but not in the city limits of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson or Boulder City” (“An enforcement nightmare”).Adoption of regional measures would further confuse drivers as to whether they can use cell phones in this particular state and county.
Chasing people with cell phones can become another policeman’s nightmare, and the presence of a law code that is not enforced strictly enough can undermine people’s trust in the force of laws.
Besides, it has not been convincingly proved that the legislation will indeed prevent a serious problem.
However, a brief examination of existing laws shows that people are often willing to exchange quantity of life for quality, that is, pass laws that will improve the everyday lives of all at the expense of a few sacrifices. By the way, on the road, deaths could be avoided at all perhaps if the speeding limit were reduced to 20 miles per hour.
However, people want to get to places quickly, and therefore accidents are tolerated.
The arguments in favour of new tougher legislation are often emotional, but lose their appeal if placed in context. Dwyer (2001) in response to the above-mentioned editorial argues that “one more death or accident as a result of the use of the cell phone is too many as well”.
The assumption here is that even a single human life is more valuable than anything else.
Before the law is passed, the intuitive feeling of policy-makers should be substantiated by facts and scholarly studies that clearly demonstrate the link between use of cell phones and accidents on the road.
Several incidents do not warrant the adoption of a bill that will ban the use of cell phones.
The same is true for cell phones: people want to live in a world where connection is fast and convenient and have to accept risks associated with it.
Besides, the very arguments citing danger appear unreliable because of the already mentioned lack of reliable and convincing evidence. Besides, should there be laws adopted also against the presence of kids in the car, or those banning pets or eating?