On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:33:57 -0700, rw
wrote:

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.

OK. A law that makes it a capital offense for anyone named "Steve" (or
any variation thereof) to operate or ride in a motorized vehicle of any
kind is both unambiguous and enforceable (and almost certainly
Constitutional in the US), as would be a law prohibiting _any_ civilian
to do so. In fact, I'd offer that it would be more difficult to draft
an _un_Constitutional law strictly relating to the operating of a
motorized vehicle than to draft one that would be Constitutional. Where
laws relating to motor vehicles get iffy is in the difference between
malum in se (a legally-responsible person purposefully, intentionally,
with forethought running someone over with the intent to cause bodily
injury to them) versus laws intended to safeguard the public welfare
(you can't drive while "impaired," even though not all "impaired"
drivers cause a "problem" to the "public welfare") versus those purely
or mainly malum prohibitum (not being allowed to carry a handgun in the
glovebox unless "traveling").

HTH,
R