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.
I totally agree, discipline has been all but lost. Again, due to the encroachment of the police state folks are not able to discipline appropriately. And before all the child abuse freaks come out of the woodwork, that is not what Im saying. However, when I was a kid I got my ass heated when i deserved it and I don't have any mommy/daddy issues. And guess what, i didn't so much as talk back to my elders (Grandparents, Parents, Uncles/Aunts....hell, even other adults). I see/hear how kids talk to their parents & adults today and it makes me sick. I have friends that just roll their eyes when their kids tell them to f%ck off!!! If i said that to ANY adult when I was a kid I would be here today to share the story....lol
Yes, you are right on the money. It is parenting.
Most of the idiots I view texting in vehicles are young people.
Who is the victim when you're driving home from dinner after two glasses of wine and you get pulled over for an expired inspection sticker and the LEO decides to charge you with OUI because you blew .04?
Did you hit someone? Did you do property damage? Who is the victim of this crime of drinking two glasses of wine at dinner? Because the King says if his henchmen decide you're impaired they can deem you too intoxicated to drive? .04 BAC or .08 will affect every single person reading this post differently. I've watched sober people fail field sobriety tests for a number of reasons.
I'm not for people driving drunk by any means but I have a hard time with Crimes that don't involve a victim.
What about all the old people that run down pedestrians and drive through the walls of stores because they get confused with the brake and the gas pedal. Are we going to lock them up for 5 years too?
If you really think laws protect us you don't live in reality.
I tried..."You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sgthoskins again."
With the elderly particularly, we should better assess whether they are medically safe to drive. We don't for a variety of reasons, and tend to rely on family to take that responsibility. You wouldn't lock them up, but you could authorize a medical provider to deem them unfit to drive and pull the license. If they continue to drive sans license, then you lock them up.
Part of the reason we don't do this, is that in many areas if you pull a DL you cut off access to groceries and medical care. So we accept the risk that an impaired elderly drive could hurt themselves or others on the grounds that without the license they collectively incur a larger cost.
With other distractions (bikinis, screaming kids) we don't legislate such things in part either b/c exposure to the stimulus for distraction is out of the driver's control (passerby in bikini) or we deem the trade-off to be necessary (kids have to be transported) with few viable alternatives. Every public safety decision juggles risk/reward.
We've concluded societally that restricting alcohol impaired drivers is a net benefit b/c there is high risk compared to the benefit of letting them drive [edit - and we hope that the threat of penalty will deter them]. The question with cell phones is similar though a bit different, since it's not a sustained impairment. A drunk person might have to wait hours to be safe to drive again, but a cell phone user need only hang-up. Or wait to pick up in the first place.
But the data seems pretty strongly to suggest that there's a societal and economic impact to letting people drive while in the act of phoning, and there's a very easy available alternative, which is to push people to either pull over to engage in a call/text exchange, or push them to defer doing so until it is safe. Thus it's a different public policy scenario than the others that have been tossed out.
Part of the reason we don't do this, is that in many areas if you pull a DL you cut off access to groceries and medical care. ...
People can have a DMV ID without a driver license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bler144
...
...
With other distractions (bikinis, screaming kids) we don't legislate such things in part either b/c exposure to the stimulus for distraction is out of the driver's control (passerby in bikini) or we deem the trade-off to be necessary (kids have to be transported) with few viable alternatives. Every public safety decision juggles risk/reward.
We've concluded societally that restricting alcohol impaired drivers is a net benefit b/c there is high risk compared to the benefit of letting them drive [edit - and we hope that the threat of penalty will deter them]. The question with cell phones is similar though a bit different, since it's not a sustained impairment. A drunk person might have to wait hours to be safe to drive again, but a cell phone user need only hang-up. Or wait to pick up in the first place.
But the data seems pretty strongly to suggest that there's a societal and economic impact to letting people drive while in the act of phoning, and there's a very easy available alternative, which is to push people to either pull over to engage in a call/text exchange, or push them to defer doing so until it is safe. Thus it's a different public policy scenario than the others that have been tossed out.
If there was a way to give you 100 reps at once, I would give it to you. Seriously.
Whatever. There is no phone call/text message so important that you have to risk my/others life for. It should be illegal.
Before you call me a bleeding heart liberal, I do not support seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws (except for minors). Those are individual decisions that affect only the person who chooses/not chooses to wear them. Texting your BFF while driving can affect many people on the road. If someone goes to prison for a long time after they knock me off my bike and kill me while talking/texting, that's great, but I'm still dead.
I also do not support gun control, if that means anything.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We are a country of laws. That is why we elect people to represent us. And to pass laws to "promote the general welfare".
Whatever. There is no phone call/text message so important that you have to risk my/others life for. It should be illegal.
Before you call me a bleeding heart liberal, I do not support seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws (except for minors). Those are individual decisions that affect only the person who chooses/not chooses to wear them. Texting your BFF while driving can affect many people on the road. If someone goes to prison for a long time after they knock me off my bike and kill me while talking/texting, that's great, but I'm still dead.
I also do not support gun control, if that means anything.
So is the decision to use a cell phone..cops do it all the time.. would the ban affect them? I would wager the answer would be no.. some will even go as far as say well they are professionals and are better equipped to handle it..bs.
Texting DOES take ones eye off the road..Texting DOES distract.. there is a major difference between the two. You seemed surprises as a rider I would have the view that it should not be banned..yep for the same reason as you mentioned in regard to helmets and seat belts , or even guns.. we do not ( or should not) punish everybody for the stupidity of a few. There are people who should simply not drive..period, yet do we want a ban on all drivers? There are those who are dangerous to themselves and others while operating a motorcycle, do we want to ban them ( and yes there are some that do)
Finally , many folks end up endangering themselves on cell phones do so while WALKING..should we ban pedestians from using cellphones unless at the bus stop or park bench?
Personally I think the difference is 'who is at risk.' As Steve notes, an activity that increases the likelihood of a crash puts others at risk. It's an example of a behavior, like drunk driving or driving 75 through a school zone, where the general public takes on the risk of heightened harm on a level akin to the person acting unwisely.
Failure to wear a seatbelt, or walking while texting/surfing, and even unsafe possession of firearms are generally more a threat to oneself or one's own. Firearm accidents are most common in the home, for example, and stepping out in traffic not looking is likely to get you hurt/killed. Though if killed certainly you could leave the driver that hit you with PTSD, and emergency crews generally don't look forward to busting out the jaws of life to remove a corpse, but those are still 'lesser' issues than directly putting someone else in harm's way.
As the slogan says, it's 'live free or die,' not 'live free or kill.'
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.
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.
