Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:


If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.


But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?

Some laws are unambiguous and enforceable, and some aren't. That's where
I draw the line.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.