Third Party & Independents Archives

MAKE THEM STOP !!!

Another day - Another stupid law.

When will our Government stop trying to protect us from ourselves??

Soon to be a new law?

You can no longer cross a street while talking on a cell phone or listening to music.

Talking on a cell phone doesn't kill - the semi that runs you over does.
If you can't look both ways - and comprehend what you saw - don't walk and talk. Go to rehab.
Don't blame the semi driver.

We don't need a law for this and we don't need many laws being passed these days.

Eating food cooked in transfat? Go to rehab or go to jail.
Stop blaming the restaurant.
Now that trans fat is being banned... will the premium on my health insurance go down? Will I have to check a box stating I have not ingested transfat for the past 12 months to get a lower rate?

Exactly who are these laws for? Why do they pass so easily?

Other than getting closer and closer to being a police state - what is the point of laws to save us from ourselves?


Posted by Dawn at February 7, 2007 3:47 PM
Comments
Comment #207004


Dawn: I agree that most laws like this are rediculus and potentially dangerous ie. Big Brother. There is one I do agree with. Two days ago, I was nearly involved in a wreck when a young woman in front of me suddenly changed from the left lane to the right, while talking on her cell phone, colided with a car that was right beside her. Both cars ended up crossing the sidewalk and into a yard. The use of cell phones, eating, putting on makeup, etc. while driving should be banned. Banning the use of a cell phone while crossing a street seems ridiculous but, what if the semi driver tries to avoid the caller and collides with a car full of people, a school bus or jacknives and takes out a city block? Irresponibility while talking on a cell phone can and does kill.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #207013

jlw,

The semi-driver - is it worse to run that idiot over or try to avoid it? They make decisions like that all the time - I had a fiancee’ die because he avoided running over a moron who missed his exit and cut in front of him - I’ve always wondered if that moron knew what he/she did. They never caught that driver that I know of.

Why can’t there just be a campaign about some of these things like -

‘This is your brain - This is your brain on drugs.’

As for driving while talking - how about if I sign a paper with my insurance that says they will not cover me if I crash while talking or eating or putting on make-up - but they will still cover the ones I victimized?

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #207016

Is this local or federal law?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #207019

local - for now

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #207025

We blame everyone but ourselves for our stupid acts. That’s why dumbassed laws like this are passed.
If your walking and talking on the phone and can’t pat attention to what your doing then get off the damned thing. Same goes for driving and talking on the phone. If you insist on not paying attention while doing either then anything bad that happens is your fault.
When I see some nut with a cell hone stuck in their ear I watch them closer. And usually they prove that they can’t drive and talk at the same time.

jlw
At least you didn’t say cell phones kill. Although I’d like to kill some of the idiots that are talking on them and not paying attention to what they’re doing.
Saturday my daughter got hit by a women that was talking on her cell phone. She ran a light and T boned my daughter’s car. Neither were hurt but the thing that got me was the women told the cop that she wasn’t at fault because she didn’t see the light was red. She claimed that my daughter should’ve seen her coming and stopped. The cop wasn’t very impressed I reckon. She still got a ticket.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #207028

dawn,

As for driving while talking - how about if I sign a paper with my insurance that says they will not cover me if I crash while talking or eating or putting on make-up - but they will still cover the ones I victimized?

Because of risk compensation.
Because no insurance could cover the real cost of a live lost, even if they would want to (which they won’t ;-) )
Money is not the answer to everything. Coercion could be a better tool sometimes.

Meanwhile, I’m pretty much sure that existing laws could be applied already on people crossing streets unsafely due to attention default…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 7, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #207035

Philippe Houdoin,

There was a time when my parents paid a higher auto insurance premium because they were smokers. The company said the distraction from lighting a cigarette caused more accidents.
Now imagine. If someone is that distracted by lighting a cigarette … what are they while talking on the phone? or eating? or putting on make-up? or taking notes? or reading?

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2007 5:52 PM
Comment #207048

You know…

I am a driver who smokes and uses my cell phone and I have not been in an accident in years.

The one I was in was due to brake failure.

Maybe the problem isn’t people using these things, but more so that they are not intelligent enough to be driving in the first place.

I know many of my friends should never have been able to pass the drivers test.

Driving is a privilage for responsible people, it is too easy to come by as is.

Make liscense requirements stricter and make driving with out ever have obtaining a liscense in the first place a mandatory immediate vehicle confiscation, that will solve all those problems.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at February 7, 2007 6:17 PM
Comment #207053

dawn,

I’m already convinced about drivers attention deficit responsibility.
The question is does money alone give the expected results on them? Or does putting people in jail for negligent homicide could do it better?

No need new law when they already existed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 7, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #207054

I was behind a city cop at an intersection yesterday.
While we were waiting for the green light - a car went right through the red light going the other direction.
The policeman went on his merry way.

I was late renewing my registration by 8 days, was pulled over and ticketed.
Which was worse?

How well all of our laws are enforced actually has to do with the police and how they feel about them - personally
OR a quota that needs to be filled to rake in the money and/or also send a message.

I really don’t think there will be many ‘crossing while talking’ tickets handed out unless the officer sees that there was almost an accident.

How many laws are passed like these just to fill the coffers?

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #207056

Dawn
You have to ask? By not paying your registration on time your causing the politicians to have to wait for their money. Running a red light only means that the person is an idiot. Your the worse of the two. Your making it harder for the politicians to waste your hard earned money.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #207073

Despite the likelihood of the coming train wreck, politicians and legislators can find time for such nonsense (i.e. a law banning use of a cell phone while crossing the street)?

Apparently so, as evidenced by the nation’s pressing problems, going ignored indefinitely, growing in number and severity.

But, the more important question though is this:

    If we don’t like what our irresponsible politicians are doing, then why do we keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them ?

UUUUMMmmmm … right.
Then, we’d have to blame ourselves, eh?


Posted by: d.a.n at February 7, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #207074

Yes !

MAKE THEM STOP !

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Stop Rewarding Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for, look-the-other-way, Incumbent Politicians by Repeatedly Re-Electing Them !
Posted by: d.a.n at February 7, 2007 7:31 PM
Comment #207084

You ARE funny Ron …. but it is probably true.

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #207088

Dawn, excellent topic and point. It is now in the realm of the absurd. We won’t stop millions of illegal immigrants, but we will fine our own citizens for walking and talking at the same time.

But, you know what, there’s another point here. If American voters could walk and talk at the same time, they wouldn’t allow such laws to pass without kicking these politicians straight out of office, do not pass the treasurer’s office, do not collect a pension. (To paraphrase a fond childhood game).

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 7, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #207093

David,

‘…do not collect a pension.’

They pass legislation to protect themselves from that.

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #207099

Yep. The are watering down the law so much, a Congress person can commit murder, and still collect their pension (not to mention a myriad of other felonies). In the beginning, the BILL included all felonies, but when they got through with it, there were only 5 felonies on the list.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 7, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #207110

This is in New York, which as a former resident, I can tell you tends to be ahead of the curve when it comes to Big Brother legislation.

If you drive your car in New York City, you’d pretty much got to be ready for anything, especially in downtown areas. On Canal Street, you have as many pedestrians in the road as cars at some hours, and I-Pods are the least of your worries.

If people are wandering blindly onto the highways upstate with I-Pods, then that’s just simple natural selection and people that stupid aren’t going to stop because of any laws anyway.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 7, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #207121


The left want’s to pass laws to make everybody safe and the right want’s to pass laws to make everybody moral. What can you say except what does the middle want.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #207132

“Now imagine. If someone is that distracted by lighting a cigarette … what are they while talking on the phone? or eating? or putting on make-up? or taking notes? or reading?”

Or setting or changing the radio?
Or talking to the kids in the back seat?
Or setting the heater/air conditioner?

I don’t have a problem with folks walking and talking on a cell phone at the same time, though I do draw the line if they are also chewing gum.

Posted by: Rocky at February 7, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #207161

Well, when you vote for Democrats and Republicans, you should expect to live under a totalitarian regime.

Very few laws in this country have anything to so with safety. They are mostly about money and/or power for the parties.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 8, 2007 9:20 AM
Comment #207162

“What can you say except what does the middle want”

To be left alone jl, to be left alone.

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2007 9:47 AM
Comment #207169

The left want’s to pass laws to make everybody safe

By taking away rights and freedoms.

and the right want’s to pass laws to make everybody moral.

By taking away rights and freedoms.

What can you say except what does the middle want.

Our system ignores real crime while criminalizing normal everyday actions of normal everyday people in order to make money. That’s why the cops are sitting on the side of the road with their donut boxes looking for speeders instead of hunting down the murders and thieves and rapists. That’s why cops arrest thousands of teens for pot possession while ignoring the international organizations that bring in the cocaine and heroin.

The average person wants just the opposite. Stop criminalizing everyday crap in order to make money. Put the cops to work hunting the real criminals.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 8, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #207175

‘The average person wants just the opposite. Stop criminalizing everyday crap in order to make money. Put the cops to work hunting the real criminals.’

AMEN!

Any contenders for the White House running on that platform??

Posted by: dawn at February 8, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #207179

No.
Most (if not all) are FOR-SALE !
Government selectively enforces the laws.
Politicians are (often) above the law.
Even when caught red-handed, many get pardons.
Illegal immigration laws are ignored.
That’s because there is money to be made while politicians pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.
How many innocent people have been executed since 1900?
How about starting wars based on bad intelligence? Isn’t that a war crime?
How about torture?
Habeas Corpus?
Election Reform?
Election Fraud?
Campaign Finance Reform?
Eminent Domain Abuse (legal plunder)?
Pork-Barrel, graft, corporate welfare?
Excessive money-printing?
Plundering Social Security surpluses?
Tax Reform?
Unfair Incumbent Advantages ?
And, look at what Congress is doing while our troops risk life and limb (including 8 raises between 1997 and 2006) …

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #207180

The left want’s to pass laws to make everybody safe and the right want’s to pass laws to make everybody moral. What can you say except what does the middle want.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2007 10:38 PM


And in the mean time our freedom is slowing eroding and no one seems to care.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 8, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #207210
Ron Brown wrote:And in the mean time our freedom is slowing eroding and no one seems to care.

Ron Brown,
Sadly, you are correct.
That is, not enough people care.

The good news is, enough will care eventually, because they will finally get the motivation and education needed to choose more wisely (provided they don’t wait too long).

The bad news is, when they finally do, it may be too late to mitigate the painful consequences.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #207213

Dawn asked: “Any contenders for the White House running on that platform?”

Dunno. But Bush’s budget cuts current funding on our inadequate police forces in America so we can underwrite police in Iraq. Someone needs to tell him crime is on the rise here, too! I say give Bush and Cheney a visa to Iraq, and send them home to the country their budgets favor so well. Then they can run for pres and vp of Iraq without worrying about disloyalty or term limits. The Iraqis surely want him more than we want him here. I mean his favorability rating there must be higher than here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2007 4:18 PM
Comment #207290

‘The average person wants just the opposite. Stop criminalizing everyday crap in order to make money. Put the cops to work hunting the real criminals.’

AMEN!

Any contenders for the White House running on that platform??

Yes, but they don’t have a D or an R by their names and you won’t hear about them in the MSM.

Posted by: traveller at February 9, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #207316

traveller
Do you have their names?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 9, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #207485

Dawn,
Who, Why, What, Where, When?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #207489

I often multitask while driving

I eat, I drink (soda), I smoke a cigar on occasion, I watch/ listen to TV, I put in CD’s, I talk on my cell phone. I even sometimes pull up traffic info on my computer. I have been known to read in stop and go traffic. I rarely wear a seatbelt.

I confess I have missed my exit while talking on a cell phone., but I do not feel unsafe. I simply go into an automatic safe mode, increasing my distances and driving more slowly. If cars intrude into my safe space, I interrupt my consversation to focus on driving.

I am 49 years old. You may well think I am irresponsible. I think my record disputes that.

The only wrecks I’ve had are when I was 17 and had more to do with simple inattention, bad brakes, and inexperience than anything. I once rose over a hill and observed a line of cars stopped for a hitchhiker. I braked hard and my brakes pulled me into oncoming traffic. I overcorrected and hit a gaurdrail. The second time I was returning from an outing in the woods on a narrow road driving slowly. As I approached a blind curve, I strayed slightly over the middle of the road (It was narrow) A woman coming the opposite way hit me. I stopped, but she didn’t. We were both going around 20 miles an hour prior to braking. I wasn’t multitasking either time, maybe daydreaming.

I have been hit twice while stopped at red lights.

My mother once nearly pulled out in front of a semi while talking to me, her passenger. I told her she should not converse and drive at the same time.

I believe in responsible driving, but how you evaluate that is a problem. Assuming everyone has the same skill level, is stupid. I would have no problem increasing the skill level required to pass a driving test or even a periodic retest.

If you can’t walk and talk, well, perhaps you should be required to wear a helmet with an oscillating red light on top. I suspect a few politicians might qualify :)


Posted by: gergle at February 10, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #207733

Stephen:

Is this local or federal law?

Neither. It’s a law that has been proposed in New York, not yet adopted. Here’s some information on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020700947.html

The other law Dawn mentioned in passing, the ban on transfat in restaurants, is a law local to New York City and will not go into full effect until 2008: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ It is basically a case of a local government deciding to be more stringent in local food-safety requirements than mandated by the FDA at a national level.

Posted by: Jarandhel at February 12, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #207747

I guess I can’t really differentiate between pedestrian cell phone usage, and walking down the street, having a simple conversation with another person. Most, if not all cell phones have one earpiece, or a one-ear-phone extension. That leaves an entire ear free.

Additionally, if they are going to outlaw crossing the street while enjoying an iPod or such, they should consider limiting the volume of car stereo systems so that the drive can still clearly hear the activites outside of thier vehicle.

Posted by: DOC at February 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Post a comment