Monday, December 11, 2006

Ban, ban, ban!

BAN, v., Often seen as governments taking action (see, for example, headlines in the form: "Government acts to ban X"), but in reality a government action intended to prohibit private action. Punishes all for stupidity of one. Assumes that politicians acting hastily in response to headlines have better judgement about individuals' action than do individuals themselves; and completely removes any possibility of individual judgement or of individual responsibility for actions. Assumes too that policing 0f ban doesn't cause country's laws to fall further into disrespect, and that ban is capable of being policed. Often taken in response to headline-grabbing tragedy [see: Hasty Generalisation, Fallacy of, and Politics, The Let's-All-Look-Like-We're-Doing-Something Principle of.]. See also entries on Coercion, and Rush to Judgement. TODAY'S EXAMPLE:
Government ready to act on cellphones in cars
The Cabinet will today discuss a raft of road safety measures, including a ban on using cellphones in cars. The move comes just days after Ohope teenager Sharleen Lloyd was killed when her car crashed into a parked trailer. Police suspect that the 16-year-old was sending a text message at the time of the crash.
UPDATE: Driver cell phone ban "unlikely" - Dominion Post

"Passing a law isn't always the most constructive thing to do,' [Transport Minister Harry] Duynhoven said. "We have very strong laws against speeding, but people still speed. Merely passing a law doesn't change behaviour."
Halle-bloody-lujah!

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Law

Labels:

17 Comments:

Blogger KG said...

How long before these meddling bastards decide to "control" blogs?

2007--"Licenced blogger" isn't such a great stretch of the imagination any more.

12/11/2006 06:56:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

(it'll be done to "protect the children")

12/11/2006 06:57:00 am  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

And what should raise the hackles of even the most ardent rider on the banned waggon is this classic case of buying the lead (pars 3-5 of the linked story):

Police suspect that the 16-year-old was sending a text message at the time of the crash.

But that allegation was rejected yesterday by her father, Eric, who said that those first on the scene had told him her mobile phone was in her handbag.

Miss Lloyd's death on Thursday is being seen as possibly the third this year in which text messaging has been implicated. [Emphasis added]

Humm... and if I 'suspected' a fatal car crash was the result of the drvier being distracted while being given head by the passenger, would we ban oral sex too? Or do we actually expect public policy to me made on a semi-rational basis?

12/11/2006 07:16:00 am  
Blogger libertyscott said...

There is plenty of evidence that the number one distraction in cars causing accidents is fiddling with the stereo - so you can see where that should head. I suggested it to someone advocating cellphone bans in cars, but you can imagine the reaction!

12/11/2006 08:37:00 am  
Anonymous Rex said...

In summer I'm frequently distracted by attractive women wearing less clothing than their mothers might like.

Perhaps that should be banned too?

12/11/2006 08:45:00 am  
Blogger Rebel Radius said...

If another motorist is so incompetent that he or she can not operate a mobile phone, even to the extent to ask someone to hold on while they pull over. As far as I am concerned, they should NOT be behind the wheel of any vehicle, including a lawn mower!

As for ban ban ban, it appears to be a cycle out of control. I'm furious!

12/11/2006 08:54:00 am  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

If they're going to ban all use of cellphones as being a distraction, then why don't they ban passengers in cars, as they're a distraction too. Stereos as well, as libertyscott mentioned. And smoking, what about that?

I'm curious about why REAL distractions aren't dealt with, and why certain groups seem to have it in for cellphones over any other distraction.

12/11/2006 09:09:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

How long before these meddling bastards decide to "control" blogs?

2007--"Licenced blogger" isn't such a great stretch of the imagination any more.


That's why you get a US domain name and a US webhost.

12/11/2006 10:05:00 am  
Blogger Rebel Radius said...

Ban Ban Ban – An address by Helen Clark

I say, ban all onions, beans and rice.
Ban vindaloo, curry stew and anything with spice,
But by all means, you must eat your greens,
Even if they don’t taste so nice.

Ban cellophane noodles and cellophane phones,
and ban talking in all cars.
Ban ice-cream cones and all pork bones,
And all chickens, in case of SARS.

Ban all fire-arms and all that harms
Like a machete aimed at number one.
You must be senseless and remain defenceless,
It is illegal to face your assassin with a gun.

WAIT for the cops, but don’t call them cops,
They are now called the Tanewha Busters.
They will call the stops & come out tops,
Now armed with electric feather dusters.

Ban all fireworks and any jerks,
Who write against me in journalism.
Outlaw smoking to them who works,
But allow the crim’s to smoke up large in prison.

Make more rules and steal our taxes,
You must all do what Nanny says.
Do nothing, while the economy collapses,
In my government, "it is crime that always pays”

12/11/2006 10:49:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Nice one, RR!

Now send it to her personally and make my day!

12/11/2006 11:07:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

I am for banning of the use of 'cell phone' by a driver. Here is my very good reason. The driver is not putting him/her self on danger (which is a personal choice) but other road users, which they have no choices (forced upon them) but endanger themselves in the reckless driving of those who are use cell phone while driving.

I support drivers who kill themselves if they chose to use a cell phone while driving, it is simply a free choice for them , knowingly that such action might lead to car crash. But some innocent oncoming vehicle from the opposite direction get affected, perhaps by a head-on collision, the occupants of that vehicle had no free-choice at all. The accident was forced upon them by the recklessness of the idiot driver who chose to use a cell phone while driving.

12/11/2006 12:17:00 pm  
Blogger Lyndon said...

Lemur: That's why you get a US domain name and a US webhost.

Because you feel the US, in particular, is free from people who want to control what you say on the web? Or just because it's another jurisdiction?

Craig: my hackles are raised.

libertyscott: There is plenty of evidence that the number one distraction in cars causing accidents is fiddling with the stereo

Is there? First thing I found was this
[see the first link on the page]
Drowsiness and cellphone use.

12/11/2006 01:27:00 pm  
Anonymous kramer vs kramer said...

Like any piece of machinery, a car requires a certain amount of skill and operator attention to operate it safely. It is in the interests of all if there is some regulation around use of machinery if doing so reduces the risk of injury or death to third parties. I don't know what the stats are around drivers using cellphones and accidents causing injury to third parties but I'd rather ban the activity than have a few unfortunates prove the link by forfeiting their lives so someone else can send a text message.

I don't see regulation of this activity while driving any differently to consuming alcohol and driving - its not an infringement of your rights, its to stop you infringing on those of others.

As I don't own the road and use it subject to conditions, I'm happy so long as those conditions make me safer without being ridiculously limiting (eg: a ban on driving in the dark)

12/11/2006 04:45:00 pm  
Blogger Kane Bunce said...

Halle-bloody-lujah!

Hell yeah!

KG, if blogs were licensed my blog, Capitalist Writer, would probably fail to get licence because it could cause "descent" as if simply saying government is corrupt would do that. If it did then this blog and Bernard Darnton's blogs would of caused descent a long time ago.

As for ban ban ban, it appears to be a cycle out of control. I'm furious!

Me, too. Why do you think I have a blog about laissez faire capitalism?

12/11/2006 05:08:00 pm  
Blogger Lyndon said...

Are you saying they would ban blogs for confusing homophones?


[sorry. If you don't get that immediately you should just stop thinking about it]

12/12/2006 10:27:00 am  
Blogger Kane Bunce said...

FF, most people that use cellphones while driving don't cause accidents. It is not justified to ban something to prevent the problems that are caused by the minority.

Like any piece of machinery, a car requires a certain amount of skill and operator attention to operate it safely. It is in the interests of all if there is some regulation around use of machinery if doing so reduces the risk of injury or death to third parties.

Only if such regulations protect individual rights and don't tread on any individual rights. Since, as I said, most drivers safely use cellphones while driving such regulation would tread on individual rights. Anything that prevents innocents from doing what they want when it causes no harm IS a violation of rights and as such you are wrong that the ban isn't such a violation.

12/12/2006 11:16:00 am  
Blogger Lyndon said...

Just out of curiousity - it's not the same question but it might be informative - would anyone like to share how they feel about the road code generally?

12/12/2006 12:15:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home