Jump to content

A FYI CYA in NH


Recommended Posts

So you get a hands free mount and reach over to use your phone. It's not in your hand but you still need to run it.

That's what everyone here does now. They are not looking down in their lap but off to the side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MAArcher

    15

  • Dogwood

    8

  • WPG Gizmo

    7

  • Don Steese

    7

Don Steese
My original comment about giving up an illusion of safety in order to live in a free society had little to do with what is or is not in the constitution or was it meant to imply that I bear ill will to anyone who thinks differently. It was a very general statement saying that no matter what country you happen to live in, if it's truly free there will be some sacrifices made with regard to safety. If enough people are willing to give up some freedom for a bit of safety, then so be it!  As to someone's statement that, "if it saves one life, it's worth it", remember that's what the gun control advocates say and most here would strongly disagree with them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My original comment about giving up an illusion of safety in order to live in a free society had little to do with what is or is not in the constitution or was it meant to imply that I bear ill will to anyone who thinks differently. It was a very general statement saying that no matter what country you happen to live in, if it's truly free there will be some sacrifices made with regard to safety. If enough people are willing to give up some freedom for a bit of safety, then so be it!  As to someone's statement that, "if it saves one life, it's worth it", remember that's what the gun control advocates say and most here would strongly disagree with them.

Finally started seeing the light eh Don?

Will make a libertarian out of you yet. :D

Barna

Link to post
Share on other sites
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights empowers the states and the people to regulate themselves, so long as those regulations don't infringe other fundamental rights granted by the Constitution to all U.S. citizens.  There is no constitutional right to drive and there is no constitutional right to do whatever the hell you want regardless of its potential to impact other citizens.  So this law is by my estimation entirely consistent with the ideals for American government set forth by the founding fathers.

Furthermore, lets not forget that the "traditional values" of American Liberty only applied if you were a white man.  As a whole I would say the average American enjoys more personal freedom and liberty today than did the average American of 1787, by a long shot.

RI

The problem is not that the states don’t have the right to make the law, it is the effectiveness of the law that is questioned.  As pointed out earlier the problem is distracted driving, the law only covers part of the problem and a small part at that.    

To relate this topic to one of your favorite subjects, The Sage Grouse Decline, it’s like the states reducing the bag limit or the hunting season while not doing anything about the habitat loss.   It’s not effective and will not solve the problem of distracted driving, because the idiots will still behave irresponsibly weather  it’s the phone, or chili cheese fries.   :glare:

Now if we could get the SC to have the same opinion on the 10th amendment and states’ rights. :devil:  :oops:

Barna

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to someone's statement that, "if it saves one life, it's worth it", remember that's what the gun control advocates say and most here would strongly disagree with them.

Sorry comparing gun laws to highway safety laws is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don Steese
Sorry comparing gun laws to highway safety laws is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don Steese
Finally started seeing the light eh Don?

No, I think I've always held this opinion. Let me ask my wife exactly when it was she told me what I should think!

This stuff all begins to get a little murky though when someone asks, "OK then, why bother with stop signs? I'm smart enough to know that I should stop and look both ways at a busy intersection!"  A lame illustration, but I think it shows where these kind of discussions can go if taken to the extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry comparing gun laws to highway safety laws is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

Why?

For one there is not constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to discuss the latest Kardashian fiasco while driving like an idiot.    :devil:

Not sure why this has generated such disagreement - in most states we have to do a lot of things to drive a car and not be at risk of getting a ticket;

Pass a written test

Pass a driving test

Pass a vision test

Have proof of insurance

Have vehicle in good operating condition

Not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Not exceed the speed limit or speed prudent for conditions

Wear a seat belt

and likely several other that escape my limited attention span.

Not sure why this is different than those things.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry comparing gun laws to highway safety laws is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

Why?

For one there is not constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to discuss the latest Kardashian fiasco while driving like an idiot.    :devil:

Not sure why this has generated such disagreement - in most states we have to do a lot of things to drive a car and not be at risk of getting a ticket;

Pass a written test

Pass a driving test

Pass a vision test

Have proof of insurance

Have vehicle in good operating condition

Not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Not exceed the speed limit or speed prudent for conditions

Wear a seat belt

and likely several other that escape my limited attention span.

Not sure why this is different than those things.....

Its not different than those things; mostly they are all wrong.

Its none of your business if I have insurance or not.

"good operating condition" is far too stringent.  (I had a late model vehicle that came from the factory with optional fog lights.  While driving in the woods the fog lights got damaged so I removed them rather than replace them.  In order to get a MA inspection sticker, in 2002 for a 2000 Dodge Dakota, I had to have the fog lights replaced to the tune of $300 because some dumb ass wrote the law to say that original factory lighting had to be working.  So other people were driving around with the exact same truck, no factory fog lights, without a problem.)

Its none of your business if I wear a seat belt or not.

Just like its none of your business if I talk on the phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry comparing gun laws to highway safety laws is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

Why?

For one there is not constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to discuss the latest Kardashian fiasco while driving like an idiot.    :devil:

Not sure why this has generated such disagreement - in most states we have to do a lot of things to drive a car and not be at risk of getting a ticket;

Pass a written test

Pass a driving test

Pass a vision test

Have proof of insurance

Have vehicle in good operating condition

Not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Not exceed the speed limit or speed prudent for conditions

Wear a seat belt

and likely several other that escape my limited attention span.

Not sure why this is different than those things.....

Its not different than those things; mostly they are all wrong.

Its none of your business if I have insurance or not.

"good operating condition" is far too stringent.  (I had a late model vehicle that came from the factory with optional fog lights.  While driving in the woods the fog lights got damaged so I removed them rather than replace them.  In order to get a MA inspection sticker, in 2002 for a 2000 Dodge Dakota, I had to have the fog lights replaced to the tune of $300 because some dumb ass wrote the law to say that original factory lighting had to be working.  So other people were driving around with the exact same truck, no factory fog lights, without a problem.)

Its none of your business if I wear a seat belt or not.

Just like its none of your business if I talk on the phone.

Care to enlighten us what you DO think is acceptable?  

Curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certain common sense laws that are necessary, but I think this law, the seat belt law, helmet law for motorbikes, vehicle inspection,  are stepping in to the realm if infringement.  Just my personal view.

Barna

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are certain common sense laws that are necessary, but I think this law, the seat belt law, helmet law for motorbikes, vehicle inspection,  are stepping in to the realm if infringement.  Just my personal view.

Barna

I would agree with that;  I don't consider vehicle inspection an infringement as much as a rip-off.

The cell phone deal crosses the line as a safety issue for other drivers.  A little inconvenience goes a long way to make the roads safer. Dangerous enough as it is. Common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don Steese
Sorry comparing gun laws to highway safety laws is a bit of a stretch in my eyes.

Why?

For one there is not constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to discuss the latest Kardashian fiasco while driving like an idiot.    :devil:

Not sure why this has generated such disagreement - in most states we have to do a lot of things to drive a car and not be at risk of getting a ticket;

Pass a written test

Pass a driving test

Pass a vision test

Have proof of insurance

Have vehicle in good operating condition

Not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Not exceed the speed limit or speed prudent for conditions

Wear a seat belt

and likely several other that escape my limited attention span.

Not sure why this is different than those things.....

Its not different than those things; mostly they are all wrong.

Its none of your business if I have insurance or not.

"good operating condition" is far too stringent.  (I had a late model vehicle that came from the factory with optional fog lights.  While driving in the woods the fog lights got damaged so I removed them rather than replace them.  In order to get a MA inspection sticker, in 2002 for a 2000 Dodge Dakota, I had to have the fog lights replaced to the tune of $300 because some dumb ass wrote the law to say that original factory lighting had to be working.  So other people were driving around with the exact same truck, no factory fog lights, without a problem.)

Its none of your business if I wear a seat belt or not.

Just like its none of your business if I talk on the phone.

Care to enlighten us what you DO think is acceptable?  

Curious.

I don't want to speak for other people, but it seems to me what he's saying is, when something bad happens because of someone else's negligence or stupidity, punish the hell out of them, like a life sentence or the death penalty for someone who kills someone else while driving drunk, however it seems to me he's not much in favor of any laws that supposedly prevent bad things from happening.  One can agree or disagree, or partly agreed and partly disagree. Like most everything else, it ain't simple....or is it??

These kinds of discussions bring to mind something I've always had a problem with in our game laws, which is laws that legislate ethics. I.E. what kind of gun one can use, or whether or not one can use bait, etc. etc. I think there's a good argument to be made for enforcing seasons and bag limits, and maybe laws that try to limit unsafe practices, but that's about it. One could argue that whether a person shoots a deer over bait or by still hunting should be a personal ethical decision.  Biologically speaking, the result is the same, a dead deer. As long as we're enforcing seasons and bag limits, it shouldn't make a difference in game populations. I'm sure others think differently, but that's what makes the world go round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in place of the cell phone law, where it turns me into a criminal even though I'm not doing anything I haven't been doing legally and responsibly for years, we should just put out a public announcement.  "Starting today if you kill or injure anyone while driving doing anything other than concentrating on driving, then you will be tried for criminal negligence and prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

When the first half dozen kids loose a few years of their life in prison, everyone else will start thinking "Holly crap, I'm actually being held accountable for my actions, I should think twice."  And if the "kid" is under 18, the parents can share in the punishment.  Then parents will start thinking "My kid is kind of an idiot and not ready to drive, so since I don't want to go to jail, I'm not going to let him."

In short, I think its acceptable to behave responsibly and expect others to do the same and if appropriate, pay a price when they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how many more accidents there will be now because people will be holding their phones down low so cops can't see them.  Now instead of dialing with the phone in front of you on top of the wheel, so you can still keep an eye on the road, you'll have to look down in your lap to dial.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...