Originally Posted by forty2j
This actually gets to my point.
There is a law on the books that says when you negligently hit someone with your car, you're probably going to jail.
If the threat of jail time if something happens isn't going to stop someone from engaging in risky behavior, such as texting while actively moving on an urban street populated with all its wheeled and non-wheeled denizens, why would 2 pts on their license and a $125 fine suddenly have a deterrent effect?
|
Because everyone assumes they are the only ones who do it responsibly, and would never hit anyone because of it. Thus their behavior doesn't change. On the other hand when they wind up writing the $125 check for their first offense, they go "Holy Carp batman! Texting while driving it expensive!" (Yes, they all say Holy Carp... it's a religious thing)
Originally Posted by forty2j
If anything, I would support these laws being tack-ons to existing offenses.. e.g. if you were performing one of these behaviors (texting, changing CD, rosy palming) while involved in an accident it's a double penalty or something. But to just blanket ban little niches of activity seems draconian for what it achieves.
|
I actually agree with the tack-ons wholeheartedly, but we need laws against the activity even without an accident. Just because you get home drunk safely one night, or manage to text safely on the freeway once, does not mean you weren't putting others lives at risk.