Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Because stupid gonna be stupid.
ping
Yeah we have had this law in California for quite some time and I have yet to see any reduction in people using cellphones while driving, or driving stupid.
The only purpose of laws is so that the authorities can find something to selectively enforce against you when you piss them off.
I don’t think cell calls while driving is as bad as made out. No doubt somewhat distracting however. Texting, on the other hand, has got to be downright dangerous. While texting, people walk off cliffs, into traffic, run into others, etc. This is well documented.
Hang up and drive.
They’re not enforced.
the researchers are showing the evidence that, anecdotally, made my arguments on the subject over a decade ago
- a cop can always stop and ticket ANYONE for driving in a negligent or reckless manner and that negligent/reckless manner, no matter the cause, is the only legal cause the cop needs, and so the only necessary law is/was already on the books
so how often is someone stopped for driving while eating or drinking, loading/unloading their CD, adjusting their radio or GPS, putting on their makeup, putting on or taking off a shirt, or sweater, or jacket or a zillion other things that can lead to major driving errors - not very often
but just let someone be seen using their cellphone, no matter how responsibly, and THAT’s a legal issue
it’s not about insane driving practices, there are dozens of them; its about insane utopian laws that pretend to do what they cannot - stop stupid from being stupid
They are not "impaired", they are inattentive. While at times could be just as dangerous, nonetheless is NOT the same thing. The terms are not interchangeable. The man should be sufficiently educated to be more precise in his use of language.
This all goes back to the early days of cell phones and the liberal response to them.
They were expensive and used mostly by businessmen and the 1 percenters.
Therefore, cell phones were a symbol of capitalism. So they must be banned.
Doing so today when they are the pacifiers of the masses makes no sense. But then, so does little of liberalism.
Does she mean, ‘Law Banning Cell Phone Use is Ignored”?
Because its largely ignored.
And no one with a clue ever expected it to.
It did however produce a new revenue stream thanks to creating yet another way to extort money from people who are minding their own business.
And thus,the looters consider it a success.
And the argument will be that, if the law hasn’t had a positive effect, the law should be abolished - like how the immigration/border laws aren’t effective.....
Laws banning drug abuse don’t reduce the amount of drug abuse, either.
People pay as much attention to these laws as King Obama does to the US Constitution.
When we see a car wandering from lane to lane, running into the curb or sitting still at a green light we know there is a cell phone using scofflaw at the wheel.
I get just as occupied dipping my french fries in the ketchup container while driving. And losing that pickle in my lap while munching a hamburger.
No one is going to pry that hamburger from my cold dead hands when I’m hungry.
Very simple way to stop people from texting and driving - simply charge a tax for each text message from a moving vehicle - maybe 25 cents.
Sure passengers may not like it too much, but they’ll always have the option to call if THAT IMPORTANT.
Of course not. This law was never about safety in much the same way that gun control isn’t about guns. It’s all about control and providing new sources of revenue.