OT has to happen all the time. I guess

Tim J. wrote:

rw typed:

Tim J. wrote:

Frank Church typed:

"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in
:


Just announced in the UK that using the phone while driving, in
some circumstances could lead to imprisonment - reckoned to be as
dangerous as drunk driving

... it'll make it to this side of the pond eventually, and not a
minute too soon.

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-) The problem is not
the phones or most of the people using them. The problem are the
idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll assume
that the "some circumstances" clause in Gordon's note refers to
someone getting injured or killed by the offender. In that case,
personal injury or negligent homicide should kick in anyway,
regardless if they were distracted by talking on their cell phone,
texting somone (yes, I've seen drivers text while driving), or
wiping their ass (no, I haven't seen this. . . yet.) Any laws
regarding cell phone usage while driving don't take into account the
myriad other distractions that now exist or will exist in the
future. The only mandate that should be put into effect is "while
driving, get yer head out of yer ass and drive!" Just my lil ol'
opinion. OBROFF Law: While driving past rivers, fly fishers must not
turn
their heads and stare at the water.

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.


Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts conversation of
any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping their ass" thing, but we
could just pass a law per day until we've hit all the possibilities.

now you're talking...and make violations punishable by incarceration.
But, i'm not representing the ass-wipers...i'll leave that group to my
friends jim and wayno. They know how to turn ****e into shinola.

jeff

"Tim J." wrote in
:

Frank, you liberal weenie (who loves ya?). ;-)

Bite me Timmy!! Liberal, HA! Them's fightin' words.
Come to think of it, bite me again!

Frank Sr.
Frothing at the mouth in Fremont

Jeff typed:
snip
But, i'm not representing the ass-wipers...i'll leave that group to my
friends jim and wayno. They know how to turn ****e into shinola.

I've heard they can also change it back again. Is there any truth to that?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.


Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts conversation of
any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping their ass" thing, but we
could just pass a law per day until we've hit all the possibilities.

When it comes to laws, I'm a utilitarian. Laws can reasonably solve some
problems, but not others. So I'm against a lip movement law. It's not
practical.

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.

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

"rw" wrote in message
m...

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.

I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or worse
a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for it.

JT

"JT" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
m...

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.

I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or
worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for
it.

Shoot a few doctors and insurance company executives.....selected at random.
This problem will go away rather more quickly than you might suppose.

Wolfgang

JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

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.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or worse
a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for it.

JT




That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

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

On Dec 20, 3:10 pm, rw wrote:
That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

There are lot of good arguments for universal health insurance; but i
don't see that one.


Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

There's a whole bunch of grey area between that black & white.
Somewhere (and I'm not saying where), a line must be drawn between
personal freedom and public cost. It's not a question of if, but
where.

Heck, I wouldn't flinch at paying an extra $5 in taxes to allow some
idiot biker the freedom to smash his unhelmeted head into a curb; but
I'd draw the line if that was going to cost me $1000, and I'd be
screaming for mandatory helmet laws. Unfortunately, somebody has to
place a monetary value on stuff like that, and the politically
palatable answer will be somewhere in between.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

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.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The problem
comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical insurance goes
through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for several months or
worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we end up paying for
it.

JT


That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

I see both sides, however, someone is going to have to pay for universal
health care and it will be the guy/gal working for a living. That troubles
me...

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous things
(dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear seat
belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't do, or
must do, for our own good.

True that, and stupid people will contiue doing stupid things no matter what
the laws says.

JT

"JT" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
m...
JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

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.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The
problem comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical
insurance goes through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for
several months or worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we
end up paying for it.

JT


That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

I see both sides,

Not very clearly, I think. Let's see.

however, someone is going to have to pay for universal health care and it
will be the guy/gal working for a living.

The "guy/gal working for a living" are simply the largest sub-set of the
larger class of consumers. Consumers, you will doubtless be surprised to
learn, pay for EVERYTHING. The precise route the money takes in its endless
circulation may be of interest for any number of reasons, but whether the
feds or the insurance companies get a larger chunk of the bits that go to
health care on its way round and round is irrelevant in and of itself. The
real question is who makes more efficient use of it en route.

That troubles me...

It should.....but not for the reasons you think.

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

True that, and stupid people will contiue doing stupid things no matter
what the laws says.

Everybody does stupid things. However, not everybody makes a point of
drawing attention to them in a public forum.

Wolfgang