Implied consent

The momentum keeps building for bans on texting while driving. A new federal rule went into effect yesterday that bans interstate commercial truckers and bus drivers from sending text messages while they are operating moving vehicles. And an Indiana House committee is considering a bill that would make it illegal for any driver to send text messages or e-mails while driving. The story about that also points out:

Bans on texting while driving went into effect earlier this month in New Hampshire, Oregon and Illinois. The Governors Highway Safety Association says that made it 19 states that have outlawed the practice.

This gets into interesting territory for those of us with libertarian inclinations. There are rules of the road that still violate our ideas about freedom, no matter how common they become -- seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws for example, which keep us from causing harm to no one but ourselves. There are rules we enthusiastically accept as important for our own safety, such as those aimed at drinking and driving -- drunken drivers threaten us, not just themselves.

Then something like cell phone bans come along, and we have a vigorous debate about them. Cells are in the same category of distractions as activities such as eating, fiddling with the radio and talking with your front-seat companion, which it would be almost unthinkable to ban. So why cell phones, which can be useful and even urgent to use sometimes? Not everyone uses them just to chat about Bobby cheating on Sue or that tacky outfit so-and-so was wearing.

Texting bans certainly aren't in the same category as no-harm-to-me fouls such as seat belt requirements, and I would also put them closer to the drinking bans that I would cell phone bans. Either writing or reading while driving are obvious menaces, and texting involves both.  While you're lost in that other world of texting, you're hur