Our fast-paced society appeared seemingly overnight. In a span of only a few years, the world collapsed: Suddenly anyone and anything was attainable on little more than a whim.
This explosive, or implosive, societal change wasn’t without its share of growing pains: Internet stalkers, phishing scams, Nigerian princes, Y2K, “I Love You” e-mails, poorly planned software “updates” and countless other problems that appeared over time. Once again, we, as a society, are navigating a technological obstacle course of our own creation.
We’ve created a monster, but a ban on texting while driving isn’t the answer.
My beef with an outright ban on drive-texting is not with the ban itself; simply put, it’s a stellar idea. It will remove a dangerous condition from our roadways and certainly make them safer and more pleasant for everyone. My problem lies solely with the backhanded, sneaky and overbearing way in which the federal government is forcing states’ hands.
If you’re unfamiliar with the basics of the Constitution then you may not yet see the issue. A brief, oversimplified lesson in constitutional law: If the Constitution doesn’t expressly say the federal government can do something, then it can’t.
At least, that’s the idea.
Our Founding Fathers realized that the Constitution could not possibly cover all future situations, so they added the 10th Amendment. This amendment states that any power not specifically given to the federal government is left to each state’s government to decide individually.
This simple and elegant system has been abused, re-interpreted and mangled beyond recognition. The federal government forgets the 10th Amendment with amazing frequency. Sometimes, an issue that could easily be left for the states to decide is iron-fisted in Congress instead.
We’re standing by idly as our federal government mires itself in yet another constitutionally questionable situation where a state’s rights are ignored. The texting ban is currently framed in exactly the same way as the drinking age. States failing to pass a ban on texting within a time limit would face a 25 percent reduction in annual federal highway funds.
This is my issue with the texting ban: When laws are structured to intentionally use tax dollars as leverage, the states lose their individuality.
The federal government has taken 50 hostages, and with budgets already teetering on the brink, they know state governments will knuckle under and give in to its demands to avoid complete meltdowns.
A ban on texting will undoubtedly make roads safer, but that does not mean that the federal government needs to put sanctions on its own states to achieve this goal.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
First and foremost, each state has unique circumstances that will help makes roads safer. For instance, a texting ban may make congested roads in New Jersey safer, but perhaps South Dakota would be better served enforcing speed limits and adding more streetlights and guardrails.
Why should South Dakota be penalized for prioritizing different ideas than New Jersey? In a country as vast as the United States it’s naive to think that an overarching law can solve all problems in all locations.
Secondly, no highway funds are tied to bans on eating, reading, putting on makeup or countless other distractions. If the federal government is going to regulate the roads, they should do it right or not at all. Half-baked plans never satisfy like a well-baked cake.
Finally, states should be encouraged to pioneer new ways to make roads safer. The federal government should focus less on penalizing and implement a system that rewards states for using their own methods. This allows states to experiment with ideas without fear of fund reductions.
Rather than requiring a texting ban, states could be required to reduce road accidents by 10 percent before 2015 using any policies they see fit. This would promote a combination of many methods for the advancement of road safety, not just those the federal government has selected.
Certainly a 10 percent reduction could be attained in many ways, including adding traffic signals and streetlights, increasing police patrols, banning more distractions, improving driver education, imposing teen driving restrictions, resurfacing more frequently, adding guardrails, purchasing more snow plows in northern states or creating congestion-reduction projects.
Each of those ideas is a good one, but each is best-suited for specific situations, which the federal government should not attempt to dictate.
Banning texting is a good idea, but that doesn’t mean we should support this bill. Sometimes you can do the right thing the wrong way. Sometimes being safe isn’t as important as being free. Sometimes what is right doesn’t need to be mandated. Sometimes states should be permitted to progress on their own terms.
Riegner is a columnist for the Iowa State Daily, serving Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.
