Do I detect a little ageism here? :)
I'm 73 and haven't had a moving violation since 83 and I drive and ride hard.
I'm in favor of patrolling and stopping people who are TRULY driving poorly and potentially endangering lives. I'm in favor of a mandatory drivers test at age 65, and then an annual test when one reaches age 70. I'm in favor of restrictions on teens driving (only during certain hours, and with a limited number of passengers). I'm NOT in favor of traps set up to raise revenues of local government. And before you ask, I am a 44 year old female. I drink, and when I do I do not drive. The only traffic fine I've ever had is for exceeding the speed limit. I have a good friend who was once Prez of the local MADD chapter, and she agrees that drunk driving laws are out of hand.
Well there, irma, now that you've voted to make me do the hoops in order to drive, I am going to take away your cell phone, your hair brush, nail polish and compack mirror in lieu of fining you a bundle.
So, does she speak against them?
It would make natinal news, I am sure.
I support the death penalty for drivers who cruise 45 in the left hand lane with a cell phone stuck to their ear.
Do I detect a little ageism here? :)
I'm 73 and haven't had a moving violation since 83 and I drive and ride hard.
Yes. Largely due to MADD's irrational need to raise money by demanding more strict laws. I remember an instance here where a man who tested in the .24 range killed some people with his car. MADD used that as an example of why we needed to reduce the limit to .08. Did your friend speak out against that or did she continue the campaign to raise money?
As long as the arrests pile up from people with the low levels the statistics look good and everyone is happy. Too bad that there isn't more effort to take the really dangerous drivers off the street until it's too late.
When I was working as an ivestigative intern in Whatcom Co. Wa. I was talking to a State Patrolman about their (at the time) new .08 law. He was telling me that the state legistlature wanted to acutally lower it to .02 but the State Patrolmans Assoc. argued against it because it would mean people who were not impaired would have to be given tickets and it would just be a nightmare for them and insurance companies.