When trying to decide how I was going to argue my side, I found it difficult. The issue that I'm discussing is whether or not there should be a ban placed on cell phone use and texting while driving. At first I thought I should argue for a ban, but then decided otherwise. I decided it would be more interesting and thought-provoking to advocate against the ban. I thought it would be easy to hide behind statistical evidence, and figured that I will examine the evidence and critically analysis whether or not it was relevant and conclusive.
A lot of supporters of a ban use tragedy stories of families that have been affected by a driving accident that involved a cell phone, however if you look at the causes of driving accidents, most deal with other distractions on the road. Distractions like lack of sleep and adjusting the radio are among just a few of the factors that are higher on the scale of danger.
Bans are also very ineffective at stopping behavior -- consider the speed limit. Very rarely is it followed to the 'T.' And when looking at enforcing a ban against using a cell phone in the car, police will have a hard time trying to find those breaking the law. Instead of the police looking for those breaking more severe laws like drinking and driving, they'll be distracted by looking for people talking on their phones. The ban would also be even harder to enforce when looking at hands-free cell phone systems in cars. How can police tell if the drivers have both hands on the wheel and look as those they are fully focused on the road.
Instead of a ban, I will argue for better education. Teaching teenagers in high school and college students who are the future drivers on the road, the effects of cell phone use while driving, and how it may limit their attention. It's easy to argue against cell phone use, because seriously, who would support more distractions on the road, but it's more important to look at educating and enforcing distractions as a whole -- not just cell phone use.
Using a cell phone while driving is a huge distraction and there is no way to advocate for doing it. There is no way to dispute that it is dangerous and contributes to accidents. I'm not aware of anyone who would NOT say that people need to stop doing it.
ReplyDeleteYou mention some mild controversy involving enforcement of these laws. I imagine that, like speed limits, the discretion of law enforcement will be counted on to make the laws work. There will always be abuses, but I'm not aware of any controversies regarding cops "targeting" cell phone users "unfairly."
Your speech is not supposed to be another effort at compiling evidence to support an opinion; rather, you are to find a particular expert's proposal to solve a conflict and advocate for it. Arguing for better education is like arguing for less crime. You can't be wrong.
Your paper is meant to be an objective comparison of multiple campaigns for particular proposals. Perhaps, as a film-maker interested in images, you could compare how legal arguments about punishing irresponsible drivers compare to the ways in which automobile companies market their built-in, hands-free communication options. The paper is meant to be a comparative analysis of two proposals.
Let me know if you need some help. There is no need to argue that people need to be educated that using a cell phone while driving is a bad idea. This assignment is meant to give you practice taking a stand on a controversy.