Blameless

A better law then....

Let people do whatever they want, but hold them accountable if something bad happens.

If you can drive safely while talking on two phones, whacking off, and sleeping, all at the same time, great. They should let you.

If you can't, but do these things anyway, then you should be punished harshly when and if you cause harm.

A map?

Directions?

uNeec

I read the post wrong, well it won't matter anyway cops in NJ are too busy eatting donuts. Well about banning car audio, some black cop actually did stop my friend and me when we were playing music in the car for no apparant reason and told us to turn it down.

__________________
e7200 @ 4.15ghz
VisionTek 4870 512mb 980/1200(Almost 1ghz core!)

SharkFin

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt"

Watch out america. Its happened in the UK and its very near happening to you.

__________________

bruestle2

Not true. The law itself is vague, however precedents will be set by judges as to what defines reckless. That is the job of a judge after all, to interpret what the law means.

Example: Murder is illegal. But the law doesn't specify that stabbing, shooting, strangling, poisoning, chainsawing, bludgeoning, etc are illegal; it vaguely defines what murder is and then judges decide if what someone did was murder.

While we are at it we might as well ban small children from being in your car. There is nothing more distracting than a baby crying in the back!

__________________

Redmist

QFT!

I got in an accident a little white ago (not my fault) anyway, my car was out of commission and I could not contact anyone for a ride home. The cop that drove me home was chatting with someone on the laptop, smoking a cigarette, and talking on his cell phone all while driving. I seriously felt like I was going to be in another accident.

Obviously I didn't say anything though, I was so bummed out about my car, plus I didn't want to get in any trouble.

__________________

mothergoose729

My thoughts exactly. The governments job is not to baby sit us, it is to protect us. You can't stop people from being idiots, some of them are just too damn good at it.

__________________
The Importance of Sub Timings

Dave510

The problem is that kind of approach only looks at the outcome and doesn't take a probabilistic position. It's like saying "You're not breaking the law, unless you're caught breaking it". And if you think pragmatically, there are HUGE problems with that kind of law. Just put yourself in the shoes of any driver at fault (e.g. drunk driver who got into an accident, or someone who was talking on the phone and accidentally hit a pedestrian), do you think any of them expected to get into an accident? Most, if not all, of the people breaking traffic regulations hold the belief that they won't actually get into an accident, that somehow they have "better judgment", and hence break the rules.

Every time you break a traffic law, you usually derive some kind of convenience, like getting to your destination faster, or not having to call a cab to get home, but the punishment of getting caught in the act almost always outweighs the benefits, yet people still break the law. Why? Either everyone that breaks the law is extremely irrational (unlikely), or they just think they won't get caught (and that implies they won't get into an accident, since getting into an accident means you'll very likely be caught).

Huh? You read the first part of my post but ignored the second? I specifically addressed that in the second part. Precedents are much harder to look up than specific laws, especially with a law that's as vague as the one people on OCN here proposed, since there will probably be hundreds of precedents.

As an example, how many people here know if you murdered your grandfather to prevent him from changing his will (not in your favor), you will forfeit all your rights to the inheritance? It's not in the law, it's a precedence, but I'm confident almost no one here knows that. Precedence are just that much harder to know about.

Redmist

Well, the point of the law is is to prevent them from causing harm in the first place. IMO we need SOME of these laws (no talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device is a good one imo) but we're probably only a few years away from GPS being a standard feature in many cars. You can't hold back technology.
BUT OH MY GOD, WHAT IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE WHILE DRIVING?!?!?!

Yeah. It would be the same as looking at a GPS. Might cause harm, might not. I personally like to have a second person in the car to navigate when I'm going somewhere I've never been, as I do not own a GPS. Not always possible though. IMO a GPS is less distracting than having to look at a map with directions from mapquest.

__________________

Dronac

That is rediculous, and hardly enforceable. Just mount it below a cops line of sight and your good to go. If you get pulled, detach it, turn it off, and throw it in a laptop bag or something. Its like banning cell phone talking, but having cars that can link to your cellphone to talk over the speakers. Its just a politcal move to look good for the people who want a nanny state keeping them "safe".

__________________

Dave510

Did you read the thread? This law isn't stopping people from using GPS, or even manually programmed GPS. The point is to stop people from inputting commands manually WHILE driving. Meaning if a police SEES you programming it while driving, then you're breaking the law.