Mars looks at the catalyst of the issue and points it out as the solution as well. I believe this
argument collapses in on itself, considering the solution he brings up is a hypothetical technological
advance that one sole source (the IEEE) has an abundance of research on. Mangu-Ward's claim, on the
other hand, is based on the tried-and-true concept of human foolishness. Her stance of considering it both
maladaptive and impossible to redirect the responsibility for these situations to tech companies or
lawmakers instead of the individual sensibilities of civilians proves to be more based in proper ethos and
logos when compared to "the tech moguls will come up with something!" Although Mars' claim provides
more immediate hope to those shaken by this issue, I believe it is smoke and mirrors; a false hope. When
his claim that it is simply absurd to redirect the blame to tech companies using the taco analogy comes up,
it strikes me as contradictory to the points he presents. A talking point I felt was missing in both sides of
this debate was a call for better education of the public on the dangers of distracted driving. Mangu-Ward
states that "people already know distracted driving is dangerous," however it is important to note how
much it is downplayed by the people. The only clear path to reducing this kind of hazard on the roads is to
accentuate the depth of this issue at any turn, in order to build a better sense of individual responsibility
regarding road safety. One standout example of this would be the story that sparked this debate: the 5year-old girl who passed due to a careless driver. Once enough of this type of awareness has been raised,
maybe we would not have to wait patiently to rely on the hypotheticals of big tech.
Overall, I believe Mangu-Ward brings a more structured approach to this argument. She relates to
the audience to connect and build pathos; while still providing an honest and informed look at the way
human nature interacts with technology/road safety.