Posted by Todd Zywicki: THE CELL PHONE, MAYBE NOT-SO-MENACE: [1]Larry Ribstein notes that the evidence remains somewhat ambiguous on the effects of driving while talking on a cell phone. In particular, as Larry suggests and I should have acknowledged more explicitly in [2]my initial post, any costs associated with cell phone use should be balanced against the benefits, especially in terms of potential social wealth increases. Thus, even if there are costs, if they are small relative to the benefits, then a ban would be inefficient. If we assume for the sake of argument that there is some cost, it is probably basically the same cost regardless of whether the driver is doing high-value work while driving or low-value work. A rule-based solution of a complete ban, therefore, is almost certainly inefficient (unless it is a second-best solution). If there are costs, the optimal regulatory solution would be to permit high-value conversations and stop low-value conversations while driving, but a standard that permitted high-value and banned low-value conversations would be unworkable. Given that neither of these alternatives seems ideal, I suggest the possibility of a norms-based solution that tries to encourage people to self-regulate between high and low value phone calls. There may be other ideas out there on how to sort high-value from low-value, if so, please email me and I'll post any good ideas that come my way. Of course, as Larry notes, the evidence may show that the costs may be trivial, or nonexistent, or dramatically reduced by hands-free devices, in which case the overwhelming number of calls would have positive social value and there would be no problem.
References 1. http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/08/cellphones_agai.html 2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_08_28.shtml#1093703925 _______________________________________________ Volokh mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
