"Well, how many road rules do you think you break every day? Well even if you think you're a perfect driver, chances are, if you've been on the road today, you have broken the law." (Quote from news program, Today Tonight) "Every driver, who drives a car today breaks at least one law. And that's because the rules are too hard." ('The Drive Show' Expert) WOW. I was shocked when I watched this news story last night. In Australia, we have some 350 road rules to adhere to! How on earth can we go outside and NOT break the law? It's impossible. Take for example, this stupid rule - in AUS it's illegal to use your mobile phone while driving....it's considered a distraction for the driver as it takes one hand from the steering wheel and uses concentration that should be reserved for driving. Fair enough. But this is the stupid part - It's illegal to hold a mobile phone in your hand, put it on speaker phone, or even have it sitting in your lap. BUT, it's perfectly legal to hold an iPod, hamburger, milkshake or a two-way radio. What the--? Also, in New South Wales, you're not allowed to splash mud on people walking past the road. However, water is considered OK. LOL. So tell me, since when is storm water any better than mud? They were high when they wrote our laws. I'm sure of it. Arrgggg.
Don't tell them we use iPods and eat hamburgers and milkshakes or the fun police will ban those too...personally I enjoy eating McD's while singing badly over the phone to anyone who will listen while driving erratically at high speeds. And splashing mud on people just makes it more fun. This is why I should be king of the law, so that I can produce a nation of excellent drivers just like myself. Maybe McD and Apple will help me if I name them specifically in my laws. Take that, Burger King and Sony! But seriously, they probably shouldn't let me make any laws. Or drive. While operating two-way radios. Over. Man that post was about nothing at all. Guess I'm in one of those moods
Roadway 'laws' are silly. Just ignore them. They only apply to people who are in Conventional or pre-conventional (Kohlberg's stages of moral development) stages. Post-Conventional people are free to ignore such sillyness.
Over here it's illegal too, to phone while you're driving. My brother's already found out about that.... We've got so many stupid laws there wouldn't be enough space to write 'em down...
In the UK it's legal to kill people of various nationalities if you use a specific weapon and it takes place in a specific city. And that's with both UK legal systems
Oh a note about the cell phones and contradicting other laws, like it being fine to hold a drink. I know I ranted about stats being useless in a different thread, but I heard about a study showing that it's not the holding the phone that causes a problem as much as it is the talking. But it's true. Traffic laws are a bit crazy.
I have to say, in the United States (or at least Indiana), you must be +18 to 'text and drive.' Oh, **** you. I dont text anyway --I dont see the point in such detatched communication, but you're saying a 19 year old can text and drive? Ugh.... The driving rules are so backwards. It's not about your age --it's about maturity. It's a responsibility --you are in charge of 4000 pounds of metal which moves at an unbelievably fast rate. Some people get that, and some people dont. Of course, we're all prone to mistakes every now and then. The one law that does bug the hell out of me is the seatbelt law that came into effect relatively recently. Oh, okay, the government wants to protect me by forcing me to wear a seatbelt; that's sure nice of them --How about you make me wear chainmail, too? Needless to say, I've broken about five traffic laws that I know of in the last twenty-four hours, and I definitely dont know them all. (My time was well spent in driver's ed --I learned ambidexterity and improved my Sudoku skills.) I will obey the ones that endanger other people on the road (IE I use my turn signal and would never drive while intoxicated, etc), but the ones that pertain to myself and only myself? I'll make my desicion on it, thanks. Take my comments with a grain of salt, however. I've been in two accidents in the past year. One just two days ago, which was my own stupid fault, and one several months ago, which was most certainly not my fault.
I can certainly see where some of the laws came from, and I actually wish they would do more to enforce the cell-phone laws. The closest I've ever come to being killed on my motorcycle was because a driver on his phone merged into my lane while I was passing him. That was one of the two times I've ever given someone the bird on the road. That was a really cool read. You learn something new every day.
The laws that are appearing against cell phone use while driving are not stupid at all. Recent studies have shown that drivers using cell phones are distracted and reaction impaired to about the same extent as a drunk driver. In fact, in some of the studies, the cell phone distracted drivers score worse. They are slow to notice changing conditions that require a response than unimpaired drivers, and their reaction time is slower even what they have recognized a road emergency, due to the time to switch mental gears. Even hands-free devices result in impairment, but the impairment is somewhat reduced. Dialing or operating the keypad are times of greatly increased impairment, and most hands-free devices allow you to place or respond to calls without looking at the phone or pressing keys. A cell phone conversation is comparable to having a conversation with a passenger in the car. It can be a distraction, but the driver is responsible for making sure it isn't.
A welshman under the clocktower of Chester, with a bow or crossbow, after dark And also, in a village the name of which I can't remember, you can shoot a welshman (again, with a bow or crossbow) crossing the English/Welsh border on a marketday.
Bye the way.... (This is for Yanks) I can tell you that if a traffic accident case goes to court, cell phone records can be subpoenaed in order to determine if one of the parties in the accident was on the phone. Although there may be nothing illegal about being on the phone, you will loose a traffic accident case if it is proved that you were on the phone. I have served as interpreter for more than one such court case.
It's the same in the UK. I watched the trial of a woman who crashed into a stationary (broken down, at the side of the road) car, and killed the occupant. Her phone records proved she'd been texting for her entire journey, and at the approximate moment of collision she had just received a text. She got 21 months, I think, but the Attorney General was reviewing it under the suspicion it was too lenient.
We had a MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) subway crash a couple weeks ago. Fortunately, no one died, but forty-nine people were injured, and 9.6 million dollars (USD) of damage to the equipment resulted from the crash. The operator of the moving train, Aiden Quinn, admitted he was texting his girlfriend at the time, and didn't see the train stopped ahead of them until it was too late. He was fired, and a grand jury is deciding whether to file criminal charges. The MBTA immediately put into effect new rules that using any personal electronic device while on duty would result in immediate termination, and a first offense of even having such a device in the driver's possession would result in a ten day suspension without pay. A second oiffense would result in termination. I do think possession of a powered-off device is an overreaction. I think the operator's union is pushing back on that one. But it does show how serious a problem this is becoming.
I don't think it's a bad idea to have laws against cell phone use while driving, but I have to agree with Merc about the seat belt laws. Here in AZ, they play commercials all the time: "Going to the grocery store? Click it or ticket. Driving around the corner to a friend's house? Click it or ticket." Really? You don't have better things to do than drive around looking for people who aren't wearing their seat belt?
I had an accident several years ago in which I was rear-ended by another car while waiting for traffic to clear the intersection. I was belted in, otherwise I would NOT have been able to keep my foot on the brake. I was able to avoid a secondary crash with the cars travelling through the intersection. A secondary crash WOULD have injured me and the passengers I had with me, not to mentione anyone in whatever car I collided with next. Seatbelt use made the difference between a minor incident and a major collision with injuries, affecting more than just the person wearing the belt. Also, the public ends up paying a significant part of the cost when someone is seriously injured or killed in an accident. Seatbelts do save lives and reduce injuries. Better the officers are ticketing you for not wearing a belt than having to haul a mangled human being out of a wreck. The paperwork is a bitch.
I'm not against seatbelts-I always wear mine. It just irritates me when I see people doing ridiculously unsafe things in their vehicles and just getting away with it, then turning on my radio and hearing the stupid seatbelt commercials...
Agreed. I think the only time I dont wear a seatbelt is when the car doesnt have any. It's pretty stupid not to wear a belt, but it shouldnt be mandatory. Also, the laws dont apply to pickup trucks (maybe they do --but not the last time I checked), which I think is really dumb. My dad has an old pickup truck that doesnt have seatbelts, and he refuses to get them put in (putting both of us in danger, so I never ride in it anymore). I think it's his little way to rebel against big government. Sometimes the government makes a smart recommendation... but I have to agree with Daddy. It bothers me that someone is going to tell me that I have to wear it. Wearing chainmail or a full suit of armor would reduce the risk of fatality too --where do you draw that line?
I can accept the notion that requiring seatbelt use for adult passengers is too intrusive. I do think driver use should be mandatory because it DOES keep the driver in better control of hundreds of pounds of machinery hurtling along the highway. On the other hand, the cost of stupidity to the rest of the residents of the state (auto and health insurance premiums, the costs of EMC and hospital services carried over to taxes, etc) is a burden that justifies a degee of legislation to protect people from themselves.
I have difficult understanding this. I'm new to driving, and I can barely talk to the passenger and drive. So, I don't see how people can put on makeup, eat their breakfast, fiddle with the radio, and do who knows what else while they drive.
I've seen people putting on makeup while they drive, and I don't understand that one because I can barely put my makeup on while I'm standing in front of my mirror, completely stationary... The thing that really gets me is when people post pictures on their myspace/facebook- "look what I saw while I was driving on the 60!" wtf...you were driving down the freeway and thought "Hey, I know what would be really safe for me to do right now...I'm going to pull out my phone and take a picture of something while traveling 65+ miles per hour..."
So this one time I decided to try and take a picture while riding my bicycle downhill on a dirt road. Then I hit an unexpected pothole.
Hahahahahahahaha! That must have really sucked when it happened, but the mental picture is pretty priceless...
My sister drove off the road with me when she was putting on makeup and driving. She thought it was funny, since she didn't hit anything.
