There oughta’ be a law: distracted driving activists manufacturing data

The roads are getting safer but that doesn’t inhibit those who have a need, an obsession, to control other’s behavior. Rob Port describes the Feds Using Misleading Statistics To Make Case For National Ban On Cell Phone Use While Driving citing Walter Olson

“In other words, if someone dies in a car accident and they have a cell on them it could be counted as a cell-phone related traffic fatality even if the driver wasn’t using the phone at the time of the accident.”

“This isn’t the only area where the government pulls this sort of a stunt. A friend of mine whose father died in Montana said that on the death certificate he received from the state it was noted that his father’s death was related to tobacco use. Now, granted, his father was a smoker, but his death didn’t have anything to do with tobacco use. But the state associated his death with tobacco use, no doubt to make a stronger case for more tax dollars spent on campaigns against tobacco use.

“It’s like self-licking ice cream cones. The government creates a problem, and then advocates for accumulating to itself more funding and more power to solve the problem it created.”

A major part of psychological defense is trying to rationalize one’s misperceptions. This can be particularly dangerous when it comes to trying to rationalize laws and enforcement efforts. Traffic laws are particularly prone to this – consider that the highway patrol in many states is a part of the department of public safety.

Comments are closed.