Jedi Council Forums - The social acceptability of dangerous driving

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/30/03 8:09am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	My question is, why don't people just listen to the radio to pass the time rather than reading a novel or the newspaper? As I said, I'll admit I use my cell phone when I'm driving, but it isn't because I think I'm more important than anyone else or because I don't think it's dangerous. It is, really, and I try to wait until I'm on the highway to do it, not in rush hour traffic--that and I don't wave my hands around constantly when I'm talking anyway like the drivers mentioned above. I think reading something is a lot different from using a cell phone. At least when you're talking, either on your phone or to the person next to you, you can keep your eyes on the road. No one can read a novel, change a diaper, read the paper, put on makeup, etc. and still keep their eyes on the road. I heard a story once of a woman who wouldn't drive a manual transmission because she couldn't talk on the phone, drink coffee, smoke a cigarette, and drive at the same time. My thought was, "Has she ever heard of one thing at a time?" I will smoke, drink coffee, and talk on the phone in my car--but not all at once. Another solution to all this--make the test to get a driver's license a little harder. There are not nearly so many idiots on the road in Europe. -----signature----- Room 225, the Geriatric Ward Alternate ending to ROTS: "Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Space_Man Registered: Aug '03	Date Posted: 12/30/03 8:24am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 8:27am (1 edits total) Edited By: Space_Man
	anidanami124: Driving is not a right and if you are not going to pay attention to the road then you should not have the car...I really hate the fact that people seem to throw all the rules out the window when they get in their cars. It has long been my belief that no where are people's selfishness, stupidity, and rudeness more clearly in evidence than on the public roadways...and I think the vast majority of drivers simply have no concept of just how potentially dangerous driving can be -- how can they? If they did, this thread wouldn't even exist, right? -----signature----- Seek first to understand...and then to be understood. ~ Stephen R Covey
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 8:41am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 8:43am (1 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
	Mr44, it is highly doubtful whether the Eighth Amendment does require proportionate punishments at all. On this point I refer you to Justice Scalia's opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan. But assuming that it does, that same case upheld a mandatory sentence of life without parole merely for possessing more than 650 grams of cocaine (it had nothing to do with distributing it in a schoolyard). In Hutto v. Davis, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's invalidation of a 40 year sentence for possessing nine ounces of marijuana with intent to distribute. In Ewing v. California, decided just this year, the Court upheld a sentence of 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs worth approximately $1200. In Rummel v. Estelle, the Court refused to invalidate a life sentence for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses. If "The Constitutuion requires proportionate penalties", which is highly doubtful, then that is a very narrow requirement indeed. Impounding cars for speeding is most definitely constitutional, as are five year sentences for dangerous driving. Both offences involve putting people's lives at risk, and I would not consider the punishments suggested to be disproportionate in the slightest.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 8:45am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	I'm sorry, but that's just the stupidest thing I've read in here so far. And that's the rudest thing I've seen in here. Very adult of you. But we can ban things (such as driving while using a cellphone) that are dangerous for the vast majority of drivers. Perhaps some drivers can use a cellphone safely, but the fact remains that most cannot, and that's good enough reason to ban it. The distinction I'm making, however, is that if we start spelling out bans for every dangerous activity, then when the cops pull a dangerous driver who was not doing ANY of the particularly outlawed things (perhaps he was just daydreaming or whatever), he may be able to sue successfully that the citation was unjustified. I realize this is more a problem of a legal system gone completely sue-happy than actual bad legislation, but I think it would be more effective to pass a law that says cops have certain training that allows them to determine who's driving safely. I wonder if you could write a law that would spell out the DRIVING actions (weaving, erratic speed, etc.) one can be cited for, rather than the causes of those actions (cell phone, daydreaming, drinking), which is speculative. I've always kind of wondered why we needed separate drunk driving laws from reckless driving laws. If a sober person is so busy thinking about his grocery list that he kills a family of 4, that's no better than a drunk doing the same thing. I do understand that the law is intended to make people realize alcohol impairs driving ability whether they think so or not. But it seems sort of redundant, in a way. The consequences of driving erratically go a lot further than a cop catching you. They also tend to have an impact the very lives of other people, not just the amount of bills left in the erratic driver's wallet after he pays the ticket. Actually, you're bringing up a good point here. If more cops were available to catch reckless drivers, and there was less focus on JUST speeding, we might prevent some accidents. There's a crazy woman who drives near my place of work, and I see her both at rush hour and other times of day. Every day, she is driving too fast, rushing up at cars, then barely clearing their fenders before switching lanes without looking, forcing other people to slam on their brakes to avoid collision. Then she blows at everyone, like she's angry at us for being on the road. I've literally seen her do this 6-8 times, and I just started working at the place where I see her. How can she not have had her license revoked? Or has she, and it just driving already? What did people do in the days before cell phones? Well, 10 years ago, pre-cell-phone, commutes were 50-100% shorter in most areas. Shall I provide a link? I know I've done so in other threads. However, I must have phrased myself badly, because none of you are grasping my point. Long commutes are an unfortunate reality, yes? How do stupid teens deal with unfortunate reality? By saying, "Well, this sucks, but until I can change it, I have to deal with it"? No, they think, "Okay, FINE, but you can't stop me from doing this other thing." Using the unfortunate commute time to do things other than drive has allowed people to think they are coping with ridiculous commute times, when really they are just endangering others. The responsible approach is: either suck it up and drive, or kill yourself to afford a place closer to work. Instead, people think they're entitled to do whatever they like. I think we're describing the same sort of childish attitude. I don't know why you guys thought I meant something else. And, KW, I didn't know we were allowed to say things like TeeBee's "That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen", but I will feel free to say that about other posts from now on, and if you or any other mod gives me any crap about it, I'll link them back here to show them that it is indeed acceptable TF.N expression. AG, yes, actually TESTING drivers would be a novel approach to the problem. And make SUVs their own class of vehicle, and make drivers get a class license for them that requires special training. If motorcyclists have to do this, I see no reason why people driving tanks shouldn't be bothered to as well.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
sellars1996 Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 9:07am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Excellent points, TreeCave ... commuting distances has increased dramatically over the last ten years with urban sprawl. We're in a hurry everywhere we go because we choose to spend more time behind the wheel. I always thought of this as a Texas phenomenon -- I used to commute two hours a day one way, 5 days a week -- but apparently it is everywhere. I am moving to Dallas to start a new job next month, and as bad as the traffic is there, it is nothing like Austin. The city planners in Dallas at least foresaw growth and built roads for the anticipated traffic flows. But I am going to get a light rail pass and use the train to get downtown from the suburbs (a 25 mile trip one way). I'd rather get on the train and spend that time reading than to be stuck in traffic with road hogs and people who think they are invincible because they are in their Iron Womb SUV's. Until people start using public transportation more and/or be less aggressive and selfish on the roads, we will have to deal with the mess that's out there. -----signature----- Every married father's wish ... to live as well as his wife and children. The kindest words ever said about a lawyer: well, at least he didn't run for Congress.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 9:17am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Thanks, sellars. And even if my point about people "using" their commute time for other things is wrong - which I don't believe it is, for a second - the increase in commute times means more people on the road for longer hours. Just the increase in traffic alone explains a portion of the perceptual increase in bad drivers. There may be no more bad drivers than they're were 20 years ago, but now they're all on the road longer than they used to be each day.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 9:18am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	And, KW, I didn't know we were allowed to say things like TeeBee's "That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen", but I will feel free to say that about other posts from now on, and if you or any other mod gives me any crap about it, I'll link them back here to show them that it is indeed acceptable TF.N expression. I'm sorry, that was my error. It was inflammatory, and it's not something that should be posted here. It just didn't register with me as I was reading it. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 9:26am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Branthoris, Thank you for at least providing the cases that you used to draw your illustrations on. This prevents any guess work. However, you are still not addressing the relevent issues in each case. Instead you are taking isolated events out of them. Under Harmelin, the defendent was not convicted of simply possessing 650 grams of cocaine. He was convicted of possessing MORE than 650 grams, which appearently is the threshold for a felony under Michigan law. In fact, he had enough of the controlled substance to cut between 32,500 and 65,000 doses.. Next, under Hutto, the defendent was convicted of two charges of intent to distribute, not simply possession.. Again, the offender's intent was the focus. Both Ewing and Estelle fall under California's and Texas' "three strikes" laws. This is a seperate judical concept than merely recieving a life sentence for "stealing 120 dollars." I'm sorry, you can't simply claim that: "Impounding cars for speeding is most definitely constitutional, as are five year sentences for dangerous driving." We don't know if they would be Constitutional, but they would definately not be supported as such. First of all, speeding is an administrative offense. Forfeiture is not even an option unless there was some other factor involved. Next, reckless driving alone is a misdemeanor, so a 5 year sentence would be totally inappropriate. Aggravated reckless driving results when someone is killed or seriously harmed. This is a felony, and the penalty would be looked at as such. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 9:38am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Thanks, KW.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 9:56am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 10:02am (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	I wonder if you could write a law that would spell out the DRIVING actions (weaving, erratic speed, etc.) one can be cited for, rather than the causes of those actions (cell phone, daydreaming, drinking), which is speculative. TC, there are. You would be surprised on how many laws actually cover driving actions. For example, the Illinois vehicle code is 489 pages long, and that is not even including DUI offenses, which are classified under a different section. I can't think of a situation that hasn't already been covered under the law. If more cops were available to catch reckless drivers, and there was less focus on JUST speeding, we might prevent some accidents. And what do you think the police do? In my department, in addition to the full time sworn officers, we have 4 CSO's and 2 STEP officers. Both CSO's (community service officers) and STEP's(selective traffic enforcement program) have no enforcement powers, but focus on your mundane calls, to free up the regular police for serious calls. STEP's, for example, work 10 hour days for 4 days a week during the peak times, and do nothing but traffic detail. Still, the Chicago metropolitan area has some 7 million+ people.. The police can't do it alone. EDIT: just to add, have you reported that woman in your example to the police? Instead of just sitting back and stewing that the police haven't caught her yet, give your department a call. Next time get her license plate #, a brief description and her route. The department won't be able to take action solely on your word, but they should generate what is called a "saturation patrol" or a MYOC(make your own case). Depending on the department's resources, an offcier will look specifically for her during that time. We have taken all sorts of actions based on civilian tips of this sort. Cooperation is the key here, rather than an "us vs. them" situation.. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/30/03 10:16am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	I live in a metro area of one million people. My husband takes the bus to work and I drive--if I worked uptown, I would also take the bus to work, because this city is notorious for traffic and there are no carpool lanes. Since I go to work in the opposite direction of most of the morning traffic, I feel OK taking my car. I do, however, look forward to the light rail system that is being planned for the next decade or so. -----signature----- Room 225, the Geriatric Ward Alternate ending to ROTS: "Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 10:18am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 10:19am (1 edits total) Edited By: TreeCave
	I can't think of a situation that hasn't already been covered under the law. Then, as per usual, more legislation is NOT the solution. Enforcing what we have without people wiggling out on technicalities might be. If more cops were available to catch reckless drivers, and there was less focus on JUST speeding, we might prevent some accidents. And what do you think the police do? I've observed speed trap cops watch as someone buzzes through on a fully red light, watch as someone cuts someone else off, or nearly hits a pedestrian, and do nothing, because they're just after speeders. I'm sure many cops aren't that dull, but I've seen this probably a dozen times in several different states. That's what I was referring to. And the CHP that you say gets such great training...they pulled me over for having a headlight out and ticketed me, as a car full of drunk guys wove past us on Sunset Strip during a clubbing night. Umm, hello? That light was working when I left the apartment - I know because there was a mirror in the garage and I always checked them on the way out. But I was an easy ticket - a harmless looking female - and the car full of drunk guys might have been tougher to deal with. I told someone at the CHP office when I paid the ticket that I would never respect a CHP officer again, since I've heard about this sort of thing many times and now experienced it, and she just said, "I understand". That's the only traffic violation I've had in 12 years. Not even a parking ticket. Some departments are a lot more interested in racking up easy fees than in really impacting bad drivers. EDIT: just to add, have you reported that woman in your example to the police? Instead of just sitting back and stewing that the police haven't caught her yet, give your department a call. Next time get her license plate #, a brief description and her route. Um, no, every time I see her, she's going so fast and I'm having a heart attack trying not to get hit by her that taking my hands off the wheel to write down her plate numbers that I can't even see that fast seems ill-advised. Ya know?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 10:34am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 11:34am (2 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	Well, I would simply warn you about projecting your rationale into subjects that you have no knowledge of. You don't know why an individual officer ignored one situation, while letting another go. Unless you asked them, these are your opinions about other people's motivations. How do you know that the CHP officer didn't call on his radio to pick those kids up down the road while he was busy with you? How do you know that the officer who ignored a red light violation wasn't engaged in something else? And I don't mean to single you out in any way, but you provided an interesting example. This is precisely the attiude that you are criticizing about other drivers.. Everyone else is always the "bad guy," but no one takes responsibility for their own actions. Driving without a headlight at night reduces visibility, creates a safety hazard, and is against the vehicle code. The officer doesn't know if it was working when you left, or out for a year. It was simply out when he saw you. However, rather than simply accepting this, you blame everyone else, much like the faceless person you want to get a ticket for talking on a cell-phone. To someone else, YOU were the safety hazard that night. It has to work both ways. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 10:38am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Mr44, the overruling and upholding of laws in the game of Supreme Court peek-a-boo has become ever more arbitrary and subjective through the decades. However, if states were to refrain from passing laws on the ground that they might be struck down, nothing would ever get done. You may quibble with how I've described those various cases, but they all indicate that all but the most extremely disproportionate sentences will survive the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Five years for putting lives at risk through dangerous driving can hardly be considered more disproportionate than 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs, Ewing's prior criminal record notwithstanding. Reckless driving may currently be a misdemeanour in most American states, but the current state of the law is no reason to avoid changing it. California has applied the most extreme sentences (25 years or more) to petty theft (traditionally a misdemeanour), and been allowed to do so by the Supreme Court. If a state were to decide that dangerous driving were a serious menace (which it is), it would be entirely justified in attaching serious jail time to it.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 10:56am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Five years for putting lives at risk through dangerous driving can hardly be considered more disproportionate than 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs, Ewing's prior criminal record notwithstanding. Reckless driving may currently be a misdemeanour in most American states, but the current state of the law is no reason to avoid changing it. California has applied the most extreme sentences (25 years or more) to petty theft (traditionally a misdemeanour), and been allowed to do so by the Supreme Court. Sorry, this is simply incorrect. Maybe you don't have anything similar across the big pond. Anyone simply convicted of stealing $125 in golf clubs would not recieve a 25 year sentence. The recidivism offender statute (called "three strikes" law) is what was examined in the cases you provided, not the offense that warranted the sentence. yes, in a way, a person was given 25 years for stealing golf clubs, but only after they qualified under the recidivism law, which has distinct criteria that must be followed. A person convicted of a normal misdemeanor, such as basic reckless driving, or petty theft, would never get a sentence greater than 365 days. There is no precedent to increase the penalties of established offenses, or to artifically inflate the category of a crime. A state couldn't simply call speeding a felony, in order to get stiffer penalties. Another factor can be determined by law, but those factors would have to be examined together, when determining a penalty. Anything else would be disappropriate to the crime. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | Next | Reload