I always have to remember to take a deep breath to examine the laws proposed by our great Legislature. I hate most of the new legislation on the table, but to forgive our representatives in the House and Senate for it. After all, laws that writing is a term ago, and if not just write the laws, you can begin to look as though they were idle.
Call me weird, but I would rather a term that produces goofs off and under new laws. I think we have enough of them, and agree with Mark Twain, who famously said that nobody's life, liberty, or property is safe even if the legislature is in session.
Mainly, it is because no legislator wants to look like a slacker, especially after the elections. And 'bad taste. As a result, you get some horrible suggestions that I would cast as an attempt to hide behind some good intention of looking up significantly, or at least busy.
House Bill 1508 is a textbook case of how such a proposal.
Representative Vanessa Summers, Indianapolis, a Democrat, has introduced legislation banning the use of cell phones, making exception for hands-free devices for emergency use. The fine for violating the proposed law would be up to $ 25.
The intent is to make our streets a little 'less dangerous. We all grumbled idiot guilty to driving while in conversations that we cut or made us miss the light, and we cursed the driver and his cell phone. proposal Summers' inspired by similar laws passed in New York and the District of Columbia. As everyone knows, these cities now have the safest in the world.
This law is full of problems of practical application concerns higher than individual freedom.
So four friends, right off the top of my head, who would gladly pay up to $ 25 at a cost of doing business. They think that highly of each and every one of their calls. $ 25 is any kind of deterrent for these people.
What is the use of emergency? I call the emergency use of a phone as a frantic call to a friend, because I suddenly had offered me two tickets to a Colts playoff game, 'and I accept it within five minutes, or tickets will be sent a co-worker. My wife described it as having reached an agreement on the furniture, and she is on her way home so I can look at tissue samples. I'm betting that this is not what the agent had in mind. Some revisions will be in order.
But because only cell phones? If the real intent of the law is to eliminate distractions from our streets, why not ban all? Summers could rightly expand the proposal to include a ban on smoking in the car, adjusting the radio or the insertion of a Britney Spears CD, eating fast food, scolding mice covered the back seat, talking with your spouse, or beard applying makeup, doing the Crossword Puzzle, using a laptop, asking for directions on screen to Starbucks, and try your excuse that explains the delay in your head.
Can we really ban Britney Spears CD? I digress.
Before the law is done with the revisions, no common person will be able to read and understand, and most importantly, it will only continue to take their chances.
This raises the important philosophical question: why bother?
It is not enough citations may already be granted if the use of a phone is the cause of an accident? Because the heap? No harm, no foul: If you use a cell phone is not in any danger at this time, why not penalized for the damage that was caused?
Ah, the law should be a deterrent, to eliminate the possibility of damage. But it will become even more? How much of a stretch is to imagine the police pulling over drivers who endanger anyone on a deserted road at 23:00, but who are guilty of making a cell call, just so the officer can meet its monthly fee? Not a bad all his?
Say, if the police pull a driver to the side of the road, not that kind of distraction that could cause an accident? Should be banned!
We hope that this Bill dies in committee. If it passes, Summers will play for reelection in 2006 on the basis of having produced this wonderful law ... and have been properly employed.
No comments:
Post a Comment