Coming soon from your concerned Austin City Council-a ban on texting while driving + 3 foot bicyclists buffer zone (Cedar Park: exemptions, safety)
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.
By your reasoning, we would need laws to cover every single miniscule thing that someone might do "wrong".
I don't consider someone using a cell phone or texting while trying to drive in Austin traffic a miniscule thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Again, see my comments above regarding job security for legislators created by passing more and more laws.
So far 18 States + D.C. have banned text messaging and 6 States + D.C. and the Virgin Islands have banned handheld cell phone use completely while driving. I do not believe these laws passed for job security, I think they used good ole common sense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
As for DUI laws, the law against drinking and driving is specifically because, by drinking, the person is no longer considered to be capable of driving in a safe manner OR making decisions regarding such and thus the law has more to do with not getting behind the wheel in the first place, not with what one does once one gets there. Different thing entirely.
When using a cell phone, especially texting, a person is not capable of driving in a safe manner OR making decisions. If they are staring down at a cell phone texting away, how fast can they make a driving decision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
There are countries where everything you do is monitored and controlled by law. That's not the United States (or wasn't, though some seem bound and determined to change that - THOSE are the real terrorists, in my opinion). If we are to run this country on fear and control issues, then we really ought to change the name and no longer call ourselves a democracy (though, of course, we're actually a republic anyway).
I would also like to know who you are referring to as the real terrorists?
Okay. The terrorists (those of Twin Towers and similar occurrences) have a goal - to make us change the way we live to match theirs, to make sure that we live governed by fear of the things that "could" happen and that we make laws that restrict our freedoms as much as possible. The real terrorists, as I describe them, are those of our own who, in truth, have a similar viewpoint - they think that we should legislate all danger out of our lives in minute detail. Instead of having a law that covers a broad range of behaviors (reckless driving), we should have lots of laws that dictate every single thing that we should not do lest it distract us from driving - but, interestingly, they rarely want the things that they do similarly restricted in such detail. But, by following their reasoning, we should all drive in individual vehicles with no one else (not passenger, not child, no one) in the vehicle with us, we should not have cup holders in vehicles because that would mean having drinks in vehicles, we should not have make-up ion vehicles because we might decide to apply it, we should not have radios or CD players in vehicles because music is a distraction - and not only that, each of these should be specifically legislated against, because we are all children and can't be trusted to know appropriate behavior.
If you want texting legislated against specifically, you have no good argument for NOT legislating against any and all of the above (especially children in the vehicle, which can be, and often are, more distracting than anything else for the driver).
Paternalism in the extreme, AND doing the foreign terrorists work for them without them having to lift another finger.
That's who I think the real terrorists are and why. Is that more clear?
Okay. The terrorists (those of Twin Towers and similar occurrences) have a goal - to make us change the way we live to match theirs, to make sure that we live governed by fear of the things that "could" happen and that we make laws that restrict our freedoms as much as possible. The real terrorists, as I describe them, are those of our own who, in truth, have a similar viewpoint - they think that we should legislate all danger out of our lives in minute detail. Instead of having a law that covers a broad range of behaviors (reckless driving), we should have lots of laws that dictate every single thing that we should not do lest it distract us from driving - but, interestingly, they rarely want the things that they do similarly restricted in such detail. But, by following their reasoning, we should all drive in individual vehicles with no one else (not passenger, not child, no one) in the vehicle with us, we should not have cup holders in vehicles because that would mean having drinks in vehicles, we should not have make-up ion vehicles because we might decide to apply it, we should not have radios or CD players in vehicles because music is a distraction - and not only that, each of these should be specifically legislated against, because we are all children and can't be trusted to know appropriate behavior.
If you want texting legislated against specifically, you have no good argument for NOT legislating against any and all of the above (especially children in the vehicle, which can be, and often are, more distracting than anything else for the driver).
Paternalism in the extreme, AND doing the foreign terrorists work for them without them having to lift another finger.
That's who I think the real terrorists are and why. Is that more clear?
Sorry THL, but this is one of the most absurd analogies I've read on City data. There is no similar viewpoint between people that fly airplanes into buildings and those who hold the opinion that texting should be banned. Period.
So I guess those who invented speed limits are real terrorists? I mean, they are telling us what to do and all. Especially school zones. Why do we need extra limits defined in particular areas? That's already covered by another law. We should be able to drive as fast as we want, without the government interfering, right?
After all, if our excessive speed causes an accident, there is that reckless driving law... just enforce that
Sorry THL, but this is one of the most absurd analogies I've read on City data. There is no similar viewpoint between people that fly airplanes into buildings and those who hold the opinion that texting should be banned. Period.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Absolutely ridiculous analogy.
Well, it's my opinion. You do have to think about it a bit, though, to get it, because it is a subtle thing, especially when it happens a step at a time, so unnoticeable until you find yourself well down that well-known road that's paved with good intentions. Not that there aren't quite a few people who would disagree with me, and that's fine, that's the entire point, after all.
I watched it happening after 9-11. Gradually, bit by bit (and in some cases swiftly), the degradation of our civil rights (large and small - the smallest are the easiest to miss that we're handing over), with our tacit approval, because we were afraid, and us learning to live with that until it came to seem "normal". I watched us changing ourselves and our lives, in the direction that the terrorists who committed that atrocity would approve of, and not even seeing it in many cases, and I mourned for what we were giving up, willingly.
Maybe I'm just old enough to remember when that would have been unthinkable. And maybe it's because of that that I tend to feel pretty strongly about thinking long and hard before passing new laws that may or may not be necessary, and not following along like sheep because "those other states jumped off the cliff, Mom, why can't I?"
The point was, though, and going back and reading I see that perhaps I didn't express it clearly last night, we're as a country in MUCH greater danger from those within who, because of fear, will give up the very bedrock of what makes the United States what it is, our liberties, than from any foreign threat. Mainly because we can't/won't see it happening, especially when it happens a baby step at a time, so we need to be MORE vigilant about that happening than about just about anything else. If we weaken ourselves from within, we make it easier for outside threats.
Yes, we have laws. Yes, we need some (any civilized society does). The difference is, we need to not pass them in a kneejerk fashion (sort of like how throwing money at problems in a kneejerk fashion doesn't work), but need to look VERY closely at how and why we pass them and resist at all costs micromanaging the lives of our fellow citizens.
Does that make more sense?
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
The rules for a 200lb, 2 foot wide cyclist should never be exactly the same as for a 2000+lb 6 foot wide vehicle.
They are completely different road users. Each should have their own rights, but those rights ends where the other's begin.
When traffic is clogged up and cars are not moving, yet there is space for the cyclist to cautiously travel past, why not allow them to? They are in no way risky injury or accident to the cars.
If you are going to drive your car and be part of the congestion problem, they it's tough luck when you see a cyclist slip past you. It's YOUR wide a$$ that logically loses your ability to travel.
I don't agree with this new 3ft law. It's impractical in many situations.
Most cyclists travel at least 15mph, and that is easily faster than most vehicular traffic in congested areas.
Cyclists have every right to ride on any road that is not marked as "no bicycles" or similar. It doesn't matter how narrow the road is, that's the city's problem, they didn't construct the road wide enough for numerous transportation.
Remember, you, as the car driver are the one taking up the VAST majority of the space. If you have to wait 5, 10, 20 seconds for a safe time to pass a cyclist, then that's the way it is. Because your right to drive your WIDE HEAVY vehicle at the speed limit ENDS as soon as you encounter another road users space.
I agree some cyclists are a$$holes and make a bad name for the courteous ones, it's a shame. But as a cyclist myself, I do my best to inconvenience AS FEW cars as possible. I travel at a quick speed, stay as far to the right as I can without damaging my bike on potholes/debris, stop at stop signs when other road users are present, among other LOGICAL actions.
Why be mad at the cyclist who passes you while you are stuck in traffic? He's not the one making you stationary - it's other cars. Again, he is posing no threat to you. But if you feel the need to 'buzz' a cyclist who is moving at 20mph in a 25mph+ zone, you are certainly posing a threat to that rider. Why can't people see the difference here? It is NOT apples to apples.
Just remember your rights end where others begin. It is possible to share the road, just use logic and common sense.
Accept the fact that a 6 foot wide 2000lb object is not going to be able to travel as fast as the driver my want. (As a driver I sometimes have to wait for other road users who have rights to their safety and space. I understand that, and I ACCEPT that.
Accept the fact that a 2ft wide 200lb cyclist should have the right and ability to safely maneuver themself faster through congested traffic.
Well, I don't make or enforce the laws. I'm just stating what is real, and what rights should be. Yes, cars and bikes don't always mix the best. However, unless a separate infrastructure is built to allow non-auto road users to travel nearly everywhere autos do, then we simply have to share the road.
I don't do this, but I've seen some bikers with a thin rod with a flag on the end, attached horizontally to their bike. It protrudes 3 feet to the left. If a car breaks the law and passes within 3ft, they ruin their paint job. Now, this type of rider obviously does not pass stopped cars closely, within 3ft. The flag is simply there to keep cars from buzzing them, and I might add that it seems it would be VERY effective and lawful, given that there is the 3ft passing rule. Again, I don't do this, but I'm telling you to watch out for it, as a driver.
BTW, 3 feet is not much distance at all. I invite you to imagine having 3000lbs pass by your head at 20-40+mph at 3 feet. You think you'd like that distance to be less, maybe 2 feet, 1 foot? On top of that, allow some strange person to be in control, who may be talking on a cell phone, texting!, yelling at kids, putting on makeup, and so on. Think about that as you sit within the safety of your car.
I would like to end by thanking all the safe, curteous drivers. I've never been hit in over 50,000 miles of cycling.
Last edited by veloman777; 10-03-2009 at 02:02 AM..
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.
