 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> accident, they can increase the fine and the severity of the offense
> you're charged with.
That, and convincing people who don't think they're more dangerous because
they're doing it that they really are. Same as drunk driving laws - trying
to get people to plan for having a designated driver, rather than just
saying "Oh, I drive just as well after a couple beers."
> Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
> while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is illegal",
Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone than
eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they start texting.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
> > while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is illegal",
>
> Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone than
> eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they start texting.
But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I knew that
was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't know it was
dangerous?"
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I knew that
> was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't know it was
> dangerous?"
You can't legislate away stupidity. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:36:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> accident, they can increase the fine and the severity of the offense
>> you're charged with.
>
> That, and convincing people who don't think they're more dangerous
> because they're doing it that they really are. Same as drunk driving
> laws - trying to get people to plan for having a designated driver,
> rather than just saying "Oh, I drive just as well after a couple beers."
Well, I've not been convinced that I'm any more dangerous talking on the
phone while driving than not. But I also use a headset, shift over to
the right hand lane, and slow down. I know many people don't, but
continue to drive as aggressively (if not more so) when on the phone -
they get into an intense discussion and that intensity works into their
driving style as well.
That *is* more dangerous, I agree. But at the same time, the twits who
weave in and out of heavy traffic like they're in a F1 race are more
dangerous than anything on the road.
What needs to happen is that first there needs to be more enforcement
(but that costs and budgets are being cut or kept level) for just plain
old reckless driving. If you happen to be driving recklessly and doing
something else at the same time, that's a problem as well.
But if you're not posing a danger to yourself or others on the road by
texting/talking/eating/whatever while driving, the cops shouldn't waste
their time citing you (and they won't - kinda like the original seat belt
laws, they couldn't pull you over for a seat belt violation, but they
could add that if they stopped you and you weren't wearing one).
>> Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
>> while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is
>> illegal",
>
> Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone
> than eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they
> start texting.
You haven't seen Utah drivers. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:12:47 -0400, Chambers wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > Yeah, that's my issue as well. If they legislate "texting is illegal
>> > while driving", then they have to do "eating a cheeseburger is
>> > illegal",
>>
>> Nah. I think the difference is that way more people talk on the phone
>> than eat while driving, and when you outlaw talking on the phone they
>> start texting.
>
> But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I
> knew that was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't
> know it was dangerous?"
Exactly. Laws like the no-texting law in Utah tend to (a) give people an
excuse for doing something that isn't *explicity* stated as illegal, and
(b) keep people from applying simple common sense to everyday
situations. But at least here in the US, our society is going towards
"set rules that require nobody to think" - like Zero Tolerance policies
in schools and businesses.
On that topic, I'm glad the US Supreme Court ruled on the school strip
search the way they did. Finally, some common sense.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> But then couldn't someone say, "You have a law against texting, so I
>> knew that
>> was bad, but there's no law against doing my tie so I didn't know it was
>> dangerous?"
>
> You can't legislate away stupidity. :-)
>
Exactly, so why try to outlaw every individual stupid action? Why not
just say, "Drivers need to pay attention, and not do things that are
likely to distract them?"
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why not
> just say, "Drivers need to pay attention, and not do things that are
> likely to distract them?"
Because then you have extensive arguments about whether X is really a
"distraction" or not.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:46:45 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Why not
> just say, "Drivers need to pay attention, and not do things that are
> likely to distract them?"
Because legally a defense can be mounted to say "doing <whatever> isn't a
distraction for me". Those who create laws hate a lack of precision.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Exactly, so why try to outlaw every individual stupid action?
The same reason you set speed limits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Exactly, so why try to outlaw every individual stupid action?
>
> The same reason you set speed limits.
>
To conserve gasoline?
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
