Texting ban...sorta (DMV, car inspection, license)

[Pragmaticus]

I don't know what clear line people are looking but the line is clear to me. When your action endangers the safety of other drivers, that's the line. That's why the cop will stop you if you drive recklessly.

OTOH, it is funny to see people making silly logic, "if they do this now, they will do that tomorrow." What?

[tinytrump]

Problem with texting - it is ONLY one part of the problem of bad drivers- besides impairment (drugs & alcohol) talking on the phone, arguing with the kids or spouce, quieting the crying baby who is miles from your arm- applying make up- lighting up a cigarrette, and the darn dog on the lap jumping on your face as you drive, people who are now too old to see or hear properly... there are all kinds of bad driving,,, keep the NO TEXT law YES, introduce it and see if people will obey,,, including all our crazy visitors from other states and countries, then start imposing. I am not at all lenient - as I lost my 2nd son to a bad driver, but I am reasonable and people must be Re-TAUGHT to to new changes,

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by MeInDenudinFL

I don't know what clear line people are looking but the line is clear to me. When your action endangers the safety of other drivers, that's the line. That's why the cop will stop you if you drive recklessly.

OTOH, it is funny to see people making silly logic, "if they do this now, they will do that tomorrow." What?

Yep, this slippery slope logic its at its all-time high.

[overit2]

"So when we enact laws we try to use science and common sense, not what we think a group of people would have wanted or not wanted 240 years ago."

OMG, I think this is the most ignorant and hilarious sentence I have read in the last almost 40 yrs of my life!! You really can't believe this can you??

NEW laws are ENTIRELY because of special interest groups, lobbyists, congress wants to push their individual agenda. It has NOTHING to do with what "WE THE PEOPLE" want, asked for or even need.

The answer is NEVER in creating more laws, and creating more 'criminals' that break these laws.
Already the slipperly slope started years ago w/the seatbelt law. A applaud any state that fights enacting more regulation and laws.

[overit2]

"OTOH, it is funny to see people making silly logic, "if they do this now, they will do that tomorrow."

This is not silly logic, it's because people have been around enough to see these laws expands more and more and now encroach on what should be normal human rights and decisions.

Just take the smoking ban for one...it started with telling owners/individual citizens that had their own business, what COULD and could NOT be allowed on their OWN personal property.

This then extended like wildfire-now you bans that punish people for smoking in their own cars and homes. Even as a non-smoker I realize this is idiotic.
Now you have laws being introduced to ban salt, big macs, and such things..ALL in the name of public safety. We can't be so naive to buy this truly?

[Sunshinecc]

Originally Posted by MeInDenudinFL

I don't know what clear line people are looking but the line is clear to me. When your action endangers the safety of other drivers, that's the line. That's why the cop will stop you if you drive recklessly.

OTOH, it is funny to see people making silly logic, "if they do this now, they will do that tomorrow." What?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying - I am in 100% agreement with you that when your action endangers the safety of me or others, that's a line to be dealt with. But I was also trying to support part of what TXRyan was saying (or at least I think he was) in that the reason (driving to endanger) behind this new law could also be the same reason to create a law in the future - such as, no driving and consuming food/beverages and if that were passed, how many of us would be up in arms? Whether or not that is a ridiculous law or one that has some merit is not my argument. My point only was that where is the line that Big Brother/our government stops stepping in and I could be wrong but I'm not clear where that is.

If you think that's silly logic, that's ok because everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and I respect that. I'm just looking at the big picture and was only attempting to offer up a friendly overall view.

Originally Posted by tinytrump

Problem with texting - it is ONLY one part of the problem of bad drivers- besides impairment (drugs & alcohol) talking on the phone, arguing with the kids or spouce, quieting the crying baby who is miles from your arm- applying make up- lighting up a cigarrette, and the darn dog on the lap jumping on your face as you drive, people who are now too old to see or hear properly... there are all kinds of bad driving,,, keep the NO TEXT law YES, introduce it and see if people will obey,,, including all our crazy visitors from other states and countries, then start imposing. I am not at all lenient - as I lost my 2nd son to a bad driver, but I am reasonable and people must be Re-TAUGHT to to new changes,

This cannot be more true, definitely all kinds of bad driving.

But I am so very sorry about your son. Truly I am.

[Sunshinecc]

Originally Posted by overit2

"OTOH, it is funny to see people making silly logic, "if they do this now, they will do that tomorrow."

This is not silly logic, it's because people have been around enough to see these laws expands more and more and now encroach on what should be normal human rights and decisions.

Just take the smoking ban for one...it started with telling owners/individual citizens that had their own business, what COULD and could NOT be allowed on their OWN personal property.

This then extended like wildfire-now you bans that punish people for smoking in their own cars and homes. Even as a non-smoker I realize this is idiotic.
Now you have laws being introduced to ban salt, big macs, and such things..ALL in the name of public safety. We can't be so naive to buy this truly?

Very good points.

It's reflective of a breakdown of society not being responsible for their own person - be it health, safety, and plain old being a good, decent citizen. And if some people aren't going to be responsible for themselves, they certainly aren't going to be responsible for the welfare of others (hence the bad driving we see on the roads).

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by overit2

"So when we enact laws we try to use science and common sense, not what we think a group of people would have wanted or not wanted 240 years ago."

OMG, I think this is the most ignorant and hilarious sentence I have read in the last almost 40 yrs of my life!! You really can't believe this can you??

NEW laws are ENTIRELY because of special interest groups, lobbyists, congress wants to push their individual agenda. It has NOTHING to do with what "WE THE PEOPLE" want, asked for or even need.

The answer is NEVER in creating more laws, and creating more 'criminals' that break these laws.
Already the slipperly slope started years ago w/the seatbelt law. A applaud any state that fights enacting more regulation and laws.

Let's test your logic, so with technology it is now possible for people to steal your identity, in your world we shouldn't make that illegal, that would create more criminals?. I don't dismiss that there are special interest groups and lobbying is legal in the US, but to say all laws are created by those entities is too cynical, seatbelts laws exist because when people don't wear them, they get hurt, when they get hurt either insurance has to pay the bills which makes the rates go up for all of us, or we pick up the bill if that person is not insured. Its called the greater good, smoking bans make sense if you are a restaurant worker exposed to smoke, since we figured out that there is such thing as second hand smoking. Same for banning smoking when an infant is in the car, clearly you can see when a law makes sense or when it doesn't, you dont have to say all laws are bad because they are.
What is it that you dont "buy" that salt is bad for you?, that trans-fat is very harmful?, that we have diabetes epidemic?, thats all those factors contribute to our current health care crisis?, which we all pay for. Do you really think all those things are made up.

[Pragmaticus]

Originally Posted by Sunshinecc

I think you misunderstood what I was saying - I am in 100% agreement with you that when your action endangers the safety of me or others, that's a line to be dealt with.

I agree with you too, 100%. Case closed . Or is it?

But I was also trying to support part of what TXRyan was saying (or at least I think he was) in that the reason (driving to endanger) behind this new law could also be the same reason to create a law in the future - such as, no driving and consuming food/beverages and if that were passed, how many of us would be up in arms? Whether or not that is a ridiculous law or one that has some merit is not my argument. My point only was that where is the line that Big Brother/our government stops stepping in and I could be wrong but I'm not clear where that is.

Now, you are trying to have it both ways. You agree 100% about texting being dangerous for others and it should be avoided but you don't want a law in place because you think that this law, which you agree now 100%, can also be used for sometime in the future for some other unreasonable/non-science backed action such as smoking in your home? Like the other guy trying to make a point.

How is that logic making sense now?

If eating in the car endangers others, then it should be banned too. Remember, you agree 100% that if someone's action endngers the public, it should be dealt with.

[Sunshinecc]

Originally Posted by MeInDenudinFL

I agree with you too, 100%. Case closed . Or is it?



Now, you are trying to have it both ways. You agree 100% about texting being dangerous for others and it should be avoided but you don't want a law in place because you think that this law, which you agree now 100%, can also be used for sometime in the future for some other unreasonable/non-science backed action such as smoking in your home? Like the other guy trying to make a point.

How is that logic making sense now?

If eating in the car endangers others, then it should be banned too. Remember, you agree 100% that if someone's action endngers the public, it should be dealt with.

You know what?

....................good point, dammit, lol