O/T: Gotta Love It

Page 7 of 8  
dhall987 wrote:

It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable to pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.
In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open container as long as it is not the driver's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone laws are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to catch the perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain sight; never mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a cellphone doesn't prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer before I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and not be "impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly along the way I'm in violation.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Turner wrote:

When I first moved to Texas years ago, it was an open container state; one could drink while driving, you just couldn't drive while impaired. Having come from Colorado, a state where that was against the law, I was initially amazed. However, it didn't seem to be a major contributing factor to any worse statistics than elsewhere. I know that they enacted an open container law several years later. Not sure if it was driven by statistics or by federal fiat threatening the loss of highway funds.
FWIW, I very seldom (less than one glass of wine every 6 months or more) drink, can't stand even the smell of beer (it tastes like stale bread to me), so I don't have a dog in this fight other than keeping those who are really impaired off the road.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:04:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita

VT had allowed anyone other than the driver to have an open container. The feds *did* use the highway funds as a lever to force them to change (as well as the seatbelt laws). I used to drive a carload of friends down to Saratoga every year and they'd drink on the way back.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny thing is that on a long drive you are probably more attentive and less accident-prone if you have some snacks and a slurp of coffee or something while you are driving. Except in dense traffic areas driving does not engage anything like a majority of your cognitive functions, so the mind tends to wander. I am much more attentive in light, open-road travel if I am talking to someone than if I am just watching the dotted lines go by.
It's not as simple as everyone wants to make it....
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Definition of a teenager: God's punishment for enjoying sex.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Douglass" wrote:

My dad was an over the road driver back in the 50s.
Can not remember the number of times he advised me:
"Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."
"Cuts down on the "Bennies", No-Doz, and the ammonia vials on a long trip," were his words.
I still practice the above.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"

Practice what, Lew? The walking around or the cutting down? <bseg>
I take that former advice, too. Plus I drink water the whole way, so I don't have the ups and downs of caffeine. And I usually have a bag of baby carrots to munch on during the drive. Pee stops for a guy are easy. Pull off anywhere and in 20', you're deep enough into the brush and can pee in privacy. Well, that's up here. In LoCal, it's a bit harder, so use one of the restrooms from any gas station at any offramp. They're only a mile apart down there. ;)
-- Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:

At my age, 100 miles between piss stops is too far!
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:37:19 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard

I'd comment but I'm pleading the 5th.
-- Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:02:02 -0500, the infamous snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com scrawled the following:

Cops should be issued beanbag guns to stop people from committing these almost-infractions. It'd work better than a ticket, I'll bet. It's not that rights are being taken away, it's stopping people from being idiots and causing a danger to others in society.
Cops could choose to shoot either the phone or the idiot. ;)
-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:01:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

That idea has a certain appeal, but I hope the cop pulls them over first :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:41:25 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard

I'm SURE glad I had swallowed that sip of coffee before reading your post, Lar. <vbg>
-- Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven. Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:30:42 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"

Works for me.

That's the 2nd best question all year. ("Why O?" is first.)
-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Come back when you've got Fifty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:

Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mistakes along the way before I learned my lessons. The fact is, we're both demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the crusade to ban the use of cellphones while driving. I can still have my hot cup of McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror, but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nah.
HUGE numbers of people vocally advocate for enforcement of "distracted driver" laws that are already on the books of so many municipalities.
But ... those cries seem to fall on deaf (or cell phone distracted) ears.
Why? I can only speculate.
If municipalities WOULD start enforcing distracted driver laws -- a proposition with just about zero downside -- then there would BE no additional law needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2009 10:11 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:

I'm not too familiar with these "distracted driver" laws of which you speak, but I'm guessing they seek to cite people for driving while performing distracting acts (such as those I described above)? I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're not getting enforced: Because they'd have to pull over practically every car on the road, that's why!
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pull over and cite people who are *actually committing* infractions rather than try to stop everybody from doing things that *might* cause an accident? If it turns out the errant driver was engaging in "distracted" behavior, then by all means slap them with an additional charge, but our law enforcement infrastructure simply can't contain these futile attempts to save everybody from themselves and from each other.
--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Steve Turner" wrote

The only time I ever drove drunk was through on of those "intensive enforcement" campaigns supposedly designed to catch drunk drivers. They just pull over lots of cars at random in a select area and harrass everybody. Young, dumb and drunk, I drove through almost 50 miles of this. Hundreds of cars were pulled over getting "special treatment".
Drunk as a skunk, I drove through this. They never noticed me. They were to busy rousing the citizens to notice me. Good timing on my part. Or just the luck of youth or something. First and last time I ever did this. I knew my luck would never hold out another time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:13:05 -0500, "Lee Michaels"

There they are, harassing people just for the hell of it, at least that's how you make it sound. And behold, they actually catch a percentage of drivers over the limit using this "harassing" tactic. Wonders will never cease!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Turner wrote:

I see enforceability as the issue. "Distracted" is a judgment call--a cop pulls somebody over for distracted driving and spends the next six months in court while the lawyers wrangle over what "distracted" means, then the case goes up through the appellate process and eventually the Supremes rule that "distracted" is "unconstitutionally vague".

Distracted driving _is_ an "infraction". Stopping somebody who is ten over the limit in a brand new Ferrari on a rural Interstate on a bright sunny day makes less sense from a public safety viewpoint than does stopping somebody who is nattering on a cell phone while reading a map, eating a burger, and getting a BJ but obeying the speed limit.

Futile attempts to save everybody from themselves I agree with. Saving people from each other though is the reason we _have_ laws. If we aren't going to do that then we may as well legalize murder, rape, and robbery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.