Posted on 11/16/2011 12:15:28 PM PST by QT3.14
The difference between LaHood and me is that I’m using reductio ad absurdum while LaHood would actually think those laws would be a good idea.
If he turns his car off, he’s still driving. Only now, he’s obstructing a traffic lane and will ge an additional ticket.
Going home yesterday, there was a gal in a protected left turn lane on a cell phone. The green arrow was on. Several drivers behind her were honking to get her attention. She didn't move - until the arrow changed to amber. She was the ONLY one who got through that light. Talk about ticking off other drivers.
Well, yes. You gotta remember that the city needs the money and, according to the expert, traffic light cameras reduce accidents. If others that do not run redlights get cught up in the process, that is just the cost of doing business. They should have stayed home. Personlly, I do everything to avoid red light camears. What people who live where they can’t be avoided is , the moment that the caution comes on lock your brakes and if hit by another vehicle sur the company or their affiliates that installed the camera.
Should you really get a ticket for that?
No!. For example, all only GA exception to the law says is the car is parked legally.
State police/car insurance public service announcements say, for example, on freeways, to pull off to a safe spot to make your call. They have never advise you to turn the car off.
Talking on the cell phone while driving
is DEADLY & DANGEROUS TO OTHERS.
There is no right to drive on public roads - it is a privilege.
The government is well within its duties to create safety standards for public roads and to enforce them.
Conservatives understand that.
Your comments are self-centered and NOT conservative.
What do “stats” show about people who are driving while arguing with someone in the back seat? Oh, they don’t keep those “stats”? And how exactly do they measure the level of distraction caused by someone on the phone when every person is different and there is a whole spectrum of “distraction” from a routine phone call saying you’ll be home in five minutes to an explanation of the pricing of bonds, not to mention the difference between driving in a secluded highway versus driving in a busy intersection? And don’t you think that there are responsible drivers out there who are able to drive while speaking on the phone just as easily as drive and sing along to a song on the radio?
I know that proponents of these laws mean well, but I think that they’re a lazy, inefficient proxy for a lwa that says “people should drive well.” Policemen can’t hand outas many tickets for “bad driving,” so they prefer an objective, albeit inefficient, standard such as “driving while holding a cell phone.” So I can’t support these laws.
Then you didn't have to mention one of the elements of the violation is to have the engine ON.
And why would he be obstructing traffic...he said for fuel savings he turns it OFF for the red light...green he turns the car back on and proceeds with others. Your assuming issues not mentioned.
I don't believe people should be allowed to text while driving, but I also believe cops and the courts should be reasonable. In California the cops and the courts are not reasonable because the state is bankrupt and the corrupt government will use the letter of every law to squeeze every penny out of everyone.
Me too!
“Not that there should be anything WRONG with that...”
You should be shot!
This reminds me of the female TV talk show host interview of a male gun owner. She said possession of a gun "equipped him" to commit murder. His retort was, "you're equipped to be a prostitute. Are you?". Until you actually use an object to commit an illegal act, it is pure conjecture about what you "could" do. Punishing people for acts they have not done amounts to prior restraint.
They run things in the other direction, figure out what the drivers were doing when the accident happened and if it’s anything other than “just driving perfectly legally” it’s a contributing cause (because even if you weren’t at fault if you were doing something extra you probably blew a chance to avoid the accident). Yapping on the cell is right up there with being drunk. Also they tend to bob and weave on the road like they’re drunk, that was one of the first big indications of the problem, cops pulling people over thinking they were drunk only to find the person soberly jabbering.
Of course there people able to drive while yapping on the phone without getting in an accident. There are also people capable of pounding a 6 pack of Sams before driving and not getting in an accident. But the majority can’t pull it off, and laws are written for the majority. And if you’re in either minority you’ll probably get away with it because you won’t be weaving on the road and you’ll be successfully avoiding accidents.
Actually cops DO hand out tickets for driving poorly, they just have it better defined, like speeding, failure to control, etc etc. In this case though the laws are good, this IS behavior that presents a clear danger to people around you. It’s not “driving while holding a cellphone” it’s “driving while engaged in an activity that clearly makes you danger to the world around you and we could tell because the path your car took was indistinguishable from a drunk driver”.
Don't know if it still holds, but ages ago when I lived in Ohio (more than 30 years ago), they called it 'physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired' if you were in the car with the keys in the ignition (and stewed to the mickey...) whether the car was running or not.
Stupid enough to take to court. I believe there are only a few traffic laws that can be enforced on private property: DUI and Hit and Run.
How about the airport cell phone waiting areas? You think it is posted to turn your engine off? Airport police would have a field day writing tickets.
No matter what you say,
a law banning
a dangerous and deadly activity
was duly passed
by the rightful lawmakers.
You should be happy
that the lawmakers
chose not to ban
eating and navigation systems.
I suspect that the laws of California would permit a person to be arrested for eating or using a navigation system in a dangerous manner.
The act of dialing and hitting other buttons on a phone (even a handsfree phone) is dangerous because it requires one to pay attention to something other than driving. The act of concentrating on a phone call is also distracting. It is arguably more dangerous than driving with a 0.08 BAC.
There are no buttons or screen on a can of soda.
When a car is stopped on the roadway the driver must still be on guard and paying full attention to the situation. Using a phone distracts from that.
Your arguments are all rationalizations to make it legal to subject innocent drivers to a deadly risk for your convenience. No thank you.
If you and your friends want to buy a parcel with private roads and do risky things, have at it. Not on the public roadways.
Of course.
If “Punishing people for acts they have not done amounts to prior restraint”, then we should not arrest a skinhead found in the dark carrying a can of gas and a pack of matches outside a black church because he got caught before he could commit the arson.
People are convicted all day for crimes of intent:
Attempted X
Possession of Y with intent to commit Z
Conspiracy to commit Q
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.