| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Beowulf" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2003 11:29:25 AM |
| Object: |
OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
oh my god (oops!), I just heard on the news this morning that in [New
Jersey?] it is [or will be] a felony crime now if you drive while sleepy.
I can not believe how we are losing are freedom-- so now I risk
committing a felony if I need to drive 5 hours to visit my mother for
a holiday? (I get tired easy while driving). What is our 'nation of
freedom' coming to?!
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:29:25 -0500 in alt.atheism, Beowulf (Beowulf
<beowulf@nowhere.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
oh my god (oops!), I just heard on the news this morning that in [New
Jersey?] it is [or will be] a felony crime now if you drive while sleepy.
I can not believe how we are losing are freedom-- so now I risk
committing a felony if I need to drive 5 hours to visit my mother for
a holiday? (I get tired easy while driving). What is our 'nation of
freedom' coming to?!
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
30 Sep 2003 01:15:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
...
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
...
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too subjective,
and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is the little
small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we become aware
of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
30 Sep 2003 10:49:37 PM |
|
|
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy.
I doubt it. How would they enforce it? What objective test is there
to determine that you were sleepy?
This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too subjective,
and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is the little
small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we become aware
of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Schneider" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
30 Sep 2003 11:07:29 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309301949.77eef7fc@posting.google.com...
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy.
I doubt it. How would they enforce it? What objective test is there
to determine that you were sleepy?
Maybe if you swerve out of your lane 3 times in 5 minutes time or less.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 07:46:10 AM |
|
|
In article <5qseb.10856$NX3.8653@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309301949.77eef7fc@posting.google.com...
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is
one presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour
or so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and
kill someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is
saying you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy.
I doubt it. How would they enforce it? What objective test is there
to determine that you were sleepy?
Maybe if you swerve out of your lane 3 times in 5 minutes time or less.
Again, that just proves bad driving, not whether a person is sleepy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 07:58:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:07:29 GMT, Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309301949.77eef7fc@posting.google.com...
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy.
I doubt it. How would they enforce it? What objective test is there
to determine that you were sleepy?
Maybe if you swerve out of your lane 3 times in 5 minutes time or less.
Of course not. It'll be necessary for all drivers to log when they sleep
and for all drivers to pull over to special testing stations for having
their alertness tested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 08:38:36 AM |
|
|
On 01 Oct 2003 12:58:25 GMT in alt.atheism, TCS (TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:07:29 GMT, Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309301949.77eef7fc@posting.google.com...
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy.
I doubt it. How would they enforce it? What objective test is there
to determine that you were sleepy?
Maybe if you swerve out of your lane 3 times in 5 minutes time or less.
Of course not. It'll be necessary for all drivers to log when they sleep
and for all drivers to pull over to special testing stations for having
their alertness tested.
Hardly. As in the Selby crash trial, it'll merely be necessary to
establish this after the fact, if it can be established, to prove
culpability.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 10:02:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:38:36 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 01 Oct 2003 12:58:25 GMT in alt.atheism, TCS (TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:07:29 GMT, Robert Schneider <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309301949.77eef7fc@posting.google.com...
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy.
I doubt it. How would they enforce it? What objective test is there
to determine that you were sleepy?
Maybe if you swerve out of your lane 3 times in 5 minutes time or less.
Of course not. It'll be necessary for all drivers to log when they sleep
and for all drivers to pull over to special testing stations for having
their alertness tested.
Hardly. As in the Selby crash trial, it'll merely be necessary to
establish this after the fact, if it can be established, to prove
culpability.
Not good enough. We need checkpoints and for all drivers to log when
they've last had some sleep and how much since we can't possibly expect
people to take responsibility for their actions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 07:14:19 AM |
|
|
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too subjective,
and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is the little
small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we become aware
of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is too late.
It sounds like you think this is subjective, that a cop with
a bad attitude will ticket people indiscriminately.
It's not a right to swerve or cross over into oncoming traffic
or neighboring lanes, to drive while unable to control your
car. Even if you don't hit anyone, you're presenting a danger.
If you take offense with that, I can't respect your argument.
This is the same reasoning behind the criminalizing of drunk
driving: the lack of, unwillingness, or inability to show
concern for the safety of one's own, pedestrians', or other
drivers' safety. That's not unreasonable.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
What kind of person would drive while eating? Or smoke?
Or use a cell phone? Doing anything that distracts you
from the task of driving is irresponsible.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 06:32:57 PM |
|
|
"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0310010414.4aef3fdc@posting.google.com...
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.30.13.15.40.896120.4587@nowhere.net>...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too
subjective,
and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is the
little
small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we become
aware
of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is too late.
It sounds like you think this is subjective, that a cop with
a bad attitude will ticket people indiscriminately.
It's not a right to swerve or cross over into oncoming traffic
or neighboring lanes, to drive while unable to control your
car. Even if you don't hit anyone, you're presenting a danger.
If you take offense with that, I can't respect your argument.
This is the same reasoning behind the criminalizing of drunk
driving: the lack of, unwillingness, or inability to show
concern for the safety of one's own, pedestrians', or other
drivers' safety. That's not unreasonable.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
What kind of person would drive while eating? Or smoke?
Or use a cell phone? Doing anything that distracts you
from the task of driving is irresponsible. ds
In a free society, people should be punished for the actual harm they do,
not for the *potential* harm someone is afraid they *might* do. That's all I
have to say on the matter.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
30 Sep 2003 04:41:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:15:41 -0500, Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too subjective,
and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is the little
small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we become aware
of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
In the UK there are laws covering the consumption of food whilst
driving. A couple of ridiculous cases hit the news a couple of years
ago where drivers were fined for eating chocolate bars whilst
stationery at traffic lights.
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
As to the original subject of driving whilst drowsy, your reaction
times are severely affected whilst tired and you become a danger to
other road users. Damned right there should be legal restrictions on
needlessly endangering the lives of others.
Not so very long ago a man who had spent the night chatting to his
girlfriend on the phone all night set off on a journey in his
landrover, towing IIRC a trailer.
He nodded off due to lack of sleep, left the road, slid down an
embankment onto a railway line. A passenger train hit the car. A goods
train hit the passenger train. I can't recall the death toll, but it
was a sharp reminder (if any were needed) that driving whilst tired
can be as dangerous as driving whilst drunk.
You might see this change of law as an erosion of your civil
liberties. Others might see it as a strengthening of their civil
liberties; that being the liberty to walk down the street or drive to
work without being killed and/or maimed just because some selfish *****
decides not to take a nap or have a cup of coffee before getting
behind the wheel of his car.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 07:09:09 AM |
|
|
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too
subjective, and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is
the little small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we
become aware of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is
too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
In the UK there are laws covering the consumption of food whilst
driving. A couple of ridiculous cases hit the news a couple of years
ago where drivers were fined for eating chocolate bars whilst
stationery at traffic lights.
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
<whack>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 08:13:00 AM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2003 05:09:09 -0700 in alt.atheism, Brian F. King
(brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too
subjective, and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is
the little small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we
become aware of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is
too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
In the UK there are laws covering the consumption of food whilst
driving. A couple of ridiculous cases hit the news a couple of years
ago where drivers were fined for eating chocolate bars whilst
stationery at traffic lights.
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
<whack>
In the UK we have an offence known as "driving without due care and
attention". This covers a multitude of sins, eating burgers, using
non-hands free mobile phones and so on while driving. Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
Generally speaking my feeling is that a car is a potentially lethal
weapon and you should be in your right mind and pay attention when you
use it. An unavoidable accident is one thing, but an accident that is
a direct consequence of your personal avoidable screw up is something
else entirely.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 09:48:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:13:00 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the UK we have an offence known as "driving without due care and
attention". This covers a multitude of sins, eating burgers, using
non-hands free mobile phones and so on while driving. Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
Generally speaking my feeling is that a car is a potentially lethal
weapon and you should be in your right mind and pay attention when you
use it. An unavoidable accident is one thing, but an accident that is
a direct consequence of your personal avoidable screw up is something
else entirely.
Couldn't agree more.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 06:55:54 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
Brian F. King (brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the >reply to alt.atheism
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too
subjective, and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is
the little small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we
become aware of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is
too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
In the UK there are laws covering the consumption of food whilst
driving. A couple of ridiculous cases hit the news a couple of years
ago where drivers were fined for eating chocolate bars whilst
stationery at traffic lights.
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
<whack>
In the UK we have an offence known as "driving without due care and
attention". This covers a multitude of sins, eating burgers, using
non-hands free mobile phones and so on while driving.
It's our "catch-all" as well.
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
Generally speaking my feeling is that a car is a potentially lethal
weapon and you should be in your right mind and pay attention when you
use it. An unavoidable accident is one thing, but an accident that is
a direct consequence of your personal avoidable screw up is something
else entirely.
I agree completely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
02 Oct 2003 12:10:53 AM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2003 16:55:54 -0700 in alt.atheism, Brian F. King
(brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
Brian F. King (brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the >reply to alt.atheism
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too
subjective, and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said, it is
the little small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that we
become aware of only after several steps have been taken but by then it is
too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
In the UK there are laws covering the consumption of food whilst
driving. A couple of ridiculous cases hit the news a couple of years
ago where drivers were fined for eating chocolate bars whilst
stationery at traffic lights.
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
<whack>
In the UK we have an offence known as "driving without due care and
attention". This covers a multitude of sins, eating burgers, using
non-hands free mobile phones and so on while driving.
It's our "catch-all" as well.
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
There was some talk of introducing a specific offence over here after
the Selby crash, but it wasn't deemed necessary. From what I gather
the idea behind specific legislation is to allow greater penalties
than the catch all allows.
Generally speaking my feeling is that a car is a potentially lethal
weapon and you should be in your right mind and pay attention when you
use it. An unavoidable accident is one thing, but an accident that is
a direct consequence of your personal avoidable screw up is something
else entirely.
I agree completely.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
02 Oct 2003 07:09:00 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Brian F. King (brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
<whack>
In the UK we have an offence known as "driving without due care and
attention". This covers a multitude of sins, eating burgers, using
non-hands free mobile phones and so on while driving.
It's our "catch-all" as well.
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
There was some talk of introducing a specific offence over here after
the Selby crash, but it wasn't deemed necessary. From what I gather
the idea behind specific legislation is to allow greater penalties
than the catch all allows.
What I was asking was how "tired" is *not* largely down to
the officer in question...
<whack>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
02 Oct 2003 08:14:59 AM |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2003 05:09:00 -0700 in alt.atheism, Brian F. King
(brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Brian F. King (brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King)) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
<whack>
In the UK we have an offence known as "driving without due care and
attention". This covers a multitude of sins, eating burgers, using
non-hands free mobile phones and so on while driving.
It's our "catch-all" as well.
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
There was some talk of introducing a specific offence over here after
the Selby crash, but it wasn't deemed necessary. From what I gather
the idea behind specific legislation is to allow greater penalties
than the catch all allows.
What I was asking was how "tired" is *not* largely down to
the officer in question...
<whack>
Oh go on. Harder. Faster. But that said:
Well, yes, "but".... What I'm saying is that "tired" is probably
something you prove, if you can, after the fact, as in Selby and which
allows a greater punishment than might otherwise be the case for say a
moments inattention.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
02 Oct 2003 09:56:40 PM |
|
|
In news:6215668a.0310011555.28da8d9f@posting.google.com,
Brian F. King <brianfking@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
<jumps in> How, exactly, does one measure how tired someone is? Do they
take them down to the "tired tank" and see how long it takes for the person
in question to fall asleep?
Wow, he "blew" a .2 on the tired scale...guess he was DWT...
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
02 Oct 2003 10:22:01 PM |
|
|
Doug Semler wrote:
In news:6215668a.0310011555.28da8d9f@posting.google.com,
Brian F. King <brianfking@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
<jumps in> How, exactly, does one measure how tired someone is? Do they
take them down to the "tired tank" and see how long it takes for the person
in question to fall asleep?
Wow, he "blew" a .2 on the tired scale...guess he was DWT...
IINM, some of the roadside sobriety tests will register if you're tired
enough to have trouble driving. I forget the name, but the one where
they move a pen back and forth in front of your eyes rings a bell...
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
03 Oct 2003 04:34:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:22:01 -0400, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vnpqqa52i9noef@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Doug Semler wrote:
In news:6215668a.0310011555.28da8d9f@posting.google.com,
Brian F. King <brianfking@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
Enforcement is
patchy and because of the general nature of the law largely down to
the officer in question.
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "how
would a law based on 'tiredness' be any different?
<jumps in> How, exactly, does one measure how tired someone is? Do they
take them down to the "tired tank" and see how long it takes for the person
in question to fall asleep?
Wow, he "blew" a .2 on the tired scale...guess he was DWT...
IINM, some of the roadside sobriety tests will register if you're tired
enough to have trouble driving. I forget the name, but the one where
they move a pen back and forth in front of your eyes rings a bell...
Under any conditions I would fail a roadside sobriety test.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
03 Oct 2003 09:08:37 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:gqqrnvs0rq2oujt2s8nr26qqq4ia6v0iud@4ax.com...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:22:01 -0400, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vnpqqa52i9noef@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Under any conditions I would fail a roadside sobriety test.
I saw a musician on TV years ago that said he'd always wanted to be stopped
and finally was. They asked him to step out of the car for a field sobriety
test and he said he'd be glad to if they could pass his test.
He then set a different beat with both hands and both feet. They let him go.
I mentioned this to a friend who can do five different beats (no potty
mouth, he uses his head for the fifth, no potty mouth, the one with two
eyes.)
Now he wants to be stopped.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
05 Oct 2003 12:53:53 AM |
|
|
In news:FYpfb.168482$3o3.12233752@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Mike Painter <mdotpainter@att.net> slavered, and posted this:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:gqqrnvs0rq2oujt2s8nr26qqq4ia6v0iud@4ax.com...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:22:01 -0400, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vnpqqa52i9noef@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Under any conditions I would fail a roadside sobriety test.
I saw a musician on TV years ago that said he'd always wanted to be
stopped and finally was. They asked him to step out of the car for a
field sobriety test and he said he'd be glad to if they could pass his
test.
He then set a different beat with both hands and both feet. They let him
go. I mentioned this to a friend who can do five different beats (no potty
mouth, he uses his head for the fifth, no potty mouth, the one with two
eyes.)
Now he wants to be stopped.
Talk about literally "pleading the fifth..." :D
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
04 Oct 2003 12:41:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:08:37 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>,
Message ID:
<FYpfb.168482$3o3.12233752@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:gqqrnvs0rq2oujt2s8nr26qqq4ia6v0iud@4ax.com...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:22:01 -0400, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vnpqqa52i9noef@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Under any conditions I would fail a roadside sobriety test.
I saw a musician on TV years ago that said he'd always wanted to be stopped
and finally was. They asked him to step out of the car for a field sobriety
test and he said he'd be glad to if they could pass his test.
He then set a different beat with both hands and both feet. They let him go.
I mentioned this to a friend who can do five different beats (no potty
mouth, he uses his head for the fifth, no potty mouth, the one with two
eyes.)
Now he wants to be stopped.
Chuckling.....
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark W" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 06:41:46 PM |
|
|
"Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6215668a.0310010409.58d7f88c@posting.google.com...
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Beowulf <beowulf@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:55:32 -0500, Therion Ware wrote:
..
Absolutely. The right to kill other people thorough inattention is
one
presumes, somewhere there in the Constitution.
On the other hand, you could pull over for a few minutes ever hour or
so.
..
The law is not saying your commit a crime if you fall asleep and kill
someone on the road (other laws deal with that of course), it is saying
you commit a felon just by driving drowsy/sleepy. This is disturbing
because it is a bit like censorship of pornography-- who defines what
is
pornography, who defines what is drowsy sleeping? Seems a bit too
subjective, and as Ayn Rand the famous contemporary philosopher said,
it is
the little small steps of injustice that we are nonattentive to, that
we
become aware of only after several steps have been taken but by then it
is
too late.
Now if I am eating a burger on a road trip and momentarily swerve my
car while taking a bit of the burger, is a patrol car going to pull me
over and charge me with a felony, driving while drowsy, just becauase I
swerved taking a bite out of my burger (which I know is the reason I
swerved, but the patrolman does not know)? Hmm.
In the UK there are laws covering the consumption of food whilst
driving. A couple of ridiculous cases hit the news a couple of years
ago where drivers were fined for eating chocolate bars whilst
stationery at traffic lights.
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his
stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
<whack>
There's being in a unfit state to drive laws in many places as well. It's on
the same level as driving under the influence of prescription drugs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 08:07:40 AM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2003 05:09:09 -0700, (Brian F. King)
wrote:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
<snip>
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
There are already seperate provisions for being DUI. Do you suggest
that there shouldn't be?
Swerving across the road isn't the only symptom of falling asleep at
the wheel. Ploughing into the back of a stationery vehicle is another.
Should laws exist in order to prevent accidents happening, or should
they only be there to prosecute (often posthumously) the guilty?
<whack>
Oh whack yourself.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 06:52:15 PM |
|
|
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King) wrote:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
<snip>
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
No response?
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
There are already seperate provisions for being DUI. Do you suggest
that there shouldn't be?
1. The separate provisions allow for felony conviction _on repeat
offenders_ for DUI. From what was posted {as opposed to whatever
the "napping" law actually *is*}, I guess driving home after 12
hours of work is worse than driving home after 12 shots?
2. At *most* DUI should be a clarification *of* reckless
driving and/or endangerment laws, not a law unto themselves.
So I guess my answer is "no, there shouldn't be".
Swerving across the road isn't the only symptom of falling asleep at
the wheel. Ploughing into the back of a stationery vehicle is another.
Should laws exist in order to prevent accidents happening, or should
they only be there to prosecute (often posthumously) the guilty?
Regardless of whether they should or not, I daresay that such
laws *do* exist. Why write more?
It's this inane "laws will make it better" attitude that
has a statute on the NJ laws specifying that it's reckless
endangerment to manufacture or sell golf balls containing
acid or corrosive substance.
Well **DUH**.
If the jurors need that level of clarification,
it's time for "civilization" to pack it in.
**
FWIW, I feel the same way about all the frivolous
lawsuits from Darwin Award nominees.
Propane tanks for blowtorches with disclaimers
that read "don't use while sleeping"??!?!?!?
<whack>
Oh whack yourself.
Very intellectual style of argument you have there.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 10:23:58 PM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2003 16:52:15 -0700, (Brian F. King)
wrote:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
(Brian F. King) wrote:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
<snip>
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
No response?
I wasn't aware it required one. If you insist... to answer your
question; no. None of the above should be regarded as felonies.
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
There are already seperate provisions for being DUI. Do you suggest
that there shouldn't be?
1. The separate provisions allow for felony conviction _on repeat
offenders_ for DUI. From what was posted {as opposed to whatever
the "napping" law actually *is*}, I guess driving home after 12
hours of work is worse than driving home after 12 shots?
Well, that sounds silly. In the UK we don't have the concept of a
"felony"... I had to look it up. If the definition I read is correct,
a felony is a crime which requires punishment of no less than 12
months imprisonment.
IMO the penalties for drink-driving should correlate to the level of
intoxication... and, AFAIK in the UK at least, they are. Being 1 unit
over the limit shouldn't be punishable by a year's imprisonment. Being
too drunk to see the road should. /shrug
But that's just my opinion.
2. At *most* DUI should be a clarification *of* reckless
driving and/or endangerment laws, not a law unto themselves.
So I guess my answer is "no, there shouldn't be".
Well then that's where we'd have to agree to disagree. If someone is
drunk, yet somehow manages to drive in a straight line, they are still
potentially putting pedestrians and other road users at risk... unless
you'd suggest that reaction times (and breaking distances) are
unaffected by the consumption of alcohol?
The same is true for the sleep-deprived driver.
Swerving across the road isn't the only symptom of falling asleep at
the wheel. Ploughing into the back of a stationery vehicle is another.
Should laws exist in order to prevent accidents happening, or should
they only be there to prosecute (often posthumously) the guilty?
Regardless of whether they should or not, I daresay that such
laws *do* exist. Why write more?
To discourage those who think they can drive just fine after they've
had a skinfull? If a driver *knows* he runs the risk of losing his
licence if caught drink-driving (rather than just causing an accident
whilst drink-driving) they are far less likely to do it. It is a
deterrant... an effective one, if the statistics are to be believed.
It's this inane "laws will make it better" attitude that
has a statute on the NJ laws specifying that it's reckless
endangerment to manufacture or sell golf balls containing
acid or corrosive substance.
Well **DUH**.
If the jurors need that level of clarification,
it's time for "civilization" to pack it in.
**
FWIW, I feel the same way about all the frivolous
lawsuits from Darwin Award nominees.
Propane tanks for blowtorches with disclaimers
that read "don't use while sleeping"??!?!?!?
<whack>
Oh whack yourself.
Very intellectual style of argument you have there.
You expected to endear yourself to me with *your* use of the <whack>?
You criticise *my* intellect for employing the same in response?
/sigh
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
02 Oct 2003 07:06:58 AM |
|
|
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King) wrote:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
brianfking@yahoo.com (Brian F. King) wrote:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
<snip>
Whilst I find this absurd, the idea that someone should be indignant
at being pulled over for *swerving* across the road whilst eating a
burger just beggars belief! What if that swerve caused you to mount
the pavement and mow down a pedestrian?
I think you miss his point.
While swerving around the road is certainly something not to be done:
1. He could have swerved for any reason. Say, changing the CD in his stereo.
Shall we make it a felony to change CD's in car stereos while driving?
Scratching an itch? Picking your nose?
No response?
I wasn't aware it required one. If you insist... to answer your
question; no. None of the above should be regarded as felonies.
2. Swerving around the road is already covered by "reckless driving" laws.
Why add *another* law to the books, when one already exists that covers
the *dangerous* aspect of it? [And why a felony?]
There are already seperate provisions for being DUI. Do you suggest
that there shouldn't be?
1. The separate provisions allow for felony conviction _on repeat
offenders_ for DUI. From what was posted {as opposed to whatever
the "napping" law actually *is*}, I guess driving home after 12
hours of work is worse than driving home after 12 shots?
Well, that sounds silly. In the UK we don't have the concept of a
"felony"... I had to look it up. If the definition I read is correct,
a felony is a crime which requires punishment of no less than 12
months imprisonment.
IMO the penalties for drink-driving should correlate to the level of
intoxication... and, AFAIK in the UK at least, they are. Being 1 unit
over the limit shouldn't be punishable by a year's imprisonment. Being
too drunk to see the road should. /shrug
But that's just my opinion.
2. At *most* DUI should be a clarification *of* reckless
driving and/or endangerment laws, not a law unto themselves.
So I guess my answer is "no, there shouldn't be".
Well then that's where we'd have to agree to disagree. If someone is
drunk, yet somehow manages to drive in a straight line, they are still
potentially putting pedestrians and other road users at risk...
Sure, and if he's that drunk, it falls under "reckless endangerment".
unless
you'd suggest that reaction times (and breaking distances) are
unaffected by the consumption of alcohol?
I wouldn't suggest that.
The same is true for the sleep-deprived driver.
The same is also true for the guy eating a big mac or changing a CD.
Swerving across the road isn't the only symptom of falling asleep at
the wheel. Ploughing into the back of a stationery vehicle is another.
Should laws exist in order to prevent accidents happening, or should
they only be there to prosecute (often posthumously) the guilty?
Regardless of whether they should or not, I daresay that such
laws *do* exist. Why write more?
To discourage those who think they can drive just fine after they've
had a skinfull? If a driver *knows* he runs the risk of losing his
licence if caught drink-driving (rather than just causing an accident
whilst drink-driving) they are far less likely to do it.
Sure. Wouldn't better enforcement of existing "reckless driving"
laws meet that criteria?
It is a deterrant... an effective one, if the statistics are
to be believed.
<whack>
<whack>
Oh whack yourself.
Very intellectual style of argument you have there.
You expected to endear yourself to me with *your* use of the <whack>?
That's a notification of an edit, not a commentary.
I use it instead of <snip>, especially when I edit out a large section
of a person's post. A little <snip>, a large <whack>.
Google on my name if you don't believe me.
You criticise *my* intellect for employing the same in response?
/sigh
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: You commit a felon if you drive sleepy now! |
01 Oct 2003 02:33:12 PM |
|
|
In article <67tjnv8rsldjj0r060sdia2lfoiqn2mhut@4ax.com>, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
You might see this change of law as an erosion of your civil
liberties. Others might see it as a strengthening of their civil
liberties; that being the liberty to walk down the street or drive to
work without being killed and/or maimed just because some selfish *****
decides not to take a nap or have a cup of coffee before getting
behind the wheel of his car.
Red Celt
aa#883
My problem with these laws is enforceability, as well as the potential
for abuse. Drunk driving laws are a necessity, for example. But if you
have any alcohol in your system, and you are involved in an accident,
you are automatically presumed guilty regardless of whether you caused
the accident or not. This is a denial of due process, as far as I'm
concerned.
Similarly, if you suffer from sleep apnea, narcolepsy, or chronic
fatigue syndrome, and are involved in an accident, there is a good
chance you will be presumed guilty under laws like this.
Further, people who suffer from sleep ailments may be forced to undergo
treatments that may or may not be beneficial, or risk losing their
licenses, much the same as drunk drivers are forced to attend rehab and
other largely ineffectual treatment programs. The mere fact that you
may suffer from such ailments does not mean you are more of a risk than
other drivers. And there is the possibility that those with sleep
disorders may be forced to undergo these treatments as a condition of
getting or keeping a license, not merely as the result of getting in a
sleep-related accident.
It is far better to restrict enforcement to erratic or bad drivers,
than to arbitrarily assume that because someone has sleep apnea, or has
had two beers, that they are a menace. In the US, truly aggressive
drivers are seldom pulled over by the police. Tailgating, changing
lanes without signaling and cutting other drivers off will rarely get
you a ticket. The cops prefer to ticket speeders, since the radar
readings are considered objective evidence in court, even though cops
are the worst speeders on the road. The New York State Troopers
routinely blast by me on the Thruway doing 120 mph--twice the speed
limit. These are the guys who are supposed to enforce the speeding
laws, and with their mixed-shifts and crazy hours, the drowsy driver
laws.
Sean C
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
