning. This argument is also strong because it indicates that the problems caused by distracted driving will not be solved with a single law, and that in fact, laws cannot truly solve the problems at all. Rather, drivers must change their driving habits as a whole. This law and others like it only target one facet of the real issue at hand.
This paper will now evaluate the moral reasoning concerning the arguments in support of and against Austin’s upcoming ban on handheld electronic devices while driving motor vehicles and bicycles. This will be done by assessing the values, obligations, and consequences of both sides, along with the normative principles that steer them. Proponents of the ban tend to value safety, big government, and public health on the grounds of well being for all people. The believe that safety and public health are paramount in the discussion at hand, and they believe that it is the government’s responsibility to enforce practices that benefit society at large. Without governmental interference, there is no chance that people who engage in dangerous behaviors, such as texting and driving, behind the wheel would feel compelled to stop. Proponents’ obligations are social in nature because they revolve around doing what is best for the greatest number of people; Proponents believe there is a social responsibility to do what they deem is right on a large scale. While they may not necessarily intend to take away personal rights, it is proponents’ goal to help foster a safer world, which means they are obligated
4
to each and every member of the community as a whole, and that, in essence, is more important than any one individual’s rights. Proponents of the ban on handheld electronic devices intend positive consequence such as fewer crashes, injuries, fatalities, and less property damage due to distracted driving, as a direct consequence of their wishes and actions. The compliance that proponents hope to see with this ban is, ultimately, an indication of society’s observance of local laws, but more importantly, for proponents, it is an indication of how much members of society support their mission to make Austin’s roads safer to drive on. These stakeholders envision a world in which members of society, in general, care more about others. Because we tend to live in a very “every man for himself” society, this could be considered the ultimate goal, wherein people might intentionally sacrifice something they want for the greater good of others. The normative principles that guide proponents’ stance in this controversy are the principle of respect for persons and the principle of least harm. The normative principle of respect for persons means that we should wish the best for all persons. In this case, “the best for all persons” is deemed as “safety” by proponents of the ordinance. The principle of least harm is that we should choose the option for the potential for causing the least amount of harm possible. In this case, proponents believe that the least amount of (physical) harm is done by banning the use of handheld electronic devices in moving vehicles and while operating a bicycle. Opponents value personal freedom and limited government interference. They believe that as individuals, each person should be able to make decisions on their own and they dislike the idea that a government should be able to control its people, especially in such a private place as one’s vehicle. A degree of personal responsibility is implied in this value, but ultimately, it is a value based in that each and every competent person is ultimately in charge of his or her own
5
life. Those who value limited government interference do so because they think society is better off when people are not controlled by their governments. Personal freedom and limited government interference go hand in hand. While proponents of the ordinance feel social obligations, opponents’ obligations are more personal and individual in nature. However, they feel that by protecting this stance, they are preserving society’s freedom at large. While they agree that distracted driving is a social problem with entirely negative implications, they are obligated to protect individuals from the constraints of others, regardless of intent. Opponents of the new ordinance expect positive consequences in that they hope there will be less pressure to conform to big government’s wishes. There will be no new constraints on personal freedom, and no progress toward a “nanny state.” These stakeholders envision a world wherein personal freedom is valued by many. They might view it as a step toward a more individualized world. The normative principles that guide opponents stance in this controversy are the categorical imperative and the principle of liberty. The categorical imperative means that one should only act as though the act were to be become a universal law of nature. In this case, opponents would argue that the law of nature is something similar to the idea of “every man for himself,” which they advocate with their stance. The principle of liberty is that each person should enjoy the maximum liberty for themselves and they should expect the same for every other person. This is, in essence, the driving force for opponents in this debate. Maximizing liberty means not relinquishing personal freedoms.
After analyzing both the arguments and moral reasoning presented by both the proponents and opponents in this controversy, I have come to a tentative solution regarding the
6
matter at hand. On the issue of whether the City of Austin should restrict the use of handheld electronic devices in moving vehicles, I believe that it should not. Instead, I would argue for the implementation of educational programs and campaigns. I highly value personal freedom. One of the greatest things about living in the United States is that in this country, we are able to make our own decisions. As a rational, capable adult, I value my ability to make my own decisions about how to live my life. The normative principle of liberty is a guiding factor in making my tentative solution. My ability to make personal decisions on whether to use a handheld electronic device while I drive a vehicle does not impede other people’s decision not to do the same thing. Not implementing the new ordinance will not change daily life for Austinites, as there has never been such an overarching ordinance on the issue of electronic device use in moving vehicles. I believe that the existing ordinance, which prohibits cell phone use in school zones, and the Texas law that prohibits novice drivers from using electronic devices is a good compromising point for parties on both sides of the controversy. It is well documented that young drivers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors than their more mature and experienced counterparts. This, coupled with the fact that young drivers are not legal adults, means that they are not yet subject to all of the same rights and responsibilities as legal adults. Many in support of the ordinance believe that outlawing the use of handheld electronic devices in moving vehicles will make Texas’ roads safer, but I believe there is a better way to reduce the rates of distracted driving as a whole by focusing not only on one part of the problem, as the ordinance does. My reservations about my tentative solution to the controversy center around the fact that educating all citizens is likely to be a slow and costly process. Changing behaviors in and of itself is a slow process. In order to convince drivers they should not text and drive, it will be necessary to convince them (without the threat of fines) that it is socially imperative to change their habits. This process will require
7
the cooperation and the support of many, but I believe it is possible to see a future where people do not freely text and drive and there is less distraction on Texas roads.