5 ms·

Personally, I am against rules like this at the federal level, and it scares me how much of a nanny-state the US is becoming. This nation was founded on keeping

by 18pfsmt 15y ago

Personally, I am against rules like this at the federal level, and it scares me how much of a nanny-state the US is becoming. This nation was founded on keeping as many freedoms as possible, from my perspective. It is already punishable by law if you cause an accident (or commit vehicular homicide), and this is just one more reason to pull people over and "check'em out." Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either.

jrockway 15y ago
Remember, you have no right to drive a car. So you're not losing any rights when the government says you can't talk on the phone and drive at the same time. If you build your own road network, you don't have to follow any traffic laws. But most people are too cheap to do that, so they deal with a little regulation. In this case, people aren't capable of making the right decision about cell phone use. They know there is a tiny risk of killing someone while distracted by their phone, but they feel that driving is so safe that it won't happen to them. Unfortunately, "it happens to them" rather frequently now, and a lot of people are being killed or injured unnecessarily. So it's clear that people aren't handling the freedom very well, and it's time to adjust it down to see what happens. Take the train if you want to txt during your commute.
- lhnn 15y ago
  It's just another regulation that is impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy. We really don't have many "rights". Most "rights" people talk about are priviledges, like health care, schools, a job, etc. The real rights we have, such as privacy, free speech, and the permission to own firearms, are being assailed by the government every day.
  - kinghajj 15y ago
    "...impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy." What? You have no privacy on the road, through a clear windshield. I fail to see any such violation. It would seem to me to be unconstitutional, but I assume they'll skirt around that like with drinking ages: withhold funds to states that don't pass the laws the federal government wants. That way the federal government technically isn't making something illegal, but is basically blackmailing the states into doing so. (It's not technically blackmail because the states aren't entitled to those funds, as they're provided at the discretion of Congress.)
    - 18pfsmt 15y ago
      Colorado specifically opted out of the helmet law because the revenue generated from motorcycle tourists outweighs the federal subsidy.
      - lhnn 15y ago
        they should have opted out because it's not their damned business, but ya.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - lhnn 15y ago
      So many people text below the windshield level. How will someone prove that I was texting at a certain time? Some cop will say he thought he saw me texting and demand my phone records. And the original point of my post is that to ban texting is arbitrary; you can't ban everything before the fact. If anything, put additional punishment on someone whose accident was found to be caused by texting.
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  I simply believe that we already have laws that address the poor driving habits of others. We simply disagree, and that's ok. But, keep in mind some of us live in states with less than 5M people that are quite large; I don't have a commute, and there are very few trains in the Rockies (certainly no commuter trains outside of Denver). Making more laws that people won't follow (as noted elsewhere in this discussion) just erodes more of our freedoms, but doesn't really protect us anymore. For example, I don't wear my seatbelt.
  - mindslight 15y ago
    I agree with most everything you've said. Also, the local PD has put up one of those feel-good-do-nothing 'BUCKLE UP IT'S THE LAW' blinking signs about 0.2mi from my driveway, so I've made a routine of preemptively shutting the car off and unbuckling just because I can. However, just please be aware that not wearing a seatbelt can easily turn a 20mph walk-away accident into a fatal one. Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop. Have you considered that the point of these 'stupid' laws is to save the public the expense of emergency medical care/roadside cleanup for non-seatbelt-wearing people who end up flying through the windscreen or pinballing around inside the vehicle? The government is not very interested in your private behavior, it's interested in minimizing the risk your behavior presents to others - both directly (DUI or cellphone bans) and indirectly (through the financial impact of accidents on the public purse).
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - mindslight 15y ago
        Given that the cost to the public is much much less than the cost to the non-seatbelt-wearing person, I don't think it's very relevant. You've got to draw the line somewhere, otherwise such everything-affects-something reasoning can be used to justify anything.
- mindslight 15y ago
  > you have no right to drive a car When roads are the sole form of developed transportation infrastructure in an area that's too sparse or weather-adverse for practical biking, one's right to travel implies a right to drive.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    No, it doesn't. If you find yourself unable to drive by law, then you can take a bus or move to somewhere with better transport infrastructure. I can see why you think the law should work the way you describe, but it doesn't - and while I am only a student, my distinct impression is that it never has worked that way in regard to motor vehicles. In other words, courts have always treated driving as a privilege precisely because the amplifying effect of an engine + chassis upon a person's decisions involves a significantly heightened risks for other members of the public. Before the advent of the motor vehicle, riders of horses and operators of carriages were also held to an elevated standard of responsibility.
    - mindslight 15y ago
      You should indeed move somewhere better, especially barring circumstances that prevent that, but this doesn't change one's current situation. Philosophical rights and their interpretations by courts are quite disconnected, with courts mostly choosing to not restrict themselves (surprise, surprise). The whole US legal system has been bursting at the seams for quite some time based on this flawed idea that rights are axiomatic rather than universal qualifications, with technology and privately-owned commons forcing the issue. For example, a communications network shouldn't have the ability to censor based on the contents of messages (this is currently mostly taken care of by lesser statutes, and luckily it's also easily solvable with encryption).
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        Of course rights are axiomatic. Rights only exist in relation to society; if you had your own planet and were the only being thereon with any kind of conscious agency, then it would be meaningless to talk about rights because your only concern would be natural hazards. You don't have universal rights any more than there are platonic solids lurking in some invisible dimension; the rights you have are what you are capable of asserting, either as an individual or collectively through a legislature. Seriously, if you want to be left alone you can go live in the woods like Theodore Kacyzinski (before he started mailing bombs to people, obviously). Why is it that you think these universal rights are objectively real and articulable, but you are so opposed to the institutions that people collectively invest with agency in order to protect those rights - constitutional government, the UN and so forth? Laws are the accumulation of mutual agreements, when you get down to it. If you hate courts so much, go live in a civil law country where statute prevails over all else and the courts are limited to mechanistic applications of that. From what I can see, you enjoy substantially greater freedom in a common-law jurisdiction like the US than you do in most civil law jurisdictions, which is one reason that people are not fleeing the US to live in Latin America.
anigbrowl 15y ago
It's not a rule at the federal level, it's a recommendation by a federal agency that all states adopt and enforce consistent rules about this behavior which is a known cause of numerous accidents. If you missed this simple distinction that was in every news report on the subject, then I don't think your opinion on regulatory issues is worth very much. Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either. Whoop-de-do. Besides thinking that motorcycle users who don't use helmets are semi-suicidal fools, I might point out that wearing a helmet or not has little bearing on the danger a rider presents to other road/sidewalk users; DUI or using a smartphone while driving does.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by 18pfsmt 15y ago

jrockway 15y ago

Remember, you have no right to drive a car. So you're not losing any rights when the government says you can't talk on the phone and drive at the same time. If you build your own road network, you don't have to follow any traffic laws. But most people are too cheap to do that, so they deal with a little regulation. In this case, people aren't capable of making the right decision about cell phone use. They know there is a tiny risk of killing someone while distracted by their phone, but they feel that driving is so safe that it won't happen to them. Unfortunately, "it happens to them" rather frequently now, and a lot of people are being killed or injured unnecessarily. So it's clear that people aren't handling the freedom very well, and it's time to adjust it down to see what happens. Take the train if you want to txt during your commute.

lhnn 15y ago
It's just another regulation that is impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy. We really don't have many "rights". Most "rights" people talk about are priviledges, like health care, schools, a job, etc. The real rights we have, such as privacy, free speech, and the permission to own firearms, are being assailed by the government every day.
- kinghajj 15y ago
  "...impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy." What? You have no privacy on the road, through a clear windshield. I fail to see any such violation. It would seem to me to be unconstitutional, but I assume they'll skirt around that like with drinking ages: withhold funds to states that don't pass the laws the federal government wants. That way the federal government technically isn't making something illegal, but is basically blackmailing the states into doing so. (It's not technically blackmail because the states aren't entitled to those funds, as they're provided at the discretion of Congress.)
  - 18pfsmt 15y ago
    Colorado specifically opted out of the helmet law because the revenue generated from motorcycle tourists outweighs the federal subsidy.
    - lhnn 15y ago
      they should have opted out because it's not their damned business, but ya.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - lhnn 15y ago
    So many people text below the windshield level. How will someone prove that I was texting at a certain time? Some cop will say he thought he saw me texting and demand my phone records. And the original point of my post is that to ban texting is arbitrary; you can't ban everything before the fact. If anything, put additional punishment on someone whose accident was found to be caused by texting.
18pfsmt 15y ago
I simply believe that we already have laws that address the poor driving habits of others. We simply disagree, and that's ok. But, keep in mind some of us live in states with less than 5M people that are quite large; I don't have a commute, and there are very few trains in the Rockies (certainly no commuter trains outside of Denver). Making more laws that people won't follow (as noted elsewhere in this discussion) just erodes more of our freedoms, but doesn't really protect us anymore. For example, I don't wear my seatbelt.
- mindslight 15y ago
  I agree with most everything you've said. Also, the local PD has put up one of those feel-good-do-nothing 'BUCKLE UP IT'S THE LAW' blinking signs about 0.2mi from my driveway, so I've made a routine of preemptively shutting the car off and unbuckling just because I can. However, just please be aware that not wearing a seatbelt can easily turn a 20mph walk-away accident into a fatal one. Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop. Have you considered that the point of these 'stupid' laws is to save the public the expense of emergency medical care/roadside cleanup for non-seatbelt-wearing people who end up flying through the windscreen or pinballing around inside the vehicle? The government is not very interested in your private behavior, it's interested in minimizing the risk your behavior presents to others - both directly (DUI or cellphone bans) and indirectly (through the financial impact of accidents on the public purse).
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - mindslight 15y ago
      Given that the cost to the public is much much less than the cost to the non-seatbelt-wearing person, I don't think it's very relevant. You've got to draw the line somewhere, otherwise such everything-affects-something reasoning can be used to justify anything.
mindslight 15y ago
> you have no right to drive a car When roads are the sole form of developed transportation infrastructure in an area that's too sparse or weather-adverse for practical biking, one's right to travel implies a right to drive.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  No, it doesn't. If you find yourself unable to drive by law, then you can take a bus or move to somewhere with better transport infrastructure. I can see why you think the law should work the way you describe, but it doesn't - and while I am only a student, my distinct impression is that it never has worked that way in regard to motor vehicles. In other words, courts have always treated driving as a privilege precisely because the amplifying effect of an engine + chassis upon a person's decisions involves a significantly heightened risks for other members of the public. Before the advent of the motor vehicle, riders of horses and operators of carriages were also held to an elevated standard of responsibility.
  - mindslight 15y ago
    You should indeed move somewhere better, especially barring circumstances that prevent that, but this doesn't change one's current situation. Philosophical rights and their interpretations by courts are quite disconnected, with courts mostly choosing to not restrict themselves (surprise, surprise). The whole US legal system has been bursting at the seams for quite some time based on this flawed idea that rights are axiomatic rather than universal qualifications, with technology and privately-owned commons forcing the issue. For example, a communications network shouldn't have the ability to censor based on the contents of messages (this is currently mostly taken care of by lesser statutes, and luckily it's also easily solvable with encryption).
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      Of course rights are axiomatic. Rights only exist in relation to society; if you had your own planet and were the only being thereon with any kind of conscious agency, then it would be meaningless to talk about rights because your only concern would be natural hazards. You don't have universal rights any more than there are platonic solids lurking in some invisible dimension; the rights you have are what you are capable of asserting, either as an individual or collectively through a legislature. Seriously, if you want to be left alone you can go live in the woods like Theodore Kacyzinski (before he started mailing bombs to people, obviously). Why is it that you think these universal rights are objectively real and articulable, but you are so opposed to the institutions that people collectively invest with agency in order to protect those rights - constitutional government, the UN and so forth? Laws are the accumulation of mutual agreements, when you get down to it. If you hate courts so much, go live in a civil law country where statute prevails over all else and the courts are limited to mechanistic applications of that. From what I can see, you enjoy substantially greater freedom in a common-law jurisdiction like the US than you do in most civil law jurisdictions, which is one reason that people are not fleeing the US to live in Latin America.

anigbrowl 15y ago

It's not a rule at the federal level, it's a recommendation by a federal agency that all states adopt and enforce consistent rules about this behavior which is a known cause of numerous accidents. If you missed this simple distinction that was in every news report on the subject, then I don't think your opinion on regulatory issues is worth very much. Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either. Whoop-de-do. Besides thinking that motorcycle users who don't use helmets are semi-suicidal fools, I might point out that wearing a helmet or not has little bearing on the danger a rider presents to other road/sidewalk users; DUI or using a smartphone while driving does.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]