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.
Of course texting, speeding, cell phone usage, seals belts,etc. are all made up crimes without a victim and constructed to enrich the states coffers.
The problem is that most of the time it is victimless. It's all in the details.
Texting. I agree that composing a text or email by typing, while driving, is dangerous. So is any heavily manual function. For example, in April 1989 a woman playing with her baby in the front seat barreled into my car on a 30 mph speed limit road probably going 55. I was stopped waiting for a break in traffic to make a left hand turn. That didn't involve electronic devices but I digress. Playing with a baby is a manual activity taking concentration.
But the law defines "texting" as including flicking the forward arrow on a music play list. Also on the list but closer to many people's view of improper activity is looking at a map on the phone for directions. But turning on and off "navigation" is also "texting." I would define "texting" far more narrowly. Making a call and holding the phone up to the ear should be legal. All states except New York don't even require one hand to be on the wheel when driving. I think New York has the better argument but again I digress.
Speeding is bad. But when the limits are set unreasonably low that is a real issue. The much publicized increases of highway limits solve only a minor part of the problem. New York theoretically has a 65 mph limit. But that limit is applied to very few roads. And roads that were posted at 60 mph before the first "energy crisis" have not been raised about 55, except for about a 10 mile stretch of the Thruway, which was increased from 55 to 65.
Seat belts are a different story. In that case the front seat driver or passenger deciding not to use a seatbelt is "socializing" his increased injuries to the general public through higher insurance rates or unpaid emergency room bills. If someone wants to be a libertarian it should be on his dime.
So rhetoric on these issues is great. What about analysis?
Here's my modest proposal; that people organize to have large numbers of people take tickets of the kind described below to trial. The results could be both effective, comedic and educational.
After reading a book by William Adler called The Man Who Never Died, about Joe Hill, a labor organizer (a book I highly recommend) I came up with a strategy. The labor movement, int he early part of the 20th Century was harassed by communities issuing tickets for "disorderly conduct" and jailing people on trumped up charges to stop demonstrations. The demonstrators came up with the strategy of having everyone plead "not guilty" and demanding a jury trial. Towns with limited resources, such as Fresno in 1908 or 1909 (still not a wealthy place) would be fiscally ruined by the expense.
So why not try to get people who were not actually endangering life and limb to plead not guilty, and demand the most elaborate trial possible. Many jurisdictions don't allow for jury trials on traffic infringements. But if large numbers of people stopped for low-grade speeding violations or cell-phone violations pleaded not guilty, showed up and refused to take a plea and the pretrial conferences and demanded a trial, the part-time judges' calendars would stretch well into the night. And the courtroom would be packed with just about every police officer who would have to appear.
Worth a try?
Ok, before I say anything else, that "Banning texting while walking (PC on a rampage)" article is actual proof that the internet conservative media is designer for stupid mother****ers. In what universe is banning texting while walking even partially related to political correctness?
With that out of the way, no. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, safety standards do not strike me as unreasonable. I'll admit, as technology progresses, we'll likely have to regularly rethink our policy on this, which is fine, but as of now, texting and driving isn't safe for anyone. It's not about the nanny state protecting you from yourself. I don't want you ****ing hitting me because you just need to send a poop emoji someone.
As for speed limits, talk to your city council. It was more likely that not decided based on city code. Review that, draft a petition, get some signatures from your community, and present it to your local government. People in general should care less about Clinton's emails and Trump's tweets and spend more time looking out for their neighborhoods. We're a republic of republics of republics. Let's focus on all of them, especially the ones that affect our daily lives far more.
As for taking your tickets to trial, if you feel you've been wronged, please do so. But if you were driving like an ass, I'm glad you got a ticket.
Ok, before I say anything else, that "Banning texting while walking (PC on a rampage)" article is actual proof that the internet conservative media is designer for stupid mother****ers. In what universe is banning texting while walking even partially related to political correctness?
With that out of the way, no. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, safety standards do not strike me as unreasonable. I'll admit, as technology progresses, we'll likely have to regularly rethink our policy on this, which is fine, but as of now, texting and driving isn't safe for anyone. It's not about the nanny state protecting you from yourself. I don't want you ****ing hitting me because you just need to send a poop emoji someone.
As for speed limits, talk to your city council. It was more likely that not decided based on city code. Review that, draft a petition, get some signatures from your community, and present it to your local government. People in general should care less about Clinton's emails and Trump's tweets and spend more time looking out for their neighborhoods. We're a republic of republics of republics. Let's focus on all of them, especially the ones that affect our daily lives far more.
As for taking your tickets to trial, if you feel you've been wronged, please do so. But if you were driving like an ass, I'm glad you got a ticket.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
What fun is that?
I can only hope anyone who has the 'fun' of causing injury/death due to their decision to drive distracted is also treated to the 'fun' of getting their ass whipped well and truly as well as some serious jail time. Because I can tell you from watching a friend put in a wheel chair and dying a premature death due to a distracted driver, he didn't have much fun at all. If there was any justice they'd hit a bridge abutment and not share their 'fun'.
Here's my modest proposal; that people organize to have large numbers of people take tickets of the kind described below to trial. The results could be both effective, comedic and educational.
After reading a book by William Adler called The Man Who Never Died, about Joe Hill, a labor organizer (a book I highly recommend) I came up with a strategy. The labor movement, int he early part of the 20th Century was harassed by communities issuing tickets for "disorderly conduct" and jailing people on trumped up charges to stop demonstrations. The demonstrators came up with the strategy of having everyone plead "not guilty" and demanding a jury trial. Towns with limited resources, such as Fresno in 1908 or 1909 (still not a wealthy place) would be fiscally ruined by the expense.
So why not try to get people who were not actually endangering life and limb to plead not guilty, and demand the most elaborate trial possible. Many jurisdictions don't allow for jury trials on traffic infringements. But if large numbers of people stopped for low-grade speeding violations or cell-phone violations pleaded not guilty, showed up and refused to take a plea and the pretrial conferences and demanded a trial, the part-time judges' calendars would stretch well into the night. And the courtroom would be packed with just about every police officer who would have to appear.
Worth a try?
Stop breaking the damn traffic laws! They are in place to protect your life, the lives of your passengers, and the lives of everyone else on the road.
Ok, before I say anything else, that "Banning texting while walking (PC on a rampage)" article is actual proof that the internet conservative media is designer for stupid mother****ers. In what universe is banning texting while walking even partially related to political correctness?
With that out of the way, no. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, safety standards do not strike me as unreasonable. I'll admit, as technology progresses, we'll likely have to regularly rethink our policy on this, which is fine, but as of now, texting and driving isn't safe for anyone. It's not about the nanny state protecting you from yourself. I don't want you ****ing hitting me because you just need to send a poop emoji someone.
As for speed limits, talk to your city council. It was more likely that not decided based on city code. Review that, draft a petition, get some signatures from your community, and present it to your local government. People in general should care less about Clinton's emails and Trump's tweets and spend more time looking out for their neighborhoods. We're a republic of republics of republics. Let's focus on all of them, especially the ones that affect our daily lives far more.
As for taking your tickets to trial, if you feel you've been wronged, please do so. But if you were driving like an ass, I'm glad you got a ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Very well said!
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I can only hope anyone who has the 'fun' of causing injury/death due to their decision to drive distracted is also treated to the 'fun' of getting their ass whipped well and truly as well as some serious jail time. Because I can tell you from watching a friend put in a wheel chair and dying a premature death due to a distracted driver, he didn't have much fun at all. If there was any justice they'd hit a bridge abutment and not share their 'fun'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
Stop breaking the damn traffic laws! They are in place to protect your life, the lives of your passengers, and the lives of everyone else on the road.
I guess no one troubled to read the last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
The problem is that most of the time it is victimless. It's all in the details.
Texting. I agree that composing a text or email by typing, while driving, is dangerous. So is any heavily manual function. For example, in April 1989 a woman playing with her baby in the front seat barreled into my car on a 30 mph speed limit road probably going 55. I was stopped waiting for a break in traffic to make a left hand turn. That didn't involve electronic devices but I digress. Playing with a baby is a manual activity taking concentration.
But the law defines "texting" as including flicking the forward arrow on a music play list. Also on the list but closer to many people's view of improper activity is looking at a map on the phone for directions. But turning on and off "navigation" is also "texting." I would define "texting" far more narrowly. Making a call and holding the phone up to the ear should be legal. All states except New York don't even require one hand to be on the wheel when driving. I think New York has the better argument but again I digress.
Speeding is bad. But when the limits are set unreasonably low that is a real issue. The much publicized increases of highway limits solve only a minor part of the problem. New York theoretically has a 65 mph limit. But that limit is applied to very few roads. And roads that were posted at 60 mph before the first "energy crisis" have not been raised about 55, except for about a 10 mile stretch of the Thruway, which was increased from 55 to 65.
Seat belts are a different story. In that case the front seat driver or passenger deciding not to use a seatbelt is "socializing" his increased injuries to the general public through higher insurance rates or unpaid emergency room bills. If someone wants to be a libertarian it should be on his dime.
So rhetoric on these issues is great. What about analysis?
No one thinks composing a text while driving is OK . But the law is draconian in what is considered "texting." And ditto with speeding. Shy not exercise your brain instead of your fingers?
No one thinks composing a text while driving is OK . But the law is draconian in what is considered "texting." And ditto with speeding. Shy not exercise your brain instead of your fingers?
Well I guess that goes for driving too.
If it takes your eyes off the road, it is dangerous. That is all.
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.
I have a way that is 100% guaranteed to work.
