ARGUMENT31 开车时应不应该用手机？有空的看看吧

TMACJAMESUID: 2836445

TOPIC: ARGUMENT31 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine.

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient-or helpful in emergencies."
WORDS: 555
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 8/22/2010 2:28:27 PM


The author argues that the law of restricting drivers' behavior is nonsense and claim people's freedom to use devices whenever they feel convenient or helpful. Ostensibly cogent and persuasive the logic might be, I cannot help noticing that there is several fallacies involved and some possibilities need to consider, or the conclusion would not be tenable.

First of all, the author cites the situation of accidents involving with cell phones and comparing it to other distractions such as listening to radio and teaching children to illustrate the safety of handheld cell phones by drivers. However, the seriousness of the situation cannot be evaluated basing on the existed proof. The author admits that there are accidents causing by cell phones, but the majority do not. But such argument can hardly stand that few accidents does not mean the safety or low risk of such action. Hitherto, I observe no hard statistics revealing the seriousness of incidents incurred by cell phones, which might significantly exceed other distracted activities. Plus, the author fails to provide the exact situation of other distracted actions such as listening to radio and disciplining children. It is probable that those actions lead to slight damage, unlike the severe accidents engendered by cell phones. So without the clear comparison, the author's comparative method here is insufficient and invalid.

Furthermore, even if the cell phone is merely one of distractions in car accidents, it does not necessarily mean that there is no need to legislating in order to ban those activities. The general principle of law is to protect people's interests, and if these actions egregious violate such principle, it is obligatory to pass laws to regulate such behaviors. The contention author inducted from few number of accidents which lack exact data and by comparing to other similar actions, the argument cannot add up. There are some problems that are merely happening in daily life, but still needs to be regulated, such as drug addiction and bank robbery. Those behaviors are less common than car accidents caused by cell phones, yet they are clearly proscribed by laws. So the rareness of something cannot surmise the meaningless of law action. The stance of the law indicates the potential menace of such actions.

Besides, the author asserts that cell phone might be helpful in emergencies and people have freedom to use any devices convenient. I cannot refute the freedom of people, yet as we all know, freedom has its limitation. When the freedom invades others' interests, it would no longer be protected by the law. And in car accident, normally there is another car involved, a driver who might not use cell phone but be caught into troubles. In that case, the freedom of using device is trespassing on other's right. In addition, in this modern era, there are many emergency phones along the road that the driver could resort to anytime. So cell phones are less required under such circumstance.

Simply put, the author presents a superficially well-organized argument claiming the meaningless of legal action toward cell phones in driving. But all the proof provided is invalid and obscure, lacking considering other likelihoods either, so the conclusion is unconvincing and unfounded. If the author still strives to defend himself, then he might want to collect specific data about car incidents as well as taking some legal theory into argument.