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.
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.
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
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.
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....
Definition of a teenager: God's punishment for enjoying sex.
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.
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.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:02:02 -0500, the infamous firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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!
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.
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.