backtop


Print 221 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Oct 4 at 10:39 AM


Ray LaHood is not happy with new study  (Source: MSNBC)
Study says in observed areas accidents went up for some groups after bans

The debate over laws that forbid texting and driving or taking on the phone while driving is hotly contested. The U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood feels that the legislation and laws that are in effect around the country now are doing their job and reducing the incidence of distracted driving.

However, reports have come out that claim the opposite. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) issued a study recently that claimed that texting bans are not reducing the number of accidents on the highways (the study focused on four states). In fact, the study claims that the number of accidents related to distracted driving actually increased in some areas the that were a part of the study.

The study angered LaHood who responded on his official blog 
FastLane this week where he claimed that the study was flawed and misleading. He wrote, "The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of IIHS, is now saying that state anti-texting laws may actually 'increase' the overall number of crashes statewide. There are numerous flaws with this "study," but the most obvious is that they have created a cause and effect that simply doesn't exist."

LaHood continued, adding, "For example, we have a national law against drunk driving. People are also required to wear seat belts. But if the number of fatalities in a state goes up one year, would it now pass as "research" to say that seat belt and anti-drunk driving laws are to blame?"

LaHood goes on to write about pilot programs that are operating in Hartford, CT and Syracuse, NY called “Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other”. According to LaHood these programs have proven to be very successful at reducing the number of drivers who text and drive or talk and drive. The statistics from the enforcement campaigns have shown that hand held cell phone use has dropped 56% in Hartford and 38% in Syracuse since the campaign started and texting while driving has dropped 68% in Hartford and 42% in Syracuse.

LaHood wrote, "But you wouldn't know about the importance of good enforcement from reading IIHS's misleading report. That's because they leave enforcement completely unaddressed. But we all know that good laws don't mean anything without tough enforcement."

A recent scientific study used data similar to what the HLDI used to find a link between texting and driving that claims to have found 16,000 deaths caused by texting and driving.

MSNBC quotes HLDI's senior VP Kim Hazelbaker saying, "The results [of our study] were contrary to what we had hoped. Unfortunately, we are not seeing a decrease in collisions. We can find no evidence that these laws keep us safe."

The HLDI report based its findings on comparisons of insurance claims before and after texting was banned in four states compared to states nearby without bans in place. Hazelbaker stated, "I think there is some reason to believe there is a negative effect." He thinks that drivers may simply be moving their texting from in front of them to their lap causing the driver to take their eyes farther from the road.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just criminalize breathing already!
By MeesterNid on 9/29/2010 10:13:38 AM , Rating: 3
This is getting out of hand, not this law specifically, but the overall over-criminalization of life in this country! It's a never ending cycle, the government grows, it creates laws (since that's all it can do), the laws need enforcement which needs more government, rinse and repeat.

So in summary: small government, few laws, less enforcement needed = more money in your pocket!




RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Kurz on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2010 10:51:06 AM , Rating: 5
It sure would seem that the study makes some far-reaching findings... When doing any proper before/after study, there's an important concept called "regression to the mean". Quality comparitive samples are vital to proper understanding of trends, especially if you are trying to prove causality. I wouldn't promote this study as being too accurate. That being said...

In defense of the texting bans and general safety rules, we all have to remember that there are economic impacts of vehicle crashes.

FHWA has placed an economic value on the average fatal crash to be $7.1 million. That's the cost to society as a whole. Emergency services, court fees, funeral costs, insurance payouts, earning potential, etc. are all factored in. Let's just say that if you have 30 fatal crashes in your state that are the direct result of alcohol or unbelted or texting... that's potentially a $230 million cost to the economy. There are nearly 40,000 fatal crashes per year in this country... that's a lot of dough.

So if we want to talk about fees, taxes, and make it a monetary issue, then the value of having laws on the books is important.

However, enforcing the laws is difficult and expensive as well. Your average cop makes over 50K/year will tremendous benefits that continue into retirement until death. They already have a tough time staying on top of violent crimes and thefts, which seem to make the headlines much more frequently.

Some argue the solution is to revert to 1950s "anything goes" mentality. Get a verbal warning for speeding with an open bottle, for example. However, fatalities were out of control back then. Sure, vehicle safety had a lot to do with it (metal dash boards instead of airbags), but again, we can't be selfish and assume that the bad habits of one person has no bearing on others. The majority of crashes involve more than one vehicle, involve one or more parties that did nothing wrong.

Cellphone-related crashes, distracted driving crashes, and aggressive driving (speeding, illegal passing, etc.) are all on the rise. Something has to be done both on the legislative level to criminalize certain behaviors to help deter activities directly linked to these crashes. People yell, "Oh noes, my rightz!" but you're not the only person on the road - what about the rights of the family of the person you just killed while texting?

Driving is still a priviledge, not a right. Every driver is required to obey "rules of the road" in order to legally operate a vehicle on a public road. How we vote and our participation in the legislative process has real world effects on the time, money, and energy that goes into safety-based laws, education, and enforcement.

In short, here's a message to drivers everywhere: don't be a ****ing idiot.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2010 10:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
that's potentially a $230 million cost to the economy

Derp, my estimate was off:

$7.1m * 30 = $213,000,000.


By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2010 2:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
40,000 fatal crashes

Derp #2, closer to 33,000.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2010 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That's a lie.

Read what I wrote again. I may not always be right, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a liar.
quote:
Accident and fatality rates are at an all time low and dropping year after year.

True. I cited that agressive and distracted crashes, as a type of crash, are on the rise, not that all crashes are on the rise. Example:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf

quote:
Many experts have been quoted...

I have been working professionally in traffic safety engineering for 9 years now and I have never heard anyone in my field say anything to that effect. I'd like to see your sources.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By therealnickdanger on 10/1/2010 10:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That doesn't matter, the OVERALL picture does. Fatalities and crashes have been steadily going down, PERIOD. It doesn't matter what causes the fewer and fewer ones that do happen.

It's obvious that you have absolutely zero knowledge about this topic - which is OK, most people don't understand this stuff at all. Fortunately, as part of my job, I have a lot of experience dealing with angry mobs and phone calls. I'm patient and can work with just about anyone.

Fatal crashes and crashes overall are going down, yes, and it's a wonderful thing! But WHY are they going down? To answer that question, you have to look at the data - which is all based on crash reports and crash reconstruction diagrams. In those reports are details ranging from the actions taken by vehicle, measures of skid marks, weather conditions, type of roadway, etc. Literally hundreds of factors can go into a crash database.

Today, there are more vehicles on the road and more miles being logged by drivers than any time in the past, so the fact that fatal and total crashes are decreasing must stem from something. What that "something" is, is what is known in the industry as "the three Es". Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. I've seen it expand to even 7 Es, but the core of the methodology is focusing multiple resources on multiple problems.

The data drives the prioritization and allocation of research and, most importantly, funding. If, on the city, county, state, or national level, you have a problem with alcohol-related crashes, you use the data to find out when and where the crashes usually happen. You get that information to cops so they can saturate with enforcement, educate the bar owners, collaborate with cab companies, do what it takes to prevent the worst from happening.

If you have problems with head-on collisions in certain spots, erect (haha) barriers if it's a divided roadway, or center-line rumble strips on non-divided roadways. Do something that eliminates the problem or helps the driver keep aware.

Problems with red light running or t-bone crashes? Investigate signal timing, build a roundabout, build dedicated turn lanes, build an interchange: take the power out of the hands of stupid drivers with concrete solutions.

Cars to fragile? Deathtrap? Crumple zones, airbags, seat belts, traction control, etc. When the worst happens, you've got extra protection.

Over the past several decades, safety improvements like these have been tested, analyzed, and are the REASONS the numbers are dropping. BUT, as we think and engineer our way out of certain crash types, reducing or eliminating them, the spotlight begins to shine on other types.

The REASON texting/inattentive crashes are becoming a hot topic is because the data, the research is showing a dramatic, statistically significant RISE in their share of the crashes. The explosion of cell phone use, text use, web-enabled phones and vehicles are having a direct effect on the increase. Do we put jammers in cars? Do we let cars drive themselves? Do cell phones detect motion and only operate in hands-free mode? Where do we go from here? If we do nothing, don't pass laws, don't educate drivers, don't enforce violators, then the problem will get worse and you, me, and everyone else will be paying for these mistakes for years to come.

</soapbox>


By The Raven on 10/1/2010 3:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
First off, thanks for your productive comments, but I disagree mainly with one point...
quote:
The REASON texting/inattentive crashes are becoming a hot topic is because the data, the research is showing a dramatic, statistically significant RISE in their share of the crashes.

I see this as a hot topic because this is another example (like helmet laws, and seatbelt laws) where the gov't is telling us what to do/not do in our cars. Back when seatbelt usage was mandated (or even before when it was mandated to be installed in cars) people were just as animated about it. And ironically they were asking questions like, "where will the gov't intervention end?" Can we still eat nachos or a cup of yogurt while we steer with our knee? From personal experience I find that the texting is safer. But that is my personal experience and I don't try to tell others what to do.
And texting is something that a lot of people like to do in their cars. IMO that is why it is a hot topic.
quote:
If we do nothing, don't pass laws, don't educate drivers, don't enforce violators, then the problem will get worse and you, me, and everyone else will be paying for these mistakes for years to come.

Bad things happen to great people. My Aunt was killed by a guy who blew threw a red light going 50 in a 35. Neither the speeding law, the red-light law, insurance law, nor the seatbelt law saved her. In fact, it was her false belief that the green light would protect her that cost her her life.

But what can you do? There are stupid, crazy, or malicious people out there and bad things will happen. But there isn't a politician out there that will admit to that. So we get more and more laws: less and less freedom.

Laws don't protect us. Adherance to the laws do. It is a natural law that texting while driving is MORE dangerous than not. And the result of that natural law is contingent on our input as a society. Education is the only real way to protect ourselves from natural laws. Otherwise, we have a man-made law that covers up the reasoning for fear of the natural law. (e.g. Why don't we text while driving? "Because I will get cited" as opposed to "because I might kill someone")

I agree that we should educate drivers to the dangers of texting (talking, writing, etc.) but I think my local news organizations are doing a great job. (Oh and Oprah too ;-). But having said that, I don't text while driving. But at the same time I don't want to give up my right to do so should I choose to, so I refuse to take Oprah's stupid pledge)

When the written-police-enforced laws come into play, you can count me out. We have a choice to make as a society: do we want freedom or safety?

Anyway that is my long winded reasoning for why I think these laws are gibberish (or even foolish).


By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2010 12:35:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The REASON texting/inattentive crashes are becoming a hot topic is because the data, the research is showing a dramatic, statistically significant RISE in their share of the crashes. The explosion of cell phone use, text use, web-enabled phones and vehicles are having a direct effect on the increase.


Statistically that only proves more and more cell phones are being sold. Leading to a more *likely* chance that cell phones will be in a vehicle involved in a crash.

quote:
If we do nothing, don't pass laws, don't educate drivers, don't enforce violators, then the problem will get worse and you, me, and everyone else will be paying for these mistakes for years to come.


Only if I accept your premise that this is a "problem". Which to be honest, I think we have bigger fish to fry. The study in this very article suggests some problems can't be fined or mandated away anyway.

quote:
Fatal crashes and crashes overall are going down, yes, and it's a wonderful thing! But WHY are they going down?


Yes. They are going down, and cell phone use is going up exponentially. We already have strong evidence that the bans and fines are NOT effective. So if we follow the clues to the logical conclusion, I fail to see how as you say this problem will "get worse and worse for years to come".

quote:
It's obvious that you have absolutely zero knowledge about this topic


Well I'm sorry you feel that way.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By eldakka on 9/30/2010 12:43:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
agressive and distracted crashes, as a type of crash, are on the rise


I'm genuinely curious about this stat. How is it derived? Is it an absolute number increase (i.e. 5000 last year, 6000 this year) or as a percentage of overall crashes (i.e. 20% of crashes were due to agressive and distracted drivers last year and this year it's 25%).

I ask because if it's a percentage of overall crashes, has the decline in the absolute number been taken into account?

e.g. 30,000 crashes in 2005, 6000 due to aggressive/distracted drivers, giving 20% of crashes due to this factor.

But say in 2009 there were 27,000 crashes, but still 6000 due to aggressive/distracted drivers, giving us a new figure of 22%, OMG a 2% point increase in crashes caused by aggressive/distracted drivers! Even tho the same absolute number of crashes was attributed to them..


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MarkK02474 on 9/29/2010 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Notice how distracted and aggressive driving are mutually exclusive?

The aggressive drivers are trying to get somewhere while the distracted ones are multi-tasking!

DOT Nazi's cause many problems. Aggressive driving is one, increased by removal of "slower traffic keep right" signs. Signs were removed to clog all lanes, slowing traffic and making it hard for people who are focused on driving from getting somewhere. Lower average speeds results in less damaging crashes and less lethality, hence the lane use ignorance plan. The problem is slower driving also results in more boredom, multi-tasking, inattention, and distraction.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Lerianis on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2010 4:25:59 PM , Rating: 3
Driving too fast or too slow are both dangerous. "Going with the flow" is statistically the safest speed. Since the mid-20th century, study after study after study has shown that traveling at or near the 85th percentile of travel speeds is the safest (least chance of getting into an accident) speed. It is an accepted practice - almost globally - to set speed limits according to the 85th percentile of observed vehicle travel speeds. However, politics often attempt to thwart the science due to ignorance... go figure.

Common sense tells you that going faster will increase the severity of a crash, as this is supported by data, but being at outlier either on the bottom end or the high end statistically places you at risk of getting into a crash in the first place.

Go with the flow. Use your turn signals. Slower traffic move right. All good suggestions.


By Zhukov on 10/1/2010 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
But it's still illegal and dangerous to exceed the speed limit.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 7:27:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Personally, I always drive 5-10 MPH UNDER the posted speed limit if the speed limit is at or above 50 MPH in the area where I am driving. Why? Because it gives me a better 'buffer' to avoid accidents if something strange or unexpected happens.


Oh wonderful, so you can cause collisions because people get pissed off and try to pass you! Great plan! Please stay off the road.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 7:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wonderful, so you can cause collisions because people get pissed off and try to pass you! Great plan! Please stay off the road.

In many places that happens even when I'm 5-10 mph over the limit.

And when some numbnuts is tailgating well that's when the foot comes off the gas. Their lack of the understanding of the laws of physics isn't going to be my problem.

So what is the arse who wants to pass you really saying?
1. They can't plan their time?
2. They have no time to plan their time.
3. Their time and priorities are more important that yours.
4. They're #1 no matter what. (Some pass and then drive slower than you.)
5. They have zero comprehension of the danger they cause to everyone.
6. They have yet to achieve gangsta' status?

All of this is why when I took mass transit to get to work and back and I didn't have to drive all week long I immediately gained more quality of life. Most people are too thick to ever figure that out.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2010 8:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes my time is important, I really don't want to waste my lunch break or afternoon driving behind someone that is scared to drive at a reasonable speed for the conditions. I have better things to do then spend extra time staring at your back bumper.

The person who is inconsiderate is the one who is obstructing traffic by driving slow and not pulling over and letting everyone else by. If you're already driving the speed limit thats your deal and the tailgater is just being impatient. But if you're driving 10MPH under the speed limit on dry roads blocking everyone else who is trying to go somewhere you're the jerk and you either need to let everyone else by or you need to be ticketed.


By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 8:17:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The person who is inconsiderate is the one who is obstructing traffic by driving slow and not pulling over and letting everyone else by.


quote:
In many places that happens even when I'm 5-10 mph over the limit.

Uh, and who made you king? What gives you the right to determine the level of safety of other people?

George Carlin addressed this:
quote:
Anybody who drives slower than me is stupid. Anybody who drives faster than me is nuts.


By vol7ron on 9/29/2010 10:14:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Personally, I always drive 5-10 MPH UNDER the posted speed limit if the speed limit is at or above 50 MPH in the area where I am driving. Why? Because it gives me a better 'buffer' to avoid accidents if something strange or unexpected happens.


Does something strange or unexpected happen a lot? ...maybe you're causing them by driving TOO DAMN SLOW !


By MarkK02474 on 9/30/2010 7:08:29 AM , Rating: 4
Grandpa/ma, please turn off your turn indicator, its been on for years. Just because your reflexes are slow, does not mean everyone's are. People assume the level of risk they are comfortable with. When I am tired, driving in rain, or snow, I drive slower than on a clear, dry day.

Slow drivers (on the phone) in passing lanes thwart the 85% rule, as is the government's plan. Otherwise the natural 85% speed would be considerably higher than what is posted. US roads are copied after the Autobahn and Germans have no speed limits in more rural sections. Unless you think Germans are superior to Americans, Americans should go back to having speed limits set by engineers instead of bureaucrats.


By MarkK02474 on 9/30/2010 7:14:44 AM , Rating: 3
Also grandpa/ma, good driving is less about good reflexes than anticipating actions of other drivers by thinking while driving. This is where mult-tasking is a killer or driving too slowly. Going too slow does not present enough to think about to stay mentally engaged.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/30/10, Rating: 0
By guffwd13 on 9/30/2010 1:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
While I diasagreed with your original post - I fully support you here.

Driving UNDER the speed limit creates the same liability as someone driving to fast. On the road you must follow the flow of traffic - its the unexpected that gets people killed and driving 50 in a 65 is most certainly unexpected.

Idiot for sure.


By saganhill on 9/30/2010 1:45:05 PM , Rating: 4
So you're that **shole I always end up behind.


By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 7:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Accident and fatality rates are at an all time low and dropping year after year.

Show some pedestrian and motorcycle fatality stats.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By vol7ron on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MarkK02474 on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 8:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am also a better driver drunk than most when sober.

There isn't a drunk anywhere in the world that doesn't believe this of themselves. Same as there's no human that ever thinks they are going to die in a car crash today.


By saganhill on 9/30/2010 1:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
How can you say youre a better driver drunk than some poeple that are sober?

The very fact that you're brain is altered during alchohol consumption negates that assumtion. Until you are tested by credible "science" I think that statement is total hogwash and very arogant on your part.


By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 2:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would contend that I'm a better driver drunk/distracted, than some people on the road "sober" and attentive.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Don't worry officer, I know I was a little bit out of my lane there, but another beer will clear that right up."


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By tng on 9/29/2010 11:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just as shooting someone is a crime. Why I shot them should not be a crime.

Thought police, you make thinking a certain way criminal.

I agree 100%


By clovell on 9/29/2010 12:09:24 PM , Rating: 3
You make a decent point with your example, FIT, but I'm not sure I'd apply it universally. This entire debacle is based on the misuse of half-baked statistics to justify 'crusader-style' legislation that wins votes at election time.

I've said that for the past four years, and now folks seem surprised.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By guffwd13 on 9/29/2010 1:32:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That somehow shooting someone because you're racist is worse than doing so because you just wanted their wallet and they didn't want to give it to you.


FIT - I so vehemently disagree with that statement. You're viewpoint is an over-simplification of the issue and ignores the entire magnanimity of it. Someone who harms another for racial reasons is thus putting other citizens in pre-disposed positions of vulnerability and attack (ie - you're not going to protect one race more than another). Say the racist person is Asian, and that it is proven that this Asian hates Latinos (for whatever reason) and is the reason as to why this Asian harmed a Latino - that person must be punished to a greater extent.

The logic is that if whatever your race, you are more likely to be harmed by those who are racist around you. You are inherently, and selectively less safe as a result. Thus, your guarantee rights and protection as a citizen - or rather, as a human - is diminished. And it is diminished in such a way that is likely to have been influenced by a greater society that advocates prejudice and detriment to specific others who are deemed equals under the law. In other words, hate crimes are treated with greater punishment so as to discourage racist/sexist/religious or sex-orientation prejudice and their related crimes. They are not tolerated in this American society.

Your viewpoint also overgeneralizes the privileges of residing within a civilized society (which is also a redundant term). It is far more complicated to control a mass than you give credit for for. Some of our laws are based on experience, some are trial and error and all in the end either stand the test of time or are eliminated for various reasons. Have faith in the American system. Its ok to question one here and there - but to offer a blanket statement without regard to the actual consequence of your proposal is downright idiotic. But then again, you are permitted by law to criticize and announce your disapproval as you please - and then again so am I.

And anyway, if the reason didn't matter - than why does that court system care so much about motive?


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Schrag4 on 9/29/2010 2:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that we generally don't tolerate hate crimes in America (although that may depend on your definition), I have to agree with FIT on this one. Someone shouldn't be punished any LESS for murdering someone if it WASN'T a hate crime. The only thing that should matter is whether they intended to do it or not. There are plenty of murders that are not racially motivated, and I don't think they should face a softer penalty.

quote:
And anyway, if the reason didn't matter - than why does that court system care so much about motive?


I don't think texting is a "motive" to run someone over with your car. The fact that someone commits a hate crime makes motive very easy to determine, so it should be easier to convince a judge or jury that they're guilty. I don't feel like it should factor into sentencing though. Whether it was premeditated is usually what factors in there. And, again, being a hate crime can make that easier to determine, so in a way stiffer penalties will work their way into hate crime sentencing. I don't believe that the laws should be written with hate crime language, though. Particularly because now someone has to determine what standards (double?) should define a hate crime. Just my 0.02


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By guffwd13 on 9/29/2010 2:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you actually (unintentionally?) bring up two interesting points: is the glass half-empty/half-full, and, the divide of opinion over preventative vs. reactive law.

No I don't think murders should be spared as severe a punishment. If 2nd degree murder (many hate crimes are no premeditated by definition of being "planned" but the criminal was predisposed to commit that crime) gets 25 years, a hate crime should get 35 - or whatever people who deal with this deem a fitting punishment. But I do agree with you on the 1st vs 2nd degree. If premeditated, its definitely worse. But then again if a 1st degree gets life, then a 1st degree hate crime should get death.

Second, the texting thing is a preventative measure. The law is saying that if you do this, you are more likely to endanger yourself and the lives of others. Therefore, you are not allowed to do it. The opposing school of thought is that there should be no punishment until the harm is actually committed - which makes sense at face value. However, many innocent people are at risk in many scenarios without preventative laws. All traffic laws, all fire codes and all building codes, for example, are entirely preventative. Would you fancy the 33rd floor of a building that might not stand up because someone didn't believe in penalizing that architect/engineer until it fell down?

And not to apply a new tangent, but its not big government you have to thank for that, its good old capitalism and the lawyers that make money over winning those cases. An ironic example of why man needs to be regulated beyond the market because at the end of the day the incentive is to benefit himself and no one else.

I personally stand on the side of preventative. Sure, it makes life so much more difficult - and you may even inadvertantly commit a crime by not following a certain procedure without knowing it, but at least those who were law abiding citizens will be sparred some of the stupidity of others.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Kurz on 9/30/2010 1:29:12 AM , Rating: 1
You honestly compared consequences of people's actions with building codes?


By guffwd13 on 9/30/2010 10:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
Don't see the problem - they're not some superfluous layer of bureaucracy that exists for its own sake. Almost every building code in existence is due to someone dying because of some oversight/professional failure. It only takes one incident to rewrite the code - and only one lawyer.

But thanks for responding to my point rather than not picking at the irrelevant... makes us all a little bit smarter.


By Schrag4 on 10/1/2010 3:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
I know this reply is super-late so I don't expect a reply, but...

quote:
No I don't think murders should be spared as severe a punishment. If 2nd degree murder (many hate crimes are no premeditated by definition of being "planned" but the criminal was predisposed to commit that crime) gets 25 years, a hate crime should get 35 - or whatever people who deal with this deem a fitting punishment. But I do agree with you on the 1st vs 2nd degree. If premeditated, its definitely worse. But then again if a 1st degree gets life, then a 1st degree hate crime should get death.


...why wouldn't the non-hate-crime get 35 years when the hate crime gets 35 years for 2nd degree murder? Why death for a hate crime but not death for just a "regular" 1st degree murder? You seemed to just suggest that hate crimes should have stiffer penalties without any reason. Maybe I missed it.

Let me give a non-hypothetical. Recently a couple of people invaded the home of a 40-something year old single mother and her 9 year old daughter. They killed the mother and tried to kill the daughter but she escapted and called 911 AFTER BEING SHOT IN THE BACK 6 TIMES!!! (I believe she's still alive). I suppose since it wasn't a hate crime, they should get life in prison? No, I think they most definitely should be put to death, regardless of whether or not they were 'predisposed' because they hated the victims for some reason.

FYI, I would argue in this particular case (black perps, white victims) that they were in fact predisposed to commit this type of crime, not because they're black, but because this wasn't the first time they'd been in trouble of this nature with the law (prosecutor dropped charges in exchange for turning over a weapon the first time). So does that mean they should get death instead of life in prison? I really don't see how that matters. They took one life and forever changed another in more ways than one, and they MEANT TO. Who cares whether they hated the victims?


By BSMonitor on 9/29/2010 2:31:38 PM , Rating: 1
FIT is a troll who rarely sees things from outside his bubble.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By AEvangel on 9/29/2010 2:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
Your wrong, no matter how you want to say it or feel it the issue of hate laws are wrong. By creating hate laws you foster and ensure racism by giving special treatment to one person over another based on some thing you deem different. the bottom line is we are all the same and should abide by the same laws. No single group should get more or less protection under the law.

You can't legislate out of existence or make ignorance illegal. All you do is give up more freedom every law that passes.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By guffwd13 on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Kurz on 9/30/2010 1:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
Racism is more than skin color.


By guffwd13 on 9/30/2010 10:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yep - and skin color isn't the only thing that'll become more homogenous. Thanks again for thinking your reply through before posting.


By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 8:05:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're viewpoint is an over-simplification of the issue and ignores the entire magnanimity of it.

You're arguing with someone who jokes about running over little black kids, you really expect him to crawl out of his private little Idaho?

Why are people like this? Because ignorance is bliss.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By juserbogus on 9/29/2010 1:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
so you are saying that shooting someone in self defense should be a crime then!


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Schrag4 on 9/29/2010 2:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. Depending on where you live, it may just be a crime. Then again, in some places (Texas I believe) you can shoot a mugger IN THE BACK as he's running away and that's ok by the law. Check your local laws before you start shooting everything that moves, mmmkay?


By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nope you gotta shoot him in the leg until he turns around. ;)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 2:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
Where do I say that? Shooting someone in self defense is generally, except in wacko states like Commifornia, not against the law. It just has to be proven that it was indeed in self defense.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By mikefarinha on 9/29/2010 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 1
While I can't say I agree with the whole hate crime laws I think you're simplifying the argument a bit too much.

Should someone get same treatment for accidentally shooting someone as someone who did it on purpose or as someone who did it in self defense?

The 'why' is very important.

I think you need to refine your argument.


By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 2:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes the why can matter.

I guess a better statement would be, for intentional crimes committed by civilians, the why shouldn't matter.

If a cop shoots someone, why they did it obviously should be a consideration. But if its determined that they did it when they didn't have to, the why they did it when they didn't have to I don't think should matter. Whatever the reason, they shot someone without cause. So the punishment should be the same as anyone else shooting someone when not in self defense.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2010 4:28:26 PM , Rating: 1
So if the why doesn't matter, then, for instance, there should be no degrees in murder - in fact, involuntary manslaughter should be punished the same as murder. Same with self-defense. (I know, that's probably taking your argument down the slippery slope and past absurdity.) I think I'd prefer motive to be considered in the judicial process at some point. To what degree it should be considered is certainly an open question on which reasonable people can disagree. But I will ask, would you be willing to remove bans on drunk driving then?

I'm sure criminalization doesn't always work - I'm not sure it never works. But leaving that aside, these laws are basically an inevitability once we started taking away much of judges' judgment in the handing down of sentences. Rather than let judges take these issues into account of their own accord, we've established more and more stringent mandatory sentencing guidelines, and so these additional laws allow circumstantial causes to increase the sentence much the way a judge would have on his own a hundred years ago. This new system does help promote equality in justice, but at the expense of complexity and sometimes fairness. Given that justice will always be imperfect, it's a matter of deciding, as a society, what we value most, and it seems that our collective decision is that equality is more important, though that outcome is at least partially due to the way collective decisions are taken in the American system.


By vol7ron on 9/29/2010 11:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree almost 100%. The result is what's important, the reason is meaningless if the result doesn't occur. They argue that to reduce results, you must reduce the reason, which sounds logical, but isn't. More importantly, it isn't justice and not the government's role/right to infringe on your freedom.

However, intent should be addressed in punishment/accountability. Accidents do happen. You shouldn't reward those that didn't intend something to happen - it happened...the person is at fault despite the fact that everyone these days wants to point the finger - but you should consider the reason in punishment. Obviously, habitual offenders don't get the message.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By kattanna on 9/29/2010 10:38:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
personal responsiblity


cute phrase, what does it mean?

;>)


By Kurz on 9/29/2010 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
Dang it I forgot an 'i'

Though I guess even if I were to put in the 'i' people still wouldn't know what it meant. ;)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Kurz on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By superPC on 9/29/2010 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
somebody missed an episode of mythbusters ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2005_sea... )...

those guys confirmed (through experiment) that driving while talking on a phone is as dangerous as driving while drunk. if you think the some state outlawed cellphone use while driving is over-criminalization than drunk driving is also over-criminalization.

the problem with outlawing cellphone use while driving is how to enforce it...


By MeesterNid on 9/29/2010 10:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
So how do we enforce reading stuff before making comments that completely miss the point? Did you actually read my comment or just the subject of it?


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By tng on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I remember driving to work one day (later than I usually do) and passing a man typing on a laptop that was balanced on the steering wheel. He was completely oblivious to the fact that he was doing 50 in the fast lane and everything else.


I have one that is almost as good.

Dude was talking on a cell phone wedged between shoulder/ear while eating a bowl of cereal at 120km/h.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By tng on 9/29/2010 11:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, that really is one of the best that I have heard.

Hard to imagine why we have accidents.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By solarrocker on 9/29/2010 11:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Here one of mine.

Woman driving next to me,changing a baby on the dashboard and literally driving with her knees while using both hands for the baby. Baby powder, diapers and everything rolling around. All this while going around 90-100 KM/H


By Schrag4 on 9/29/2010 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Worst I've seen was a woman balancing her checkbook on her steering wheel. I don't mean "making it not fall off." I mean doing math and writing numbers down in her checkbook...

Changing a baby?!!? Pull over! That's a whole new level of stupid.


By Mortando on 9/29/2010 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 4
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 3:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
They already have that. Its called careless driving or wreckless driving.


By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 3:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
reckless*

There's also reckless endangerment.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 10:56:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because you're doing nothing wrong.
Oh boo hoo.. When driving becomes a right, you can complain. When driving accidents don't result in more yearly deaths than pretty much anything else, you can complain.

I could care less if highway enforcement works or not, as from my experience this is hardly when people are the least aware of their driving. Its on the city streets and stop and go traffic where it matters. (Its kind of hard to pull someone over in stop and go on the highway, nor would a cop be setting up a trap in this situation)

I would also like to point out that many officers won't even pull you over unless you are driving recklessly, as proving they were using a cell phone can be difficult in the first place. (I could for example have been writing a text message, and could merely cancel it, and there would be no trace of me using my phone).

The fact that you think you are doing nothing wrong makes me laugh. I don't need myth busters to tell me that my brain/eyes has a harder time focusing on two things than one. Does that mean you will get in an accident if you do? No, it does not. But you would be hard pressed to make the case that it does not increase the risk.

Its simple, if you want to talk and drive, get a headset, and just flat out don't text and drive. Is it really that much to ask?


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By AmbroseAthan on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 1:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People do not get the right to drive automatically, because vehicles can be dangerous to public safety if operated by someone not ready.


Guns are far more dangerous, and we have a right to own those. So the forefathers thought it was a right to own dangerous weapons, but they wouldn't think transportation and the right to move freely about was a right? Did they require horse owners to have permits and licenses as well?

I think people are confused about what a "right" and what a "privileged" is. I find it hard to agree with the government’s claim that driving is a privilege. Our constitution clearly says “All men are created equal” so if we are all equal, who has the right to be privileged? If you are privileged and I am not, we are not equal.


By AmbroseAthan on 9/29/2010 1:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our constitution clearly says “All men are created equal” so if we are all equal, who has the right to be privileged? If you are privileged and I am not, we are not equal.

The sentance after the one you quoted stated we both have the right to take the driving test. This would mean we are equal.

quote:
Guns are far more dangerous, and we have a right to own those.

And you have a right to test for your drivers license. No one is denying you the chance to drive, the government just asks you to prove you are competent enough to handle it. Guns are also regulated similiarly: you are not gaurenteed to be able to obtain one if you do not pass your state's requirements.

Vehicles are in a public view are more dangerous (IMO), as they are used much more frequently in public. In general, gun owners are not walking around just firing them off. Cars on the other hand are normally moving at speeds that if something goes wrong, will cause some damage to those unfortunate enough to be involved.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 2:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Guns are far more dangerous, and we have a right to own those. So the forefathers thought it was a right to own dangerous weapons, but they wouldn't think transportation and the right to move freely about was a right? Did they require horse owners to have permits and licenses as well?
As though English oppression of the time had nothing to do with it..

And did you really bring up the horse and buggy? I'm sure this was a priority of the time, I'm not sure how the founding fathers missed it. I mean, buggies moving at a whopping 10MPH, think of all the tragic accidents that must have occurred day in day out.
quote:
I think people are confused about what a "right" and what a "privileged" is. I find it hard to agree with the government’s claim that driving is a privilege. Our constitution clearly says “All men are created equal” so if we are all equal, who has the right to be privileged? If you are privileged and I am not, we are not equal.
Hmmmm.. Lets see the full quote..
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
1): By your logic, the very statement in itself is hypocritical as it clearly defines your rights. Interpreting a sentence fragment is just as productive as interpreting the word "The".

2): I think you are confused between the "Constitution" and "The Declaration of Independance". As are the vast majority of Americans out there =P.. The Constitution says no such thing, that particular line is from the Declaration alone.


By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 7:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson


That is why we are allowed to have guns.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By qdemn7 on 9/29/2010 3:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. You try to claim it's some sort of right in a court of law, and they will laugh you right out of the courtroom. SCOTUS has essentially held you have damn few rights while driving.

You CAN be a productive member of society without driving. I didn't have a car, and rode the city bus for 5 years. I paid $25 a month for a bus pass. I worked the whole time. I only bought a car because I starting working nights. And that "freedom" of driving has cost me a lot of money over the years.

And we don't have decent nationwide mass transit, because too many people (Conservatives / Libertarians / Tea Baggers) keep whining that their taxes are too high.

Coupled with the fact some cities (like Arlington, Texas) refuse to have mass transit because it would attract the "wrong" type of people. That means the poor and minorities.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 3:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You CAN be a productive member of society without driving. I didn't have a car, and rode the city bus for 5 years.


I'm sorry.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Kurz on 9/29/2010 4:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
sorry he doesn't have a car?

Jking of course.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 4:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I really am. For an adult to not own a car for 5 years in this country is a very sad thing. Taking the bus everyday for 5 years? Have you ever been on a bus? It's TERRIBLE! I would sell my body for gay sex in alleyways if that's what it took to get a personal vehicle, it's THAT important.

Having said that, the public transportation argument doesn't really nullify my statement. Because in order for you to be a productive member of society, you are relying on the ability of someone else being a productive member: the bus driver. And since most public transportation is HEAVILY subsidized by taxpayers, you're a leech on society by definition.


By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 5:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well in all fairness if you live somewhere like NYC or DC you don't need a car. I don't look down on people for using them. Just saying I don't want to live like that if I have a choice in the matter.


By Kurz on 9/30/2010 1:34:42 AM , Rating: 3
Eh... I am a leech on society by not farming.

The point I am making we all depend on each others specialization to be productive.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You try to claim it's some sort of right in a court of law, and they will laugh you right out of the courtroom.


This is evidence of what?

Federal courts exist to keep the Federal Government in power and unchecked. If you don't believe that you're a fool. Of COURSE they would say driving isn't a right.

quote:
And we don't have decent nationwide mass transit, because too many people (Conservatives / Libertarians / Tea Baggers) keep whining that their taxes are too high.


Real mature argument. Yeah I'm sure it's because of "whining"...


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 5:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And we don't have decent nationwide mass transit, because too many people (Conservatives / Libertarians / Tea Baggers) keep whining that their taxes are too high.


So jack up the prices on the fares so that people like yourself who will use it can pay for it. Sorry I don't want to pay your bus fare for you. Excuse me for wanting to use the money I worked for to maintian my own existence.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 6:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah no shi# man. Car owners have to put up with tax, tag, title fees. Yearly property taxes on them. Gas taxes. License and registration fees. Yearly car inspection fees (in some states). Road maintenance fees and ON AND ON AND ON.

What are public transit users putting up again? Not nearly enough. They want US to pay for it on top of everything we already pay to own and operate our vehicles.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 6:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt! There are too many people in the US that dont know how to do anything but stand there with their hand out and they've been receiving benefits (food stamps, mass transit, HUD housing, etc) for so long that they think that they are owed all this crap. Well sorry you're not, we (the people that work for everything we have) dont owe you jack. If you cant afford it get a better job, and if you dont have the skills go to school and get the skills like everyone else.

We need to stop susidizing lazyness and incompetence, I'm all for saftey nets for people that CANT work but I say if you're able bodied and you WONT work you can stave in the dark for all I care.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 7:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and how could I forget insurance!! Hey city bus riders, do you pay insurance?

I agree man. It's really shocking where we're headed. One out of 7 Americans are now on food stamps. That's shocking. Unemployment payments that last a year!? What the hell.

There's a whole lot of lazy out there...


By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 3:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree that driving is not a right.

But that doesn't mean that every little thing that some people fail to use good judgment on needs to be made illegal.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By superPC on 9/29/2010 11:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
i spoke from experience. i witness a car hit (not head on more like a bad glancing blow) a highway divider at around 50 with almost no traffic. at first i thought the person was drunk (he was all over the place) but when i helped him out of that car i didn't smell any alcohol. he told me he was texting someone. that could have been a much worse accident had there been any other car involved. luckyly no one was hurt.

driving is really taxing. as proof of it it has been done for more than 100 years yet we still can't make a car that drove itself. i say we should outlaw all things that distract a driver and find a way to enforce it. or even better let computers do the driving (like in an airplane)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 11:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
My sister almost killed herself doing something similar. Looked down at a text while a truck was passing her, when she looked back she got that sudden jolt of not knowing where the truck came from and flew into a ditch and flipped her car.

Car was completely totaled, and she was lucky the car landed the way it did.

Anyone who is against these ban's whether they are effective or not, have obviously not been personally touched by a situation involving cell phone use and driving. Its dangerous, and even if gets people to watch the road more attentively for cops so they don't get caught, its still a good thing in my books. At least they are still trying to watch the road!


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 7:37:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Your sister is an idiot AND a woman driver. Well the two are synonymous actually so, really, did you have a point?

See around here this statement is OK until you substitute woman with dumb hick then all of a sudden it's not.

Riiight.

And when others make similar generalizations that you don't like then they are in the wrong. You couldn't act more republican if you tried.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
By YashBudini on 10/1/2010 12:48:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The point is where does it end?

Well everybody could complete the paperwork to become a corporation. We know from your and Retread's vast knowledge that corporations can do no harm.

Problem solved. Mission accomplished!

quote:
There will always be new distractions in cars for people to occupy their time with instead of driving.

Well then by all means, let us all bow to the dumbest people of the land. Perhaps even vote for them.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 11:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
how about we lock everyone in padded rooms at birth so they cant hurt themselves? Or we can make law after law after law banning every situation where someone could possibly get hurt! Clearly an ever expanding more opressive er.. caring government is the solution to all of our ills!

No, what needs to be done is people need to take responsiblity for themselves. You watch the road, You be aware that there are bad drivers, and You take responsiblity for YOUR OWN SAFETY while driving. If someone crosses the center line while texting and is coming right toward you just hit the brakes, or change course, they go in the ditch you keep going, not that complicated of a concept.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 11:45:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
No, what needs to be done is people need to take responsiblity for themselves.
PIPE DREAM!

Over 60% of the American population is overweight. If they can't be responsible enough to add ~20 years to their life, why on earth do you think the masses would ever become responsible enough to self regulate anything? Let alone driving while using a cell phone. Should everything be regulated.. no.. Does cell phone regulation make sense considering we are entering a mobile age in which matters will get worse before they get better.. I think so.. If anything it creates awareness, which is never a bad thing. I

would also like for someone to show me how this will truly impact our tax dollars.. Unless more officers were hired, no more total man hours are being spent, how those hours are split up is irrelevant. Same goes with the courts, with the same man hours, you would not expect an increase in overall ticketable offenses, they would merely be targeting cell phone use over something else that was previously more of a priority.

You second paragraph is also completely baseless and incorrect. Ask any police officer, in an accident there is usually always someone who 'did nothing wrong'. If someone crosses the center line, changes course and while going into the ditch hits you.. You DON'T keep going.. what a concept..

Happens day in day out on the local highway near you... I drive around 2 hours to work a day (each way), and I personally see around 5 accidents happen right in front of me each year (i.e I was a witness), usually the fault of a single person.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Kurz on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its a Pipe Dream because the government made people to think this way.
So you completely ignore the reasoning for which that statement is based upon? (i.e the paragraph below). How do you explain that one? Does the government not air adds day in day out about health awareness? By your logic, if we as a people only listen to what the government says is right and wrong, then why is this simple message ignored?
quote:
He said nothing about getting hit by that driver.
Thanks for completely missing the point. Its utterly pointless to claim that if someone goes into a ditch in front of you, you are merely going to speed by untouched 100% of the time. This is exactly how most accidents occur, one person is at fault, and ends up hitting someone else.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 1:02:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Does the government not air adds day in day out about health awareness? By your logic, if we as a people only listen to what the government says is right and wrong, then why is this simple message ignored?


What kind of convoluted off base bullshit is this? He said nothing of the sort.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 3:21:29 PM , Rating: 1
Life is not perfect or fair.

Life is shit. You survive each and every day you can until you die of old age or either your own or someone else's stupidity kills you. That is the facts of life. No law, regulation, fine, or punishment will ever change that.

You choose to try. We will choose to try and stop you.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By tng on 9/29/2010 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Life is not perfect or fair
I like the line from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy "Life is rarely aesthetically pleasing"


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 12:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You second paragraph is also completely baseless and incorrect. Ask any police officer, in an accident there is usually always someone who 'did nothing wrong'. If someone crosses the center line, changes course and while going into the ditch hits you.. You DON'T keep going.. what a concept..


Are you seriously arguing that a person who is paying attention has no chance of avoiding a collision with someone that is not paying attention? On icy roads or in some situations I suppose this might be valid, but in most cases quick thinking on the part of "good" driver can avoid the accident.


By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 12:37:28 PM , Rating: 3
Read what he wrote:
quote:
If someone crosses the center line while texting and is coming right toward you just hit the brakes, or change course, they go in the ditch you keep going, not that complicated of a concept.


Are you seriously trying to imply that being a safe driver will keep you unharmed? Do you really think that you will have an exit route every time, even if you are driving safely? (For example in heavier traffic, even with a few car lengths infront of you, you can't control the person infront or the people beside you. You can try to remain staggered, but you can only go so far.)

Innocent people get in accidents ALL THE TIME, whether they had nowhere to move to get out of the way, or they just plain were not paying attention, the fact remains, good driving technique is not always going to help you from getting sideswiped by a reckless driver.

Will it lower the chance, surely, but it does not make you invulnerable by any means.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 10:40:12 AM , Rating: 1
Drunk driving is much worse, sorry. And mythbusters, while entertaining, aren't experts in everything.

Drunk drivers are impaired the entire time they are behind the wheel. Texters are never impaired, just distracted. Drunk drivers brains are physically impaired from the alcohol and they can't snap themselves out of it.

quote:
the problem with outlawing cellphone use while driving is how to enforce it...


You can't. As this very article is proving. It shouldn't even be tried. There isn't a huge public safety risk from texters. Accident and highway fatality rates are at all time lows. And if you believe texting caused 16k deaths, then I have some ocean front property in Chad to sell you.


By 440sixpack on 9/29/2010 11:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: the problem with outlawing cellphone use while driving is how to enforce it...

You can't.


Well, until we want to go all draconian and install portable jammers in every car that block cell signals when the vehicle is moving. I imagine this technology exists or will exist soon, but of course the massive uproar this would cause would be truly something.

Not that I am in any way in favor of this, but it would be one way to stop cell phone use while driving. Just like every car could have a breathalyzer installed as well. :-)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt trust those stats as far as I can throw, as every single study contradicts one another.

Heck according to Federal studies that have just been released, texting related accidents are up 30% in 3 years. (which if you try and look up, they won't tell you how they came to their findings)

Fatalities aside, an accident is an accident. I don't care if someone dies or not, an accident caused by cell phone use is preventable period.

The only thing this article proves is these studies are bogus.. 'Hey accidents have actually gone up in some areas.. we don't know why, but what it must mean is cell phone bans are not working. We can't account for the increase, but we can definitively tell you that that accidents due to cell phone use are not on the rise.'

Same old same old.. Next we will see linkages between cell phone use and global warming, and why the cell phone ban has increased temperatures worldwide as temps have increased the the bans were set in place!!!!! Correlation must mean Causation!!!


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 11:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
which if you try and look up, they won't tell you how they came to their findings


Most of the federal studies I looked at on the subject said that the information was derived from a large random sampling of police accident reports.

While many accidents do go unreported, there is nothing you can do about that so you just have to go by what concrete evidence you have on the books.

I'm more interested in the numerous empirical experimentations that has essentially proven that detracted drivers faculties are more impaired than drunk drivers and that as speeds increase, so does the comparable degree of impairment.

It's simple, when you are driving, your brain needs to be 100% focused on that task to the exclusion of all else. The entire situation in front of you can change in the time that it takes you to look down and read a single sentence.

I would even say the laws don't go far enough with just fines and that they should lump distracted driving in with drunk driving. If you so demonstrate that you cannot be entrusted with the privilege of using public roads safely, you should be denied that privilege.

In many places, answering a call or text during your license test is now grounds for immediate failure. So why is it allowed after the fact?


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 11:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's simple, when you are driving, your brain needs to be 100% focused on that task to the exclusion of all else. The entire situation in front of you can change in the time that it takes you to look down and read a single sentence.
Exactly, good post man.

This is why I like the laws in place in Ontario, Canada. It was not just a cell phone ban, it was an all out portable device and general distraction ban. Looking down at your mp3 player to change songs is just as bad as texting while driving for the exact reason you layed out.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
As though I am the voice of all Ontarians.. Its my personal opinion, or am I not allowed to have one?

The law received just as much criticism as it did in much of the states.. based on the same kind of baseless reports (on both sides of the fence too, the media coverage on for both sides has been horrendous)

Your little coexistance speech makes me laugh too.. Get this through your head.. Doing anything while driving is a distraction, THERE IS NO COEXISTANCE as it currently stands!

There is absolutely no need to be using a portable device while driving. We got along without them just fine since the existence of manned vehicles, we don't need them now.

Anything thats not mounted on the dash for easy use should not be used, period..

Whether or not there is a law or not, this should be common sense, and considering how many people still do it, apparently they lack the common sense to govern themselves, and thus the law we see today.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get back to me when you realize what being a man, and an adult, means. I've had about as much of your over the top fascist neo-Nazi opinions as I can take.


What sort of inordinatly ignorant comment is that? Really?

Go back to kindergarten and don't come back until you learn how to express yourself in a more meaningful and intelligent manner.

quote:
Where do you get off?


You should ask yourself the same question. Prick.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 1:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get back to me when you realize what being a man, and an adult, means. I've had about as much of your over the top fascist neo-Nazi opinions as I can take.


What sort of inordinatly ignorant comment is that? Really?

Go back to kindergarten and don't come back until you learn how to express yourself in a more meaningful and intelligent manner.

quote:
Where do you get off?


You should ask yourself the same question. Prick.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 1:54:46 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, he's a fascist minded person and I've had it up to here with them. Simple fact is he believes all our rights come from politicians, and that they should ban behavior he sees as being wrong, or unsafe, or whatever reason.

It's so painfully obvious how his attitude reflects those who continues to pull our society into the gutter. When he deserves meaningful and intelligent debate, he'll receive it.

Like the OP said, let's just get it over with and ban breathing I guess.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
fascist


Seriously, you've demonstrated time and again that you don't even know what that word means so stop attempting to use it as a pejorative attack. Nowhere did he state he was for authoritarian national corporatism, the homogenization of the populace or the marginalization of individualism.

On the right-left paradigm, Fascism is the EXTREME RIGHT, so far right in fact that US conservatism and liberalism would be considered to be somewhere near the very middle and Marxist-Leninist Communism being on the EXTREME LEFT.

You are also confusing rights, freedoms and privileges, they are all VERY different.

You have the right to purchase and own an automobile and to operate it on private property, however, operating that automobile on public roads is a privilege that must be granted to you by the state. This privilege has limitations and conditions attached to it and his personal approval of aforementioned additional conditions and limitations in no way makes him a fascist.

quote:
Like the OP said, let's just get it over with and ban breathing I guess.


Again, it's a ridiculous defense that has no redeeming qualities and I don't really blame anyone for not entertaining it.

In conclusion, you need to grow up or f*** off.


By Kurz on 9/29/2010 4:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
When you look at government you shouldn't be looking at how the government is structured. You should look at the amount of control it puts on its citizens.

Facism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism all have high amounts of control. While Conservatives, Libertarians, Free thinkers believe in least control placed on the populace.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 8:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
You've got your ideas of what right and left in the political spectrum are all screwed up.

True Left = Authoritarian
True Right = Anarchy

Communism and Fascism are almost the same in their ideology the difference being the near religious devotion to the leader and purist nationalism that is in fascism. Both are totalitarian in nature.

Modern Liberalism is closer to both of these philosophies then Modern Conservatism. Modern liberals are often the ones pushing for MORE government regulation MORE state control MORE limits on personal freedom. Where modern conservatives/libertarians want a smaller less regulating government. The polar opposite of a fascist/communist is a modern conservative or libertarian. That is unless when you say "liberal" you are refering to a "classical liberal" which if you knew your history was called a "conservative liberal" around the turn of the 20th century and shortened to just "conservative" in modern lingo shortly there after... this is where we get the term today.

Forget the labels and focus on the ideology. However I think that the term "fascist" is not really accurate anyway, "Authoritarian Statist" is more along the lines of what I would call him.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 10:40:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True Left = Authoritarian
True Right = Anarchy


Did you make that up yourself or did your mommy help you?

Traditionally and in every single political and sociological text and article I have ever seen.

Left = Anarchism, Progressive Conservativism, Social Liberty, Social Democracy, Communism.

Right = Conservativism, Reactionary, Capitalist, Monarchists, Nationalist, Fascist

I have no idea where you came up with your proposition.

More generally, the left espouses personal freedom, while the right espouses economic freedom and both left and right can have populist (fascism is populist right) or individual (Anarchy is individual left)leanings.

Sorry, but I have no idea where you got these thoughts, they certainly aren't supported by modern material. Might want to look up the Hans Slomp political spectrum.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 11:23:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Traditionally and in every single political and sociological text and article I have ever seen. Left = Anarchism, Progressive Conservativism, Social Liberty, Social Democracy, Communism.


You're WAY off. Maybe that holds true in Canada, but you aren't even close to the mark here.

I mean seriously, where are you getting this? Look no further than the Obama administration and the Left controlled Congress to debunk every single item on your list except Communism. Anarchism!? The size of the Federal Government was just increased to epic mind blowing never-before-seen proportions! The powers of the Federal Government over the every day citizen have never before been higher.

Progressive Conservatism doesn't even exist here. That's a strictly Canadian philosophy. Even on Google the only references to it I can find are Canadian only, the Progressive Conservative Party. And frankly, as an American, the idea of a "Progressive Conservative" sounds contradictory by definition.

You list the Right as being Conservative AND fascists. I hate to tell you but in America that's an impossible combination. Impossible. Conservatives, by their very definition and beliefs, are the exact OPPOSITE of fascists.

quote:
Sorry, but I have no idea where you got these thoughts


And we have no idea where you get yours. Context and perspective matters here, maybe before you went on your big rant you should have understood that where we live things are different. Are you some kind of an elitist or something?

quote:
Might want to look up the Hans Slomp political spectrum.


A university teacher and author from HOLLAND. You're amazing, you know that? So Americans should base their political orientations according to what Canadians and Dutch define them as?


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 12:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Look, republicans have demonstrated on numerous occasions their willingness to marginalize groups of Americans from minorities to gays and beyond.

Marginalization is also a primary tool of fascism and is rejected by liberalism in the favor of pluralism and individual rights. Fascism espouses strong economic freedom (like conservativism) and weak individual freedoms. This opposition to individual freedoms and it's willingness to use force is what makes fascism a polar opposite to the liberal movement. Likewise, it's espousal of corporatist leanings put it in direct opposition to communism and social democracy.

So yeah, you're totally misusing the word and totally putting it in the wrong place on the political spectrum.

Basically, it's simply become convenient for you to call everyone you don't like a "fascist" or a "national socialist". Traditionally, fascism was the favored bogeyman of the left and communism the bogeyman of the right. Over time, self-styled conservatives started tossing the word in as a pejorative that the left had previously had a monopoly on. This might be emotionally satisfying, but it is intellectually bankrupt.

Only an utter imbecile such as yourself could believe that fascists peruse a massive welfare state centered around the concept of equality, complete with special protection for minorities, religions, alternative lifestyles and everything else that the left is all about. Both modern republicans and democrats have more in common with the above agenda than does fascism.

You also seem to be unable to comprehend the notion that fascist/corporatist economic prescription is not the same as regulation and state intervention. In one case you have the state in complete control of the way business is conducted and the other you have a set of ground rules within which business can be freely conducted.

Then there is the matter of your thinly veiled reductio ad Hitlerum. Fascist thus becomes a ploy, a call to action against a implacable evil opposition that must be defeated.

However, the real heart of the matter is that fascism is deeply rooted in the minds of leftists as the ultimate evil. So while the Conservatives are against leftist social policy and egalitarianism, they have found a way to use an extremely right-sided ideology to attack the left. It's pure political genius born from the end of the cold war.

During the cold war, the Russian soviets were essentially fascists masquerading as communists. This gave the conservatives common ground with the left in that they could despise the soviets for being oppressors of the proletariat and thus the real enemy was far to their right and to their left at the same time. They became synonymous to American conservatives who have apparently moved themselves to one end of the political spectrum and moved everyone else to a fanciful leftist rogue gallery.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 1:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
hahaha, so you read a few articles from some political theorists and you're smarter than everyone else and have the whole world figured out?

So I'm an "imbecile" and he's a guy who gets opinions from his "mommy"? Just because we speak from our own countries political perspective? My god you're condescension knows no bounds. Really, you need to get over yourself.

Nothing in this entire long winded rant changes the fact that, to an American, your definition of Left and Right simply does not match up with what we know to be true about OUR political system.

How would you like it if I came and applied American thinking to your political process and called you an imbecile if you didn't agree?

This is just silly. Good job pasting opinions from your favorite political author, finding examples from the freaking Cold War and what not, but this has gone well beyond the realm of relevancy.

What is Left and Right here might not be the same as somewhere else. That doesn't make him wrong. There will never be a universally agreed upon definition of the two anyway. Your post is proof of at least that much.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 2:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing in this entire long winded rant changes the fact that, to an American, your definition of Left and Right simply does not match up with what we know to be true about OUR political system.


That's why I bothered to spend the time to try and piece together how the US right managed to push fascism off to the left of it and why. When you stand back and look at it, it is a really, REALLY brilliant accomplishment on the part of the neocon's.

You get to lot everything the Conservatives don't like into one basket where you can conveniently use the worst of the extreme right and extreme left to attack the left-centrists. All the while keeping the nomenclature of "the right" despite actually being right-centrist according to academic definitions.

Left vs right is a totally false dichotomy in pretty much everywhere, even in the USA and while the two party system basically blurs those all those differences along a single line, to someone looking in, it hasn't at all eliminated them. Interestingly enough, American social progressives and economic libertarians have no choice, but to pick sides somewhere along this line if they hope to achieve anything.

You can tell yourself "fascists are leftists" all you like for as long as you like, it doesn't make it true from an academic perspective. Even if it is common belief, the popularity of an idea doesn't offer it any credence whatsoever.

But when since when has academia been relevant in american propaganda...


By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
As I'm sure you are aware, there ARE Moderates in the U.S as well. So your pictorial that everything is about extremes doesn't add up.

I think I've gone about as far down this tangent as needs be. And academia is about talking and theorizing about the real world while everyone else is actually out there living in it. I realized that as soon as I graduated, maybe you will too.

quote:
You can tell yourself "fascists are leftists"


No they aren't, never said that. However most leftists WILL support fascism if it achieves their social or fiscal goals. Again, this is from the stereotypical American mindset, of course.

quote:
But when since when has academia been relevant in american propaganda...


Right. Because it's not like America has a huge and thriving academic and higher learning background. We're all a bunch of stupid backwoods hicks compared to Canada. With a whopping whole two schools (McGill and UofT) that would even rank in the top 100 here.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2010 2:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You also seem to be unable to comprehend the notion that fascist/corporatist economic prescription is not the same as regulation and state intervention. In one case you have the state in complete control of the way business is conducted and the other you have a set of ground rules within which business can be freely conducted.


This is laughable... See I fail to see the functional difference between a fascist regime running puppet corporations and the supposedly “liberal” Obama administration and his hacks in congress buying up 61% of GM (and large portions of the US financial sector), appointing/firing company executives, reneging on contracts to bond holders to pay off UAW allies all the while creating the rules which govern how GM – Government Motors – competes in the auto industry.

I really couldn’t possibly care less what these people want to call themselves, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative... does applying a label to yourself suddenly make one? No, it does not. Obama/Pelosi/Reid like to call themselves “liberals” and yet they act like authoritarian wanna be dictators... which last time I checked was the exact opposite of a true liberal.

When I say “conservative” I meant it in the modern sense of the term as it is used in America. Conservatives here believe in small government and individual liberty which means they CANNOT be fascists... Explain to me how a small relatively weak system of government going to function as a totalitarian regime? It cant! Totalitarian governments are very strong and have far reaching powers to control almost anything and everything in the lives of their subjects. The ones who keep moving the American government in this direction are the so called “liberals”, that want government intervention for every perceived wrong and inequality on earth. Up to and including the texting bans which started this discussion.

Generally a conservative is someone who wants to “conserve” the ideas of the past and maintain the traditions and institutions etc which were originally setup. America was founded as a classically liberal country which maximized the liberties of its citizens and put restrictions on the powers of its government. Trying to “conserve” these values as “conservatives” do is classically liberal in nature. It is the progressives and modern liberals who want to move away from classical liberalism. (Yes I know America’s terminology is backwards)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 4:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
See I fail to see the functional difference between a fascist regime running puppet corporations and the supposedly “liberal” Obama administration and his hacks in congress buying up 61% of GM (and large portions of the US financial sector), appointing/firing company executives, reneging on contracts to bond holders to pay off UAW allies all the while creating the rules which govern how GM – Government Motors – competes in the auto industry.


Look, I've commented before on how this action was a morally bankrupt case of corporate/voter-base favoritism. However, there is no credible way of attributing this bailout/restructuring to fascism. If they really WERE fascists, GM would be put to work for the government and the company would never have been offered back for public ownership. The reason you fail to see a difference is because you focus exclusively on the part of the picture that conveniently supports your agenda.

quote:
which means they CANNOT be fascists...


I never said they were. That was an illogical leap that you made on your own. That doesn't mean fascism doesn't actual reside on the far-flung right-hand side of the spectrum.

quote:
Explain to me how a small relatively weak system of government going to function as a totalitarian regime?


The Italian and German fascist government were very small to start and used the military and special police to exert control. Corporations like Siemens, Daimler, Chrysler, Porsche etc "willfully" poured all of their corporate efforts into furthering the wants of the government. For them, co-operation with the government was a very lucrative prospect. Fascism practically requires a small (very loyal) government that is in tight with private enterprise, the police and military forces in order for these individual to exert there will on the nation.

Seems to me like your point doesn't hold water... Conservatives want a small government and a strong military... that sounds familiar...

quote:
It is the progressives and modern liberals who want to move away from classical liberalism.


So then tell me why conservatives consistently try to stifle the rights of women, minorities, legal immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims and other groups that the liberals fight to protect? To what extent do you propose that the republicans be allowed to marginalize them? Until the world feels as sorry for them as it does now for the Jews of The Holocaust?

Why do conservatives espouse Christian education (indoctrination?) in public schools and support military intervention overseas, but only when it suits them? They also espouse the strictest enforcements of the law, up to and including the death penalty, something practically all other modern nations deplore.

What you're saying sounds very honorable and romantic, but it's far from what the republicans have shown they are actually about.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2010 4:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said they were. That was an illogical leap that you made on your own. That doesn't mean fascism doesn't actual reside on the far-flung right-hand side of the spectrum.


umm... yeah you did:

Iaiken Said:
quote:
Look, republicans have demonstrated on numerous occasions their willingness to marginalize groups of Americans from minorities to gays and beyond.

Marginalization is also a primary tool of fascism and is rejected by liberalism in the favor of pluralism and individual rights. Fascism espouses strong economic freedom (like conservativism) and weak individual freedoms. This opposition to individual freedoms and it's willingness to use force is what makes fascism a polar opposite to the liberal movement.


and no a small government lacks the power to be totalitarian in nature... SMALL GOVERNMENT means small amount of power, small amount of control, small in scope, size, cost, etc...

quote:
So then tell me why conservatives consistently try to stifle the rights of women, minorities, legal immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims and other groups that the liberals fight to protect? To what extent do you propose that the republicans be allowed to marginalize them? Until the world feels as sorry for them as it does now for the Jews of The Holocaust?


what the hell are you talking about? Its racist because conservatives don't want special treatment for minorities? because they want women to pass the same tests as men, because they insist that every group regardless of background be treated equally and just beacause some segment of the population cant hack it tough? No sorry, not racist, get a new attack this one was worn out a long time ago.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 5:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
I love the women part lol. Yeah look out ladies, it's the 1800's all over again and Republicans are "marginalizing" you!!

Bungle I'm glad you're taking up the cause, because I can't stand talking to that stupid ape anymore.


By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2010 8:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bungle I'm glad you're taking up the cause, because I can't stand talking to that stupid ape anymore.


Well, I hadn't chimed in in a while and I didn't want you and FIT to have all the fun. :)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 6:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
umm... yeah you did:


Even re-reading the quoted statement where you tried to assert that I said "conservatives are fascists" doesn't read that way unless you're a fan of flawed logic.

What I said:

Conservatives share certain tools/aspects with fascism same as liberalism has certain aspects in common with fascism and even conservativism and liberalism share certain aspects.

Things can be alike, but yet be VERY different even in the natural world. Basically, I said "both birds and platypus lay eggs" and you tried to assert that I said "Platypus are birds". Fact is, that's not what I said and what I said supported my assertion that fascism and liberalism are polar opposites.

Hell, liberals cannot be fascists simply for the fact that they deplore the use of marginalization and violence. Fascism requires opposition to be stifled through terror, censorship and violence under the justification of nationalism.

quote:
and no a small government lacks the power to be totalitarian in nature... SMALL GOVERNMENT means small amount of power, small amount of control, small in scope, size, cost, etc...


The history of both German and Italian Fascists shoot too many holes in your small government theory for it to hold any water at all. In both cases a small party in a small government was able to wrest control from the people with the use of a large, loyal and powerful military and a flourishing corporate base.

Why were both the military and corporate sectors loyal to this minority government? Well because they rebuilt the military, large corporations got paid to it and people all over Germany suddenly had jobs. High ranking members of the military were appointed cushy civil positions, but even then the actual power in the Nazi regime was concentrated in the hands of 5-6 men.

It's actually quite ironic because the more a Fascist party comes to dominate a society, the less relevant the party at large becomes as power is inevitably consolidated in the hands of the few. By 1938, the Nazi's had come to rule the Reichstag, but the Reichstag had no power to do anything as all the power had since been concentrated in the hands of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Blomberg (later replaced by Göring). If you ask me, that qualifies as a pretty small government.

quote:
treated equally


Ah equality... If women can do whatever a man can and vice versa. Why is it that a man can marry a woman in the eyes of the government, but not another man? Why is it that a woman cannot marry another woman? If they were truly equal, they could.

Why is it that an anti-Muslim has saturated the conservative media and politics? There is something wrong when anti-Muslim sentiments are so strong that they serve the interests of jihadi recruiters. Al Queda recruiters couldn't be happier with the Muslim Civic Center controversy or burn a Qur'an day. They get to spin it as "proof" that Christian America is at war with Islam.

In turn, this creates an unsafe environment in the US for Muslim as other people because they are now at risk that other people will take matters into their own hands. This can be anything from to making them feel unwelcome or even go so far as to persecute them through hate crimes and violence. This also makes it hard for American Muslims to feel patriotic because they feel vilified by their own government and that is wrong.

Bafflingly, one of my closest friends took a trip to Arizona during the entire City Center fiasco and came home early because of the anti-Muslim sentiment that was directed towards him almost all day every day AND HE'S A HINDU.


By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2010 7:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The history of both German and Italian Fascists shoot too many holes in your small government theory for it to hold any water at all. In both cases a small party in a small government was able to wrest control from the people with the use of a large, loyal and powerful military and a flourishing corporate base.


I don’t think you understand what a “small” government and a “big” government is...

A “small” government could theoretically have more employees than a “big” government and at the same time it has less control. It’s not about the man power in absolute terms of the system its about the level of intervention of that government in its citizens lives.

A small government will be limited in nature, an example would be one that could ONLY do specific things like say collect taxes, maintain roads, operate a military, and manage currency. That’s it no more powers it tries to do anything else and it gets shot down in the courts.

A big government will have broad powers that are nearly unlimited in nature, an example would be one that could do pretty much whatever it wanted to and could mandate you buy health insurance, tell you how many children you can have, regulate products out of the market, control prices, tax specific behaviors, control the information broadcasted over the airwaves, control the education, transportation, electrical, water, communication systems, you name it they have some control over it. That is a big government.

A small government is incapable of being oppressive because it lacks the power to do so! Every dictatorial totalitarian hell hole in history has been the result of an overreaching BIG GOVERNMENT!

Conservaties HATE big government because they want the government to leave them the hell alone so that they can live thier lives with out some bureaucratic jack off telling them how to live their lives.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/30/2010 7:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah equality... If women can do whatever a man can and vice versa. Why is it that a man can marry a woman in the eyes of the government, but not another man? Why is it that a woman cannot marry another woman? If they were truly equal, they could.


My political philosophy is one of a conservative leaning libertarian and personally I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all. That is an agreement by to consenting adults to live together and share resouces, what difference should it make to the government? Have your ceremony, sign a legally binding contract saying you're going to share everything you have, and call it done. Unless there is a divorce and there is a dispute which needs to be dragged into the courts government shouldn't even need to know about it.


By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 7:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
I can totally agree with this.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/1/2010 12:57:07 AM , Rating: 1
You need to understand that the media exists to get ratings and shock you into viewing them or grab your attention somehow. There is not some huge "anti-Muslim" movement in this country organized and perpetrated by Conservatives.

quote:
Hell, liberals cannot be fascists simply for the fact that they deplore the use of marginalization and violence.


Wrong. Liberals, again I'm speaking of American liberals, are the LEAST tolerant group here. Oh they speak highly and proudly of their kindness and tolerance, but when push comes to shove you either can stand with them or get the hell out of the way. You need to stop drinking the Koolaid man, seriously.

Case in point their tried and true class warfare arguments against the "rich" and those "evil" corporations. Are you going to sit there and tell me they don't marginalize entire groups of people when it suits them?

quote:
Ah equality... If women can do whatever a man can and vice versa. Why is it that a man can marry a woman in the eyes of the government, but not another man? Why is it that a woman cannot marry another woman? If they were truly equal, they could.


That's a STATES RIGHTS issue. There ARE states where same sex couples can marry. It shouldn't be a federal issue. And you just left yourself wide open to exposing your own hypocrisy. Marriage is NOT a right, it's a social contract. In fact to be married you are issued something called a "marriage license" by the state, without one your marriage isn't recognized legally.

Sound familiar? You DID say driving wasn't a right, it was a privilege did you not? To drive a state issues you a license which you must meet certain qualifications. To marry you have to do the same.

Yeah I can't wait to see you talk your way out of this one and try to explain to me how one is different than the other. Why one is accepted and one is a civil rights equality issue. I know why, because you're a liberal, and one "feels" different than the other.

quote:
Why is it that an anti-Muslim has saturated the conservative media and politics? There is something wrong when anti-Muslim sentiments are so strong that they serve the interests of jihadi recruiters. Al Queda recruiters couldn't be happier with the Muslim Civic Center controversy or burn a Qur'an day. They get to spin it as "proof" that Christian America is at war with Islam.


People here also have the right to burn bibles and the American flag. Again, why is one fine but the other "conservative hate-mongering"? So would you be ok with Christians forming a jihad and murdering non-believers over their gods image and holy book being defiled? More double standards from the great Iaiken.

Face facts, no matter how well written you phrase things, you can't escape your own double standards. Your belief system is flawed. You have already made your feelings about Christians clear, mind you. So when they piss on and burn the Bible, no problem. But when ONE guy in a tiny Florida church representing a whole 20 people threatens to burn a Koran, our whole country has some anti-Muslim sentiment?

quote:
Bafflingly, one of my closest friends took a trip to Arizona during the entire City Center fiasco and came home early because of the anti-Muslim sentiment that was directed towards him almost all day every day AND HE'S A HINDU.


How is this at all relevant to what Left or Right means in America? Come on, this is just another pathetic appeal to our emotions instead of solid reasoning. I suppose every single person that supposedly was "anti-Muslim" to him was a card carrying Conservative Republican. Right.

As far as this "fiasco" you speak of, even if you could understand it's clear you haven't even tried to see both sides. See freedom goes both ways. It WILL be built, because they have a right to build it. But people ALSO have the right to say they are against it being built.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By YashBudini on 10/1/2010 7:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm speaking of American liberals, are the LEAST tolerant group here

Have you looked in a mirror lately?

Every group has people like this, they are more cult followers than supporters, but for you to flag them, well now I know I can look up the definition of irony to find a picture of you. But I can believe that liberals are a frustrated group living in your surroundings. The thought that most conclude like you (I couldn't use the word think) terrifies them. Scared people do stupid things.

quote:
Are you going to sit there and tell me they don't marginalize entire groups of people when it suits them?

More hypocrisy, you generalize all the time, it's OK when you do it, but not for others? Damn that mirror!

And your regard for corporations shows zero intelligence, corporations are run by people, and in the US 1% of the population is now in jail, but you seem to believe they are much more high minded; Enron, Tyco, Goldman Sachs.

quote:
Yeah I can't wait to see you talk your way out of this one

Ah yes, the voice of reason is dealing in absolutes again. How typical, and flawed.

quote:
Why is it that an anti-Muslim has saturated the conservative media and politics?

The mosque news came out in December last year. You won't see much about until fair and balanced Faux picked it up and ran with it. Murdoch, the great american. Anybody want to see his birth certificate?

quote:
solid reasoning.

Talk about loose standards.

quote:
I suppose every single person that supposedly was "anti-Muslim" to him was a card carrying Conservative Republican. Right.

Here's your example of solid reasoning; "I suppose". You never met the guy and you know nothing about him, but because he doesn't please you he's a lunatic. More fair and balanced b/s.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2010 12:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well now we've just devolved into partisan talking points. We're way off topic, and I'm beyond frustrated at your continued moving of the goalposts and driving this discussion further and further from it's base.

You are clearly what we in America would call a Liberal. I'm clearly what we would call a Conservative. And nothing we say to each other is doing a whole lot to prove otherwise.

quote:
Have you looked in a mirror lately?


We weren't talking about ME, but yes I have. I can hold my head up high. I know who I am and I know what I stand for, and something about that makes you resent me.

quote:
Ah yes, the voice of reason is dealing in absolutes again. How typical, and flawed.


Yes it's so flawed you conveniently didn't challenge it and just moved on. I would really like to know why you consider marriage a right and not driving. Even though they both involve state licenses, jumping through hoops and red tape, and other such restrictions. I'll take your cop-out on this one as indication of your inability to counter my "flawed" logic.

quote:
The mosque news came out in December last year. You won't see much about until fair and balanced Faux picked it up and ran with it. Murdoch, the great american. Anybody want to see his birth certificate?


Fox bashing. How original. How was this story any less legitimate than the Koran burning preacher one you just referenced in your last post? So when FAUX reports the mosque, it's rightist propaganda. When MSNBC reports the Koran burning, it's legit.

Again, more leftist bias and double standards.

quote:
You never met the guy and you know nothing about him, but because he doesn't please you he's a lunatic.


Your reading comprehension needs serious work. You directly intimated that because of Conservative based bigoted hate mongering, your friend was made to feel uncomfortable in his trip and prejudiced against. I posited to YOU whether or not in fact these offenses were perpetrated by Conservative bigots. Where in that did you get ANYTHING about me calling your friend a lunatic or even a liar?

Honestly I think we're done here.


By YashBudini on 10/4/2010 10:39:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You are clearly what we in America would call a Liberal. I'm clearly what we would call a Conservative.

See here you prove you deal with absolutes, and yet remain clueless about it. Anybody who supports a political view by ignoring what they do wrong is not a supporter. I leave it to you to find the word for it, if your narrow mindedness will allow.

quote:
I can hold my head up high. I know who I am and I know what I stand for, and something about that makes you resent me.

Pity is the correct word.

quote:
Yes it's so flawed you conveniently didn't challenge it and just moved on. I would really like to know why you consider marriage a right and not driving.

I never made a remark about marriage either way, but your narrow mindedness came up with this assumption. That too is pitiful. Marriage is about personal affairs, driving is about stupid people with lack of skills on the road, their obliviousness to the most basic laws of physics. If you can comprehend (I know I am asking a lot) I consider the arguing point of whether driving is a right just a sticking point. And since I never brought up marriage one way or the other now who's moving the goalposts? See even that remark shows your incredibly arrogant attitude about what discussions are all about and how they work. For you it's simply (and again) either a win or lose situation. You fail to gain knowledge (ie you actively refuse to learn) in order to bolster your view, which always makes that person look like a fool, all by themselves. You've done this multiple times in just this article. The fact that you pride yourself on your self imposed one-sidedness is the average response found in all types of zealots, not just you.

quote:
So when FAUX reports the mosque, it's rightist propaganda. When MSNBC reports the Koran burning, it's legit

Oh simple minded one, Faux reported the mosque? The NYT beat them to it, but tell you what, why not post links of what was said on Faux so that people here can see for themselves the quality of what they "report"; the fair and balanced nature.

quote:
Fox bashing. How original.

Still waiting for Murdoch's birth certificate.

quote:
Your reading comprehension needs serious work.

Really, your paragraph starts "I suppose" followed by your conclusion. Do you know him? Yes or no? Have you ever met him? Yes or no? Sorry I am so Katie Couric on you, I expect you to know what newspapers you read.

quote:
your friend was made to feel uncomfortable in his trip and prejudiced against.

Typically zealot logic, he's my "friend." Maybe he doesn't hate conservatives, maybe he's not my friend, maybe he's just fair and balanced.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 3:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe our rights should extend beyond the point where our actions have an negative impact on others.

I'm also not some kind of tree hugging, pro regulation liberal fanatic, but I do believe that certain regulations have their place.

I don't believe the government should be banning/regulating anything unless it can be shown that actions of one person, can vastly affect that of another. (which once again has its limits, if the con's mitigate the pro's then it may not make sense either. )

If that makes me a fascist (which by definition, obviously doesn't), then I'll live with that ;)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simply driving can vastly affect the life of another. You could run over a nail, have your tire blow out, swerve onto a sidewalk, and run over someone.


Yes, but that was not under the control of the individual. Using a mobile device while driving is a conscious decision whose consequences are completely avoidable.

If it's THAT important, pull over.


By YashBudini on 10/1/2010 12:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TV. It makes people sit around and be lazy. This results in a decline of their health or potentially makes them ignore their spouse and/or kids. Should it be banned?

Does TV kill the family of 4 that lived across town while you were watching TV? Or is the concept of collateral damage rather foreign to you?

You gotta love it when you need to explain the obvious. The same people then complain others don't have common sense.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 4:40:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't believe our rights should extend beyond the point where our actions have an negative impact on others.


That kind of idealistic hogwash has been used to chip away at civil liberties for years now. In that context, almost EVERYTHING we do can be construed as having a negative impact on others.

quote:
I'm also not some kind of tree hugging, pro regulation liberal fanatic...


No you're worse. You're someone too stupid to realize he IS these things.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 12:28:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's simple, when you are driving, your brain needs to be 100% focused on that task to the exclusion of all else.


No it doesn't. I've been driving a pretty long time now, and I would be lying if I told you it takes 100% of our brainpower to operate a vehicle. That's absurd and you know it. Driving isn't THAT intensive, just stop.

quote:
The entire situation in front of you can change in the time that it takes you to look down and read a single sentence.


So can it when using an in car DVD player, fiddling with your radio, putting on makeup, having a dog on your lap while driving etc etc.

Think about that. It's actually legal to drive your car around while watching a freaking movie, but you want to ban texting!!??

quote:
I'm more interested in the numerous empirical experimentations that has essentially proven that detracted drivers faculties are more impaired than drunk drivers and that as speeds increase, so does the comparable degree of impairment.


Last week some drunk driver here going the wrong way in traffic smashed a whole family head on and killed them. This is about the hundredth time I've heard about drunk drivers going the wrong way down a road and killing people.

Can you honest tell me that texters are THAT impaired? Have you ever heard about someone texting going the wrong way in traffic and wiping out whole families??

There is a reason DWI is a felony and texting is just a fine. The ENTIRE time a drunk is behind the wheel he's at risk of a collision, and the longer he's driving the more that risk increases exponentially.

Drunk driving laws ARE about saving lives and getting idiots off the road. Texting fines are about generating revenue. That's the difference.

quote:
I would even say the laws don't go far enough with just fines and that they should lump distracted driving in with drunk driving.


Well now you're being a fascist. I actually thought you had some brains, but this is just too far.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No it doesn't. I've been driving a pretty long time now, and I would be lying if I told you it takes 100% of our brainpower to operate a vehicle. That's absurd and you know it. Driving isn't THAT intensive, just stop.
I'm pretty sure he's trying to make the point that the less amount of attention you are paying, the more likely you are to get into an accident. Judging by the way our our brain functions on even a basic level, you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

This can be backed scientifically I'm sure, your little personal opinion cannot.
quote:
So can it when using an in car DVD player, fiddling with your radio, putting on makeup, having a dog on your lap while driving etc etc. Think about that. It's actually legal to drive your car around while watching a freaking movie, but you want to ban texting!!??
What exactly is your point here? That because other things that distract are not illegal, that cell phones should not be either? So I guess you would have no problem if we banned everything then?

Oh wait.. you have no problem with the law, you just don't like regulation, (and obviously anti government intervention in general ) and would be making the same points regardless of the topic. Regulation is bad, the government is bad.. Let us figure everything out for ourselves.. blah blah blah...


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever heard of consistency and common sense?? My point is pretty fucking obvious, why don't you stop being a god damn idiot for a change and THINK.
I get exactly what you are saying, and I'm trying to point out you are a hypocrite.

You would be against the law whether or not it was consistent or not. As usual, you are trying to find any hole you can to prove your disdain for government intervention.

You've already responded to my other post about an outright ban of mobile devices in Ontario (consistency!!!), bashing how we are 'going backwards'.. and now you try and flip flop.

You motives are clear, lets not try and pretend otherwise..

P.S How low can you go? Who belittles the fact that someones sister almost died.. especially when it is tied to the topic at hand?


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 3:35:15 PM , Rating: 1
He was not belittling the fact. Merely pointing out that the law against texting while driving did nothing to make her choose not to do it and nearly cause her own demise. No outside forces involved here buddy. Your example did nothing to help your case that passing such laws will result in a safer driving environment.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 4:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The very fact that he would comment in that manner proves to me he's extremely emotionally vested in this topic and not thinking clearly. I wasn't using his sister as a human shield for my argument, simply pointing out that the very bans he claims would have prevented the accident WERE ALREADY IN PLACE when she had it. How much more simple and cut and dry can I possibly make my case?

First he says she walked away unharmed, and now she "almost died". What the hell, which is it anyway? Man if you need to bring up personal examples, the threat of death, guilt trips and wacky exaggerations into the argument well hell, you got a problem.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly do you guys expect a 50% drop in cases involving texting and driving?

If even 1% of the population takes this law to heart and does not do it, it was effective. Its a law that has essentially zero negative impact. At worst it increases awareness, at best it substantially decreases accidents.

Either way its not a bad thing, thats my point. I've already stated that the studies presented cannot prove its effectiveness either way, so its really pointless to debate it.

Can you come up with a reason the law should not exist other than the fact we can't prove its effectiveness? Aside from constituency, which is hardly an argument when it comes to the rules of the road. Speeding is a perfect example, we can get pulled over for doing 10 over in one place, but not pulled over for doing 30 over in another, as you stated, life is not fair, expecting consistency across the board is just not feasible.

Simply put, its a deterrent that harms nobody, but could save others.

BTW thanks for keeping it civil FIT as i know we have opposite views ;)


By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 4:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
aside from *consistency*


By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 5:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Stop dodging the question. I want to know flat out why the ban didn't prevent your sisters accident, but you're so sure it would work on everyone else. That's all I'm interested in hearing from you.


By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 5:28:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Either way its not a bad thing, thats my point.


I have texted while driving before. How did I do it, I hit one key at a time while not even looking at the phone. Should I have been pulled over for unsafe driving? You're going to punish me for an act that did not impair my ability to drive.

For me now its moot because if I need to send a text I merely use Google's voice to text ability. This distracts me no more than dialing a phone call would. Even hands free devices don't take away the fact that you have to go into your contacts and dial a number.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 2:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think about that. It's actually legal to drive your car around while watching a freaking movie, but you want to ban texting!!??


Not in Canada. In-car video entertainment systems in the drivers field of vision must be disabled when the car is in motion. Failure to do so will result in a "fixit" order that will prevent you from renewing that cars license plate until the required work has been done by an accredited mechanic. This is the same procedure as any other vehicle-safety failure such as headlights, taillights, worn tires etc.

quote:
fiddling with your radio


I can do this with my steering wheel without ever needing to take my eyes off the road.

quote:
Can you honest tell me that texters are THAT impaired? Have you ever heard about someone texting going the wrong way in traffic and wiping out whole families??


Actually yes, soemone in my car club was hit head on by a car whose distracted driver managed to lose control of thier car in the wet, leave the 401, cross the two ditches and the riser and head on him. Thankfully the only person who was killed was the idiot in the other car and the club member escaped with only a few broken toes and some bruises.

The other day a driver flew through a red light and t-boned another car, injuring everyone involved. Why? If you guessed they were typing out a text and didn't see the light change, you'd be right!

See, I can provide anecdotal evidence as well! However, such evidence is meaningless as you can find examples of just about anything. Numerous studies of fatal accident reports in Australia, Britain, France, Belgium, Canada and the US have been done and show that as many as 1 in 5 fatal accidents can be directly attributed to distracted drivers. That's 20% too high for something that is a conscious decision by drivers to let themselves be distracted.

quote:
fascist


You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means... I think it's just become your favorite political pejorative.

Liberalism and Fascism are about as far apart on the political spectrum as you can get. Hell, US conservativism has more in common with Fascism than any form of liberalism does. In fact, the act of being fascist requires you to work against the pluralisms and individualism espoused by liberalism.

I believe that the rights of individuals to be individuals should be protected to the benefit of society as a whole. However, driving is not a right, it is a privilege afforded you by your demonstration to the state that you can be trusted to engage in said privilege without being a danger to the people you share the road with. That means obeying the rules of the road, maintaining your vehicles ability to function safely and by being actively engaged in the act of piloting a vehicle the entire time it is moving. If you fail to do so, the state should be able to deny you that privilege.

Hell, if you're going to call me anything, call me a god damned communist, but even that would be an insult to real communists everywhere.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 4:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not in Canada.


As a wise man once said: Fu#@ Canada.

quote:
Failure to do so will result in a "fixit" order that will prevent you from renewing that cars license plate until the required work has been done by an accredited mechanic.


That's terrible, but I expect no less from Canada.

quote:
I can do this with my steering wheel without ever needing to take my eyes off the road.


Good for you!!! Here's a cookie. Too bad the vast majority of cars do NOT have steering wheel controls. And have you ever seen the head units with large retractable LCD screens for watching media?

I think I've made my point. There ARE other attention grabbing devices in vehicles that are perfectly legal WHERE THIS STUDY TOOK PLACE i.e NOT Canada. So why are those ok but texting is being focused on?

quote:
You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means... I think it's just become your favorite political pejorative.


And you're being over-literal and ignoring the spirit of it all. And it's a pretty nice pejorative to stick to someone, yeah :)

quote:
I believe that the rights of individuals to be individuals should be protected to the benefit of society as a whole.


Then no, you don't. You believe in the rights of society as a whole, not the individual. One naturally supersedes the other, you can't have both.

I think what you really mean, and Omni for that matter, is that you believe all rights and privileges are granted to you from a centralized government. And once the government controls all rights and privileges, it has the power to take them away at will or say what they are, and if you don't like it shut up.

quote:
If you fail to do so, the state should be able to deny you that privilege.


They don't want to, that's why texting isn't even a moving violation, it's simply a fine. If you aren't driving, they can't fine you and make more money.

Or are you actually stupid enough to believe this is about "public safety"? HA!


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 5:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then no, you don't. You believe in the rights of society as a whole, not the individual. One naturally supersedes the other, you can't have both.


Because you say so? Individuals having the rights to be individuals is directly beneficial to a capitalist society. Will all of those individuals be productive members of society? Probably not, but some of them will be creative achievers whose labor provide society with more better commercial goods that will reward the creators with meaningful remuneration.

quote:
I think what you really mean, and Omni for that matter, is that you believe all rights and privileges are granted to you from a centralized government. And once the government controls all rights and privileges, it has the power to take them away at will or say what they are, and if you don't like it shut up.


Trying to put words in my mouth now are you? You couldn't possibly be a bigger moron could you?

My rights, freedoms and privileges are granted to me by society as a whole through societal norms. The government has no power over this and unlike the US government, the Canadian government must put any changes or extensions of government power to a national referendum and pass both senate and supreme court approval. If the government is defeated in a referendum, the governor general can dissolve parliament and hold an election.

I like the system the way it is.

In Canada, driving while using detracting devices has basically moved into the same realm of social unacceptability as drinking and driving.

Will people still do it? OF COURSE! It's their choice as an individual. You may not always get caught, but when you do, there are consequences.

quote:
They don't want to, that's why texting isn't even a moving violation, it's simply a fine. If you aren't driving, they can't fine you and make more money.


Maybe in the US, but again, it is a serious offense and repeat offenses result in incrementally larger penalties.

1st Offence - $500
2nd Offense - $1000
3nd Offense - $1000 + 6 demerit points
4th offense - 6 month suspensions

The only thing they haven't done is fully criminalize it so that you would face jail time. Nor do I think they should unless the statute limits it to cases where it was the attributable cause of an accident.

We're a fundamentally different people when it comes to politics and while you guys are busy voting for who you like the most in your grandiose popularity contests, we're voting for the party whose platform we hate the least. We recenty changed governments 3 times in five years because of no-confidence votes and it's been a long time since there was a government strong enough to force legislation (another thing Canadians tend to resent).

I don't expect you to understand this because of your "us vs them" mind set. To be honest, I've lived in the US in Houston, LA, NYC and Boston and I still don't understand how "we the people" turned into "me, myself and I".


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 6:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why are we still talking about Canada? Did you not read the article?

So much of your post is related to Canadian driving, politics etc etc. Get back to me when you've found a way to make your opinions relevant.

quote:
I still don't understand how "we the people" turned into "me, myself and I".


That's obvious. Society is made up of individuals. You speak of it as if it's some sentient autonomous thing. But being a typical Canadian (socialist) I'm probably wasting my time.

quote:
I like the system the way it is.


Again, how in the hell did a convo about texting in cars become an education in the wacky Canadian political process? I'm sure it works fine for your 33 million population of beatniks. I don't think it would work very well over here. Too many issues, too many people.

quote:
In Canada, driving while using detracting devices has basically moved into the same realm of social unacceptability as drinking and driving.


HAHA!! Is this a joke? There are very few places on the planet where drinking and driving is MORE accepted than in Canada. 40% of all traffic fatalities in Canada are alcohol related!! Forty!! Impaired driving is the single leading criminal cause of death in Canada! Canada has a MASSIVE alcohol problem, in truth you're a country of irresponsible drunks! Oh and I especially love this one, in a country of only 33 million people, The Canadian Traffic Industry Foundation estimates that every month there are 7 million impaired drivers on Canada's roads.

Huh the more I think about it the more that it looks like you people DO need overreaching government regulation and strict bans on things. You gave up your self responsibility long ago, eh.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 8:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
40% of all traffic fatalities in Canada are alcohol related!! Forty!!


You are a liar.

Latest statistics of drinking and driving in Canada put it as the cause of only 30% of fatal accidents. That is coming from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, an institution that has EVERY interest in supplying the largest statistical figure. That is compared to 37% in the united states as supported by the IISA.

The fact that you would stoop so low in a pathetic attempt to insult an entire people only goes to show just how small-minded and insignificant you really are.

quote:
Impaired driving is the single leading criminal cause of death in Canada! Canada has a MASSIVE alcohol problem, in truth you're a country of irresponsible drunks!


Again with the skewed bulls***.

Your assessments are about as accurate as me saying that everyone in the USA is a murderer because the murder rate per capita in the USA is 3x that of Canada. Unlike you, I didn't even have to make that statistic up!

Reclaimer, you sir are a truly worthless and downright despicable human being. You are so full of s*** that it's coming out both ends.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 9:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Liar?? I used Google the same as you did. Maybe the article I read was out of date? Nope, I must be lying!

And no offense but 30% isn't exactly the "socially unacceptable" driving while impaired picture you were painting. That's still VERY alarming.

quote:
Again with the skewed bulls***.


Again, you're shooting the messenger. If the site I used didn't check their facts, I can't be blamed. But why should I accept your version and not theirs?? What makes YOU right? The almighty Google and Wikipedia says you're the one full of it.

quote:
The fact that you would stoop so low in a pathetic attempt to insult an entire people only goes to show just how small-minded and insignificant you really are.


Oh like how Omni said 60% of all Americans were fat and lazy? Funny, I didn't see you having a problem with that.

Give me a break, you Canadians come in here every single day and slander us, insult us, and lay on your anti-American stereotypes. And when I do my homework and look up statistics that CANADIAN agencies gathered, you accuse me of lying and skewing facts?

quote:
Reclaimer, you sir are a truly worthless and downright despicable human being. You are so full of s*** that it's coming out both ends.


Hey buddy I'm sorry if I hit a nerve, but there's no call for all that. Take a pill, or rather, knock back another one of those high octane beers and go for a drive :)


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 10:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liar?? I used Google the same as you did.


Yep, you are a liar and a coward and now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.

After poking around, my quoted figures of 30% (for Canada) is pretty much everywhere from Statstics Canada, Department of Transportation and the most prominent anti-drinking and driving organization in the country.

The quoted US figure of 37% actually ranges as high as 39% depending on if you are looking at the NHSTA, IIHS or anti drinking and driving organizations.

What's more, the actual stats support that Canadians are, per capita, safer drivers than Americans. Canadians drive a similar average distance than Americans and yet Americans are 50% more likely to be killed in an automobile accident and 50% more likely to be killed by a drunk driver, 25% more likely to be killed by a distracted driver.

quote:
Again, you're shooting the messenger.


That defense can only be used when you don't go through the effort to consciously pick (or make up) a figure that suits your inflammatory comments and espouse it as fact. Before I decided to call you on it, I checked your figures against every official source that I know of and unless you were stupid enough to quote a figure from 1999, you were way out of place.

quote:
And when I do my homework


What homework? As far as I am concerned, you made that number up so you could hide behind it for your cowardly attack by association built upon false information. You willfully provided misinformation in an attempt to insult individuals by attacking an entire people for something that wasn't even true.

On the other hand, I at least had the courtesy to tell YOU exactly what I think of YOU.

Hell, I would be amazed that you even call yourself a Christian, but then lies and misinformation are all part of a days work there.

quote:
You Canadians come in here


Come in where? The world wide web? America?

Every time I go to the US, people figure out without my telling them that I am Canadian just because I am polite, well mannered and well spoken when I am not dealing with ignorant and xenophobic a**holes like yourself.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 2:07:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am polite


Oh right. Let's see so far you have called me an imbecile and asshole and various other insults completely unwarranted. You flew off the handle at another poster and made a crack about his "mommy" giving him ideas because they didn't agree with your preconceived notions. Now I'm a liar too and on top of all that..

quote:
Hell, I would be amazed that you even call yourself a Christian, but then lies and misinformation are all part of a days work there.


HUH!? Where did that come from? So because I'm a Conservative I MUST be a Christian? Oh and now ALL Christians are liars and misinformation too?

No, I'm NOT a Christian nor did I ever claim to be. The fact that you made this accusation when religion never even entered into the argument tells us that not only are you extremely judgmental, but your mind makes up things about someone so you can hate them even more.

Polite and well mannered? You have got to be THE rudest, most condescending, offensive bigot I have ever come across on Daily Tech.


By YashBudini on 10/1/2010 12:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Polite and well mannered? You have got to be THE rudest, most condescending, offensive bigot I have ever come across on Daily Tech.

Said the pot to the kettle.


By YashBudini on 10/1/2010 4:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fu#@ Canada.

You have to wonder about people who actually pride in their ugliness. But spoken like all other infallable terrorists nonetheless.


By clovell on 9/29/2010 12:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
This article proves that you can't have it both ways. If cell phones actually cause this amount of accidents, then why aren't the bans working?

To apply causation != correlation to this study, but not those that found that cell phone use causes accidents seems a bit invalid.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 1:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wouldnt trust those stats as far as I can throw, as every single study contradicts one another.


That's funny. You seem all too willing to trust the stats and studies that happen to support YOUR opinions.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 3:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I don't.. Which is half the problem.

Whether you are pro or con, trying to extrapolate one piece of data without trying to figure out the rest makes absolutely no sense. Until I see a study comparing ALL types of highway accidents and reasons in which incidents rose/fell, how exactly can you figure out if the ban worked or not?

Its just like all the global warming studies we see, base everything on one variable without accounting for all the others.. Its the same old same old, people completely ignoring the fact that 'Correlation does not imply causation', yet we eat up what the media feeds us day in day out.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2010 4:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need to see data, I know a cell phone ban won't work. Cell phones have too much market saturation, they are ingrained into the vast majority of peoples everyday lives. And have been for a very long time now, and the accident and fatality rates have done nothing by decrease year after year. Face facts, most people don't see cell phones as a threat. It's no different than a TV or radio or toaster at this point, it's an appliance. And they WILL use them whenever and whenever they see fit.

The only ban that would work, is one that would forcibly remove the device from the person. And I think you know where I stand on that one. Law makers and people like you believe you can curb human behavior with laws and fines, and historically, that just has not worked.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Someone used this quote on me yesterday in the terrorism article. Funny how when it comes to homeland security, Liberals LOVE throwing this one up. But when it comes to any pro-government nanny state feel good policy, they bend over themselves backwards and expect everyone else to do the same for the little bit of safety.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Demoure on 9/30/2010 1:55:03 AM , Rating: 1
Oh boy, look what you've done. Franklin's rolling in his grave after you implied that the use of cell phones while driving, or the use of cell phones at all, is an essential liberty.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 10:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Franklin would say a phonecall originating from outside the United States being wiretapped is a violation of an essential liberty either. So in that context, my use of his quote is perfectly consistent with the way others use it. Also, do you understand what satire is?

And there are lots of things that would cause him to roll in his grave today, a post on Daily Tech isn't even on the list :)


By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2010 1:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I retract that. I think it's most likely Ben would probably want the Government out of his phone calls AND out of his car equally.


By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 11:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Drunk driving is much worse, sorry. And mythbusters, while entertaining, aren't experts in everything.


That probably depends on how drunk they are.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By clovell on 9/29/2010 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, Reclaimer. If the government wants to get involved, then mandating a built-in hands-free system in all cars is the more intelligent way to go.

I know people think hands-free is just as bad, but it's not.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
The governments stupid mandates are not going to work for the same reason that mandates on gun control, or drug use, or speeding, drunk driving, or car stereo volume dont work...

people are going to do what they want to or what they deem convienient when they think they wont get caught. If you want to change the behavior you need to come up with a better way to perform the function not outlaw it.


By omnicronx on 9/29/2010 1:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense.. If all cares were mandated to have hands free, please explain as to why nobody would use it? How is it more convenient to find your phone.. push a bunch of buttons to dial, and then hold your phone up to your head??

How is that even comparable with lack of effectiveness of gun control, drug use, speeding or drunk driving in which the mandates do not make things easier?

I.e you are contradicting yourself, if people will do whats the most convenient to them, why on earth wouldn't they use hands free if its there?


By clovell on 9/29/2010 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
They confirmed nothing. If anything their experiment was a proof of concept, not a confirmation. Please learn how science is actually done before talking about confirmatory studies.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By tng on 9/29/2010 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
The state of California has decreed already that CO2 is a toxic gas, so I guess with that they can criminalize breathing.


By StMichael on 9/29/2010 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 2
The real point is that, whether legal or not, if you text while driving you're an a$$hole because you're putting other drivers in danger, whether you think you are or not. Just because you haven't had an accident due to texting doesn't mean that you're not increasing the liklihood of doing so. If I see you texting on the road I'm going to blow my horn and flip you off. It may not stop you from texting but at least it will give me some satisfaction. Same goes for "most" people talking on the phone while driving. I can't count the number of times I've encountered somebody going 10 mph slower than the traffice flow, in the way in the fast lane. Invariably they are on their cell phone.


RE: Just criminalize breathing already!
By XiroMisho on 9/29/2010 1:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but there are certain things I can understand with "over controlling government" but seriously are you defending these complete morons that raise my insurance just by being on the road?

The complete and utter idiots who think that, since they cannot talk on the phone while driving (which is less dumb but still pretty bad) texting is better?

When I heard people even DID this I was shocked enough, I thought I had faith in the human brain and it's ability to THINK but I suppose that's gone.

Arrest the moron before they kill someone. They shouldn't have a license, a car, or a phone.


By Kurz on 9/30/2010 5:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ever hear of Innocent before proven Guilty?


By Wolfpup on 9/29/2010 3:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Texting? Fine, but I'm COMPLETELY against laws against TALKING while driving. Talk about asinine. They need to also outlaw passengers and fast food restaurants or they're being hypocritical.


By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 8:08:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is getting out of hand, not this law specifically, but the overall over-criminalization of life in this country!

Perhaps we could have 1 law - DWA - Driving While Asshole. A jury would decide if the driver was being one and find guilt accordingly. This would address all bad behavior.


By Zhukov on 10/1/2010 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not in your pocket, it's more money you can pay to your insurance company because driving becomes more dangerous when more people are on the phone while driving.

You could save a lot of money by eliminating the FDA too, if you like having more salmonella and e-coli in your food. Eliminate the EPA and have more garbage and chemicals being dumped everywhere. How about the FAA. You like to listen to radio? How about eliminating the FCC and have only one radio station in the country broadcasting at 100 megawatts. You like cell phones? If the government didn't spend a lot of money breaking up AT&T, you wouldn't have one. You would have to rent a Western Electric phone. If you could buy a differant brand, you wouldn't be able to plug it into your wall socket.

The hand held cell phone laws are dumb because it's not dangerous to hold something in your hand while driving with the other. What's dangerous is the actual conversation. The cell phone makers need to held accountable and it takes big government to do it. Eventually they will.


By Zhukov on 10/1/2010 1:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not in your pocket, it's more money you can pay to your insurance company because driving becomes more dangerous when more people are on the phone while driving.

You could save a lot of money by eliminating the FDA too, if you like having more salmonella and e-coli in your food. Eliminate the EPA and have more garbage and chemicals being dumped everywhere. How about the FAA. You like to listen to radio? How about eliminating the FCC and have only one radio station in the country broadcasting at 100 megawatts. You like cell phones? If the government didn't spend a lot of money breaking up AT&T, you wouldn't have one. You would have to rent a Western Electric phone. If you could buy a differant brand, you wouldn't be able to plug it into your wall socket.

The hand held cell phone laws are dumb because it's not dangerous to hold something in your hand while driving with the other. What's dangerous is the actual conversation. The cell phone makers need to held accountable and it takes big government to do it. Eventually they will.


By Zhukov on 10/1/2010 1:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not in your pocket, it's more money you can pay to your insurance company because driving becomes more dangerous when more people are on the phone while driving.

You could save a lot of money by eliminating the FDA too, if you like having more salmonella and e-coli in your food. Eliminate the EPA and have more garbage and chemicals being dumped everywhere. How about the FAA. You like to listen to radio? How about eliminating the FCC and have only one radio station in the country broadcasting at 100 megawatts. You like cell phones? If the government didn't spend a lot of money breaking up AT&T, you wouldn't have one. You would have to rent a Western Electric phone. If you could buy a differant brand, you wouldn't be able to plug it into your wall socket.

The hand held cell phone laws are dumb because it's not dangerous to hold something in your hand while driving with the other. What's dangerous is the actual conversation. The cell phone makers need to held accountable and it takes big government to do it. Eventually they will.


By Zhukov on 10/1/2010 2:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not in your pocket, it's more money you can pay to your insurance company because driving becomes more dangerous when more people are on the phone while driving.

You could save a lot of money by eliminating the FDA too, if you like having more salmonella and e-coli in your food. Eliminate the EPA and have more garbage and chemicals being dumped everywhere. How about the FAA? You like to listen to radio? How about eliminating the FCC and have only one radio station in the country broadcasting at 100 megawatts. You like cell phones? If the government didn't spend a lot of money breaking up AT&T, you wouldn't have one. You would have to rent a Western Electric phone. If you could buy a different brand, you wouldn't be able to plug it into your wall socket.

The hand held cell phone laws are dumb because it's not dangerous to hold something in your hand while driving with the other. What's dangerous is the actual conversation. We need to start holding the cell phone makers accountable too and it takes big government to do that.


The Solution
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 10:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
I now my parents would say *high pitched impersonation voice* "why not just call them?!"... but, there should be some sort of voice recognition system so that you can talk to the phone and it auto types the text for you. Then you only have to push one button instead of 50 to create a text if you're driving, and you can keep your eyes on the road during most of the process.

Is it perfect? no, but I really don't think their bans are going to work, the best way to address the issue is to come up with a way to send a text that is less destracting for the driver.




RE: The Solution
By tng on 9/29/2010 11:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there should be some sort of voice recognition system so that you can talk to the phone and it auto types the text for you.
I have always wondered what the fascination with texting is. I have younger family members that will text me with some question and then they are really annoyed that I CALLED them back.


RE: The Solution
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 11:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Texting is useful in situations where:

1. You do not have enough to say to justify a phone conversation.

2. You need to communicate but want some privacy in a public place.

3. You need to communicate but dont want to be disruptive to those around you.

4. You are trying to communicate with multiple people at the same time.

Text messaging is essentially a go anywhere version of the instant messenger.


RE: The Solution
By tng on 9/29/2010 11:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
All good arguments, but it does not explain the majority of texting that is done.

I have found that as a business tool texting has limited uses. Most of what I need to communicate to a customer/coworker goes well beyond what can be communicated in a even a long text message.


RE: The Solution
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 12:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All good arguments, but it does not explain the majority of texting that is done.


How so?

quote:
I have found that as a business tool texting has limited uses. Most of what I need to communicate to a customer/coworker goes well beyond what can be communicated in a even a long text message.


You don't use text messaging to describe a new product or explain in detail how to some new policy is going to save the orgainization $8M over the next fiscal year. You use it to say "can you get me some gum when you're at the store?" or "wanna go watch a movie after work?"

You can have a conversation with text messaging but its typically done while you're doing something else that requires most of your attention. Its much easier to mulitask while texting then talking on the phone. Talking requires constant attention as you have to resopond to the other person much more quickly, texting requires short bursts of your full attention. Example I can watch TV, eat lunch, and text 3 people at the time. I cannot watch TV (and understand what I'm watching), eat lunch, and hold 3 phone converstaions at the same time.


RE: The Solution
By tng on 9/29/2010 1:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You use it to say "can you get me some gum when you're at the store?" or "wanna go watch a movie after work?"

Well that is what I mean. Yes those are short messages, but there is a needed follow up on each of your examples above.

wanna go watch a movie after work?
sure, which one?
that new one about dreams.
dreams, what is the name?
I don't remember, came out yesterday
who is in it?
You know the guy from Titanic
oh, inception sure lets go
so what time? 7:15 ok?
Yeh, want to get something to eat first?
sure, where?
ETC......

So all of these combined are not exactly War and Peace, but even if you are sitting at you desk they require some amount of concentration.

Wouldn't it be better just call and discuss it?


RE: The Solution
By MrBungle123 on 9/29/2010 5:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose, you have a point. But if you're making plans like this say 4 or 5 hours in advance time really isn't of the essence and both parties may be preoccupied, in which case the texting makes sense. Say one or both work and may only have a short minute or two at staggered times to look at their phone... easy with a text... if you have to actually talk to them you both have to be free at the same time to have the converstation which either results in phone tag and voice mails or no plans at all.


RE: The Solution
By tng on 9/29/2010 1:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I cannot watch TV (and understand what I'm watching), eat lunch, and hold 3 phone converstaions at the same time.

See your point, but the reason that you can do it while you are texting is the information density, spoken language carries more info in the same space of time, while texting is more drawn out.


RE: The Solution
By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 8:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Texting is useful in situations where:

How about the average driver just STFU because they aren't that important?


RE: The Solution
By YashBudini on 9/30/2010 8:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have always wondered what the fascination with texting is.

What it should be is early onset of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome of the thumbs.


RE: The Solution
By BruceLeet on 9/29/2010 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
That will probably be the compromise, calling people on the phone while driving; legal

Texting; illegal

OR, phone companies can use their *TRUSTY GPS feature and if a phone is moving more than 20mph on a road then that phone is automatically disabled in texting

*word used for sarcastic purposes.


Simple solution
By Beenthere on 9/29/2010 10:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who insists on texting or talking on a cellphone while driving should be shot on sight. I guarantee you that a dead fool will not text again.

As a secondary option throw their worthless arse in prison for a year. They are a waste of humanity and a danger to society.




RE: Simple solution
By Kurz on 9/29/2010 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 1
I guess Majority of Americans with cars and Cell phones are waste of humanity and are danger to themselves.

You probably don't realize it but i'll tell you though, Your comment was pretty absurd. I bet you are a Liberal.
Sorry if I am partially wrong in the case you consider yourself a conservative, but the way a liberal thinks is very reminiscent of how I used to think. That was till I wisened up and understood the point of view of our founders.


RE: Simple solution
By Beenthere on 9/29/2010 1:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
These clueless fools endanger everyone in society. It's best to eliminate them or at least lock them in prisons for a long time until they can buy a clue.


RE: Simple solution
By crustytheclown on 9/29/2010 2:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Buying clues in prison is illegal. It leads to informed masses and the government cannot have that. The government locks crooks away because they cant have any competition.


RE: Simple solution
By adiposity on 9/29/2010 3:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You probably don't realize it but i'll tell you though, Your comment was pretty absurd. I bet you are a Liberal.


Really? You think a "Liberal" position is to kill people on sight who commit civil offenses? Most liberals are against the death penalty. Most are in favor of civil liberties (you know, the right to trial and a lawyer?). A large majority of "liberals" are probably against the use of firearms. Shooting someone who has committed a minor traffic infraction before they are even tried in a court of law has got to be the most non-"liberal" thing I have ever heard of.

Now, I agree that the comment was stupid. But liberal? Hardly. Maybe a liberal would argue we should have a tax funded school to teach people how not to text and some sort of tax-funded special lane for people who have taken the class. Now, that might be a liberal position on the matter.