|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 26, 2005 12:30:52 GMT -8
Well, now it's too much of a distration to be allowed to smoke while driving.  . Here's a quote from the article Assemblyman John McKeon, a tobacco opponent whose father died of emphysema, sponsored the legislation. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking.Boy, a whole 1 percent linked to smoking. www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/07/25/bill_pushed_to_stop_drivers_from_smoking?mode=PF |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Jul 26, 2005 13:55:33 GMT -8
I actually heard that they were trying to pass a ban similar to that in New York City.
New Jersey representatives never cease to amaze me...
|
|
|
|
Post by CommonSense on Jul 26, 2005 14:27:23 GMT -8
Totally stupid idea. Soon we're not going to be able to talk while driving. Or read, eat, brush our teeth, or urinate.  |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Jul 26, 2005 14:31:26 GMT -8
Totally stupid idea. Soon we're not going to be able to talk while driving. Or read, eat, brush our teeth, or urinate. But....but....sometimes I just pee involuntarily  Seriously some people do some really stupid stuff in their car that should not be allowed. Among them are putting on makeup, reading the newspaper, cycling through their iPod to find a certain song (that would be me  etc. But smoking in the car? I honestly don't see how that can possibly distract a driver. |
|
|
|
Post by CommonSense on Jul 26, 2005 14:55:19 GMT -8
Yeah I have seen some crazy stuff happening behind the wheel. I would like to know how many accidents are caused by changing a radio station.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 26, 2005 17:47:59 GMT -8
Totally stupid idea. Soon we're not going to be able to talk while driving. Or read, eat, brush our teeth, or urinate. Or shave, or put on makeup, or even read the fucking sports page. What's the world coming to? |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 26, 2005 17:51:27 GMT -8
Totally stupid idea. Soon we're not going to be able to talk while driving. Or read, eat, brush our teeth, or urinate. But....but....sometimes I just pee involuntarily Seriously some people do some really stupid stuff in their car that should not be allowed. Among them are putting on makeup, reading the newspaper, cycling through their iPod to find a certain song (that would be me etc. But smoking in the car? I honestly don't see how that can possibly distract a driver. Ever knock the fire off your smoke and have it fall into the space between you thighs, then follow the slope of the bucket seat right under your crotch? I thought not. |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 27, 2005 2:00:24 GMT -8
Yeah I have seen some crazy stuff happening behind the wheel. I would like to know how many accidents are caused by changing a radio station. I actually wonder how many accidents are caused by people eating food they just got from the drive thru. If's it's anywhere near 2 percent we might see another bill proposed  |
|
|
|
Post by CommonSense on Jul 27, 2005 6:05:05 GMT -8
I actually wonder how many accidents are caused by people eating food they just got from the drive thru. If's it's anywhere near 2 percent we might see another bill proposed [/quote] It all really is a waste of time when we could be spending that time on more important things. |
|
|
|
Post by zstuf on Jul 28, 2005 5:53:23 GMT -8
How many accidents are caused by the improper use (or the complete lack of use) of a seatbelt?
When someone can explain how the insurance lobby got that law passed, then you will find out what kind of chances this bill will have.
Freedom can be lost 2 ways,
1. lack of military capability, and subsequently falling to a foreign government
2. lack of conviction to fight unnecessary laws within our own government.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 28, 2005 6:06:34 GMT -8
How many accidents are caused by the improper use (or the complete lack of use) of a seatbelt? When someone can explain how the insurance lobby got that law passed, then you will find out what kind of chances this bill will have. Freedom can be lost 2 ways, 1. lack of military capability, and subsequently falling to a foreign government 2. lack of conviction to fight unnecessary laws within our own government. Rephrase your question to: How many deaths are caused by the improper use (or the complete lack of use) of a seatbelt? Now watch your answers change. |
|
|
|
Post by ReformedLiberal on Jul 29, 2005 7:21:31 GMT -8
California banned smoking cars years ago.
What? Smoking in cars? Oh. nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Post by zstuf on Jul 31, 2005 8:23:58 GMT -8
The answer is zero, the deaths are caused by the accident itself, not the lack of or improper use of the seatbelt. If the accident did not occur, the lack of use of a seat belt would not cause a death, nor an injury.
What's the old skydiving saying, its not the fall nor the ground that kills you, its the sudden change in velocity.
Do you wear a parachute every time you board a commercial airplane?
The airline won't even let you on the plane with one.
If the plane were to crash, would your injuries be due to the fact that your parachute is sitting back at home, and not on you back?
Laws are to protect individuals from the acts of other people.
Not wearing a seatbelt can not cause a death or injury to another person.
In other words, you have nothing to fear if I do not wear my seatbelt. Thus forcing me to wear a seat belt does not protect you from me.
Contrast that with a driver reaching for his lighter that fell on the floor of the car.
Can a law that forbids smoking while driving protect me from you crashing into me because your attention was misplaced while driving?
Of the two, which one of these laws are needless and represses freedom more?
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 31, 2005 21:56:27 GMT -8
The answer is zero, the deaths are caused by the accident itself, not the lack of or improper use of the seatbelt. If the accident did not occur, the lack of use of a seat belt would not cause a death, nor an injury. What's the old skydiving saying, its not the fall nor the ground that kills you, its the sudden change in velocity. Do you wear a parachute every time you board a commercial airplane? The airline won't even let you on the plane with one. If the plane were to crash, would your injuries be due to the fact that your parachute is sitting back at home, and not on you back? Laws are to protect individuals from the acts of other people. Not wearing a seatbelt can not cause a death or injury to another person. In other words, you have nothing to fear if I do not wear my seatbelt. Thus forcing me to wear a seat belt does not protect you from me. Contrast that with a driver reaching for his lighter that fell on the floor of the car. Can a law that forbids smoking while driving protect me from you crashing into me because your attention was misplaced while driving? Of the two, which one of these laws are needless and represses freedom more? A platoon of strawmen here and a bogus argument. "The answer is zero, the deaths are caused by the accident itself, not the lack of or improper use of the seatbelt. If the accident did not occur, the lack of use of a seat belt would not cause a death, nor an injury." A comment worthy of a sixth-grader. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't be bumping his ass on the ground all the time. If this is what passes for discussion where you come from, take it somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by zstuf on Aug 1, 2005 8:29:35 GMT -8
The answer is zero, the deaths are caused by the accident itself, not the lack of or improper use of the seatbelt. If the accident did not occur, the lack of use of a seat belt would not cause a death, nor an injury. What's the old skydiving saying, its not the fall nor the ground that kills you, its the sudden change in velocity. Do you wear a parachute every time you board a commercial airplane? The airline won't even let you on the plane with one. If the plane were to crash, would your injuries be due to the fact that your parachute is sitting back at home, and not on you back? Laws are to protect individuals from the acts of other people. Not wearing a seatbelt can not cause a death or injury to another person. In other words, you have nothing to fear if I do not wear my seatbelt. Thus forcing me to wear a seat belt does not protect you from me. Contrast that with a driver reaching for his lighter that fell on the floor of the car. Can a law that forbids smoking while driving protect me from you crashing into me because your attention was misplaced while driving? Of the two, which one of these laws are needless and represses freedom more? A platoon of strawmen here and a bogus argument. "The answer is zero, the deaths are caused by the accident itself, not the lack of or improper use of the seatbelt. If the accident did not occur, the lack of use of a seat belt would not cause a death, nor an injury." A comment worthy of a sixth-grader. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't be bumping his ass on the ground all the time. If this is what passes for discussion where you come from, take it somewhere else. A little grumpy today, or do you actually believe a seatbelt has the ability to kill somebody while not in use? You asked how many seat-belts kill people when not used, you may not like the answer, but your argument has even less merit: "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't be bumping his ass on the ground all the time" an argument worthy of the senate floor. Here is another concept for you. Wearing a seat belt during an accident does not constitute a saved life. There are many accidents that occur in the U.S., many are very sever, when a person survives a sever accident the question is then asked if he was wearing a seatbelt. If he was, "the seatbelt saved his life". If not, then the seatbelt must have missed when it attempted to kill the person during the accident. |
|
. 
etc. 
