Razrs and Roadsters Don’t Mix

State Ban on Texting While Driving Proposed - New York Times

If u can rd ths whle u r drvng, u may be brking the law.

Or at least that is what one state senator in New York is proposing. This week, Sen. Carl Marcellino, a Republican from Syosset, announced a bill that would make it illegal to type, send or read text messages while behind the wheel. The ban would be an amendment to the current state law that prohibits talking on hand-held cell phones while driving, a practice that according to some studies can make a person four times more likely to be involved in a serious crash.

“Text messaging is the ultimate distraction because most of the time you’re using two thumbs, plus you’re looking at the screen,” Senator Marcellino said in an interview today. “And if you’re driving, that fraction of a second that you take your eye off the road — that second can be the difference between an accident or not.”

So, I thought, “Who would be stupid enough to text and drive at the same time?”

Uh-oh.

It is a practice that appears to have already proven deadly. In June, a group of five teenage girls were driving to a vacation home along a road in Canandaigua in upstate New York when their sport utility vehicle swerved into oncoming traffic and slammed head-on into a tractor trailer, killing all five of them.

The police later discovered from phone records that the driver, Bailey Goodman, 17, had been sending and receiving a succession of text messages on her phone in the immediate moments before she swerved out of her lane. Toxicology tests had already ruled out alcohol and drugs as contributing factors.

Terrible.

17-year-olds. Ah, yes, the mature ones, per Matthew Yglesias. I don’t know much about Matthew Yglesias. But now I do know one thing about him. He is not the parent of a 17 year-old.

Comments

  1. Grim wrote:

    There are really only two things to know about him. The first is that he considers the American Revolution a sorrow for the world; and the second, that he was born an American and has had every advantage of his nation, up to and including a Harvard education (which, sad to say, isn’t the advantage it was a hundred years ago).

    In keeping with your new theme, I think Plato captured the sense of what a man like that owes his country in the Phaedo.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 10:17 pm

  2. rachel wrote:

    Gee, Grim. From your dark hinting I was expecting an anti-American screed, but this:

    In that light, it seems to me that while the Revolution should not be condemned, it is something to be regretted: a failure of Imperial policy and an inability of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to work out some thorny governance and burden-sharing issues. Not much of an occassion for fireworks.

    Seems more like a common-sensical regret expressed by somebody who actually studied the history of the American Revolution. Remember, the Americans were loyal subjects of King George III until his (and Parliament’s) obstinate folly goaded them past patience. and when he suggests that a united empire of Britain, Canada and the USA would have stopped Hitler much sooner, he’s probably right.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 5:30 am

  3. DavidC wrote:

    Seems more like a common-sensical regret expressed by somebody who actually studied the history of the American Revolution.

    Actually it sounds more like wild unfounded speculation based on a historical “what if.” If the American Revolution had not occurred there’s no telling what the world situation might have been like by 1939.

    when he suggests that a united empire of Britain, Canada and the USA would have stopped Hitler much sooner, he’s probably right.

    Again, ridiculous speculation on all counts. There’s a 160+ years between the American Revolution and the start of World War 2 to account for. It’s equally possible, since we are speculating, to concoct a scenario wherein the absence of a strong, independent U.S. leads to the crushing defeat of the Allies in WW2.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 8:25 am

  4. Grim wrote:

    It sounds to me like somebody who thinks that the principles of the Founders are dispensable; which is a fine principle for a Canadian, but an unworthy and unfit one for an American who has enjoyed every advantage of his nation. He ought to have learned to love her above all, and her history and traditions. That he has not done so points to a basic moral failing in his character, one that I hope age and experience will help him overcome.

    One notes that, in the British system he prefers, the rights of men are not guaranteed except by tradition, unlike in the Constitutional system where they are codified. There are no formal limits on the power of government; and no notion underlying the system that mankind is equal in creation, and made up of people who have a right to be free of Kings, or to constitute new governments in response to tyranny.

    The American Declaration of Independence relied on an earlier declaration, that of Arbroath, which was likewise a rejection of English tyranny (Edward’s instead of George’s). The English have proven good at inspiring men to think about liberty — the Magna Carta being another example of a reaction against their tyrants, this time John, who managed to inspire his barons to rebellion and his yeomanry to create similarly inspiring tales in the legend of Robin Hood.

    All of those documents are compelling and admirable, and they all point to a longing in a single direction: to depart from the Greek for the Latin of the Declaration of Arbroath, “Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul *** vita amittit.”

    That is, “It is not for glory nor honors nor riches that we fight, but for freedom alone: for that freedom that no good man lays down but with his life.” The American calling is to defend that principle, as it is expressed in our Declaration of Independence and in the best traditions of our nation. We are free men — free, even as Yglesias, to turn aside from that duty. We are also free to despise him for his choices.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 9:15 am

  5. canuckistani wrote:

    which is a fine principle for a Canadian, but an unworthy and unfit one for an American who has enjoyed every advantage of his nation

    One notes that, in the British system he prefers, the rights of men are not guaranteed except by tradition, unlike in the Constitutional system where they are codified. There are no formal limits on the power of government; and no notion underlying the system that mankind is equal in creation, and made up of people who have a right to be free of Kings, or to constitute new governments in response to tyranny.

    So which of us lives in a country with a right of habeus corpus, and which lives in a country where citizens can be declared “enemy combatants” and jailed and tortured in offshore prisons at the pleasure of the President?

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 9:40 am

  6. Grim wrote:

    One of us lives in a country in which habeus corpus is formally protected in this fashion: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”

    That would appear to suggest that the right is being correctly protected: those who are engaged in either rebellion (i.e., an American joining a movement that aims at the actual destruction of the American government) or invasion (i.e., a foreigner entering the country with the intention of carrying out acts of war) are not protected by it.

    That, too, is the outer limit of the argument — the courts are considering even tighter limits on how that provision of our Constitution may be applied. We shall see how it turns out, but it is clearly the case that the government takes the issue as seriously as the Constitution demands, and is considering what limits that document imposes on its power to address the problem of international terrorism.

    As I said, a Canadian is right to love his country and its traditions, as we are right to love ours. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on Canada at all; I just mean that, if you are born an American, and grow up enjoying every advantage your country has to offer, it is rank ingratitude to regret she ever existed.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 9:59 am

  7. commissar wrote:

    Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 10:00 am

  8. Grim wrote:

    Well, as I said, it fits right into your new theme — it’s an excellent segue into the Phaedo. Since we’re talking about Classical Greek concepts, here’s one that was quite important to them: the duty of a citizen.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 10:18 am

  9. canuckistani wrote:

    That would appear to suggest that the right is being correctly protected: those who are engaged in either rebellion (i.e., an American joining a movement that aims at the actual destruction of the American government) or invasion (i.e., a foreigner entering the country with the intention of carrying out acts of war) are not protected by it.

    2 problems -
    1) We aren’t talking about those engaged in rebellion, we are talking about those who are accused of engaging in rebellion
    2) This:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

    That’s “all men”, not “all citizens not engaged in rebellion”

    A written constitution isn’t any good if you don’t pay attention to what it says. You may as well live in the USSR, where they had the best bill of rights anywhere which only applied to law-abiding citizens.

    Or in some Persian monarchy with an absolute king.

    Yes, I know it’s the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. But the priciple is the same isn’t it?

    Sorry commissar, politics is still seething beneath the surface here. I’ll be good now.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 11:44 am

  10. commissar wrote:

    It’s fine, Canuck.

    I’m still interested in politics, and at times even have something to say. Have at it. :)

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 12:03 pm

  11. Grim wrote:

    No, the principle isn’t the same. The Declaration of Independence was a statement of grievances and intentions; the Constitution was a functional document laying out how to create and protect a space in which liberty can flourish.

    That second type of document is necessary if the ideas are going to be more than ideas, if they are instead to be made real in the world. A space for liberty has to be won, and it has to be defended. Within those walls, men can be free, because they are protected from the world without.

    You must, however, use all necessary force to prevent those walls from being torn down. This is true whether the attempt to destroy the Constitutional order is coming from within, or from without.

    Thus, “invasion” and “rebellion” constitute two special cases that threaten the whole project. They are not like normal crimes in that they threaten to collapse the space in which men can be free. For that reason, the Founders rightly recognized that those cases require a different set of responses from the responses used to address normal crimes. They included the exceptions in the Constitution. Far from ignoring the document, we are applying it.

    We disagree at times on just what the document requires, which is why we have several court cases about those questions. We will eventually reach a resolution of the questions, however, and that resolution will be applied. You should not allow the heated quality of the rhetoric between Americans to confuse you on the subject. The fact that some Americans are screaming “The Constitution is being ignored!” doesn’t make it so. The maximal argument being put forward by Bush etc. is in fact a perfectly reasonable reading of that clause of the Constitution I cited. Other arguments are also reasonable readings. We’re debating, in our courts, which reading is the right one. There is no chance, however, of us adopting a reading that is plainly unconstitutional — indeed, there isn’t one on the table.

    You should not doubt American devotion to the Constitutional order. Except, of course, for Americans who feel the whole project is a mistake… but thankfully, they rarely appear outside of places like Harvard. Americans as a whole have a reverence for the Founders and the Constitution, and many of us have formally sworn an oath to protect and defend it against its enemies.

    I think Socrates would have approved. I think he would have approved of the whole argument, in fact: that freedom requires winning and defending a space in the world; that tyranny is to be resisted; that serious debates about the proper role of the government are to be resolved through debate; and that, in spite of the heated nature of those debates, a citizen owes love and service to the home that reared him, educated him, and defends the space in which he prospers.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 2:39 pm

  12. Grim wrote:

    I should have written, “disagreements about the proper role of the government are to be resolved through debate,” above. But you understand what I mean.

    This may also help you understand the particular vehemence I have for anti-patriots like Yglesias. For liberals who love the American project as much as I do, I have a deep and true respect. We disagree about many things, but I know that we are equally devoted to protecting and upholding the space in which our liberty flourishes. We are true countrymen, who will fight for each other.

    It is only for anti-patriots that I have real disdain, for the ones who are actually opposed to the American project itself, or who feel it is sad for the world that there is an America. Even then, I have true disdain only for the ones like Yglesias, who have reached their antipatriotism on a road of privilege. They have had all the best, and do not say: “Thank you fathers, and brothers, for these special gifts of freedom and plenty; and now let us hold these gifts for our children.”

    They say instead, “Hmph. It could have been better.”

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 2:52 pm

  13. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    Many of the lefties, including people I generally find reasonable (John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Steve Benen) are raking Petraus over the coals for appearing on Hewitt’s radio show. I dunno. What do you think?

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 3:15 pm

  14. Grim wrote:

    Why shouldn’t he talk to Hugh? It’s not like he only talks to Hugh. If he weren’t willing to talk to anyone except Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh, I could see an argument that he wasn’t willing to take hard questions, or whatever; but he and his fellow generals hold press conferences at least weekly.

    I think the military is increasingly interested in new media: the office of the SECDEF (OSD or OASD, depending on who you ask) has opened an office to deal with new media outlets. It’s run by a guy named Jack Holt, who’s a good lad, and offers bloggers regular access to general officers, colonels, sergeants major, and so forth. I talked to Gen. Holmes this morning on one of their roundtables, and Gen. Bergner last week.

    They are mostly interested in the military bloggers because (as Bergner said in the last conversation) we’re the ones with the background to understand their answers. The problem with the press (and the Congress, to a large degree) is that their membership has little grounding in military science or military history. As a result, communicating with them is a problem, as they don’t appreciate the importance of what you’re saying, and you don’t know what gaps they have in their understanding until they print their article (and the correction, if you can get one, shows up on page A25 or whatever).

    Milblogs are a useful way to talk to Americans through bloggers who really can understand what’s being said in the half-hour the general has to talk to the press (what with that war they have going on and all), and who can then convey that information to readers with the appropriate background explained.

    I think Hugh’s show is similar in that regard. He seems to understand what is going on far better than most of the journalists and even many new-media writers today (for example, the folks at Pandagon, who reduced the strategy of the new COIN manual to “?”). So, yeah, of course Petraeus would want to talk to him and his audience. Why not?

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 3:37 pm

  15. commissar wrote:

    If he weren’t willing to talk to anyone except Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh, I could see an argument

    I think that’s the beef. Allegedly he hasn’t appeared on Meet the Press.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 4:25 pm

  16. canuckistani wrote:

    The beef is that Fox News is widely regarded as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, and that the appearance of a senior military figure there is seen as military interference in civilian affairs - i.e. endorsing the political line expounded by Fox.

    (ed. — I assume canuckistani means “Hewitt.”)

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 4:39 pm

  17. Grim wrote:

    Well, “he hasn’t appeared on the particular tv show Meet the Press” isn’t quite the same thing as “he won’t meet with the press.” The guy holds regular news conferences with the press himself, and has also deputies whose job it is to do little else but take questions from the press and get answers for them.

    But let’s talk about the military interference in civilian affairs problem. Where does that come from?

    It comes from here: the President says that the war is showing progress; the Senate Majority Leader says the war “is lost,” and the Surge has “failed.” That is now a political question, and political questions are to be handled (in the American system) by the civilian branches of government.

    Yet it isn’t only a political question. It’s also a factual question, one that is susceptible to empirical evidence. Petraeus is the guy who is best positioned to explicate that evidence. He has his own view, which he has clearly advocated on his own, that the surge is working, and that our COIN policies are producing a “sea change” in Iraq.

    As far as I know, he’s arrived to that conclusion based on observation of actual conditions in the field. His observations are in agreement with everyone I’ve talked to in Iraq, from Marine sergeants in Anbar to Army Corps of Engineers officials in rebuilding projects. I don’t think Petraeus is trying to sway the civilian debate for political reasons, but trying to get the facts out.

    He’s tried to get them out through traditional media outlets — like I said, he has a PAO who does little else. He has deputies who do little else. That’s their full time job. So he’s tried talking to them.

    If he wants to try some of the new media outlets too — to see if they’re a better method of getting the facts out, to answer the factual question of whether the Surge is working — why shouldn’t he do so? Why shouldn’t he talk to the American people in whatever mode seems to work best?

    The goal is to communicate the facts. Nothing gives Helen Thomas or Meet The Press a special monopoly on being the conduit. They’re not constitutional officers; they’re creatures of the free market.

    So yes, there is a political question here, and the military has to be very careful to ’stay in its lane.’ On the other hand, there is also a factual question. The general has every right to communicate the facts to the American people using whatever means is most efficient. Hewitt let the general speak for himself, and then the transcript went to the blogs, who carried the General’s actual, full-text remarks to the most engaged citizens.

    That’s pretty efficient service — and it’s service that determines who wins in the market. If the guys on MTP want to have a sinecure, they can run for office like everybody else. Otherwise, they have to compete on the basis of the quality of their services — even with journalists who happen to be Republicans.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 5:12 pm

  18. DavidC wrote:

    The beef is that Fox News is widely regarded as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, and that the appearance of a senior military figure there is seen as military interference in civilian affairs - i.e. endorsing the political line expounded by Fox.

    Yes, if you are left-winger. Otherwise Fox is regarded as a news channel that is generally pro-Republican and leans right, as the other channels are generally pro-Democrat and lean left. Left-wing sniveling about Fox never ceases to amaze me.

    Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 5:55 pm

  19. Sean wrote:

    In order to make sure all Americans hear Petraeus’ message, the general must appear on “conservative” / non-mainstream media.

    Otherwise, folks like me would never hear them. I haven’t watched a network or cable news broadcast for a good four years now.

    Posted 22 Jul 2007 at 2:03 am

  20. JB Elliott wrote:

    Getting back to the original story, when I heard this report on the news what I thought was how do they know the driver was the one texting? Just because it was her phone does not mean she was the one texting at the time of the incident.

    Posted 22 Jul 2007 at 5:55 am

  21. Don wrote:

    With all the disinformation in all the media, slightly less with Fox News, what is the left afraid of. The future presidential candidates wouldn’t even debate on Fox news, so who is to blame here? Democrats are not only afraid, they’re even afraid of FoxNews. And they want to run the country, boy that is a frightning set of events.

    Posted 22 Jul 2007 at 9:51 am

  22. Jim Rockford wrote:

    Yglesias like the Press/Liberals is an aristo. Of course he resents the American Revolution. Particularly for allowing the common man (instead of Harvard Aristos like himself) a say.

    I’m sure that if there were a class-based way to prevent ordinary people from using mobile phones including texting Yglesias would be all for it.

    You can always understand the politics behind Liberals/Press/Dems on this basis: power is a zero sum game, the more power to ordinary people the less power to them. Therefore the ordinary person must have no power in his/her life at all, and the elites all power and control (down to how many squares of toilet paper Joe Average uses in the bathroom).

    Posted 22 Jul 2007 at 4:49 pm

  23. BloodSpite wrote:

    Addressing two points at once here:

    In regards to the texting. After the crash check to see when the last text message was sent or when the “Draft” entry was saved on the phone. Compare the time of the accident to the time stamp on the cell phone. Viola!

    Back to the duties of a citizen.
    Samuel von Pufendorf wrote an interesting book called “De Officio Hominus Et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem Libri Duo” in 1682.

    At one point he makes the assertion” if men are at peace with one another, voluntarily performing their obligations; in fact peace itself is a state peculiar to man, as distinguished from the brutes. Yet at times, even for man himself, war is permitted, and sometimes necessary; when, namely, owing to another’s malice, we are unable to preserve our possessions, or gain our rights, without employing force. ……The just causes for which war can be undertaken reduce themselves to these: that we may preserve and protect ourselves and our belongings against the unjust invasion of others; or that we may assert our claim to what is owed us by others who refuse to pay; or to obtain reparations for an injury already inflicted, or a guarantee for the future. A war waged for the first cause is called defensive, if for the other causes, offensive

    He also has an excellent thought regarding the duties of man towards himself ;)

    Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:56 am

  24. BloodSpite wrote:

    Another thought….

    Thomas Jefferson made a good arguement regarding Public service, and the corruptability of government. “What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives? What can it expect and rightly demand of him in support of itself? A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions in whatever ways are appropriate if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public office should feel some obligation to make that contribution. If not, public service will be left to those of lesser qualification, and the government may more easily become corrupted. ”

    In other words, take care of our own house, instead waiting for someone else to take care of it for us. Unfortunately, it is my viewpoint that we have fell much willingly in to the latter area.

    Perhaps Tom had something when he spoke of the tree of life being refreshed by the blood of patriots?

    Dangerous viewpoint in this day and age, but worth analyzing

    Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 10:00 am

« Anabasis, Book 1, Ch. 7 - Cyrus’ promises
Anabasis, Book 1, Ch. 7 - Numbering the forces »