On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:56:04 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
>> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
>> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
>> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive
>> to think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to
>> take you home it might just work.
> 
> At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving
> Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our
> appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

I would think that the applicable law would be *if* the person were 
intoxicated *and* making a nuisance of themselves, "public intoxication" 
or something similar would already cover it.

But we seem to have a penchant in the US for legislating every little 
thing.  They've just passed a law here in Utah (effective May 1) that 
makes it illegal to text while driving.  But the cops can't tell the 
difference between texting (illegal) and dialing a phone (legal) or 
reading a map (legal) or changing the CD in the car stereo (also legal).

What they *should* do in my opinion is not legislate that *texting* is 
illegal, but legislate that *reckless driving* is illegal *regardless* of 
the reason.

What the local news stations are saying is that the purpose of the law is 
to increase the penalties if, say, someone causes an accident while 
texting - if they were texting (and that can be proven by subpoenaing 
records from the phone company), then the fines get steeper.

I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
picture.  And if you happen to be able to do these things responsibly and 
don't cause problems, then it's not a big deal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message