Obama Bans Federal Employees from Texting and Driving
To those who say it's not fair?
What about having to wear seat belts(exception to the one state with no seat belt law, and to GA for their pick-up exception). What about drinking and driving? Can any of you explain why you tolerate these laws, but anything about a cell phone 'violates' your rights.
Second question, would it make a difference if it was just texting that was banned and that handless was ok?
How many people do not get insurance to cut costs? Or not wear a seat belt running up to the store which is half a block up the road? Or drink and drive because they feel they are "ok enough to drive?"
These are everyday instances of people doing thing "illigally." Is it against their best interest, probably, but they do it anyways.
As for the original topic at hand, let them pass a law to ban cell phone use in vehicles. My point is that people are still going to "break the law" anyways. Just because our government says don't d...
(continues)
Uninsured people who get in accidents cause thousands of dollars in damage and medical bills to people. And they get off the hook because the RESPONSIBLE person's insurance covers them, and the responsible person has to pay higher premiums. Again, a law that is intended for everyone, not just the cheapass who wont even get laibility coverage.
As for seatbelts, I can see your point.
bp3dots1 said:
apparently you've never headr of drunk drivers killing other, non drunk, people on the roads. It happens everyday. So drinking and driving laws are NOT solely about the drunk's well being.
I understand this, I chose not to elborate any further on behalf the bystandard. I was just stating a form of responsibility, not solely on just the intoxicated driver.
bp3dots1 said:...
Uninsured people who get in accidents cause thousands of dollars in damage and medical bills to people. And they get off the hook because the RESPONSIBLE person's insurance covers them, and the responsible person has to pay higher premiums. Again, a law that is intended for everyone, not just the cheapa
(continues)
Wrong! Now all the responsible insurance holders in my insurance company have to collectively come up with $10,000 to settle my claim.
Such idiocy has a societal toll. The great question is HOW to fix it equitably and keep a free market system. We'll be debating that until you and I and everyone we will ever meet are buried deep in the cold, cold ground.
Neither of those things is good for society at large,regardless of personal fanaticism. It's not JUST about individualism and it never should be.
Your poor behavior affects everyone living on the same continent as you and sometimes further.
/end rant
This is rediculous.
But you cant complain. Who voted for him? Someone did. All this is is him trying to take out the easy stuff so that he can say that he made a difference. All the other stuff is too hard for him to do so why not go for the easy targets. Its the same as video games. No one has said a word about the semi porn videos and all the violence, but put it in a game and you have to let Congress pass a law to ...
(continues)
(continues)
OH yeah, the bill of rights was made when cell phones weren't around I'm sure if they did have cell p...
(continues)
sorry I do wear my seatbelt but its stupid to force others if we are gonna let anyone with half a brain ride a motorcycle.
There should be a law for children to wear them though.
donebrasko said:
Dont get me started abotu seat bealts. I do not think that we should be forced to wear them.
...
There should be a law for children to wear them though.
Cognitive dissonance at it's best.
How is making children wear them contradictory? A child does not know whats good for them. They are not able to make a sound decision. Therefore make a law for underage children (just like car seats). Adults, on the other hand, are responsible for their choices and must accept the consequecnes. Yes its safer to wear them, but dont use that as an excuse to stop and harrass someone. You dont have to force it on them. but again thats my opinion.
If you are gonna enforce seatbelts, then ban motorcycles.
When you explain that studies show that texting/talking while driving can be worse than driving while intoxicated - they dismiss it.
When you explain that this applies only to Federal employees and intra/interstate commercial transport and that states are making the decisions individually in regards to their citizens - they dismiss it.
They don't want 'their' rights violated, all the while caring not if the exercising of those rights limits and/or removes the rights of others. For example, "I can talk on my cellphone, if I kill someone it's my fault and I'll be responsible for it."
"When you explain that studies show that texting/talking while driving can be worse than driving while intoxicated - they dismiss it."---
That may be true, but i would have to see these studies. I dont think its worse. I think that there are more people texting than driving drunk. If you had to ride with a drunk driver or a texter, who would you choose?
"When you explain that this applies only to Federal employees and intra/interstate commercial transport and that states are making the decisions individually in regards to their citizens - they dismiss it."
It applies to federal employees only "at the moment". That is all it take to pass it on down to othe...
(continues)
This forum is closed.