Feds finally got one right

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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

Please elaborate.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

But you want to ban guns... Not the behavior. Why the different take here?

Because the behavior is already banned - and it is not enough. Pretty much the same as you cannot drive in CA with a Scotch flask in your glove compartment (unless it is factory sealed) - i.e. the law already banned the behavior (drunk driving), but now also banned the object (open alcohol).

Quote

For your positions to be consistent, you would want to ban *cell phones* to prevent texting while driving.

If banning the behavior didn't work and the people would be still texting while driving, and getting into accidents, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a new law would only allow cell phones in a trunk - like all open alcohol.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Damn - got pulled over this morning. The cop took my cell phone and discovered my secret.

It's not a phone - I hollowed it out and sealed it and use to store liquor. It keeps my nerves steady during the drive to work.

...
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

[billvon 2,994]

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

No, I was actually curious as to what you thought, because it didn't make much sense to me, and your ideas usually make sense. (Foolish of me to ask that in Speaker's Corner, I know.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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

No, I was actually curious as to what you thought, because it didn't make much sense to me, and your ideas usually make sense. (Foolish of me to ask that in Speaker's Corner, I know.)

sorry about that, the recent exposure here has trigger my cynic button - let's go with the "it's a subjective grey scale" standard response.

I'd say that a specific law against 'texting' is a pain in the ass - a bandaid on a gushing wound. I'd prefer it, for the cop to see a driver that appears to be distracted, and for him to observe that for a bit to confirm it, and then pull that driver over at that point.

I'd like to see that allowed via a single law (I believe we already have them) - rather than 22 different laws that just make different people feel good about their 22 different pet peeves.

My parallel - I'd love it if they passed a law that outlawed all smoking everywhere. It's a distraction while driving for the driver and anyone near their open window. It's clearly unafe.

...
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]

Under your standard nobody could be charged with a violation until an accident has happened or a cop was lucky enough to catch them before they kill somebody. By banning specific actions we can at least remove a portion of the threat via those who obey the law, but there will always be those who are too stupid or arrogant to understand the threat they pose.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Under your standard nobody could be charged with a violation until an accident has happened or a cop was lucky enough to catch them before they kill somebody. By banning specific actions we can at least remove a portion of the threat via those who obey the law, but there will always be those who are too stupid or arrogant to understand the threat they pose.

In other words, no one is charged with a violation unless they actually commit a violation. Not be capable of committing one, in your mind.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Under your standard nobody could be charged with a violation until an accident has happened or a cop was lucky enough to catch them before they kill somebody. By banning specific actions we can at least remove a portion of the threat via those who obey the law, but there will always be those who are too stupid or arrogant to understand the threat they pose.

In other words, no one is charged with a violation unless they actually commit a violation. Not be capable of committing one, in your mind.

Right. But it makes little or no sense to wait until somebody doing something we know causes accidents kills somebody before we are able to do something when we can more effectively make the highways safer by banning the specific actions.
I don't think some people here understand how just having a law on the books removes part of the threat. Probably the same people who think their driving skills diminish while texting.

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.

[billvon 2,994]

>I'd say that a specific law against 'texting' is a pain in the ass . . .

I agree that it's a pain in the ass.

But again, I think there are dangers in outlawing just bad outcomes as opposed to dangerous actions. Drinking and driving (well, drinking before driving would be more accurate) texting while driving, watching TV while driving, having your 4 year old drive while you nap - all could indeed be regulated by simply ticketing people who get into accidents while doing any of those things (or nearly cause accidents, or break other laws etc etc.) Indeed, you could apply the same general principle to most traffic laws. Brakes? No need for safety inspections or indeed any standards; just ticket drivers who buy cars with lousy brakes and/or don't maintain them. Headlights? Horns? Windshield wipers? Same basic idea. Red lights and stop signs? No need to stop - but if you kill a family of 4, you're going to get a VERY big ticket and/or end up in court.

But while that attitude may work for some limited applications - and for a moderately large group of people - I don't think it works overall. If you offered a car with completely inadequate brakes, no headlights, no horn, no wipers, no seatbelts for the low low price of $1995, you can bet some people would buy them. And while you could argue that they have a perfect right to do so and then kill themselves, they don't have the right to kill pedestrians who can't see them coming (and who can't be saved by stopping the car.)

Drunk driving is similar. Sure, you could deal with that by allowing anyone to drive at any BAC, then having draconian penalties for anyone who causes an accident. If you did that, some people would have an incentive to not drive drunk because that would increase their odds of being in an accident and having those penalties applied to them.

However, there is no doubt that the result of repealing drunk driving laws would be that more people would be killed, and that would include both drunk drivers and their victims. And again, the argument that drunk drivers can kill themselves if they want can be a valid one, but I don't think that you can make the argument for the (sober) people they kill.

So I don't think that you can always rely on outcome-based laws if your goal is to protect the public from the bad judgment of others. I think the only way to make that argument is to also argue that laws that protect the innocent from the foolish, stupid and evil people out there should be eliminated, but that's a separate argument.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

+1

Good example is speed limits.
Everybody knows that excessive speed is reckless and dangerous. But we don't just let people drive as fast as they want and only ticket them when they cause an accident and charge them with reckless operation, we pass laws that tell people how fast (or slow) they can drive. There will always be that large percentage of people who don't think they will cause problems by driving to fast and don't realize just how wrong they are.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

+1

Good example is speed limits.
Everybody knows that excessive speed is reckless and dangerous. But we don't just let people drive as fast as they want and only ticket them when they cause an accident and charge them with reckless operation, we pass laws that tell people how fast (or slow) they can drive. There will always be that large percentage of people who don't think they will cause problems by driving to fast and don't realize just how wrong they are.

Uh, speeding is the actual violation. Speed differentials are dangerous, and higher speed = higher kinetic energy in a collision. Whereas using the cell phone (I'm lumping both the questionable practice of texting along with talking) *may* present a distraction but is only become a violation because it of this possibility.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Please go back and re-read my post. You missed the entire point.

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.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Under your standard nobody could be charged with a violation until an accident has happened or a cop was lucky enough to catch them before they kill somebody. By banning specific actions we can at least remove a portion of the threat via those who obey the law, but there will always be those who are too stupid or arrogant to understand the threat they pose.

In other words, no one is charged with a violation unless they actually commit a violation. Not be capable of committing one, in your mind.

A nonsense statement.

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

...

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

[rhaig 0]

Quote

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

and by the way the law works, other things that might be distracting while driving, that are not explicitly defined as illegal, are legal.

--
Rob

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

and by the way the law works, other things that might be distracting while driving, that are not explicitly defined as illegal, are legal.

Such as? Name something that is as common as a cell phone in a vehicle and as distracting as texting on a cell phone while driving.

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.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

and by the way the law works, other things that might be distracting while driving, that are not explicitly defined as illegal, are legal.

Such as? Name something that is as common as a cell phone in a vehicle and as distracting as texting on a cell phone while driving.

Eating. Applying makeup. Reading(not completely sure on that one). Disciplining children. Messing with the stereo or GPS. Arguing with a spouse. Petting a dog (dog being on driver's lap).

All these are things I see on a regular basis, often with the driver paying little attention to the road or the traffic around them.

"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

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

and by the way the law works, other things that might be distracting while driving, that are not explicitly defined as illegal, are legal.

Such as? Name something that is as common as a cell phone in a vehicle and as distracting as texting on a cell phone while driving.

tits.

--
Rob

[Belgian_Draft 0]

With the possible exception of eating, all the rest combined probably don't add up to the number of people using their cells.

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

Quote

Quote

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

and by the way the law works, other things that might be distracting while driving, that are not explicitly defined as illegal, are legal.

Such as? Name something that is as common as a cell phone in a vehicle and as distracting as texting on a cell phone while driving.

tits.

Can't argue with that.

edit to add: As long as it's not man-titties.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

With the possible exception of eating, all the rest combined probably don't add up to the number of people using their cells.

And yet, even though using the cell phone (nevermind texting) is supposed to be as bad as driving drunk, we did not experience a massive increase in carnage in the past 15 years when we went from few cell users to nearly universal.

Things that make you go hmmm....There are far more cell users than drunk drivers.

The GPS is far worse, esp for the same idiots who can't manage driving and phones.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

With the possible exception of eating, all the rest combined probably don't add up to the number of people using their cells.

And yet, even though using the cell phone (nevermind texting) is supposed to be as bad as driving drunk, we did not experience a massive increase in carnage in the past 15 years when we went from few cell users to nearly universal.

Things that make you go hmmm....There are far more cell users than drunk drivers.

The GPS is far worse, esp for the same idiots who can't manage driving and phones.

Why would you say "never mind texting"? What do you think this thread is about? The Feds banned texting by truckers, not talking. Texting is only slightly less distracting than using a GPS.

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

Under your standard nobody could be charged with a violation until an accident has happened or a cop was lucky enough to catch them before they kill somebody. By banning specific actions we can at least remove a portion of the threat via those who obey the law, but there will always be those who are too stupid or arrogant to understand the threat they pose.

Did you not even read this part?

"I'd prefer it, for the cop to see that if a driver that appears to be distracted, for him to observe that for a bit to confirm it, and then pull that driver over at that point."

this would apply to more than just your particular peeve - ANY careless/distracted behavior


I guess you'd also arrest anyone that's even remotely bothering your sense of what you think is off. Whether is it's dangerous or not.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If texting, using a cell phone, speeding, etc., are defined as violations while driving, then doing any of those things while driving IS a violation.

since the issue is whether it's value added whether or not these should be defined as such - makes it so totally off point, that I'm surprised you woke up from your nap long enough to type it

...
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]

Like I said, you want to wait until something bad happens, i.e. driver swerving, etc. Since we know that texting while driving is an extremely dangerous activity, we can eliminate a lot of it just by banning it. A sizable portion will stop without any cop ever being involved.
Your solution is analogous to eliminating speed limits and only citing those who cause an accident by driving too much faster than the rest of traffic.
I realize that your superhuman driving skills put you far above any mortal human behind the wheel, but that is an extremely rare situation.

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.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Like I said, you want to wait until something bad happens, i.e. driver swerving, etc. Since we know that texting while driving is an extremely dangerous activity, we can eliminate a lot of it just by banning it..

snip

The "something bad" could well be crashing into a schoolbus, not just swerving out of your lane.

Rehmwa, please think of the CHILDREN!

...

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