Posted on 06/14/2012 10:18:00 AM PDT by pawpawrick
busted for talking on cell phone while driving video at link
“Do not advocate for Big Brother to force your views on your fellow man.”
Never have, and don’t intend to start now,
BUT, I do think drivers should recognize how talking on cells or txting can distract from the task at hand, jeopardizing not only themselves (like, who cares?) but others with whom they are sharing the road. Think of it as personal responsibility.
If somebody causes an accident hammer them. This business of creating law enforcement opportunities when no damage has occurred must stop.
We will never live in a perfect world. It is a cesspool with lots of laws and a cesspool without lots of laws. All things being equal I choose a small weak government and liberty. Yes, that means accepting risk rather than transferring risk. Big, powerful government is scary stuff. If you build an infrastructure of cops, courts, prisons and judges that can keep 300,000,000 people off the phone you have built a powerful entity indeed. What else can all that power be used for?
I AM NOT ADVERSE TO CHALLENGES AND RISK TAKING.
But taking and endangering others is adverse to my way of thinking. I will take risks on my own but NOT when it endangers others.
That is what makes the difference between a True Adventurer and a self centered, self serving, inconsiderate slob.
Is that to the point that you NOW understand my concern?
I said NOTHING about outlawing anything. You did!
I can’t nor can anyone on this planet reduce risk to zero but we can take responsibility to help insure that we are not (or at least minimally) responsible for the death or injury of others by being actively aware of hazards instead of just willy nilly going about life with no consideration of others.
People who do not consider the safety of others and only think and act on their own pleasures, should be controlled, regulated or even placed in a padded room.
If one in unconcerned about anyone but themselves they are a danger to the general public and should be controlled until they grow up and adequately become responsible to humanity and other forms of life.
I pity those that feel no consideration to people (and other form of life or property) other then for their own selfish, self centered desires.
I said NOTHING about outlawing anything.
I can’t, nor can anyone on this planet reduce risk to zero but we can take responsibility to help insure that we are not (or at least minimally) responsible for the death or injury of others by being actively aware of hazards instead of just willy nilly going about life with no consideration of others.
People who do not consider the safety of others and only think and act on their own pleasures, should be controlled, regulated or even placed in a padded room.
If one in unconcerned about anyone but themselves they are a danger to the general public and should be controlled until they grow up and adequately become responsible to humanity and other forms of life.
I pity those that feel no consideration to people (and other form of life or property) other then for their own selfish, self centered desires.
I AM NOT ADVERSE TO CHALLENGES AND RISK TAKING.
But taking and endangering others is adverse to my way of thinking. I will take risks on my own but NOT when it endangers others.
That is what makes the difference between a True Adventurer and a self centered, self serving, inconsiderate slob.
Is that to the point that you NOW understand my concern?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies
I said NOTHING about outlawing anything.
I can’t, nor can anyone on this planet reduce risk to zero but we can take responsibility to help insure that we are not (or at least minimally) responsible for the death or injury of others by being actively aware of hazards instead of just willy nilly going about life with no consideration of others.
People who do not consider the safety of others and only think and act on their own pleasures, should be controlled, regulated or even placed in a padded room.
If one in unconcerned about anyone but themselves they are a danger to the general public and should be controlled until they grow up and adequately become responsible to humanity and other forms of life.
I pity those that feel no consideration to people (and other form of life or property) other then for their own selfish, self centered desires.
I AM NOT ADVERSE TO CHALLENGES AND RISK TAKING.
But taking and endangering others is adverse to my way of thinking. I will take risks on my own but NOT when it endangers others.
That is what makes the difference between a True Adventurer and a self centered, self serving, inconsiderate slob.
Is that to the point that you NOW understand my concern?
LIBERTY is about taking responsibility as well as taking risks. If one just takes risks which could harm others then their Liberty should be restricted. That is why we have speed limits on public highways. That is why we do not allow someone to target practice in public places. That is why we regulate many things because the unfettered application of some freedoms can be harmful and dangerous under certain conditions. That is why laws were written - to protect the innocent from the possible inconsiderate and dangerous action of others.
I did not comment on the wisdom of driving distracted. My question was and remains that if a majority of the folks are going to violate the law, which means they disagree with it, then it should not be a law.
It is apparent that most people are able to drive while talking, texting is another story completely.
You sure seem to be supporting cell phone laws. If not, good for you.
Tests have shown that cell phone users have terrible reactions and judgment. Many accidents have been caused by their use by drivers. Pull over! It matters not who you are!
I get the feeling you really like your tax dollars used to sneer at citizens in the “click it or ticket” campaign. I find the commercials disgusting, arrogant peacock displays from gubment cheese swilling officialdom.
.08 BAC? We are not children here. State and Federal legislative bodies are packed full of trial lawyers. Trial lawyers who still have ties to, or even still own law firms.
Well trial lawyers need clients. So .08 BAC is brilliant. Gives a steady supply of customers. You need more judges also. Where do judges come from? Trial lawyers. More money is required to hire more judges and build more marbled courtrooms. What’s the answer? .08 BAC.
It sure is cool the sheeple always buy the safety shtick.
So do you support cell phone laws?
So do you support cell phone laws?
PRECISELY my point.
I know (I realized very early in life) that I was not only endangering myself when adjusting the radio/CD player/rolling down the passenger side window, etc., etc..
I saw no reason to potentially harm myself, my car as well as others, while others think of nothing but their own self centered ideas?
My question is - why do "some" people consider not only their own safety but that of others and why do others travel through life "willy nilly"??
In my case it was potential of pain or even damaging my car and having to pay huge sums to repair it should "I" do something stupid. I would also feel more than just a little guilty should I hurt some innocent passerby or their property which I would feel obligated to repair or replace.
Why do some (like myself) consider the feelings and safety of others, while others care not one iota of concern for harming others or their possessions (cars, fences ----- ).
Yes we need to make those who's base nature does not care about anyone (not even their own safty) and are careless, and are not responsible for such circumstances they may cause? Laws are not necessarily devised for their sake, but rather for the sake of humanity in general.
I would rather be free from stupid, lazy, self centered people than concern myself about a law which already is of my basic nature and concerns, whereas a "Law" basically should affect the thoughts and consideration of the irresponsible types.
Then again I'm quite sure those types rarely if ever concern themselves of others, hence the law will make them legally responsible in case of an accident - "after the fact".
I fully support laws which make people who feel no responsibility for others and their activities that in turn harm those people.
If one can't see past their nose and are not concerned for their own safety, then they should be made responsible for their actions when it affects the safety of others.
So by passing these sorts of laws you cannot see that you are building big gubment?
You are making some unfounded suppositions as well as pointing out the unfairness that some have when it comes to having laws enforced against them simply because they are famous or politically powerful.
Kennedy should have been charged but politics is corrupted as we already know.
Secondly - I saw nothing that said that Chris Wallace (also of the arrogant privileged class) was "ever" handcuffed for his actions.
Correct me if I am wrong on the latter matter of Chris Wallace. I heard no such report.
Let’s not forget sobriety checkpoints! I have yet to experience one of those but God help the cops on duty if I ever do.
Excessive tint on windows? That’s another good one.
A few months ago I was pulled over for not signalling when I crossed an intersection, 3 houses from my home. At that intersection, you can go right, left, or straight. I went straight. At that intersection, if you go straight, you’ll run right into a house across the street, so you have to turn left a little, then right a little, but it’s still the same street. The street just doesn’t allign like most do. I told the cop I didn’t signal because it would give the impression to drivers that I was turning left onto the other street, which I wasn’t, I was going “straight” and staying on the same street. After 30 minutes of griping at him, and his supervisor (who was summoned), I was released, ticketless. The supervisor just kept rolling his eyes at me, wanting me to shut up so he could tell junior that he was wrong.
It’s crap like that that infuriates me. It’s not like cops signal everytime they turn anyway.
Uh...sorry, I had to vent... :)
Rear view mirrors were a matter of good logic and had nothing to do with Federal Mandates.
In regards to seat belts you might be surprised to know that many people that owned early model cars tied themselves to their seats for fear of falling out when bouncing around on improvised roads - a logical device that the human innovation stumbled upon to protect themselves while driving. Children groceries and even adults were either held or strapped to various improvised points which was the precursor to seat belts.
As cars improved those belts (usually ropes) were discontinued. I recall my own parents using ropes to keep grocery bags from tipping over.
What bothers me is the government that has lowered standards on construction and turned vehicles that only slightly dent when in an accident with vehicles that crumple extensively and often kill the occupants in the process.
Seat belts are "rarely" enforced unless the driver is driving erratically.
The same holds true for people who are talking on the phone and not paying proper attention to traffic or weaving because they are not maintaining proper control (something that happens when a person not truly paying attention to those nearby and their location on the road.
I have a cell phone and I know for a fact that I can not drive properly control my car and talk. Therefor I respond that I will pull over and call them right back instead of taking a risk that I might kill myself, or even lose control and damage my car.
Guess it is a matter of confidence or "over" confidence that makes the determination as to how you consider your abilities to prevent potential danger to yourself and those around you.
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.