The Shotgun Blog
« Lemieux: The puzzle of official discrimination | Main | Your awesome Sarah Palin picture of the day »
Monday, September 08, 2008
Risky Business
Recently I spoke before a mock legislature of high school students as part of the Student Statesmanship Institute’s summer program. I was assigned the role of a lobbyist testifying against 2005 Michigan House Bill 5133, which would ban cell-phone use while driving for anyone under the age of 18.
After a proponent of the bill gave five minutes of poll numbers and statistics which were supposed to prove his case, I took the stand. These were my remarks:
“I am not going to talk about cell phones today; I’m going to talk about something much more fundamental; risk.
I could argue against this bill on technical grounds or using data, but those arguments would re-enforce the idea that this is a legitimate function of government, if we only get the details correct.
Is it a valid function of government to reduce the amount of risk in our lives?
Every day we take risks. We choose to get in our cars and drive – increasing our risk of death and injury. We choose to eat food that we could choke on, or that could clog our arteries. To get to this committee room today we chose to take the elevator, with the risk of a broken cable, or to take the stairs which could cause a heart-attack if we’re out of shape and definitely increase our risk of tripping and falling to our death.
Looking around I see that every one of us chose not to wear a helmet today even though doing so could dramatically reduce our risk of an unexpected head-injury.
You might think that sounds ridiculous, but in fact every choice made by every individual takes into account the risk involved, and each of us have a different level of risk we are willing to tolerate. Would you have government get in the business of dictating who can take what risks and when?
“Ah”, you say, “but driving is different because we can be harmed by the risks others take”. Indeed. But did we not choose to risk getting on the road to get here today? We did, even though we are not in control of what other drivers do. Any form of social interaction involves a risk that others will do us harm – our choices as to when and how to interact with them despite the risk form the basis of civil society; it is called “trust”. Would you regulate every human interaction and undermine this trust?
If you believe it is government’s job to determine what level of risk each individual should take it is disingenuous to limit this bill to a ban on one risky behavior by one group in society. If it is government’s job to limit our risk you have a duty to create a detailed risk matrix that includes every possible decision every single resident of this state could ever make at any time. You must order them to make the decision that brings their risk to an absolute minimum. Are you up to the task? Can it be done?
In his book, The Armchair
Economist: Economics & Everyday Life
Why? Individuals increased the risk level of their driving to make up for the risk eliminated by wearing a belt. The number of car crashes increased as people drove more recklessly, but the crashes resulted in fewer deaths and injuries because of the belts. So it canceled out, right? Wrong. Guess who doesn’t benefit from a seatbelt in a crash? Pedestrians. Deaths and injuries from accidents involving pedestrians increased, bringing the total number of deaths and injuries up above what it was before the seatbelt law. An outcome lawmakers didn’t predict.
You might find this hard to believe – would people actually drive more recklessly to make up for the risk that was reduced when they buckled up? Humans make detailed risk calculations like this every day. Each of us has a level of risk we are willing to tolerate in each circumstance, no more and no less. You are willing to increase your chance of death by getting in a car just to pick up a candy bar at the gas station. You may even do so if the road is wet. But if it’s icy, it may no longer be a risk you are willing to take. If roads are dry, however, you may increase your risk by driving faster – if doing 55 on a wet road was okay, on a dry road it may fall below your risk threshold.
Landsburg also discussed studies where individuals were given scalding hot coffee in a paper cup. They dropped it immediately so as not to get burned. But given coffee in a ceramic mug they took the burn while they set it down gently. The brain calculated what a burned hand was worth instantly – more than a paper cup, but less than a ceramic mug. We can calculate risk at amazing levels of speed and detail and we make decisions that keep us within our preferred level in each situation.
Human behavior cannot be willed-away at the whim of the legislature. If you pass this law those drivers who would’ve talked on their cell-phones will engage in some other risky behavior to compensate for it and return to their preferred level of risk.
That is the result of human choice and freedom. Risk is what makes decision-making possible. Risk also brings reward. Risk is an integral part of a free-society; it makes life worth living. A world without risk would be little more than a sterile experiment in a padded cell.
Would you presume to create such a world? Do you think it’s within your right, let alone your power?”
The students seemed to be leaning heavily in favor of passing the bill before I spoke. I’d like to think it was my arguments that resulted in 6 “nays”, nearly stopping the bill. But despite my best five minute speech, the students passed the ban by one vote. I guess even pretend lawmakers feel the need to protect us from ourselves.
Posted by Isaac Morehouse on September 8, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5550b6f7e8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Risky Business:
Comments
I should add that it is already illegal to drive poorly. Bad driving should be punished as bad driving. The act should not be treated differently based on the mood, motivation or reason. Should we treat a vandal differently if they break your window out of spite vs. out of sadness? Bad driving should be treated them same whether it's due to loud music, cell-phone use, eating, signing, plucking eyebrows, or just general being-an-old-person-ness.
When completely benign and peaceful behavior starts being punished and prohibited because it might lead to bad behavior, society begins to lose its basic liberties (and sanity). Bad behavior should be punished, not the many peaceful behaviors that may or may not contribute.
Posted by: Isaac | 2008-09-08 10:32:38 AM
Sorry, Isaac, but the yardstick for determining whether liberty ought to be curtailed is simpler than you make out--does the good done outweigh the harm done? Ironically, the same formula also applies to risk--does the potential upside outweigh the potential downside? In this case it's pretty clear that responsible statesmanship and motoring are both the side of the safety crowd.
Seat belts save lives; that's a demonstrated fact. The lives lost owing to seat-belt use are outweighed by the lives saved by seat-belt use. The number one cause of accidents is driver error. And one of the chief causes of driver error is driver inattention or driver distraction.
With this in mind, it makes sense to ban handheld cellular phones while driving. However, there is no reason to ban handsfree phones, as talking on these is no more distracting than talking to your passenger. You still have both hands and all of your peripheral vision and peripheral hearing.
Finally, your argument that "human behaviour cannot be willed away by the legislature" is a formula for anarchism. Using this logic no laws would exist anywhere, ever. Which would basically mean someone could blow you away at liberty. Fortunately, saner heads have prevailed, having nimbly dodged through the tentacles of paralysis through analysis that seem to have ensnared you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-08 10:35:27 AM
Shane:
I would recommend you read the post before you comment. Particularly the study (cited in Landsburg's book, but widely available and fairly well-known) that demonstrates, due to the very principles I here elucidate, that seatbelts, in fact, do NOT save as many lives as they take.
Furthermore, your "yardstick" is epistemological impossible. Who, I ask, gets to determine when the "good outweighs the bad"? If 51% of us determine that more good would be done by pillaging the other 49%, certainly our cost-benefit analysis would show it a wise decision, while those in the minority would have a very different view. Are you smart enough to decide?
Your pure utilitarian approach fails on two counts - first, it is morally reprehensible to think that a mere calculation can determine what policies are put in place. Principles of natural rights provide a much clearer view. Second, there is no way such calculations can ever be made, since value itself is subjective and no one can know what's worth more. Is the welfare of a child worth more or less than that of an elderly person? No one should be put in the position to make policy decisions based on such impossible calculations.
Posted by: Isaac | 2008-09-08 10:46:36 AM
Isaac and Shane, you may both enjoy this article "Don't Phone and Drive" by WS columnist Pierre Lemieux: http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2766
A little excerpt:
"Once you enter into the logic of regulation, what exactly should be left unregulated? Consider the story of Benoît Sauvageau, a Bloc Québécois MP killed in 2006 when his car hit a tow truck stopped at the roadside. The coroner noted that Mr. Sauvageau was distracted by an animated phone conversation with his wife. What then caused his death? Driving? Using a cell phone? Using a hand-held cell phone? His animated conversation? Or having a conversation with his wife?
Why not forbid drivers from carrying conversations with their passengers or, say, listening to the audio version of The Economist?
Obviously, costs and benefits are involved, which only the affected individuals can evaluate properly. Individual preferences are different. Risks are unavoidable. In brief, the logic of regulation is untenable. Moreover, in case of doubt, individual liberty should prevail."
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-09-08 10:50:42 AM
Also, for Shane:
If it can be demonstrated to your satisfaction that a policy "saves lives" or that it "saves more lives than it costs", is that enough for you to support it?
Do you then support a law mandating the wearing of helmets? A ban on junk food? A ban on caffeine?
Your argument for a cell-phone ban rests on a case that would require approval of a limitless number of other bans.
Contrary to your original comment, my post is pretty simple - government should stay out of our business accept to protect property and rights violations (not pre-emptively via behavior control). Your argument is extremely complex, requiring all manner of mind-bending calculation of lives lost/saved, and of activities to be regulated.
Posted by: Isaac | 2008-09-08 10:51:24 AM
As to Shane's fears of anarchy, we need a whole lot more of it. Even in a libertarian world the owner of the highway or road determines rules or lack thereof. Cell phone bans are completely arbitrary. I have found following active talkers on the road is far more risky, particularly people who like to use their hands while talking. what next, banning the French from driving! Trying to make the world safe for morons just makes more people act like morons.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-09-08 11:18:42 AM
Contrary to your original comment, my post is pretty simple - government should stay out of our business accept to protect property and rights violations (not pre-emptively via behavior control).
Posted by: Isaac | 8-Sep-08 10:51:24 AM
That is exactly right.
And as an aside...Libertarianism is not Anarchy.
They are two different things.
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-08 11:27:07 AM
The best way to reduce auto accidents is to legislate that every automobile shall have a 10" dagar affixed to the stearing wheel, pointing directly at the chest of the driver. This would be the surest way to save the healthcare costs due to driver error.
Posted by: TM | 2008-09-08 1:59:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.