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.
government intrusion, nanny state, etc. Seems like a pointless law to me. It might occasionally look good from a sensationalist viewpoint after a tragedy (like right now), but imo it is a terrible law overall
Nothing was wrong with the old law, and if it aint broke, dont fix it
Personally I'm fine with restrictions on people under the age of 18. Curious what age you think we should let people start drinking.
16.
I am for less restrictions on people in general. I do not agree with laws forcing people to do things in the name of safety. Think that is on the individuals. The kids had the choice to enter the crowded SUV, choice to sit in a seat without a seatbelt, etc. It might be in their best interest, but it should be their choice.
It certainly isn't someone's choice to get hit by a drunk driver. And I can only imagine the increase in that if we lowered the age to 16. My guess would be if someone you loved got killed you would probably have a different take on things.
It certainly isn't someone's choice to get hit by a drunk driver. And I can only imagine the increase in that if we lowered the age to 16. My guess would be if someone you loved got killed you would probably have a different take on things.
I doubt there would be any more then a 5% increase in drunk driving rates. The drinking age is 16 in many countries (Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc)
And no, my mindset would not change. I was actually in a drunk driving accident when I was a child. New years eve, some kid ran a red, t-boned the car. Both of my parents spent a night in hospital (although injuries were not severe)
I am pretty libertarian on these kind of issues. i do not support severe punishment unless the person has bad intentions. Mistakes happen. Everyone makes em. You live and learn.
If you talk to police officers that handle many of these types of "events," most will tell you they dont even call them 'accidents,' they call them 'crashes.' Because they arent really accidents, someone makes a mistake or drives unsafely - and there is a CRASH.
Sadness follows.
Too bad this thread has turned into a discussion about driving laws. The reason they are put into place is to save lives, and obviously people have the right not to follow them... as they do all laws.
They didnt follow them in this case - so nobody should be able to sue anybody...
I still want to know if they were traveling from Mainland in Linwood to the Old Country Buffet in Mays Landing, what they were doing on the Parkway SOUTH.
Edited to add:
If I have to stop in a travel lane because of road conditions ahead, I always turn on my 4-way emergency flashersimmediately.
This gives drivers coming up fast from the rear a little extra warning that traffic is stopped ahead.
Just having those drivers hit their brake pedal a second or two earlier can make the difference between being hit by them or not being hit by them.[/quote]
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I have not had a car accident in 41 years/approximately 550k miles.
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.
