Posted on 01/02/2009 1:17:29 PM PST by sionnsar
“The public appears to support a tougher law.”
Uh, actually, the public appears to support talking on a phone while driving.
“What the article does not say is that when the initial seat-belt law was passed we were PROMISED that it would NEVER become a primary offense.”
Anyone who believes such hooey is full of....hooey!
And to think I was SHOCKED in ‘95 when I moved to CT that police could pull over people (primary offense) for not having their precious seat belts on. Then I move back to MD 2 years later and they’ve adopted the whole thing themselves.
Not guilty . . . . unless she’s a minor, in which case, shame on her for developing such poor driving habits.
See my other post to you. Increase penalties.
>>I recall that PROMISE clearly as well.<<
I also recall the voters elected to have the Kingdome built by Southcenter, and we voted AGAINST Safeco field.
Just a few of the reasons I am moving to Kentucky.
Here is the problem: our Democrat-filled Legislature made it a secondary offense. Just like the first seat-belt law. So they cannot pull you over for using a cell phone, but if you are speeding AND using a cell phone...
The gutless Legislature should have made it a primary offense (I predict that is where they were going anyway). Why? Because it is a safety issue. And I like being protected from all of the people who are talking on the phone (without hands-free device) and being oblivious to the fact there are other cars on the road besides themselves.
>>Stupid, trendy laws make a laughing stock of the real, necessary ones.<<
Yep. They lost me on the 55 mph speed limit. I haven’t taken traffic laws seriously since.
I say put out a huge EMP pulse, I had to follow some jerk on his phone today driving 20 miles an hour under the speed limit, I’m so freaking sick of it.
I certainly am against present efforts to make the alcohol limits lower and lower and lower so even more otherwise law abiding citizens can be arrested and contribute thereby to their state's general fund.
The anti-drunk-driving effort did very well. Then it became an industry which like all industries will do whatever it can to survive and make money.
Nearly every "cause" these days becomes an industry. Rule of thumb: When it starts selling coffee mugs, caps and t-shirts, the bloom is off the rose.
>>Is there evidence for such a claim?
Is listening to the radio, or eating as deadly too?<<
Personally, I believe all occupants of motor vehicles should be required to wear motorcycle helmets.
I strongly believe it would drastically reduce highway fatalities.
Actually, with the exception of that last line, I was being sarcastic. But there is a point here. It almost certainly would have the effect I said, but some things are more important than “safety at all costs”.
What about applying mascara? Can’t you multitask?
I think you were right the first time. It seems that both parties are full to the gills of nanny-staters.
You have to wonder whose sill little call is more important than your life.
Pure Bravo Sierra. The truth is, no matter what you are doing, some people are simply more distracted than others. It doesn't matter if it's cell phones, eating, yelling at kids, reading, talking with passengers or otherwise. Some drivers are simply not up to the task.
The real issue is, is the person driving erratically or dangerously? No, then there is no issue. Yes? Then get them for being distracted, that law's been on the books in most places for years.
There are already laws on the books for nearly every human behavior. If I get in an accident talking on my cell phone, I can already be charged with careless or reckless driving in nearly every state in the Union.
Same as if I'm adjusting the radio or sticking my leg out the window.
Making a law SPECIFIC to cell phones just panders to a certain constituency and, more important in the eyes of our legislators, KEEPS THEIR LEGISLATIVE GRAVY TRAIN IN BUSINESS.
They're in the business of lawmaking just the same as Ford is in the business of car making.
Actually the driver (no pun intended) behind this is very simple: Revenue. Politicians have identified an activity that nanny-state supporters will get behind, and they can raise revenue from whith much fuss being made.
See my #56.
How about petting while driving? More distracting, less, about the same?
The at-fault driver will be punished through their insurance company, and will certainly remember the accident. For blatant irresponsibility like DWI, I do favor increased penalties.
Where I have a problem is with people viewing the state as a loving parent. Here in WA, we even have a road sign that says "We love you! Buckle Up!" Cute, sure, but inappropriate. Recently, those signs have become more threatening ("$101 seatbelt fine"; "Seatbelt patrols in effect") - but either way, the state is not our parent and loves no one. It is just an entity that ought to provide only those services that private enterprise cannot provide efficiently.
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.