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
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/29/03 2:57pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Seems to me one of the big problems is defining what constitutes reckless driving. I mean, if cops ticket someone for weaving dangerously while talking on the cell phone, and there's no "don't talk on the cell while driving" law in that state, the accused will sue and say the officer was just looking for an excuse to hound him, and some moron judge will quite likely believe it. So, we feel the need to pass laws for every conceivable violation. I'm waiting for a "don't read novels" and a "don't apply makeup" law. But the sad thing is, SOME people can talk on a cell, smoke, apply makeup, read novels, and still drive more safely than everyone else on the road. I've seen it. They shouldn't be punished because other idiots can't multitask. But if we leave it to the cop's "discretion", there is always room for a lawsuit. sigh I'm a VERY safe driver, but it's because I know I can't do a lot else at the same time as I'm driving, and I exercise that restraint. It's not that difficult to just act like an adult and know your limitations. You guys are making some worthwhile suggestions for punishing bad drivers, but we still have to establish who decides what constitutes bad driving. Cops? The state legislature? Insurance companies? And how do we avoid people suing their way out of reckless driving charges?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/29/03 3:45pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Intriguing suggestions, Space_Man. 1.) Start impounding vehicles on a much more frequent basis; jail time for cars, where the driver can either pay the impound fee and avoid getting their car taken away, or go without a car for however long. Agreed. 2.) Take-away the driver's licenses of repeat offenders. Permanent disqualification on a "three strikes and you're out" basis might well be a good idea. 3.) Stiffen fines, and give mandatory jail time to anyone caught driving without a driver's license (for those who will continue driving even after their license has been taken away). Yes. There should be a mandatory 6-month jail sentence for driving while disqualified, in the absence of exceptional circumstances. 4.) For states that don't already have them, institute specific "road-rage" related criminal statutes, and prosecute them as crimes -- not mere traffic offences. Again, good idea. This fits in with trying to distinguish between perfectly safe drivers who go slighty over the limit, and people who are genuinely playing with others' lives. 5.) Institute state-run D.M.V. programs in which repeat traffic offenders are made to affix a large, distinct registration sticker -- or some type of specialized license plate -- to the back of the vehicle they will be driving, which identifies them to the rest of the motoring public as what they are: dangerous drivers. And when traffic complaints are made to law enforcement agencies regarding these vehicles, the drivers are automatically given an official warning; the accumulation of 3 such warnings will get their car impounded. Not so sure. I'm not a big fan of "punishment by humiliation", and I'm not aware that courts generally have a problem with keeping track of repeat offenders. 6.) Sorry to say this, but use driver registration tax money to put more photo radar (speeding) cameras along highways, and red light violation cameras at more intersections -- automate these things; it will give fairly incontrovertible proof (the associated photograph), and it will free-up officers for different kinds of enforcement. Indeed. Use speed camera fines to pay for more speed cameras. "They are exploiting speed traps for the money!" scream motoring associations. Well, if you can save lives and generate extra public revenue by a single policy, it seems a rather attractive idea to me.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/29/03 4:22pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/29/03 4:29pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anidanami124
	But the sad thing is, SOME people can talk on a cell, smoke, apply makeup, read novels, and still drive more safely than everyone else on the road. I've seen it. They shouldn't be punished because other idiots can't multitask. But if we leave it to the cop's "discretion", there is always room for a lawsuit. They should not be doing that any ways. I don't care if there good at it or not. That is really dangerous. The road comes first. Putting makeup on and so on come last. If you can't put the makeup on at home then get up early get ready early and then go. But when you are in the car they only thing you should be doing is driving not reading, talk on the cell phone, and so on. If you are going to do that then your car should be taken away from you and you should not be able to drive ever again. Driving is not a right and if you are not going to pay ation to the road then you should not have the car. Go the speed limit. You are not going to get any where any faster by going 100. The only place that will get you is ether dead or in jail if you hit and kill someone. Don't try to blow a red light. Don't think that you don't have to stop for fire trucks and on so. If you are in a work zone and it's 30 to bad you can't go faster then that. Don't think about youself think about ever one else to. If I'm coming of as rude well I'm sorry. But really hate the fact that people seem to thorw all the rules out the window when they get in there cars. I hate when I hear this well I can drive in talk on my phone on at the sametime. I don't care if you can or not. Why are you more worried aobut the person you are talking about then the what you are doing which is driving. If it's so importent then pull off to the side of the road. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TeeBee Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 12/29/03 4:53pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	People have to get back in the habit of considering driving a "community event." Bravo. My observation after several months amidst crazy Montrealers is this: there are two kinds of drivers. Those who use their car to get where they're going, and those who use the road. Those who "use the road" drive as tho they're part of a larger entity, which they are. Those who "use their car" seem like they're forever elbowing their way down the street. Who likes being elbowed in a crowd? -----signature----- If I am me because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am me and you are you. But if I am me because I am not you, and you are you because you are not me, then I am not and you are not. - Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Stormtrooper_fan Registered: Aug '03	Date Posted: 12/29/03 6:17pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/29/03 6:17pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Stormtrooper_fan
	Well, all I'm saying is, impounding a vehicle won't be any more effective than speeding citations as long as it comes down to an acceptable dollar amount in the offender's eyes Maybe the penalty should be on a sliding scale according to you income perhaps. Something has to be done about it for sure and if you are caught driving after you are disqualified then you should serve a mandatory prison sentence. -----signature----- http://www.thebijoudragon.co.uk http://www.Km4KT.com Darth_Paddy_666 FREE F16WARBIRD
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/29/03 6:46pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Except that in the US, we have what is called the "Bill of Rights." Maybe people recognize the 4th, 5th, or particularly the 8th Admendments? Any legal penalty has to be enacted, respective to the nature of the crime. Of course, in the UK, where the system is based on more of a collection of customs and historical rulings, maybe this could be more easily adopted? -----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: 12/29/03 6:48pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Why in the hell is someone going to read a novel and drive? I've also heard of people changing diapers while driving. One thing that could solve this problem: make America like Europe, where most cars have manual transmissions. I'd like to see you read a novel and shift gears at the same time. I have been known to use my cell in the car, but only on the highway, not in city traffic, and my husband got me a hands-free set for that purpose. As far as makeup--that's what sitting at red lights is for. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/29/03 7:00pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	make America like Europe, where most cars have manual transmissions. I'd like to see you read a novel and shift gears at the same time. What and make people have to learn manual. Not that I would not want to. if I ever get a Viper or Vetter I will learn manual. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/29/03 7:04pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Yep--make people have to learn manual. If you aren't coordinated enough to drive a manual transmission, you sure as hell don't need to be multitasking while driving an automatic. I love manuals--haven't driven an automatic since '95. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/29/03 7:15pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	They should not be doing that any ways. I don't care if there good at it or not. That is really dangerous. Yes, but some people can't drive properly while thinking about their love lives, and that's not something a cop can give a ticket for, is it? Some people shouldn't be allowed to talk to passengers while driving, because they can't handle both activities. And others can. So exactly what activities do you want to write laws prohibiting while driving? Should we remove car stereos and adjustable thermostats? People have gotten distracted by both, and caused accidents. The simplest thing is to trust the cops to target someone who's being reckless. If we have to wait for a law to cover ever single distracting thing a person can do in a car, we'll never improve the situation. It's far more practical to just let trained experts call it like they see it. Why in the hell is someone going to read a novel and drive? My guess would be that it's how people cope with 1-3 hour one-way commutes. I wouldn't do it myself, and I kill myself to afford an apartment near my job because I can't stand commuting, but I guess other people figure they have the right to amuse themselves while they are on the road 4 hours a day, and no one else has any right to complain. I disagree, naturally. But I have no question this is why I see people on their cell phones at rush hour constantly. It's the only time they have for making phone calls. Of course, we could, as a society, demand that jobs pay enouggh that we can afford to live less than an hour from them, but no...that would be much too adult an approach for America. No, instead like teens, we say, "Screw this, let my problem become everyone else's." I have been known to use my cell in the car, but only on the highway, not in city traffic, and my husband got me a hands-free set for that purpose. I've seen people who can't safely drive with a hands free, because they get so engrossed in the conversation. Some end up gesturing wildly with BOTH hands. So again, you can't pass one blanket law that's going to make everyone safe. Everyone is responsible for figuring out what he can or can't do while driving, and pay the consequences if a cop catches him driving erratically.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TeeBee Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 2:41am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 2:49am (1 edits total) Edited By: TeeBee
	But I have no question this is why I see people on their cell phones at rush hour constantly. It's the only time they have for making phone calls. Of course, we could, as a society, demand that jobs pay enouggh that we can afford to live less than an hour from them, but no...that would be much too adult an approach for America. I'm sorry, but that's just the stupidest thing I've read in here so far. Give me a break. People who work 3 minutes from their home yap on their cell phones in traffic the whole way. I'd say it's got more to do with the instant gratification attitude that prevails - I have to call the pizza guy NOW...I have to talk to my boyfriend NOW... I must be available to everyone in the world at all times, especially RIGHT NOW. Heaven forbid you should have to wait 20 minutes to make a phone call. The world might end. -----signature----- If I am me because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am me and you are you. But if I am me because I am not you, and you are you because you are not me, then I am not and you are not. - Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 4:01am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 4:03am (1 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
	Mr44, your constitutional argument is ridiculous. The Supreme Court has upheld (1) life without parole for possession of 650 grams of cocaine, and (2) 25 years to life for petty theft, so it is highly unlikely any of the proposals in this thread would be deemed to fall foul of the Eighth Amendment--and if they were, it would just be another example of Supreme Court power abuse. TreeCave, nobody ever wrote a perfect law. 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. Nevertheless, more serious dangerous driving offences than 'traffic laws' are definitely needed, with jail time attached. We actually have an offence of "dangerous driving" in Britain--the trouble being that it only carries a maximum of two years imprisonment, and even with that there have been cases of juries refusing to convict out of "sympathy for drivers".
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TeeBee Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 5:12am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Everyone is responsible for figuring out what he can or can't do while driving, and pay the consequences if a cop catches him driving erratically. Two things: 1) The key word here is if. 2) 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. -----signature----- If I am me because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am me and you are you. But if I am me because I am not you, and you are you because you are not me, then I am not and you are not. - Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 7:48am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Mr44, your constitutional argument is ridiculous. The Supreme Court has upheld (1) life without parole for possession of 650 grams of cocaine, and (2) 25 years to life for petty theft, Except that you are completely using these examples out of context. 1st of all, without providing the supporting cases, it is hard to comment directly. If you are referring to the cases that I think you are: 1) The man who was sentenced to life for cocaine posession was distrubuting the drug on a school yard (in Kentucky I think), which is an automatic mitigating factor. 2) The thief who recieved 25 years for petty theft fell under California's "three strikes" law, which is under judicial review anyway. You can't just take observations out of their context and link them to unrelated events. The Constitutuion requires proportionate penalties.. No one is ever going to get 5 years in prison for simply speeding, or have their car taken away, without some sort of additional factors involved. -----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
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 7:52am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 8:24am (1 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
	But I have no question this is why I see people on their cell phones at rush hour constantly. I really don't think so. What did people do in the days before cell phones? As TeeBee said, it's just part of the NOW society. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

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