Posted by flynrider via MotorcycleKB.com on October 31, 2007, 4:13 pm
P. Roehling wrote:
>> That's a pretty big downside. Who is going to unilaterally ban the use
>> of
>> cell phones in all moving vehicles because some drivers are irresponsible?
>Given the opportunity, *I* would. So would a lot of other riders who've had
>close calls -pun intended- with brain-dead drivers who were involved in
>animated phone conversations.
I dodge 'em daily. I fully support any ban on cell phone use while
driving. I still have a problem with restricting a large segment of
legitimate users because of the actions of some boneheads.
John
--
Message posted via MotorcycleKB.com
http://www.motorcyclekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bike/200710/1
Posted by P. Roehling on October 31, 2007, 4:28 pm
> I dodge 'em daily. I fully support any ban on cell phone use while
> driving. I still have a problem with restricting a large segment of
> legitimate users because of the actions of some boneheads.
Shrug. That's how societies work. Large numbers of our laws restrict the
general public's behavior in various ways because of the "actions of
boneheads".
For example: were it not for scam-artists we wouldn't need laws against
fraud.
'Twere ever thus.
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on November 1, 2007, 9:16 am
> > I dodge 'em daily. I fully support any ban on cell phone use while
> > driving. I still have a problem with restricting a large segment of
> > legitimate users because of the actions of some boneheads.
> Shrug. That's how societies work. Large numbers of our laws restrict the
> general public's behavior in various ways because of the "actions of
> boneheads".
> For example: were it not for scam-artists we wouldn't need laws against
> fraud.
How do the laws against fraud "restrict the general public's
behavior" ?
Posted by [none] on November 1, 2007, 9:22 am
tomorrow@erols.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I dodge 'em daily. I fully support any ban on cell phone use while
>>>driving. I still have a problem with restricting a large segment of
>>>legitimate users because of the actions of some boneheads.
>>
>>Shrug. That's how societies work. Large numbers of our laws restrict the
>>general public's behavior in various ways because of the "actions of
>>boneheads".
>>
>>For example: were it not for scam-artists we wouldn't need laws against
>>fraud.
>
>
> How do the laws against fraud "restrict the general public's
> behavior" ?
>
it means that the politicians have to take their deals into back rooms
Posted by P. Roehling on November 1, 2007, 2:46 pm
>> For example: were it not for scam-artists we wouldn't need laws against
>> fraud.
> How do the laws against fraud "restrict the general public's
> behavior" ?
Uh, it hopefully keeps them from commiting fraud and provides a means for
jailing those who do.
XML Sitemap
>> of
>> cell phones in all moving vehicles because some drivers are irresponsible?
>Given the opportunity, *I* would. So would a lot of other riders who've had
>close calls -pun intended- with brain-dead drivers who were involved in
>animated phone conversations.