Banning the Operation of GPS Devices in Cars?

[+Arrow42]

Is it OK to drink and drive as long as the driver is able to make it home without swerving or hitting anyone?

 

Let me ask you something... where do we draw the line? What can or can't the government do to control your life? For driving while intoxicated we have drawn an arbitrary line with the goal of balancing personal liberties with the public good. I don't think anyone is trying to say there should be no line - what I am arguing is that the line has been pushed too far one way by public hype, fear mongering and greed.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

And the person who committed the "crime" can say the same. He was perusing life, liberty and his happiness by infringing on your rights. With out a law, there is no crime.

 

If laws are not written with specific language describing what EXACTLY is and is not not lawful, then all sorts of interpretation can ensue. Then it takes precedence to to establish who is in the right and in the wrong. this in turn will cause what is accepted law to stagnate and new laws could not be written. Take a example of the invention of motor vehicles. 150 years ago, when everyone depended on horses and their own feet to get around, there were no speed limits. You could not go very fast, although there may have been laws about running your horse through the town square. Motor vehicles are invented. Because this new technology enables people to travel faster and pose a threat to others. new laws need to be written to limit the speed motor vehicles can travel in certain areas so the public is not endangered. By your example, no new law needs to be written, even though people are being killed by cars that are traveling too fast. Those that are responsible are clogging the courts arguing that they were perusing their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since there is no precedence, nothing has been seen like this, they get off scott free. You can argue all you want about how the person who infringed on your rights needs to be punished, but without a law, no punishment can be enforced by the judicial system. There may or may not be laws written in your state about distracted driving, but if it does not specifically describe everything that can be considered as distracting to the driver, then it needs to be rewritten, or a new law passed.

I'm still not sure why you're not getting my point. I'm not saying yours isn't valid, just that you are misinterpreting mine. Running over someone on your horse (or car) is and always has been illegal. It violates a basic fundamental of life. How would I get off scott free for killing someone under that circumstance? Regardless of how fast I was travelling, the end result is the same. Using that logic, it doesn't matter what the speed limit is. If I am going 200 mph down the freeway and zip past you without incident, effectively, NOTHING HAPPENED. How can I be punished for something that didn't happen? If, on the other hand, I am travelling 200 mph down the freeway and crash into you, I have violated your Constitutional rights and will be punished accordingly. Simple.

 

Edited to add that, for me, the consequences of this are enough to keep me from going 200 mph on the freeway. That is how it should work.

Edited June 26, 2009 by DatCrazyMongoose

[CoyoteRed]

You know, maybe we should do away with the law against entering an intersection against a red signal, failing to stop for a stop sign, or signaling, or maintaining a safe vehicle. After all, having to stop for a red signal or a stop sign, having to signal my intentions, or having to maintain a safe vehicle all are against my God-given rights! Why should the government say should things?

 

Who ever said driving was a right? You are licensed to show you have the basic skills to be on the roads. The government can deny you that privilege. Plenty of folks think it a right even after the government says they're not to drive. Guess what? They get a ride in the back of my car.

 

The government has every right to say what you can and can not do while you are driving. Period.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm still not sure why you're not getting my point. I'm not saying yours isn't valid, just that you are misinterpreting mine. Running over someone on your horse (or car) is and always has been illegal. It violates a basic fundamental of life. How would I get off scott free for killing someone under that circumstance? Regardless of how fast I was travelling, the end result is the same. Using that logic, it doesn't matter what the speed limit is. If I am going 200 mph down the freeway and zip past you without incident, effectively, NOTHING HAPPENED. How can I be punished for something that didn't happen? If, on the other hand, I am travelling 200 mph down the freeway and crash into you, I have violated your Constitutional rights and will be punished accordingly. Simple.

That's kind of like saying it's okay to walk around with a handgun, waving it around, and randomly popping off rounds. There's nothing wrong with it until you kill someone.

 

Personally, I'm not going to wait until you kill someone. I'm going to do something right now.

 

Sound familiar?

[+Arrow42]

Who ever said driving was a right? You are licensed to show you have the basic skills to be on the roads.

 

Just because there is a license doesn't mean it isn't a right. A reasonable level of traffic laws protects rights.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The Tenth Amendment as written by our forefathers. That's what makes it a right. For being one of the lesser understood amendments, it is one of the most important. Yes, the amendment does give the states regulatory power.... thus...

 

..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

 

...yes, you can lose your right to drive. That's where the Fifth Amendment comes in. I'm willing to concede that traffic court can provide due process.

[+bittsen]

Who ever said driving was a right? You are licensed to show you have the basic skills to be on the roads.

 

Just because there is a license doesn't mean it isn't a right. A reasonable level of traffic laws protects rights.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The Tenth Amendment as written by our forefathers. That's what makes it a right. For being one of the lesser understood amendments, it is one of the most important. Yes, the amendment does give the states regulatory power.... thus...

 

..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

 

...yes, you can lose your right to drive. That's where the Fifth Amendment comes in. I'm willing to concede that traffic court can provide due process.

 

Traffic court does NOT provide due process as outlined to me by the judge presiding over the circuit court of Gladstone, Oregon.

The judge said "The officer showing up is proof of your guilt"

That was in response to my question of "The officer has shown no proof of any wrongdoing on my part".

 

Due process? BAH!

[CoyoteRed]

..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

 

...yes, you can lose your right to drive. That's where the Fifth Amendment comes in. I'm willing to concede that traffic court can provide due process.

It kind of obvious you--and a few others in this thread--aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are. You need to learn the difference between a right and privilege.

 

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules.

 

The government put those roads there and they get to say who can and can't drive on them.

[+bittsen]

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules.

 

The government put those roads there and they get to say who can and can't drive on them.

One would argue that the people, NOT the government, pay for the roads to be created on PUBLIC, not government lands.

The government owns nothing. The government is owned by the people....or at least that is how it was intended from the moment the declaration of independence was signed.

 

We have a government just like the one our forefathers fought against.

[CoyoteRed]

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules.

 

The government put those roads there and they get to say who can and can't drive on them.

One would argue that the people, NOT the government, pay for the roads to be created on PUBLIC, not government lands.

The government owns nothing. The government is owned by the people....or at least that is how it was intended from the moment the declaration of independence was signed.

 

We have a government just like the one our forefathers fought against.

Yeah. And?

[+bittsen]

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules.

 

The government put those roads there and they get to say who can and can't drive on them.

One would argue that the people, NOT the government, pay for the roads to be created on PUBLIC, not government lands.

The government owns nothing. The government is owned by the people....or at least that is how it was intended from the moment the declaration of independence was signed.

 

We have a government just like the one our forefathers fought against.

Yeah. And?

Nothing. That was about it.

[+RS67Man]

If there is not a law against it, how can you be convicted of doing wrong? Sure you can say the rights of the other person have been violated, but your defense would be that you were pursuing your rights, and your rights were violated as well. (he got in your way) The two nullify each other. With no precedence, there would be no way to define the wrongdoing, regardless of who did what to whom. That is the basis of law. It sets precedence, and defines what is lawful conduct and what is not. Call new laws, like the one the OP started this post for, infringement of your rights all you want, in the end you end up defending a action that the majority has defined as unacceptable.

[+bittsen]

If there is not a law against it, how can you be convicted of doing wrong? Sure you can say the rights of the other person have been violated, but your defense would be that you were pursuing your rights, and your rights were violated as well. (he got in your way) The two nullify each other. With no precedence, there would be no way to define the wrongdoing, regardless of who did what to whom. That is the basis of law. It sets precedence, and defines what is lawful conduct and what is not. Call new laws, like the one the OP started this post for, infringement of your rights all you want, in the end you end up defending a action that the majority has defined as unacceptable.

Ah, you have stated something incorrectly. Not that I am picking nits.

The "majority" has not defined GPSr programming while driving as unacceptable. Legislators did.

The argument that the public elected the legislators is a bogus one because if there are no good choices, we are stuck with a bad one.

Majority does not rule, anymore. I would LOVE to see these issues decided by the public.

[+RS67Man]

Legislators do not enact laws just because they want to, they do it because their constituents have asked (lobbied) them to. Traffic laws like the proposed ban on GPS use by the driver while driving the vehicle more than likely came about because someone was killed or seriously injured as a direct result of doing this. The reason this law was wanted was to set precedent so anyone who is found guilty of the same can be convicted and punished for this wrong.

 

The majority I was talking about was not the general public, laws are not enacted by us. They are enacted for us by those we elect. If you feel that the laws in you area are not as you see fit, get involved in government and try make changes you want. If you feel the choices you are given at voting time are not what you want, either get someone you support, or you yourself, to run for office.

[+bittsen]

Legislators do not enact laws just because they want to, they do it because their constituents have asked (lobbied) them to. Traffic laws like the proposed ban on GPS use by the driver while driving the vehicle more than likely came about because someone was killed or seriously injured as a direct result of doing this. The reason this law was wanted was to set precedent so anyone who is found guilty of the same can be convicted and punished for this wrong.

 

The majority I was talking about was not the general public, laws are not enacted by us. They are enacted for us by those we elect. If you feel that the laws in you area are not as you see fit, get involved in government and try make changes you want. If you feel the choices you are given at voting time are not what you want, either get someone you support, or you yourself, to run for office.

 

Feldercarb! It's not the "people" who lobby them to enact traffic laws. It's the insurance companies and the legislators themselves (to gain revenue)

 

In a perfect world

Edited June 26, 2009 by bittsen

[+Chrysalides]

It's my own safety (financial & personal) at risk if I do something stupid.

No, it's the safety of others that's the focus here. If distracted drivers only hurt themselves that would be one thing, but allowing them to hurt innocent victims is another.

 

You can choose what level of risk is comfortable to you, set your own acceptable price you are willing to pay for your risky behavior, you cannot however allow your risky behavior to affect others.

 

That's what I'm talking about. If I engage in risky behavior then I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions. That already existed in the law and that's how it should be. At best it's a waste of police time for minimal gain and at worst its an attack on individual freedoms. I lump it in there with seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, gun control, etc ,etc, etc.

You don't get it. What gives you the right to risk the life of others?

[+mrbort]

Legislators do not enact laws just because they want to, they do it because their constituents have asked (lobbied) them to. Traffic laws like the proposed ban on GPS use by the driver while driving the vehicle more than likely came about because someone was killed or seriously injured as a direct result of doing this. The reason this law was wanted was to set precedent so anyone who is found guilty of the same can be convicted and punished for this wrong.

 

The majority I was talking about was not the general public, laws are not enacted by us. They are enacted for us by those we elect. If you feel that the laws in you area are not as you see fit, get involved in government and try make changes you want. If you feel the choices you are given at voting time are not what you want, either get someone you support, or you yourself, to run for office.

 

Feldercarb! It's not the "people" who lobby them to enact traffic laws. It's the insurance companies and the legislators themselves (to gain revenue)

 

In a perfect world

 

The first part of your statement is insupportable (and uses some strange verbiage that I had to look up)... This republic is a representative democracy and if you think that the politicians don't listen to what people are thinking then I think that you're ignoring what is often the problem with politicians. I think sometimes what appears as graft to you is actually kneejerk reaction based on a vocal portion of the electorate. That's not to say that lobbying doesn't have undue influence but it's not the only thing by which these public servants are influenced. In the case that we're discussing I suspect that the pressure is from individuals who have been affected by careless driving rather than some harebrained scheme to generate revenue. If you can produce evidence that the insurance companies and revenue generation concerns were the motivating factors for this legislation then I will happily recant.

 

The second part sounds like borderline gibberish .... sounds like you're starting a movie trailer. I suspect that it's a victim of editing errors but it was funny... I just imagined that guy from the movie trailers "In a world where geocachers agree on things... "

 

Edited to clarify the second comment.

Edited June 26, 2009 by mrbort

[+Arrow42]

..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

 

...yes, you can lose your right to drive. That's where the Fifth Amendment comes in. I'm willing to concede that traffic court can provide due process.

It kind of obvious you--and a few others in this thread--aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are. You need to learn the difference between a right and privilege.

 

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules.

 

The government put those roads there and they get to say who can and can't drive on them.

 

I never claimed the government is doing things within the bounds of the constitution. In fact, I think much of what the government does violates people's rights on a regular basis.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Arrow42

[+Arrow42]

You don't get it. What gives you the right to risk the life of others?

 

I disagree with the basic premise that talking on the cell phone is any more inherently risky then a thousand other behaviors that are all legal. In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

[+Chrysalides]

You don't get it. What gives you the right to risk the life of others?

 

I disagree with the basic premise that talking on the cell phone is any more inherently risky then a thousand other behaviors that are all legal. In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

We don't disagree with that. We disagree with the fact that you feel that you are only putting yourself at risk and that gives you the right to do what you want.

[+sTeamTraen]

In most jurisdictions there are statutes requiring the operator of a motor vee-hickel to be in full control at all times and not distracted. This ought to cover phone calls, texting, Sudoku, turning round to shout at the kids, putting on makeup, and "changing from Geocaching to Automotive profile on a Colorado with a slightly sticky stupid #$%*@ wheely thingRock'n'Roller™ by trying to count the clicks and not look at the screen and finding that you have just set the whole unit into the Czech language". (Can you guess why I brought that subject up?)

 

However, politicians are what they are, and so are journalists, and so are pressure groups. Perhaps someone's kid was injured or killed and the driver was using a GPS at the time. Kind of like banning geocaching in a state's historic locations because people who were geocaching (and not, say, out for a walk) might have vandalised something (even though they didn't).

 

A more sensible use of a specific ban on GPS technology was tried in Switzerland a couple of years ago (by "sensible" I don't mean that the idea wasn't insane, only that it made sense within its context to target GPS usage). The Swiss authorities had spent a lot of money installing radar/camera speed traps and didn't want everyone to slow down when they approached them and then accelerate 10 seconds later. So they tried to make it illegal to own a GPS with POI data on these cameras, and they actually stopped people at the frontier and made them prove, if they had a GPS navigation system, that there were no radar POIs in it. This was essentially impossible, so in effect neutral, peace-loving Switzerland had declared war on TomTom and Garmin.

 

Now, all that said: using your hand-held GPS while you drive is a really bad idea. I do it all the time because I'm a geocacher and I have places to go and tupperware to see. But I shouldn't. So I think the debate needs to be separated into "do we need specific legislation" (probably not) and "should the current legislation be enforced, because this is actually quite dangerous" (probably yes). I have heard stories of geocachers being involved in serious (fatal) accidents because of this. Arguments about liberty are important, but should not trump the fact that we have a responsibility to prevent people being seriously injured as a result of our actions, because some things cannot be undone by fines, reparation, insurance payouts, or jail time.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

If there is not a law against it, how can you be convicted of doing wrong? Sure you can say the rights of the other person have been violated, but your defense would be that you were pursuing your rights, and your rights were violated as well. (he got in your way) The two nullify each other. With no precedence, there would be no way to define the wrongdoing, regardless of who did what to whom. That is the basis of law. It sets precedence, and defines what is lawful conduct and what is not. Call new laws, like the one the OP started this post for, infringement of your rights all you want, in the end you end up defending a action that the majority has defined as unacceptable.

I think I mentioned something about circular references earlier. Your post is a perfect example.

Once again, it's very simple. If it doesn't violate someone else's constitutional rights, it should be legal.

That is my stance, and you haven't yet given any reason why that stance is wrong.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules.

 

The government put those roads there and they get to say who can and can't drive on them.

One would argue that the people, NOT the government, pay for the roads to be created on PUBLIC, not government lands.

The government owns nothing. The government is owned by the people....or at least that is how it was intended from the moment the declaration of independence was signed.

 

We have a government just like the one our forefathers fought against.

Yeah. And?

Nothing. That was about it.

Bittsen, I'm with you. I think you said it pretty clearly and in the process made a great point. I don't know why CR didn't get it.

I think we will see in our lifetime another revolution to get rid of the tyrants and get back to the Constitution our founders intended. We have let Benjamin Franklin and the rest of the founders down. "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it." We certainly have not. It's time to take it back.

[Clan Riffster]

Stupid laws to give police any reason to pull you over so the jurisdiction can collect their extortion money.

Yeah! Another asinine anti-cop rant from the peanut gallery. Whoo Hoo!!

For the record, "stupid" laws are not created to give the evil, extortionist police officers reasons to pull you over.

They are created so nitwit politicians can publicly demonstrate how much they "care" about their constituents.

If they tack on, "It's for the chilruns", that bill will likely pass.

[CoyoteRed]

Once again, it's very simple. If it doesn't violate someone else's constitutional rights, it should be legal.

That is my stance, and you haven't yet given any reason why that stance is wrong.

Have you even read the Constitution? You not remember the little part about State's rights? You know, the part about what's not in the Federal Constitution is left to the People or the States? Ever thought why we have state-issued driver's licenses and not a Federal driver's license?

 

In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

Got any evidence to support that?

 

Majority does not rule, anymore. I would LOVE to see these issues decided by the public.

Then you'll need to move to a democracy. We, in the U.S.A., live in a republic. We elect who we think are the best to represent us and run the country. That way we don't have to vote on every single little issue that comes along and the majority can't vote away another person's basic human rights. (An example of that, BTW, is those anti-gay rights bills you see get passed. An example of basic human rights being voted away by the majority.)

 

I don't know why CR didn't get it.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm not getting ya'll's nonsense either.

[+Totem Clan]

Not to put a stop to the dicussion, but I think it's time for this one to move to OFF TOPIC.

[+slukster]

I disagree with the basic premise that talking on the cell phone is any more inherently risky then a thousand other behaviors that are all legal. In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

 

Let's make a law banning being elderly!!! Once you reach 65 you are to be put down!!

 

(Comments are totally tongue in cheek. Please do not send AARP after me)

[Clan Riffster]

In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

While I can't seem to find any specific data on the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles website statistics regarding exactly how many crashes had "Being Old" listed as the cause, I did happen across something interesting: To date, three accredited universities have compared cell phone use vs. intoxication. In all three studies, they determined that we are more likely to cause a crash while talking on a cell phone than we are while driving drunk. Maybe M.A.D.D. needs to change their acronym?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Not to put a stop to the dicussion, but I think it's time for this one to move to OFF TOPIC.

I would have voted for a lock, but Off-Topic will do.

[CoyoteRed]

Why? The discussion is driving while distracted due to a proposed GPS-related bill which affects geocachers. The closest empirical evidence comes from cellphone usage and that is being compared to drunk driving to determine how much of a hazard it really is.

 

Even Groundspeak's "FOCUS" t-shirt touches on the dangers of being distracted.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Why? The discussion is driving while distracted due to a proposed GPS-related bill which affects geocachers. The closest empirical evidence comes from cellphone usage and that is being compared to drunk driving to determine how much of a hazard it really is.

 

Even Groundspeak's "FOCUS" t-shirt touches on the dangers of being distracted.

The "why" for me is because people are slapping at each other in rather unpleasant ways. Some rather silly positions are being vocally posited and defended, I believe, only to carry on a forum argument.

[Dinoprophet]

I think I mentioned something about circular references earlier. Your post is a perfect example.

Once again, it's very simple. If it doesn't violate someone else's constitutional rights, it should be legal.

That is my stance, and you haven't yet given any reason why that stance is wrong.

You as a citizen can't possibly violate someone else's constitutional rights. By definition, only the government is capable of doing that. The Constitution describes 1) how the federal government works and 2) what the federal government can't do. So by your argument, you can do anything you please no matter who it hurts.

[+sbell111]

The problem with these types of laws (gross over-generalization here) is that they are reactionary.

 

They aim to stop a real problem without actually addressing the cause. ...

I disagree with this comment. The law in question directly addresses the cause of the problem.

 

Problem: People programming their GPSrs are distracted and cause accidents.

Solution: People should not program their GPSrs while in motion.

 

The solution directly addresses the problem.

Bittsen and Arrow42 are correct in saying these laws make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens without their knowledge.

How's that? The very fact that we are discussing this bill means that word is getting out. No law is being put on the books without people's knowledge.

 

This is really no different than the bans on non-hands free cel usage. When those laws go into effect, they are publicized plenty. Also, police typically start out giving out warnings for a period of time and publicize the laws heavily.

It punishes someone for what they MIGHT do instead of punishing those who HAVE done something wrong.

Huh? If it is illegal to do something and you do it anyway, you are going to be punished for what you did, not what you might have done. That is true whether we are talking about vehicular homicide or programming your GPSr.

Every single one of these laws is unconstitutional. The problems they claim to solve are already covered by THE law. The Constitution. If you violate my right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, then AND ONLY THEN should law enforcement get involved.

In summation, laws that criminalize POTENTIAL (not actual) violations of someone's rights are a violation of EVERYONE'S rights.

Isn't killing someone already covered under "Right to Life...." in the Constitution? ...NONE of these laws accomplish ANYTHING that isn't already accomplished by the Constitution (besides taking away your liberty one seemingly harmless law at a time).

You should really pay attention. I have stated previously that all the situations you and others have brought up are already covered under the basic assumption that all humans have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Violate those basic rights, and you have a crime. Stealing someone's stuff (let alone trespassing on their property) is a violation of those rights, therefore a crime. It can't be much simpler than that.

You have repeatedly shown that you have no clue as to what the Constitution is or does. You have also repeatedly confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independance.

 

The Constitution is a document that defines our federal government. While it does provide specific rights of the people that the government shall not infringe upon, it does not require you or I to do anything. It restricts my behavior in no way. For instance, if I were to see you coming our of a grocery store and run you clean over with my private car, I would not have violated the Constitution. If I stopped my vehicle on top of you and got out to find you moaning and told you to pipe down, I still would not have violated your Constitutional rights. Again, the Constitution tells the Federal government how to act, not private citizens.

 

In order to protect citizens, the government creates laws. If the government were to create a law that said that it was illegal to park atop of DatCrazyMongoose, I would be in violation of it. That law would not be a rehash of your Constitutional protections because you have no Constitutional protections from other private citizens.

 

Finally, 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' comes from the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. Also, the Declaration did not provide these rights to the citizenry. It simply stated that it was the founders belief that these rights exist for all men, everywhere. The Declaration did not include 'property' with these others. While John Locke surely thought that and it may have been part of an early draft, it wasn't in the Declaration.

 

The Constitution does speak of Life, Liberty, and Property, but not like you are arguing. It allowed that people can be deprived of these things as long as they receive 'due process'.

Most states already have distracted driving laws. How do GPS, or cell phone laws help?

These laws make it clearer to the people that these individual actions are considered 'distractions' and are illegal.

 

Given that fiddling with the GPSr while in motion is already illegal, why are you bent by this proposed law?

[Dinoprophet]

The Constitution is a document that defines our federal government. While it does provide specific rights of the people that the government shall not infringe upon, it does not require you or I to do anything. It restricts my behavior in no way.

Well, you and I are both slightly wrong on that. It does say citizens can't have slaves, which I imagine everyone here is fine with. For a while it also said we can't drink alcohol, but te result of that just shows what happens when the Constitution is applied to citizens instead of the government.

 

So by DCM's argument, you can run him over, but you can't use him as a slave.

[M15a4spr]

Didn't we just have an election where 53% the population said they believe Big-Government is the answer to all?

 

Congrats, you're getting what you asked for, a state that holds your hand from cradle to grave making sure you're 'safe'.

[M15a4spr]

The Constitution is a document that defines our federal government. While it does provide specific rights of the people that the government shall not infringe upon, it does not require you or I to do anything. It restricts my behavior in no way.

Well, you and I are both slightly wrong on that. It does say citizens can't have slaves, .....

 

Really? Care to quote that article?

[+solo63137]

This country is going down the toilet!!! Quicker every year it seems...

 

[Dinoprophet]

The Constitution is a document that defines our federal government. While it does provide specific rights of the people that the government shall not infringe upon, it does not require you or I to do anything. It restricts my behavior in no way.

Well, you and I are both slightly wrong on that. It does say citizens can't have slaves, .....

 

Really? Care to quote that article?

Um....okay.

 

AMENDMENT XIII

 

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

 

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

 

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

It's an Amendment, not an Article. I don't know if that's what you were getting at. It's still the Constitution.

[+sbell111]

Didn't we just have an election where 53% the population said they believe Big-Government is the answer to all?

 

Congrats, you're getting what you asked for, a state that holds your hand from cradle to grave making sure you're 'safe'.

Just two quick thoughts:

 

1) Something tells me that you are reacting to the thread's title and haven't taken a look at the referenced bill

 

2) There is an off-topic forum that is the perfect place for you to air your political rants. Why don't you put it to use?

Edited June 26, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

This country is going down the toilet!!! Quicker every year it seems...

Please explain how this bill moves us quicker to the bottom of the toity?

[Dinoprophet]

This country is going down the toilet!!! Quicker every year it seems...

Please explain how this bill moves us quicker to the bottom of the toity?

It could be he was referring to the lack of understanding of the Constitution. In that case, I'd agree.

[+Totem Clan]

Can a Mod please close or move this thread. It no longer seems to have topic accept politic rancor.

[+Renegade Knight]

..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

 

...yes, you can lose your right to drive. That's where the Fifth Amendment comes in. I'm willing to concede that traffic court can provide due process.

It kind of obvious you--and a few others in this thread--aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are. You need to learn the difference between a right and privilege.

 

The only time you are allowed to drive is when the government says you can. That is completely 180° out from a right. A right is yours to exercise. It can only be taken away by due process. Driving is a privilege that is granted to you by the government for the time you can continue to play by the rules....

Driving started as a right. When it was invented it wasn't regulated. At some point and hopefully by due process the right was taken away and replaced as a privildge. It's worth pointing out that the privildge is driving on public roads. A 100% private, not public toll road would bring up some interesting questions. Howver nobody questions your right to drive your mud mobile in your farm field in the rainy season.

[+Renegade Knight]

You don't get it. What gives you the right to risk the life of others?

 

I disagree with the basic premise that talking on the cell phone is any more inherently risky then a thousand other behaviors that are all legal. In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

When you make up facts it's amazing what arguments you can make.

Teens suck because they haven't developed the skills. At some point we will all suck because we lose the skills. Until the day comes though elderly in general are safe drivers. They have skill, expereince and tend to be defensive drivers and not aggressive ones. For teens their peried of sucking at driving is easy to spot. "Teen" through early 20's. Elderly, it's not easy to spot becasue it varies so much across the board.

 

That all said, distractions while driving of any kind create a risk because you are not paying enough attention to your driving. Cell phones included. Even talking to your passenger is a distraction, though an accepted one.

[+sbell111]

The Constitution is a document that defines our federal government. While it does provide specific rights of the people that the government shall not infringe upon, it does not require you or I to do anything. It restricts my behavior in no way.

Well, you and I are both slightly wrong on that. It does say citizens can't have slaves, which I imagine everyone here is fine with. For a while it also said we can't drink alcohol, but te result of that just shows what happens when the Constitution is applied to citizens instead of the government.

 

So by DCM's argument, you can run him over, but you can't use him as a slave.

If I read it correctly, while it does say that we can't have slaves, it doesn't enforce that fact. This enforcement is done through laws established by Congress.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Ok, I agree with you then. Legalize drunk driving. It's not the demon MADD has made it out to be....

 

It's not, actually. It's a skills imparement. Some folks sober are worse than some folks drunk. Like texting, there is no ill intent behind it. At some point though the imparement is severe and that person should not drive. DUI is part of a larger spectrum of driving imparments. It happens to be a voluntary one. Some people just suck at driving, and some people drink until they suck. Others blab on cell phones until they suck. And if you have to futz with a GPS that's going to come in somwhere between texting and tweaking the raido for your imparment depending on what you are doing.

 

On the other hand, doing nothing but starting at the road until you are road hypnotized is another way to impare your driving. There is a balance and somewhere short of gluing their forhead to the window and taping their eyelids open we have to find it.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

I disagree with the basic premise that talking on the cell phone is any more inherently risky then a thousand other behaviors that are all legal. In fact, more minor accidents are caused by the elderly then cell phones.

 

Let's make a law banning being elderly!!! Once you reach 65 you are to be put down!!

 

(Comments are totally tongue in cheek. Please do not send AARP after me)

I know you're being sarcastic, but in reality we're not far off from there. Read up on eugenics.

[+Castle Mischief]

Can a Mod please close or move this thread. It no longer seems to have topic accept politic rancor.

 

I'll second that. This quit being about geocaching a long time ago.

[+DanOCan]

And yet the laws exempt law enforcement officers and other emergency response drivers.

 

I would think they were the ones who needed the most attention on the road.

 

Whenever I operated the fire truck my responsibility was to drive. My officer always handled radio communication and the sirens so that I did not have any of those distractions to deal with. I assume that is a fairly standard practice.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Finally, 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' comes from the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. Also, the Declaration did not provide these rights to the citizenry. It simply stated that it was the founders belief that these rights exist for all men, everywhere. The Declaration did not include 'property' with these others. While John Locke surely thought that and it may have been part of an early draft, it wasn't in the Declaration.

 

The Constitution does speak of Life, Liberty, and Property, but not like you are arguing. It allowed that people can be deprived of these things as long as they receive 'due process'.

You are quite right. I have been misquoting this whole time. My apologies.

 

My basic premise is that we have let the Federal government make laws they are not allowed to make under the Constitution. The States have made laws that THEY are not allowed to make under State Constitutions. It goes on down the chain to local governments. There is absolutely no way that a person can know all the laws that apply to them. Therefore, I believe they are unjust and go against the principle that this country was founded on....freedom.

[+sbell111]

Finally, 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' comes from the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. Also, the Declaration did not provide these rights to the citizenry. It simply stated that it was the founders belief that these rights exist for all men, everywhere. The Declaration did not include 'property' with these others. While John Locke surely thought that and it may have been part of an early draft, it wasn't in the Declaration.

 

The Constitution does speak of Life, Liberty, and Property, but not like you are arguing. It allowed that people can be deprived of these things as long as they receive 'due process'.

You are quite right. I have been misquoting this whole time. My apologies.

 

My basic premise is that we have let the Federal government make laws they are not allowed to make under the Constitution. The States have made laws that THEY are not allowed to make under State Constitutions. It goes on down the chain to local governments. There is absolutely no way that a person can know all the laws that apply to them. Therefore, I believe they are unjust and go against the principle that this country was founded on....freedom.

1) Ignorance of teh law is not a defense.

2) This discussion belongs in OT.