Feds finally got one right

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Dude, if you hear voices in your head, that's on you.

depends on what the voices are telling me to do.

last night they were telling me to pour another. This morning they're still sleeping.

Personally, I always do what the voices tell me to do. It saves a lot of arguing with myself and results in inner peace.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You mean, like sodomy laws, gay marriage or abortion? This was (and still is) normal for Republicans to make it illegal just because they do not like it.

And you and guns.

Quote

Pretty same as with guns - we cannot ban stupid people, we only can ban stupid behavior. So the law is needed.

But you want to ban guns... Not the behavior. Why the different take here? For your positions to be consistent, you would want to ban *cell phones* to prevent texting while driving.

Rhem's position is consistent... Ban the behavior (bad driving, crime). Yours is to ban an act in one case (texting while driving), but the object in the other (guns).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

so are these drivers federally licensed or is this just the administration using interstate commerce to assert control over what should be a state issue?

The latter.

Quote

There didn't need to be laws made, just a definition tweaked. Anyone who's ever read penal code should know that there's usually a definitions section at the beginning of each section of code. Tweak it to define careless driving to include texting or talking while not on a hands-free device.

Then there'd have to be revisions in 51 separate jurisdictions. This way, the federal govt is able to enact a certain uniform standard nation-wide with a single edict, at least as long as the truck or bus is subject to interstate travel.

While I'm not a big fan of the federal government taking more and more authority and calling it "interstate commerce", this is one of the very few I agree with.

Specifically w/r/t trucks. Having one uniform standard throughout the country is a lot better, simpler and easier than a patchwork of different rules in different places.

Right now I can legally use my phone (although company policy forbids using it while driving) in some areas, but not others. It gets a bit difficult to rememeber where I can and where I can't use it.

I agree that more enforcement of "distracted driving" laws would be better than passing more and more "You can't do this while driving" laws.
What's next, "you can't change the radio station" while driving?

Unfotunately, when they see a cop, most people stop doing stupid things like eating, shaving, putting on makeup, reading papers, changing clothes, and all that other crap. So they are driving well when the cop sees them.

And christelsabine -

Quote

Cops? Plural?

Here, usually 2 cops are on-board. One is driving, the other one controlling traffic or giving advices which car has to be tracked. So, who's distracted??

Here in the US there are a lot of single officer cars. Only one cop on board. Watching them roll down the road, tapping on the laptop that's on the passenger seat is a little disturbing.

Although I must admit, most of them seem to do a good job driving while doing so. I rarely see them weave or anything like that while doing so.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Banning behavior often includes banning objects as well. You do know that at least in CA (and I believe in TX) you cannot have open alcohol in your car (only in trunk)? This is separate from drunk driving - i.e. you can be fined just because you have open alcohol.

so you want to have a law that requires one puts their phone in the trunk?

it's real simple - if the car is drifting, going in and out of the lane, making unsafe accelerations and decelerations, etc - pull them over. And it doesn't matter if the cause (excuse) is phone, liquor, old age, young age, sickness, texting, or nothing but just being a crappy driver.

it makes a hell of lot more sense than looking in the window and spotting a 'forbidden' item even if the driver is under complete control.

Edit: I don't care WHY ryoder almost got hit when he was on his bicycle - I just care that he almost got hit and I don't want it to happen again. Ban phones, and the next time he might get hit by someone putting on makeup, or yelling at their kids, or a realtor digging through a box of crap in the front seat, etc etc etc - the realtor example is one I see more often than anything - we should ban realtors......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Where did he ever mention requiring phones be kept in the trunk??
Laws such as this are intended to improve safety by lessening the number of people who indulge in such acts. No law will ever completely eliminate them.
Unfortunately a great number of accidents are caused by drivers who show no sign of problems before the accident. Fortunately, we know what causes those problems and can do something about it.
You seem to have faith that everybody will always do the right thing without need of outside influence. Such is not the case.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Where did he ever mention requiring phones be kept in the trunk??

he mention alcohol as an analogy

how do you plan to enforce the cell phone thing? one answer - via alcohol enformcement logic, is to require it in the trunk

Do you want cops to pull you over because they see a cell phone in your car? Or do you think it's justified that they pull you over when you drive crappy.

Then does it matter whether or not you had a phone is your ear or a bottle in your hand or forgot to wear your glasses?

Quote

You seem to have faith that everybody will always do the right thing without need of outside influence.

the "right thing" is to not drive crappy. I don't care what EXCUSE you have for it

Quote

Unfortunately a great number of accidents are caused by drivers who show no sign of problems before the accident.

I don't know how to respond to that one - so we arrest people that "show no sign of problems"

Quote

You seem to have faith that everybody will always do the right thing without need of outside influence. Such is not the case.

recommend you wrap up in bubble wrap and live in a cave - you'll be safe from all the stupid people

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Niki1 1]

Quote

Quote

Ban all cell phone use while driving period.

I hate distracted drivers. Drive now talk later

I hate stupid drivers. Can we get rid of them as well?

A law banning texting while driving is right up there with a law prohibiting the touching of a hot stove. You would thin that it would be unnesessary. But NOOOOO!

Let's make special roads for these idiots. 4 lane undivided highways and you MUST be texting while on this road. Darwin can sort them out.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

You don't seem to comprehend that there are people in this world who are too stupid to comprehend that distracted driving, which is illegal in most states, includes texting while driving so it must be specifically pointed out to them.
Comprehend?

look....

a few posts ago I suggested that the definitions simply needed to be modified. I know people in general are stupid, including several of us here. (myself included on many topics)

my point, which you are failing to comprehend or failing to communicate your comprehension thereof, is that the feds are making laws using interstate commerce as a big blanket to hide under.

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A law banning texting while driving is right up there with a law prohibiting the touching of a hot stove.

back from lunch just saw a woman go straight on left turn only lane - she cut in front of any potential through drivers (this time none, but I've seen it before at this intersection).

she was on a cell phone

with this law, she could have been pulled over for this - without it, too bad there aren't laws already in place for not following the traffic rules (like lane restrictions). OH, wait a minute.

It's about enforcement against stupid driving. More, redundant rules won't help unless the cops are parked there.

At this intersection, i've seen that same dumb move made many times - sometimes the driver wasn't even talking on a phone!!!! I'd like them stopped too. What do I restrict on them?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

back from lunch just saw a woman go straight on left turn only lane - she cut in front of any potential through drivers (this time none, but I've seen it before at this intersection).

she was on a cell phone

with this law, she could have been pulled over for this - without it, too bad there aren't laws already in place for not following the traffic rules (like lane restrictions). OH, wait a minute.

The debate here seems to be whether the police should be only reactive - give a ticket to a driver when and IF they see him driving badly, or proactive, giving a ticket to someone when they're doing something which, in turn, increases the likelihood the person will drive badly if the prohibited activity is not interrupted.

Every activity probably deserves its own independent evaluation. Based on my own personal experience, I'd put hand-held cell phone use and texting in the latter category. I don't want the cops to have to wait until that woman fucks up and cuts off the lane at the intersection - I want them to put a stop to her hand-held cell phone use before she ever gets there.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Edit: I don't care WHY ryoder almost got hit when he was on his bicycle - I just care that he almost got hit and I don't want it to happen again. Ban phones, and the next time he might get hit by someone putting on makeup, or yelling at their kids, or a realtor digging through a box of crap in the front seat, etc etc etc - the realtor example is one I see more often than anything - we should ban realtors......

This seems to indicate that removing one hazard increases the probability of another. It is simply false. Removing one hazard makes the road safer. It does nothing to address other hazards, but it actually reduces the chance of encountering a bad driver during your trip. A similar argument to yours would indicate that putting a fireproof roof on your house increases the chance of it collapsing due to an earthquake. Nonsense.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

This seems to indicate that removing one hazard increases the probability of another

Not if you process the conversation using common sense. Could have been phrased better, but it was understandable. Mayhaps you're locking on the sentence structure because you can't address the point. It is a valid one. Overlapping/convoluted laws just cause too much noise in the system.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Niki1 1]

Quote

Quote

A law banning texting while driving is right up there with a law prohibiting the touching of a hot stove.

back from lunch just saw a woman go straight on left turn only lane - she cut in front of any potential through drivers (this time none, but I've seen it before at this intersection).

she was on a cell phone

with this law, she could have been pulled over for this - without it, too bad there aren't laws already in place for not following the traffic rules (like lane restrictions). OH, wait a minute.

It's about enforcement against stupid driving. More, redundant rules won't help unless the cops are parked there.

At this intersection, i've seen that same dumb move made many times - sometimes the driver wasn't even talking on a phone!!!! I'd like them stopped too. What do I restrict on them?

I completely agree that we have WAY too many laws. It seems a lot of them are overlapping and even contradictory. My only guess is that they pass a new law to highlight some thing (or just to try to justify their seat in Congress.)

I would vote for and even work for some one who would convince me that they coluld / would go through the entire code of laws (or whatever it's called) and consolidate the overlapping ones and eliminate the obsolite ones. I think they would all come down to, "Don't do anything to any one that you don't want done to you. The penelty: We do it to you."

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This seems to indicate that removing one hazard increases the probability of another.

nonsense - the point is they all fall into the same category and specifically addressing only one of the items is just nuts

and yes, I want the cop to react to bad driving rather than intrude, pre-emptively, on individuals that are doing just fine

the only really funny irony is that it's likely when you guys are driving home from your celebration of this "law" someone will likely get rear ended by a woman putting on makeup...... She will likely have driven erratically past a cop who was too busy ticketing some guy on suspicion of having a cell phone in his pocket, even though he was driving fine, to notice she we straddling the center line

edit: then of course, we'll go over this whole thing again when we have the discussion about outlawing makeup - which will be sexist, therefore unconstitutional - as well as damaging to the cosmetic industry lobbyists

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

A similar argument to yours would indicate that putting a fireproof roof on your house increases the chance of it collapsing due to an earthquake. Nonsense.

Well, if the fireproof roof was so heavy that the building's structure was now marginal, it might.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,994]

>vDon't they pull the car over for poor/suspicious driving . . .

Or they pull them over for a broken taillight. Or they have sobriety checkpoints where they check everyone.

>I suspect we could retool the laws to cover that and still remain
>consistent with society's need to punish the drunk driver.

I'm sure we could, but I was more interested in your take on this.

It seems like you were saying above that cops should only pull over/ticket/arrest people for bad driving, not for anything they were doing incidental to that (i.e. texting, being on a cellphone, watching TV, drinking heavily.) The extension of that idea is that it shouldn't matter how impaired you are by anything (texting, alcohol etc) provided you don't break traffic laws. A guy who can drive and watch TV at the same time should not be penalized as long as he doesn't violate any traffic laws; similarly, as long as a very drunk driver obeys traffic laws, he has done nothing wrong (under those assumptions.)

Is that what you were saying?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Personally, I always do what the voices tell me to do.

Which one do you listen to? I struggle with that sometimes

We are all engines of karma

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I always do what the voices tell me to do.

Which one do you listen to? I struggle with that sometimes

Well, since 2 of them are always arguing with each other and a third won't talk to me at all (only to the others) that only leaves the twins and they always say the same thing.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

A similar argument to yours would indicate that putting a fireproof roof on your house increases the chance of it collapsing due to an earthquake. Nonsense.

True. On the other hand, it is a scientific fact that trailer parks increase the chance of tornados.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Is that what you were saying?

I suspect my answer doesn't much matter as long as you get some kind of response to interpret as you will.

And this is going into a "depends on how each individual defines the grey area" direction which is predictable, but less entertaining.

But your post does bring to mind Homer Simpson "driving" Ned's RV.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

so what I'm hearing is that you and andy are ok with the feds trumping state's rights because it's convenient.

I'm not just ok, I'm supporting it. EU is doing the right thing trying to harmonize the laws across their members - makes it much easier for small companies to provide services across the country lines without having to learn different set of laws, and possibly adapt their products - thus improving commerce and driving the competition up.

Having a single set of laws instead of fifty different sets of laws looks like major improvement to me (and having one set of bureaucrats instead of fifty). I suspect significant costs of doing business interstate (like providing healthcare insurance across state lines) could be traced to maintain staff of fifty lawyers familiar with their state and local laws - which makes it too costly for most small businesses, and encourages businesses to skip small states, as the cost of hiring yet another lawyer may exceed the potential profit of doing business in such locations.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Most modern laws are in place because most politicians are more afraid of being seen as having done nothing than having done nothing good.

Which is because the general population screams "please do SOMETHING" instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. If everyone wore seat belts, there would be no need for a whole bunch of seatbelt laws.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Kinda goin' to extremes there, ain't ye bud?
Unopened alcohol is allowed inside a vehicle the same as a cell phone that is not being used to text or talk if either/both are banned. Want an openedbeer in the car? Put it in the trunk. Want to text? Pull off the road. Pretty freakin' simple but some people just don't get it and so we end up with Big Brother passing laws.
It's justified they pull someone over for crappy driving. It is also justified when they pull someone over for talking or tecting in places where it is banned. Last i heard nobody had ever been pulled over just because they had a phone in their car or truck. Crappy driving is crappy driving...end of story.
Yes, the right thing is not to drive crappy. Problem is, people texting while driving DO drive crappy but they think they don't. It's that ol' "I can drive but nobody else can" story. So we find ourselves with Big Brother passing laws to tell people not to do stuff good drivers don't do in the first place.
This may help you understand the process: Say there are 1000 cars that commute along a stretch of highway during a given period each day. Of those, 500 have drivers that are talking on their cell and 50 that are texting. BB passes a law banning all cell use while driving. Right away a percentage will stop just because it's the law and they obey the law (with the possible exception of speed limits). Say that percentage is 20%. So now we have 100 fewer people talking on their cells and 2 not texting. BINGO! Roads are safer already and nobody has been pulled over or cited! Imagine that!
The law won't stop really stupid people from doing stupid shit, but it will cause a percentage to finally act in a responsible manner.
I don't need bubble wrap. I just want to not be killed by some idiot who is texting or chatting while he should be watching where the hell he is going and paying attention.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't seem to comprehend that there are people in this world who are too stupid to comprehend that distracted driving, which is illegal in most states, includes texting while driving so it must be specifically pointed out to them.
Comprehend?

look....

a few posts ago I suggested that the definitions simply needed to be modified. I know people in general are stupid, including several of us here. (myself included on many topics)

my point, which you are failing to comprehend or failing to communicate your comprehension thereof, is that the feds are making laws using interstate commerce as a big blanket to hide under.

I understand that. And many times it is a chickenshit way to pass laws. But banning texting while driving commercial busses and trucks over 10,000 GVW is well withing the rights of the feds and makes perfect sense that they do so. The states already have a God-awful mess of weight restrictions, permits, etc. that truckers have to deal with. The new texting law fits right in with laws regulating hours/miles logged, age restrictions, licensing requirements, etc. It is a rare case of the Federal government actually having passed some uniform common sense laws.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Having a single set of laws instead of fifty different sets of laws looks like major improvement to me (and having one set of bureaucrats instead of fifty).

I'm guessing you have heard of this document known as the Constitution.

We are all engines of karma