DOT to ban phones in cars

[karamazov80]

And they have no right to. You cannot prosecute a perceived threat before it has actually happened. Where on earth is that just? Because I could cause an accident, I am not permitted to act freely--by my own judgement? Not because I will cause an accident, or ever have caused an accident: just because I might?

So do you feel it is OK to brandish an assault rifle in the grocery store if you want to? Or to drink and drive? If not, then where you do you make the distinction? Any of those acts are potential threats to injury, and many of that sort are illegal because people can't always be expected to use good judgment or to behave reasonably in these situations. I wish it was otherwise.

Keep drinking the government kool-aid and watch freedom after freedom continue to slip away. Watch more and more of your personal choices become the goverments. This issue isn't just about cell phones in cares, but if they can keep people thinking every issue is JUST about that issue they they have already won.

Teemu??

 

[ProgMatinee]

And they have no right to. You cannot prosecute a perceived threat before it has actually happened. Where on earth is that just? Because I could cause an accident, I am not permitted to act freely--by my own judgement? Not because I will cause an accident, or ever have caused an accident: just because I might?

People need to take responsibility for their judgement back before they forget how to judge. Judging by the receptivity to regulations like every one you named, I have to wonder if they haven't already.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying necessarily, but the scale of the damage that individuals or companies can do gets larger and larger all the time. So the scale of the regulations do too.

200 years ago, what was the worst damage a company or person can do? 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 5 years ago? Its an exponential accelleration of dangerous tools and the responsibility and attention to duty people are accepting is not moving at a corresponding rate. Its all well and good to say people should not be punished until after a crime, but its another thing to say people should be allowed to roam free driving real life death machines while simultaneously their attention is deferred to Gran Turismo on their cellphone or ipod touch.

I'm sure you'd feel warm and fuzzy knowing someone would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law AFTER the fact if you got run over by a distracted driver in a SUV while crossing the street. Just as long as he had the freedom to use his cell phone, that makes it all worth it.

 

[karamazov80]

I'm sure you'd feel warm and fuzzy knowing someone would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law AFTER the fact if you got run over by a distracted driver in a SUV while crossing the street. Just as long as he had the freedom to use his cell phone, that makes it all worth it.

Yeah, personally, I like laws that are a bit pro-active when it comes to my safety.

Laws are supposed to deter negative behavior, not simply to punish for punishment's sake.

 

[ProgMatinee]

The key to intellegent reasoning is that these things need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Not everything should be regulated or government controlled.

AND

Not everything should be left free to the people to do while society pretends that nobody will get hurt.

 

[DinoLast]

And they have no right to. You cannot prosecute a perceived threat before it has actually happened. Where on earth is that just? Because I could cause an accident, I am not permitted to act freely--by my own judgement? Not because I will cause an accident, or ever have caused an accident: just because I might?

People need to take responsibility for their judgement back before they forget how to judge. Judging by the receptivity to regulations like every one you named, I have to wonder if they haven't already.

I was in a serious accident, because some guy thought he was the best judge in how much he could drink while driving. people who are the innocent party in a car accident because some idiot thinks they can go 60 in a 30, or driving while texting, have no say in that moron's decision. Something needs to be done to protect them

 

[karamazov80]

Of course, that is true. I think people get so sucked into worst case theorizing and ideology sometimes that they don't realize the world exists in shades of gray.

Absolute authoritarian dictatorship = bad
State of nature = bad

Something reasonable in-between = good

Public debate and elections are needed to tease out what is vs. isn't reasonable. But again, I would argue that we do not have God-given rights to text while driving

 

[ProgMatinee]

Yeah, personally, I like laws that are a bit pro-active when it comes to my safety.

Laws are supposed to deter negative behavior, not simply to punish for punishment's sake.

Yeah, if I got killed crossing the street, punishing the individual that did it would be pretty irrelevant to me. I'd rather not get killed in the first place.

 

[KitFisto]

I was in a serious accident, because some guy thought he was the best judge in how much he could drink while driving. people who are the innocent party in a car accident because some idiot thinks they can go 60 in a 30, or driving while texting, have no say in that moron's decision. Something needs to be done to protect them

There are drunk driving laws in place, but people violate them. It does NOT mean that every car on the road should be equiped with the breathalizer before you can start it and drive anymore than every cell phone should be forced to be deactivated by the car.

 

[devilof76]

So do you feel it is OK to brandish an assault rifle in the grocery store if you want to?

I don't. There's a difference between a potential threat and the real act of threatening.

Or to drink and drive?

Is the driver a real threat, or is he guilty of being a threat by virtue of the possibility of a threat? I see no reason for a person who has been drinking to not drive if they are no threat to anyone beyond themself. In a liklihood, if they aren't a threat to others, their self is probably safe too.

If not, then where you do you make the distinction?

At the place where the real distinction exists: at the fact of whether an action constitutes a real threat, or not.

Any of those acts are potential threats to injury, and many of that sort are illegal because people can't always be expected to use good judgment in these situations.

You can't hold the people who are capable of using good judgment guilty for the people who can't. The idea that people are unfit to judge for themselves is the foundation of the idea that people should not be free.

The fact that there are those who are fit to judge contradicts that conclusion.

I wish it were otherwise.

Were it not, you could bet that cell phone related accident statistics would be radically higher than they are now.

 

[KitFisto]

Teemu??

Why is it so easy for some ( don't know if you do or not ) people to beileve in things aliens and ghosts, but they can't believe that the government is WAY more involved in things then you think and that there could be a group or groups of string pullers behind the scenes directing the "elected" puppets?

 

[devilof76]

I was in a serious accident, because some guy thought he was the best judge in how much he could drink while driving. people who are the innocent party in a car accident because some idiot thinks they can go 60 in a 30, or driving while texting, have no say in that moron's decision. Something needs to be done to protect them

How many people do you think would get in a car drunk if they knew they'd be charged with first degree murder, capitally punishable, if they killed someone driving under the influence?

I would argue that we do not have God-given rights to text while driving.

I wouldn't.

 

[Khev]

Who cares about dying horribly on the road? The government needs to allow movie theaters to disable cell phones first. Priorities people, come on.

 

[DinoLast]

It does NOT mean that every car on the road should be equiped with the breathalizer before you can start it .

Save a lot of lives if there were

 

[karamazov80]

So to summarize devil, you think it is OK to drink and drive, and think that the law has to assume good intentions and good judgment? That's your opinion, but most folks (and in general, the law) don't agree with that perspective. For the good of all of us, IMO.

 

[devilof76]

Save a lot of lives if there were

It would save a lot of lives if people were forbidden to drink alcohol as well. Far more than would be saved by preventing drunk driving deaths.

So what are we waiting for?

 

[KitFisto]

Save a lot of lives if there were

I take it you're in favor of big government control? That's a shame.

 

[KitFisto]

It would save a lot of lives if people were forbidden to drink alcohol as well. Far more than would be saved by preventing drunk driving deaths.

So what are we waiting for?

That's a great point.

I mean lets be real about it. Just about everything used improperly can be dangerous. Let's just ban everything.

 

[karamazov80]

You guys are thinking in extremes again. You can drink, but you can't drink and drive. If you do and you are caught, there are stiff penalties. You can text, but you shouldn't text and drive. Laws either aren't enforced or aren't sufficient to deter people. You can't have an open container with alcohol in a car. . .

You have to be reasonable. You can't allow anything just because you fear the government is gonna turn into a fascist state or whatever.

 

[BadMoon]

That's a great point.

I mean lets be real about it. Just about everything used improperly can be dangerous. Let's just ban everything.

I have to agree with your sarcasm. I have watched people apply makeup, read (yes a book), eat, and turn around and talk to their brats in the back seat. Amongst other things that I can't recall. So you might as well pass a law that allows auto makers to strap peoples heads to the seat so they can do nothing but look forward.

Cell phones aren't the problem. Its women drivers that should be banned.

 

[KitFisto]

You guys are thinking in extremes again. You can drink, but you can't drink and drive. If you do and you are caught, there are stiff penalties. You can text, but you shouldn't text and drive. Laws either aren't enforced or aren't sufficient to deter people. You can't have an open container with alcohol in a car. . .

You have to be reasonable. You can't allow anything just because you fear the government is gonna turn into a fascist state or whatever.

The point is where does it stop? When do they quit telling us when we cam and can't do something as minor as talking on a phone? It's a stepping some to bigger things.