Originally Posted by Vyper
Same as with all of your other traffic laws. The Officer in question writes the ticket, and if the offender chooses to fight it, the Judge (or Jury depending on the type of offense) makes the final ruling.
And yes, if any aspect of my life it going to get someone else killed sure, I'll apply it.
As for where your rights begin and end, they begin... well at the beginning, and end when they start to infringe on others rights.
No, not that adept. At least not the average population. Some stunt drivers may be talented enough to drive their car with a brick on the throttle and themselves sitting on the hood. That doesn't mean we should let them do it during rush hour.
The definition you reference (with my original comment):
1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?)
Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!
What makes it a criminal activity? The fact that there is a law against it. There is a law against my packing the gun into the bank (and even wearing the ski-mask into the bank), even if I'm just there to deposit my paycheck. If we outlaw texting while driving, it too becomes criminal activity, and distracted driving, unlike my masked attempts at personal finance, kills people. So why are you defending peoples right to risk others lives while driving, but not up in arms about the loss of my ability to manage my finances while hiding my horrible nose job?
|
You're seriously missing my point. I'm not speaking to enforcement of the inane laws we need to draft in order to cover everything drivers might do as a distraction. I'm speaking to authoring of said laws. By whose authority is it determined that texting is worse than knob adjusting? etc? etc?
Where did I defend anyone's right to risk the lives of others? Distracted driving also doesn't kill people. Where do the distractions begin (as per your impression)? Where do they end? Which distractions are "worse" than others? Who decides that? How is it decided? Many examples of distractions have been described in this thread. Are they all as dangerous? These are the determinations I'm interested in hearing more about.
I'm assuming you're pro-life as well? I mean, it's pretty clear that abortion impedes someone's "right to life". It logically seems to me that anyone in favor of additional driving restrictions who also use the "right to life" position should also be against abortion, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Am I right? These things kill more people than text messaging ever will. Where's the outrage in these cases?
Laws such as the ones relevant to this thread are just like all the others. They cause a major nuisance to the good among us who try to live as best as we can because the idiots need to be told every breath to take. Those of us who have common sense are never put into compromising positions in the first place. I guess my overall question is how stupid do you think people are and how far are you willing to go to tell people how to live?