U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2007, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,604 posts, read 7,329,315 times
Reputation: 2763

Advertisements

Perhaps we might look as the revenues generated not so much as a fine but a tax on stupid behavior.

We have many examples of taxes on stupid behavior already on the books. Lottery tickets, for example, are often called taxes for people who are bad at math.

Now that most NM food items aren't taxed anymore, I think that it's more fair. Buying food is less stupid than buying tobacco.

If a government has to tax something, I say better they tax stupid things. If I want to engage in stupid behavior bad enough to pay the taxes on it, great! Everybody wins.

Man, it's hard to type this into my phone as I drive down the road.. <FLASH>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2007, 06:40 PM
 
13,140 posts, read 36,022,137 times
Reputation: 12082
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyEP View Post

I hear you on your being fed-up with this big government, harry o, frankly, Albuquerque is a great, great place - great weather, great people, great scenery, great size, etc. But the local government is quickly driving me away (which just started after Mayor Chavez' recent re-election...I actually thought he was pretty good due to his pro-progress positions before the recent couple of years).

P.S. On the bright side, harry o, it has been near 70 degrees these past two days in ABQ, and 60s for quite awhile...even warmer than I thought last week when I gave you the optimistic forecast on the El Paso forum. This surely has to be brightening your spirits hasn't it?? (Especially when so much of the rest of the country has been suffering with Artic-like cold of late!)...
Hey EnjoyEP....thanks for the info on which councilors voted for it. I thought Cadigan was more moderate as he used to battle O Malley and Eric Greigo over the Montano bridge and and Paseo extension. I think there has been back room deals on a lot of the legislation with the Mayor. Man i wish Brad Winter would have won. I can't believe i may support Dianne Denish (thats bad) over the Mayor for Gov as she and her husband have recieved a red light camera ticket and a firelane ticket.

Yeah the weather was great today as i was getting a tan on my arms working outside. I love the hot, dry southwestern heat. Now if we can get the leaves to grow on the trees. LOL. Thanks for being positive... I think its becoming contagious as even our bud Muhnay over on the El Paso threads has been super cool to the posters lately....LOL...Gotta laugh sometimes....Later on !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2007, 08:24 PM
 
181 posts, read 629,864 times
Reputation: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyEP View Post
The five Democratic members of the Council voted for the ban, the four Republican members voted against it. It was a straight-party-split.

In support of the ban were Isaac Benton, Michael Cadigan, Martin Heinrich, Debbie O'Malley and Ken Sanchez (I believe Sanchez and Benton sponsored it). Voting against it were Don Harris, Craig Loy, Sally Mayer and Brad Winter.
Good info. Thanks EP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Perhaps we might look as the revenues generated not so much as a fine but a tax on stupid behavior.

We have many examples of taxes on stupid behavior already on the books. Lottery tickets, for example, are often called taxes for people who are bad at math.

Now that most NM food items aren't taxed anymore, I think that it's more fair. Buying food is less stupid than buying tobacco.

If a government has to tax something, I say better they tax stupid things. If I want to engage in stupid behavior bad enough to pay the taxes on it, great! Everybody wins.
I am not buying this logic at all--we already have a reckless driving law that covers stupid behavior. Had the coucilors and the mayor wanted to increase reckless driving fines I would've supported their actions because it makes sense for the police to mete out tickets to dangerous drivers on a cell phone. I don't condone punishing the innocent or adding more stupid laws to the books. Adding stupid laws is well...stupid in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2007, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,604 posts, read 7,329,315 times
Reputation: 2763
I believe one reason that cellphone drivers got attention as a separate issue is not because they are dangerous, but they are irritating.

More often than anything else, they're doing 15 under the speed limit (when everyone else does 5 over) and are showing zero courtesy to other motorists who need in and out of their lane and want to drive the speed limit. Dangerous? Not so much. Irritating.

If you're on a cell phone, flowing with the traffic, and showing courtesy to other drivers, I think an officer would apply a bit of discretion to decide if it's really worth pulling you over for that offense. I don't fault other drivers who behave in this manner.

A good number of people can manage to drive and chat on a phone at the same time with zero ill effects. It's the minority who can't who inspired this law, and I strongly feel they deserve its penalties. If I ever get pulled over as a result of this law, then it's worth it to me to have somebody worse also get pulled over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2007, 07:41 AM
 
1 posts, read 3,130 times
Reputation: 10
Lightbulb Crazy Drivers

There are not enough police to enforce this issue. Although we could use police trained trunk monkeys (http://www.trunkmonkeyad.com/) (broken link). What is next? Mandatory video surveillance cameras mounted on our dashboards in our personal vehicles? This is important for close human observation. Hey, "Big Brother," we could catch everyone being human...

Check out Crazy Drivers at http://www.squidoo.com/PureCraziness/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2007, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Metro Milwaukee, WI
3,185 posts, read 11,068,116 times
Reputation: 2103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Perhaps we might look as the revenues generated not so much as a fine but a tax on stupid behavior.

It is actually kind of funny/ironic you mention this Zoidberg. While I respectfully disagree with you on the issue in general, I do agree with the presmise of this statement you make. But it is just in general, one of my philosophies of government has been that more of more, government is trying to legislate against stupidity (and stupid behavior) - I agree with you; it is just my contention that it is not government's role in any way to legislate against stupidity!

It is like the proposed ban in NYC against using an iPod while walking out on public streets...they claim that since people listening to iPods get distracted and are too much at risk of being hit by moving vehicles [eg: stupidity], that they need to ban using iPods for all while out on streets.

This is egregious! So just because there are some people who are acting stupidly enough by paying more attention to their iPods than they are to moving traffic, we need to "protect everyone" by banning all iPod usage out on the streets?? Incredible! Why don't we just pay taxes to fund a government employee assigned to each and every citizen and their every move, to ensure we do not do anything stupid during the day...make us wear diapers while the government's at it!

The NYC example is even more extreme than the cell phone bad example, but I would contend not by much. And by allowing silly laws like this ban on cell phones (without even supporting science or evidence that such a ban is truly good for the public safety) just continues to roll along and roll along the presedence.

For many, it is truly stupid behavior! It just is scary when the government is more and more into the role of legislating against stupidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2007, 08:55 AM
 
1 posts, read 3,080 times
Reputation: 11
Default Cel Phone usage

People are so stupid about what they should be doing while behind the wheel. The only legal thing you should be able to do behind the wheel is mind massage through the nasal passage. This keeps you brain on the road, it actually helps you look around more than one might normally look around anyway. I don't care if you pick your nose. I would rather have you pick you nose, then eat, put on makeup, or anything else.

Look at all the idiots that don't even know how to spell "cel" phone. This includes all the educated idiots at the paper! Don't let your stupidity be so easily seen. As for me I have driven with a cel phone and hands free system, I have a CDL, chauffeurs, and other endorsements. Cel phones are dangerous. I have even noticed driving with hands free, you can miss a light because the conversation can get so heated. So, quit talking, DRIVE! Or get off the road! and lastly, I have a broken hip because someone was doing something else when they should have been driving! If you get behind the wheel, DRIVE. Do it for your children, do it for your spouse, even your date. Don't cause accidents so your insurances and others keep raising! Let's take a stand, get some insurance premiums to reduce!

And quit spelling Cel phone like CELL PHONE. CELL is something in the brain that tells you what to do, and how to do it.

I'm not a cop, and had a father who was. So I respect the law, but not always the rule of law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2007, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,604 posts, read 7,329,315 times
Reputation: 2763
The correct spelling is "cell phone". Until you start outpublishing Webster and a number of other luminaries with your own dictionary, I'll go with their spelling.

The meaning of "cell" with two L's in this context is in relation to the layout of the subscriber network, with individual towers forming "cells" in a greater layout of coverage area. When your phone "roams" closer to one tower from another, you change cells without interruption in signal. It's no different from the common root of cells in biology or cells in terrorism.

The only English-based usage of cel with one L I'm aware of deals with individual frames in animation. That is most likely an abbreviation of celluloid or a similar-sounding material from which those plastic sheets are made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_...ross_the_world
For some interesting yet useless trivia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2007, 06:21 PM
 
181 posts, read 629,864 times
Reputation: 155
More CELLular PHONE info here:



http://www.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2007, 06:23 PM
 
181 posts, read 629,864 times
Reputation: 155
Default Well, it's Friday...

...and the handheld ban goes into effect today. Warnings will be given out for the next 60 days. After that, citations will be the norm. Here's the least-expensive hands-free device I've found so far:












http://www.csh.rit.edu/~topher/jokes/hands%20free%20cell%20phone.jpg (broken link)
I hope this is compatible with my motorola phone!

Last edited by ABQLifer; 02-16-2007 at 06:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top