View Single Post
Old 03-19-2006, 09:16 AM   #54
Pete_G
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Pete_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Newport, RI
Posts: 2,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmacey
playing with your AM FM Radio has caused more rear end accidents than cell phones its no different talking on nextel two way than truckers talking on c bs I think they should get the drinking and driving under control before they add all these other laws its just my opinion another way to collect money for cities and towns same with the seat belt law yea it saves lives but when is enough is enough of being told what to do live free!!!

How about police, fireman, cabs, if its hands free it should be for everyone right eating is another issue,coffeee whats next think of all the new fines put in place over the last few years frig all these scam laws put a toll booth in each town and just take it from us Im sick to death of all these stupid rules.

I just drove through South Boston there are signs everywhere evacuation route if you cant figure out the bomb went off over there you better go the other way then somethings wrong what a waste of money most likely they would ticket your ass for not going the way they told you to go.

Logan airport tolls $3.00 for a regular car $4.50 for a commercial same car give me a break they figure well we can so why not.

Politians make me sick they sit up there on the hill with nothing better to do than figure ways to get more money from the public and then sneak the raises through the house for them selves.

Go to logan at 3 in the morning and see how many police cars are sitting details on the expressway orange cones everywhere blocking the road then 3 deep in police sheriff and municipal cop blocking it what cones and 1 cop car wont do the trick got to be pretty stupid to go through it or is it another way to scam the public into paying more cop overtime?

I could go on and on about these rules there putting in place is the ultimate reasoning saftey or is it a hidden agenda that the polititians put in place in safteys name. HMMMMM think about it!!!

How can they "the public argue" "we the polititians" will just say it will save lives its for your saftey they cant say anything but agree with us they will all happily open there wallets and pay the new fines okay now that thats settled lets all go have our review meeting at the Union Oyster house we can all have Lobster dinner and drinks the general public is paying LOL!!
I'm against this law for the same reasons you are, BS revenue for towns and the state. Also I generally don't like the gov't telling me what to do so I'm mostly against laws such as no eating while driving and no cell phones while driving.

But at the same time, for many laws I like to apply the old "the gov't should protect me from others, not from myself". This is why a seatbelt law, to me, seems retarded. If I don't want to wear a seat belt during the MOST dangerous thing most of us do every day and put myself in further danger, so be it. Personally I always wear mine, but if somebody doesn't wear there's it's not going to hurt me.

The challenge in argueing against a cell phone law is that it is a known fact that using the phone while driving impairs your driving skills. Some people more, some less. Is the risk to me from a drunk versus an idiot distracted by their cellphone that different? And which is a more prevelant behavior? I'm dodging people with cell phones driving poorly on a VERY regular basis these days. The cause is different, the results are the same. A hazard to others on the road.

I'd vote no on a law like this, but I'd have to admit that I'd have trouble building an arguement against it other then claiming it was a revenue source.
Pete_G is offline   Reply With Quote