New Jan 1st GPS Placement Law?
12-30-2008, 12:37 PM
#47
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East Bay / Pomona
Posts: 3,670
Car Info: '02 PSM WRX
saqwarrior: Those are bad examples, not because they're over the top or anything, but it's because they all carry the same flaw. There's already laws protecting other people in those examples, while none protecting yourself. I don't care what people do to themselves, while if it affect another party, then yes, if it's unsafe and common sense, it just shows how stupid people are that they need to be told.
Jewpac42: Perfect response, other than a few typos, I couldn't have worded it any better myself.
Jewpac42: Perfect response, other than a few typos, I couldn't have worded it any better myself.
12-30-2008, 01:24 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
(As an aside, the psychology of removing speed limits having the effect of cutting back accidents is an interesting one: people have posited that because there is no speed limit, people will drive more conscientiously because they know there is an increased risk.)
If it was a case of the government really wanting to protect us, they would make an all-encompassing "anti-distraction" law. As it stands, I see people driving and reading, driving and putting on makeup, driving and watching television, et al, yet none of these things are illegal and most have been going on for much longer than mobile phones have even existed.
And there already are things that protect against people who drive and put the lives of others in danger: insurance, for starters.
The difference between Alcohol and Candy and texting while driving is that alcohol and candy are a danger only to the person consuming said products, it is not a danger to the public if someone consumes too much candy and becomes a diabetic, or if someone drinks too much. However it is illegal to drink drunk, it is common sense not to drink and drive, yet people do it, and it is illegal. Infact if you look at studies, messing around with your cell phone or radio or GPS causes your reaction times to be slowed the same amount as driving after drinking, or even more so. Texting while driving is a danger to others, you are not just taking your life in your hands, you are taking the life of that family in the minivan in the lane next to you when you choose to pay more attention to your cell phone than your responsibilities when you are behind the wheel. The difference is that you are a danger to the public when you choose not to pay attention while driving a car and you are only a danger to yourself when you drink or eat so much sugar as to develop diabetes you are only a danger to yourself.
Do you see the difference between not paying attention while driving and drinking or eating too much candy?
Do you see the difference between not paying attention while driving and drinking or eating too much candy?
Clearly we have different definitions of libertarian.
12-30-2008, 01:31 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
saqwarrior: Those are bad examples, not because they're over the top or anything, but it's because they all carry the same flaw. There's already laws protecting other people in those examples, while none protecting yourself. I don't care what people do to themselves, while if it affect another party, then yes, if it's unsafe and common sense, it just shows how stupid people are that they need to be told.
Jewpac42: Perfect response, other than a few typos, I couldn't have worded it any better myself.
Jewpac42: Perfect response, other than a few typos, I couldn't have worded it any better myself.
12-30-2008, 02:05 PM
#50
banned
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Walnut Creek Ca..
Posts: 2,746
Car Info: heel'n toe da hoe...
Yup, that's why you cant mount your radar detector to the windshield. Mount to the dash or from the rear view mirror mount/headliner & its otay. I been complaining about the fact that you can't mount radar detector (device it legal to have in CA) to the glass but, you could mount a GPS or XM receiver which are usually bulkier...but they were okay because they didn't interfere with law enforcement/revenue generation.
Sensor next to the plate, And two more behind the grills.
Another sensor above the plate..
These will get mounted better and hidden on the new widebody.
Rolling stealth since 1998
12-30-2008, 02:07 PM
#51
banned
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Walnut Creek Ca..
Posts: 2,746
Car Info: heel'n toe da hoe...
B.T.W. We need the STUPID LAW the Arizona has.
Do something stupid... $500 fine 1st time.
Then get rid of all these petty stupid *** laws. All there to protect the stupid and slow the smart.
Just protect them with one blanket law.. The Stupid Law.. Works very well in AZ
Do something stupid... $500 fine 1st time.
Then get rid of all these petty stupid *** laws. All there to protect the stupid and slow the smart.
Just protect them with one blanket law.. The Stupid Law.. Works very well in AZ
12-30-2008, 02:35 PM
#52
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Equally as important as Walter
Posts: 3,203
Car Info: E82
Speed limits do not stop those who want to speed. I regularly drive at a speed that I feel is safe for the road conditions, which rarely coincides with the posted limits. The argument could be made that removing speed limits might actually decrease accidents related to reckless driving; Germany has no speed limit on their freeways (autobahn), and they have better safety records than other European countries with general speed limits.
(As an aside, the psychology of removing speed limits having the effect of cutting back accidents is an interesting one: people have posited that because there is no speed limit, people will drive more conscientiously because they know there is an increased risk.)
If it was a case of the government really wanting to protect us, they would make an all-encompassing "anti-distraction" law. As it stands, I see people driving and reading, driving and putting on makeup, driving and watching television, et al, yet none of these things are illegal and most have been going on for much longer than mobile phones have even existed.
And there already are things that protect against people who drive and put the lives of others in danger: insurance, for starters.
No effect on others? Tell that to the families and friends of the morbidly obese. Tell that to the health care companies that raise all our premiums because of the rise of obesity and diabetes in this country. I would argue that junk food represents are far more widespread threat to the general health of our nation than sending text messages while driving. Does that mean I feel junk food should be illegal? No.
Clearly we have different definitions of libertarian.
(As an aside, the psychology of removing speed limits having the effect of cutting back accidents is an interesting one: people have posited that because there is no speed limit, people will drive more conscientiously because they know there is an increased risk.)
If it was a case of the government really wanting to protect us, they would make an all-encompassing "anti-distraction" law. As it stands, I see people driving and reading, driving and putting on makeup, driving and watching television, et al, yet none of these things are illegal and most have been going on for much longer than mobile phones have even existed.
And there already are things that protect against people who drive and put the lives of others in danger: insurance, for starters.
No effect on others? Tell that to the families and friends of the morbidly obese. Tell that to the health care companies that raise all our premiums because of the rise of obesity and diabetes in this country. I would argue that junk food represents are far more widespread threat to the general health of our nation than sending text messages while driving. Does that mean I feel junk food should be illegal? No.
Clearly we have different definitions of libertarian.
The morbidly obese do that to themselves, and it does not affect people they do not know in the same way that driving while texting has the potential to affect people. And junk food should have better warnings abiout health risks, just like cigarettes and tobacco, often people dont know the hazards of unhealthy eating, like they do other unhealthy activities.
12-30-2008, 02:37 PM
#53
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Equally as important as Walter
Posts: 3,203
Car Info: E82
Look, the crux of my argument is simple: this law is a trojan horse built by state government under the guise of insuring public safety, but with the clear intent of filling the state's coffers with money gained from fines. There are already laws in place that protect people from unsafe drivers; it is already against the law to crash into another car, for example. If someone is swerving in and out of other lanes, they can be ticketed with reckless driving and unsafe lane changes. The list goes on. An additional law is unnecessary and superfluous.
And yes, there should be fines for watching tv, which is illegal by the way, or reading while driving as well.
12-30-2008, 02:40 PM
#54
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East Bay / Pomona
Posts: 3,670
Car Info: '02 PSM WRX
Speed limits do not stop those who want to speed. I regularly drive at a speed that I feel is safe for the road conditions, which rarely coincides with the posted limits. The argument could be made that removing speed limits might actually decrease accidents related to reckless driving; Germany has no speed limit on their freeways (autobahn), and they have better safety records than other European countries with general speed limits.
If it was a case of the government really wanting to protect us, they would make an all-encompassing "anti-distraction" law. As it stands, I see people driving and reading, driving and putting on makeup, driving and watching television, et al, yet none of these things are illegal and most have been going on for much longer than mobile phones have even existed.
No effect on others? Tell that to the families and friends of the morbidly obese. Tell that to the health care companies that raise all our premiums because of the rise of obesity and diabetes in this country. I would argue that junk food represents are far more widespread threat to the general health of our nation than sending text messages while driving. Does that mean I feel junk food should be illegal? No.
Raising health care premiums is just statistics. While I have to pay a small bit more constantly, the increase is worth my life, which can be taken away by a texting driver, but (unless I'm horrible with money) shouldn't be taken away by a small increase in health care premiums.
12-30-2008, 03:05 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
B.T.W. We need the STUPID LAW the Arizona has.
Do something stupid... $500 fine 1st time.
Then get rid of all these petty stupid *** laws. All there to protect the stupid and slow the smart.
Just protect them with one blanket law.. The Stupid Law.. Works very well in AZ
Do something stupid... $500 fine 1st time.
Then get rid of all these petty stupid *** laws. All there to protect the stupid and slow the smart.
Just protect them with one blanket law.. The Stupid Law.. Works very well in AZ
12-30-2008, 03:11 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
STI-owns-evo and jewpac, you both make very good points, but unfortunately I do not agree with you. I could continue a point-by-point rebuttal, but I don't see this cycle of debate ending any time soon. As far as I'm concerned, more laws = less personal liberty.
I do appreciate the fact that both of you seem to be able to have a reasonable discussion about this even though we have opposing viewpoints. I only wish more people were capable of that. Thank you.
I do appreciate the fact that both of you seem to be able to have a reasonable discussion about this even though we have opposing viewpoints. I only wish more people were capable of that. Thank you.
12-31-2008, 08:10 AM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Originally Posted by KVOA News 4, Tuscon AZ
"The Stupid Motorist Law as it's commonly referred to is basically a law that says that in the event that a lower lying roadway or area is flooded, it's barricaded, and you drive around the barricade, you can be billed for that," said Joel Peterson, Risk Manager for the City of Tucson's Department of Finance; Risk Management Division.
