 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
