Seat Belt, cell phone laws !!!

[Pami]

So does drinking and driving fall into this as well ?

Actually, yes, to a point. If you screw up your life, that's on you. Screw up someone else's life (from property damage to loss of life), the punishments should be much stricter.

Imho.

 

[turkeykiller]

Actually, yes, to a point. If you screw up your life, that's on you. Screw up someone else's life (from property damage to loss of life), the punishments should be much stricter.

Imho.

AMEN SISTER

 

[melensdad]

Actually, yes, to a point. If you screw up your life, that's on you. Screw up someone else's life (from property damage to loss of life), the punishments should be much stricter.

Imho.

But isn't that is the same reason to support 'cell phone' driving restrictions that would require something like a bluetooth handsfree kit to be used when talking on a cell phone while driving?

If people talking on their cell phone have roughly similar accident rates to drunk drivers then is that not ALL OF OUR problem? We are the ones at risk when someone driving next to us is on their cell phone. How is that different than having a drunk driver next to you if both have similar accident rates?

Seat belt laws are a whole different matter. Wearing or not wearing a seat belt will not cause an accident. I'd suggest that a discussion of seat belt laws should be separate from a discussion about cell phone laws. Seat belt laws make no sense because they fall into the victimless crime area. But chatting on a cell phone while driving does cause accidents so why not restrict them because of the dangers posed to 3rd parties?

Cell Phone Use While Driving Ups Crash Risk

Using Cell Phones as Dangerous as Drunk Driving

Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks : University of Utah News Release : June 29th, 2006

Driving + Cell Phones = Big Road Risk

Cell Phone Use as Dangerous as Drunken Driving

New study says headsets don't make cellphone-driving safer - Engadget

Five College Risk Management : No Cell Phones While Driving

 

[KDUBCR250]

I love a good debate Bottom line to me is if you are indangering your life the heck have a good one but the second you indanger someone elses then thats a different story !

 

[Bill of Rights]

The suggestion was made above: Have an accident where it's determined you were on a cell phone, had been drinking, had turned around to scold the kid in the back seat-in short, anything that did not require your immediate attention to the preservation of human life (i.e. kid choking in the back seat), your insurance premiums go up. Way up. Or you face jail time. Or both.

You get into "ban this" or "regulate that", you're headed (fast) toward nanny-state-ism. In short. preventative law enforcement only punishes the innocent. Those inclined to commit the crimes have no intention of getting caught, so they don't care.

Blessings,
B

 

[JetGirl]

You get into "ban this" or "regulate that", you're headed (fast) toward nanny-state-ism. In short. preventative law enforcement only punishes the innocent. Those inclined to commit the crimes have no intention of getting caught, so they don't care.

Blessings,
B

<NerfSpeak> But...but... it's for the children!!</NerfSpeak>

 

[rhino]

For what it's worth, seatbelts offer the most protective benefits during lower speed collisions. In addition, you're far more likely to be in a collision at low speed because they occur most often in congested traffic areas where the speed limit is typically 40 mph an dunder.

 

[Prometheus]

So does drinking and driving fall into this as well ?

It's akin to speeding IMO. Actual reckless endangerment vs some silly static number set by a bunch of idiot politicians?

Getting behind the wheel drunk and hitting a bus load of people killing some/all? Life imprisonment IMO. Getting behind the wheel and getting stopped for a seat belt violation and blowing .08 on a BAC test (and thats it)? no one actually endangered or damaged? No crime(s) committed IMO.

We've gone from the great idea of getting people to NOT drive drunk to a money generating revenue service to line the tax coffers at any and all costs.

Watch, the new BAC limit will be .06 within 5 years. These new "buzz driving is drunk driving" commercials are prepping the sheeple.

As to the Tactis quotes, Rome went thru a very similar pattern that the US is going thru in almost every aspect. Be it from laws, taxes, empire building / army commitments... the "bread and circuses" parallels... it's unreal.
His quotes are just as applicable today as they were then.

Many centuries later Ayn Rand sums it up again:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

And that is what we have today. You (or I) cannot go through the day without breaking numerous laws. As several of my LEO friends say, "we don't need to make up phony reasons to pull someone over. I can follow anyone for 5 miles and they WILL break at least one traffic law, in most cases I only need to follow for a few hundred yards if they aren't on an interstate and if I do follow them for 5 miles I can have half a dozen things to write them for... easy."

 

[Paul]

It's akin to speeding IMO. Actual reckless endangerment vs some silly static number set by a bunch of idiot politicians?

Getting behind the wheel drunk and hitting a bus load of people killing some/all? Life imprisonment IMO. Getting behind the wheel and getting stopped for a seat belt violation and blowing .08 on a BAC test (and thats it)? no one actually endangered or damaged? No crime(s) committed IMO.

We've gone from the great idea of getting people to NOT drive drunk to a money generating revenue service to line the tax coffers at any and all costs.

Watch, the new BAC limit will be .06 within 5 years. These new "buzz driving is drunk driving" commercials are prepping the sheeple.

As to the Tactis quotes, Rome went thru a very similar pattern that the US is going thru in almost every aspect. Be it from laws, taxes, empire building / army commitments... the "bread and circuses" parallels... it's unreal.
His quotes are just as applicable today as they were then.

Many centuries later Ayn Rand sums it up again:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

And that is what we have today. You (or I) cannot go through the day without breaking numerous laws. As several of my LEO friends say, "we don't need to make up phony reasons to pull someone over. I can follow anyone for 5 miles and they WILL break at least one traffic law, in most cases I only need to follow for a few hundred yards if they aren't on an interstate and if I do follow them for 5 miles I can have half a dozen things to write them for... easy."

Whats even worst is you can be arrested for DUI blowing under .08

 

[Paul]

I dont want a cell phone laws. I can drive a car while talking on the cell phone. You just have to pay attention to the road more than to the person you are talking too.

 

[Windwalker]

Paul, while you may be able to do this most people either can't or won't. I encounter too many drivers on the freeway talking on cell phones and weaving across their lane markers or slowing down as they talk creating a traffic hazard behind them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

<NerfSpeak> But...but... it's for the children!!</NerfSpeak>

Trouble is, in the minds of the Lefty Libs, ALL of us are children, in need of a nanny to wipe our little bottoms and spoon-feed us whatever pablum they think is appropriate for us. No thanks. I'm capable of taking a crap when I need to, but that doesn't include taking their crap. If this sounds angry, GOOD! I think we should all be a little angry- or maybe a lot angry. I think we should be angry at our politicians, but we should be more angry at ourselves for letting our country get to the state it's in. Anger is not a bad thing when we use it to galvanize ourselves to actions we'd rather not take.

I've not heard the term "NerfSpeak" before, but I think I like it.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." --John F. Kennedy

Paul, while you may be able to do this most people either can't or won't. I encounter too many drivers on the freeway talking on cell phones and weaving across their lane markers or slowing down as they talk creating a traffic hazard behind them.

With respect, ...most people either can't or won't stand up and defend themselves if needed with a gun. Lars just posted a story about a grandmother in WalMart apprehending a criminal who had already cut two employees with a knife, and the other shoppers were more scared of her than the criminal.

If some have not the ability to talk on the phone and pay more attention to driving, those people have the responsibility to choose one or the other. If they do not and in failing to do so, they cause injury to others, punish the guilty, not the innocent.

I'm capable of driving while on my cell phone-in fact, if I'm very tired and have a long way yet to drive, that's what I use to keep myself awake on the road to avoid jeopardizing the lives and safety of myself and others. Would you take away my ability to legally use my phone if it meant that I'd fall asleep at the wheel and kill myself and your family (but not you) in the resultant accident? It's easy to blame things. Antis do it all the time. In our community of firearm owners, we know better than to do this, but it's still an easy trap to fall into. The key is awareness of what we're doing when we do it.

Blessings,
B

 

[GetA2J]

Getting behind the wheel drunk and hitting a bus load of people killing some/all? Life imprisonment IMO. Getting behind the wheel and getting stopped for a seat belt violation and blowing .08 on a BAC test (and thats it)? no one actually endangered or damaged? No crime(s) committed IMO.

This statement scares the hell outa me!!!:wtf:

 

[SavageEagle]

Trouble I'm capable of driving while on my cell phone-in fact, if I'm very tired and have a long way yet to drive, that's what I use to keep myself awake on the road to avoid jeopardizing the lives and safety of myself and others. Would you take away my ability to legally use my phone if it meant that I'd fall asleep at the wheel and kill myself and your family (but not you) in the resultant accident? It's easy to blame things. Antis do it all the time. In our community of firearm owners, we know better than to do this, but it's still an easy trap to fall into. The key is awareness of what we're doing when we do it.

You make a very great point, but there are other ways truckers and drivers in general can do to wake up. Pull over and walk around outside. Blair the radio. Roll down the window and stick your head out a 60mph(<-- always worked for me.. just remember to remove hat). Or pull over at the nearest rest stop or truck stop and take a nap. Truckers even used their CB's for the same purpose. But to that effect, if you ban talking on cell phones, you ban talking on CB's too. Won't happen. Can't happen. You make alot of great points, I'm just saying before cell phones, truckers used other means to wake up....

 

[Lars]

[sarcasm]What happened to using cocain?[/sarcasm]

More seriously though. I'm not a fan of these types of laws. At the same time, I'd rather not be killed by someone who wasn't qualified to chew gum and walk at the same time.

It's a tough one, because motor vehicle accidents rarely kill the idiot, and do frequently kill someone who's got a half dozen or more braincells.

 

[SavageEagle]

I think truckers used crank and speed... I think alot still do... SCARY THOUGHTS.....

 

[Instant=.40cal=Karma]

Thread necro alert...

Bring a ban on cell phone use while driving. There are already more than enough distractions out there to make day to day driving an extremely dangerous activity. WTF is so important that you need to discuss while driving a 2000+ lb. vehicle that may require a split second decision? IMO, if you absolutely can't resist the urge to yap, bluetooth headsets and speakerphone are far safer options. I can't say that I've NEVER done it. But I have been conditioned to either ignore it until I can safely pull over or just make a call back when I get to my destination.

I don't wear my seatbelt as often as I should, but I believe it's a person's choice. I liked it years ago when you weren't "required" to wear one while operating a truck/SUV. It obviously has to do with the state receiving highway and road money. I won't be surprised if they change the Indiana helmet laws, if they haven't already...

 

[kludge]

I'm fine with seat belt laws. Lower insurance rates for everyone.

Rationale: Uninsured and underinsured motorists cause 67% of all accidents (data source: people who have hit me and my wife). If the rat bastard causes an accident I want him in a seatbelt, cuz he'll probably try to sue me too. Such drivers are generally forced to buy high risk insurance by law and they buy state minimum, which means there won't be enough to pay the medical bills.

 

[Archbishop]

I don't agree with seat belt laws or laws against cell phones. ( I do support laws against teens and cells though.)
What about enforcing laws on the books. Most areas have laws against reckless driving and it's not just for speeding either. If you see a person driving safely down the road talking on the phone leave them alone. (It might be me.) When they start acting in away that endangers me on the road pull them over for reckless driving. (Note this has nothing to do with whether or not they have a cell phone in use.) I think we have enough laws without the goverment further intruding.

How about we make it illegal to visit Fast food joints more than three times a week? I mean why not your making other laws that have no victims and are only good for the person who can't or won't think for themselves.
or you could believe in your fellow mans ability to make wise choices for themselves.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I'm fine with seat belt laws. Lower insurance rates for everyone.

Rationale: Uninsured and underinsured motorists cause 67% of all accidents (data source: people who have hit me and my wife). If the rat bastard causes an accident I want him in a seatbelt, cuz he'll probably try to sue me too. Such drivers are generally forced to buy high risk insurance by law and they buy state minimum, which means there won't be enough to pay the medical bills.

Why not have them without a seatbelt on and possibly never be able to sue?