Government (mock congress) speech

~~K/H_Addict~~ · #1 May 11th, 2007, 03:08 PM

So in Government, we have started mock congress (exactly that; you mock congress). We were divided into committees, and each committee wrote up a bill, and each committee member wrote a speech defending or attacking their bill trying to convince other "senators" to pass or not pass their bill. My committee is last out of 11 groups of 5-6 to go, so i've got a few more weeks before i have to deliver my speech. I was curious if those here could give some criticism and/or opinions on the bill and speech.

BILL:

Quote:

Senate Bill #S5

Title: Ban of Mobile Devices for all Drivers
Patron: Committee Chair *name removed*

Be it encated by the United States that no person shall use a mobile device while driving a vehicle in motion.

Article I. No person shall engage in conversation on a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle.

Section 1: This includes hand-held devices.

Section 2: This includes hands-free devices.

Article II. No person shall engage in other unauthorized functions of the mobile device while operating a motor vehicle.

Section 1: This includes text messaging, playing games, instant messaging, browsing the internet, taking pictures, recording video/music, listening to music, and browsing other phone functions.

Section 2: This includes diverting attention to the mobile device without using any of its operations.

Article III. Violations by the operator of the motor vehicle shall be punishable by a consequence.

Section 1: First Offense: $75.00 fine.

Section 2: Second Offense: $75.00 fine and completion of a driving class.

Section 3: Third Offense: Restricted license to be determined by a sitting judge.

Section 4: Fourth and subsequent offenses: Suspension of license for a period of time to be determined by a judge.

all 6 of my committee members (myself included) are for the passing of this bill.

Here is my speech:

Quote:

Senate bill #S5 is a bill written by committee 5 regarding use of mobile devices while operating a motor vehicle. It is already known that minors are prohibited from cell phone use when driving, albeit a slight restriction. With this bill, we plan on prohibiting all drivers, minors or not, from using cell phones or other mobile devices, including hands-free devices such as Bluetooth, while driving

Article 1 states that no person shall engage in conversation on a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle. Cell phones are nothing but a distraction. Driving requires a person’s undivided attention and full concentration on the road. Cell phone use diverts their attention from the road to the conversation, causing them to lose track of what they’re doing and get in an accident. Drivers using phones are as bad as drunk drivers. Professor David Strayer says “Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar.” [1]. In a recent study, it was found that users who drove while using a mobile device, whether it be hand-held or hands-free, tended to drive slower, were 9% slower to hit the brakes, had varied following distance while their attention was switch to and from driving, and were 24% slower to resume normal speed. Compare this to the statistics of those who drove under the same circumstances drunk without the cell phones: They drove slower, but more aggressively. They hit the brake pedal with 23% more force, followed very closely, and tended to hit the brakes only four seconds prior to a collision. “Statistical analysis of the new and previous Utah studies showed cell phone users were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers.” [1]

Article 2 of the bill to outlaw cell phone use while driving, touches on other functions of common mobile devices. This includes text-messaging, web browsing, playing games, taking pictures, recording videos, instant messaging, listening to and/or recording music and any other features your device might come with. All of the above list requires the user’s eyes to be diverted from the road, even if only for a short period of time, thus greatly increasing their chances of being involved in an accident. If you must use your phone for whatever reason, simply pull off to the side of the road and engage your four-way flashers first. Otherwise, leave the phone in your pocket or in the glove-box.

Article 3 lists the violations. Although only a secondary offense, the penalties are hefty. For a first time offense, the offender will face a 75 dollar fine. On the second offense, you must pay another 75 dollars and complete a driving course. For the third offense, your license will be restricted to driving to and from work, except when a reasonable emergency (such as child birth) for a period set forth by a judge, as well as a 75 dollar fine. Fourth and subsequent offenses will result in a suspended license for a length of time to be decided upon by a judge, increasing in length for every offense, as well as a 75 dollar fine.

Cell phones and other mobile devices are just as dangerous as alcohols when it comes to driving. They are both equally distracting, and equally dangerous, not only to you, but to your passengers, and even to people whom you may not even know.

and my reference (as close to MLA format as the boards will allow):

"Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks." What's New at
the U. 29 June, 2006. University of Utah. 30 Apr
2007 <http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1>.

Aldin · #2 May 11th, 2007, 04:43 PM

Well, first things first - "enacted" is misspelled.

Not sure if you are looking for how to make it better or what types of arguments you will likely face from the other side of the issue.

Make It Better:
1) Make a point of defining the term "mobile device" (perhaps as Article I Section 1)
2) You may want to add language to the effect of "...includes, but is in no way limited to..." to Article II Section 1
3) Modify or remove Article II Section 2 (this is so subjective and unenforceable as written that it will create problems)

Arguments Against:
1) How is mobile device usage worse than chatting with a passenger or drinking a cola?
2) What variables were introduced into the study you quoted? Were the "baseline" drivers listening to the radio and/or chatting with friends or was some sort of perfect environment tested against?
3) Did you do any other research or are you basing your entire argument on a single article?

~Aldin, brainstormingly

ninthdoc · #3 May 11th, 2007, 04:48 PM

Alright, who hacked K/H A's account?

http://heroscapers.com/community/sho...=224792#245468

Aldin · #4 May 11th, 2007, 05:08 PM

ninthdoc,

He's been back for a while now and for the most part people have been remembering that he doesn't care much for being teased.

~Aldin, glad he's back

ninthdoc · #5 May 11th, 2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldin

ninthdoc,

He's been back for a while now and for the most part people have been remembering that he doesn't care much for being teased.

~Aldin, glad he's back

Oh, right, I forgot about that. I guess I'll just go give myself a lobotomy and a change of personality to accomodate him.

Sorry to offend. See ya around.

brickman1444 · #6 May 11th, 2007, 09:53 PM

I think Article II needs some rewording.

~~K/H_Addict~~ · #7 May 12th, 2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninthdoc

Alright, who hacked K/H A's account?

http://heroscapers.com/community/sho...=224792#245468

I knew it. I KNEW it. Everyone who tried to convince me to come back got the same response "No, for i will be viewed as a hypocrite." Everyone who got that response replied with "no, i don't think you will."

Well, here it is guys. Here it is in writing.

Taelord · #8 May 12th, 2007, 12:33 AM

FROM K/H_A: Can an admin please lock or delete this thread before people explode and it becomes a SPAM factory?

Agent Minivann · #9 May 12th, 2007, 12:33 AM

If it isn't too late, I'd look for another/alternate reference. There could be some perceived bias that isn't really there in the article you reference, due to it coming from Utah and relating to alcohol consumption.

Dennys · #10 May 12th, 2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K/H_Addict

So in Government, we have started mock congress (exactly that; you mock congress). We were divided into committees, and each committee wrote up a bill, and each committee member wrote a speech defending or attacking their bill trying to convince other "senators" to pass or not pass their bill. My committee is last out of 11 groups of 5-6 to go, so i've got a few more weeks before i have to deliver my speech. I was curious if those here could give some criticism and/or opinions on the bill and speech.

BILL:

Quote:

Senate Bill #S5

Title: Ban of Mobile Devices for all Drivers
Patron: Committee Chair *name removed*

Be it encated by the United States that no person shall use a mobile device while driving a vehicle in motion. Define mobile device. Is a portable radio a mobile device? Is the car stereo a mobile device (well, its a radio, isn't it? It emits distracting sounds. What about On-star? Will it have to be retroactively removed from vehicles?

Article I. No person shall engage in conversation on a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle.

Section 1: This includes hand-held devices.

Section 2: This includes hands-free devices.

Article II. No person shall engage in other unauthorized functions of the mobile device while operating a motor vehicle.

Section 1: This includes text messaging, playing games, instant messaging, browsing the internet, taking pictures, recording video/music, listening to music, and browsing other phone functions.

Section 2: This includes diverting attention to the mobile device without using any of its operations. Hmm.... would paying attention to a crying child in the back seat be equivalent to this?

Article III. Violations by the operator of the motor vehicle shall be punishable by a consequence.

Section 1: First Offense: $75.00 fine.

Section 2: Second Offense: $75.00 fine and completion of a driving class.

Section 3: Third Offense: Restricted license to be determined by a sitting judge.

Section 4: Fourth and subsequent offenses: Suspension of license for a period of time to be determined by a judge.

all 6 of my committee members (myself included) are for the passing of this bill.

Here is my speech:

Quote:

Senate bill #S5 is a bill written by committee 5 regarding use of mobile devices while operating a motor vehicle. It is already known that minors are prohibited from cell phone use when driving, albeit a slight restriction. With this bill, we plan on prohibiting all drivers, minors or not, from using cell phones or other mobile devices, including hands-free devices such as Bluetooth, while driving but they still can sing along to the factory radio, turn up the volume to hear the weather, push in the cigarette lighter, adjust the seat, don their seatbelt, eat their MC'donalds, and put on makeup

Article 1 states that no person shall engage in conversation on a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle. Cell phones are nothing but a distraction or an emergency call for help when that nutcase is stalking you.. or should you stop and THEN call 911. Driving requires a person’s undivided attention and full concentration on the road ever done this? Boredom sets in. Boredom makes you sleepy. Sleepy at the wheel makes you dead.. Cell phone use diverts their attention from the road to the conversation, causing them to lose track of what they’re doing and get in an accident I don't disagree. Drivers using phones are as bad as drunk drivers Bad anology. You can put down a cell phone, you can't turn off drunk. Professor David Strayer says “Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar Similar, but NOT the same risk. Drunk is wayy riskier.” [1]. In a recent study, it was found that users who drove while using a mobile device, whether it be hand-held or hands-free, tended to drive slower, were 9% slower to hit the brakes, had varied following distance while their attention was switch to and from driving, and were 24% slower to resume normal speed. Compare this to the statistics of those who drove under the same circumstances drunk without the cell phones: They drove slower, but more aggressively. They hit the brake pedal with 23% more force, followed very closely, and tended to hit the brakes only four seconds prior to a collision You have just proved that drunk is a much HIGHER risk. “Statistical analysis of the new and previous Utah studies showed cell phone users were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers.” What were the statistics for eating, putting on makeup, and singing along to the radio? Higher (see below) [1]

Article 2 of the bill to outlaw cell phone use while driving, touches on other functions of common mobile devices. This includes text-messaging, web browsing, playing games, taking pictures, recording videos, instant messaging, listening to and/or recording music and any other features your device might come with. All of the above list requires the user’s eyes to be diverted from the road, even if only for a short period of time, thus greatly increasing their chances of being involved in an accident Partly agree, see further argument . If you must use your phone for whatever reason, simply pull off to the side of the road and engage your four-way flashers first. Good choice if necessary, see prior argument against Otherwise, leave the phone in your pocket or in the glove-box.

Article 3 lists the violations. Although only a secondary offense, the penalties are hefty. For a first time offense, the offender will face a 75 dollar fine. On the second offense, you must pay another 75 dollars and complete a driving course. For the third offense, your license will be restricted to driving to and from work, except when a reasonable emergency (such as child birth) for a period set forth by a judge, as well as a 75 dollar fine. Fourth and subsequent offenses will result in a suspended license for a length of time to be decided upon by a judge, increasing in length for every offense, as well as a 75 dollar fine.

Cell phones and other mobile devices are just as dangerous as alcohols when it comes to driving Untrue, supposition not supported by fact, assumption. They are both equally distracting Drunks are not distracted, they are impaired, and equally dangerous, not only to you, but to your passengers, and even to people whom you may not even know.

and my reference (as close to MLA format as the boards will allow):

"Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks." What's New at
the U. 29 June, 2006. University of Utah. 30 Apr
2007 <http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1>.

My replies are in bold. You are making the mistaken assumption that removing an object changes the behavioral dynamic (impaired driving) significantly. You are only removing one type of impairment, and an easy one to do, because it's just that.. easy to do. Statistically, your impact is negligable. What you WANT is to increase safety on the road. If that is your aim, go for high payoff, not cheap and easy (like what most grandstanding politicians do).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/dri...udy/index.html
Hmm, maybe require a sleep monitor before a car can start.

The NHTSA Traffic Safety Report 2005 shows the following: In chapter 4, Table 65

Failure to keep in proper lane or running off road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,551 28.0
Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed limit or racing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,803 20.0
Under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,441 12.6
Failure to yield right of way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,306 7.3
Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,415 5.8
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, or negligent manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,712 4.6
Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,354 4.0
Overcorrecting/oversteering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,319 3.9
Swerving or avoiding due to wind, slippery surface, vehicle, object, nonoccupant in roadway, etc. . 2,301 3.9
Making improper turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,590 2.7
Drowsy, asleep, fatigued, ill, or blackout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,552 2.6
Vision obscured (rain, snow, glare, lights, building, trees, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,496 2.5
Driving wrong way on one-way trafficway or on wrong side of road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858 1.5
Other factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,304 15.7
None reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,265 36.0
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,187 2.0
Total Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,104 100.0
Note: The sum of the numbers and percentages is greater than total drivers as more than one factor may be present for the
same driver.

So, Distraction.. as a WHOLE... equals 5.8% This is the entire gamut of distraction and innatention. Cell phones are a fraction of that.

You should be requiring Side Scan Radar to keep the car on track, or a governed engine capped at 65 mph, or even an on board breathalyzer/BAC/Narcotic test to start the engine... more bang for the buck.

If you want to stop driver inatention, just use the existing law.. DWAI.. driving while ability impaired. Append the law to make "impaired" include "distracted by use of a mobile cell phone or other similar electronic device, either hand held or wireless.

Just remember, some people CAN multitask (can you walk and chew bubblegum at the same time), some cannot. If you can, you should not be penalized for it, if you can't then dont or you should be penalized if you cause loss to others.

Lastly, remember, even if you are driving correctly, you have to scan 2 windows and 3 mirrors as well as the road, and your dashboard. That 0.1 seconds looking in the rearview may not save you if you're doing 90 MPH and 50' from the guy in front of you when he hits the brakes....

Whew...

Please take nothing personal in what I've posted. It's more comment on why we are trying to take away freedoms to correct deficiencies in teaching and maintaining responsibilities.

ninthdoc · #11 May 12th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K/H_Addict

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninthdoc

Alright, who hacked K/H A's account?

http://heroscapers.com/community/sho...=224792#245468

I knew it. I KNEW it. Everyone who tried to convince me to come back got the same response "No, for i will be viewed as a hypocrite." Everyone who got that response replied with "no, i don't think you will."

Well, here it is guys. Here it is in writing.

You know I just posted that I was content to let this go. You can't come in an crap on the carpet here and then throw up a King's X sign.

I'm trying to let you off easy; take me up on it.

~~K/H_Addict~~ · #12 May 12th, 2007, 02:26 PM

If you were trying to let me off easy, you wouldn't have indirectly called me a hypocrite. I tried to come back, and i tried to do it as if nothing happened. I tried to put it behind me and forgive everyone, but now it's not worth it, because i'm such a hypocrite.

I gave in to everyones requests to have me back, and you ruined it. I already took you up on that offer, even before you proposed it, and you ruined it.

As i had taelord say, can a mod or admin please lock and/or delete this thread?