America this week, what the hell?

[Hepar]

Don't forget washingtons law excludes all law enforcement from it. So obvious they feel some people can drive and use their phone at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are also exceptions for use in certain situations, usually involving an emergency. The logical assumption is that law and medical staff won't be using them to check their FB statuses, but to do their jobs if needed.

 

[nevada]

You think you (or anyone else) can effectively drive and text/surf the web at the same time?

And what about seat belts? Against that law too? Make it voluntary to wear them?

yes, I can use my phone, and still drive. clearly I put more attention on the driving part, but it CAN be done. and until I start driving erratically, or in any way affect other people, I should be allowed to continue doing so.

yes, the seat belt law should not exist. same with helmet law. I choose to wear them both, regardless of the law. but it should be my choice.

There are also exceptions for use in certain situations, usually involving an emergency. The logical assumption is that law and medical staff won't be using them to check their FB statuses, but to do their jobs if needed.

during an emergency they should be more attentive to the road and their driving, as they would typically be driving much faster than normal.

 

[nevada]

this does explain his sudden change of heart lol.

 

[Hepar]

yes, I can use my phone, and still drive. clearly I put more attention on the driving part, but it CAN be done. and until I start driving erratically, or in any way affect other people, I should be allowed to continue doing so.

yes, the seat belt law should not exist. same with helmet law. I choose to wear them both, regardless of the law. but it should be my choice.

during an emergency they should be more attentive to the road and their driving, as they would typically be driving much faster than normal.

Sounds great.

<iframe width="513" height="315" src="http://www.discovery.com/embed?page=79592" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

[ThorInc]

I've seen another list with closer to or maybe more than 80 names on it.

Remind me again - how many people have died based on Trump's decisions or indecisions?

If you get your wish you might just be amazed.......:doh:

 

[ThorInc]

yes, I can use my phone, and still drive. clearly I put more attention on the driving part, but it CAN be done. and until I start driving erratically, or in any way affect other people, I should be allowed to continue doing so.

yes, the seat belt law should not exist. same with helmet law. I choose to wear them both, regardless of the law. but it should be my choice.

during an emergency they should be more attentive to the road and their driving, as they would typically be driving much faster than normal.

Hell yeah, we totally agree. One thing I will add, the insurance industry lobbied for seat belts/helmets to be mandatory, it was about money and so will future restrictions. When sh!t does not make sense, follow the money.

 

[RunninInGA]

If you get your wish you might just be amazed.......:doh:

You might placed me into the wrong box - who said I was a Trump supporter?

 

[Victor_inox]

which is exactly how it should be. if you can use your phone(or anything else), and still drive well, you shouldn't be getting a ticket. its only a problem IF its a problem.
we cant start giving out tickets/punishments for things people have not done yet.

Yet nobody protest paying for insurance even with pristine driver`s record.
What`s that if not violation of presumption of innocence principle?
If I drove for 20 years with zero accidents why the hell i have to have insurance?

 

[nevada]

Yet nobody protest paying for insurance even with pristine driver`s record.
What`s that if not violation of presumption of innocence principle?
If I drove for 20 years with zero accidents why the hell i have to have insurance?

that's only because you never talked to me about mandatory insurance. that is some bullshit. I don't know how it was ever allowed. and now we have the ACA, its required for just being ALIVE. ****ed up.

 

[Victor_inox]

that's only because you never talked to me about mandatory insurance. that is some bullshit. I don't know how it was ever allowed. and now we have the ACA, its required for just being ALIVE. ****ed up.

ACA made possible for low income people to have insurance.
You don`t want them to die on the streets don`t you?

 

[Yukon4Runner]

Yet nobody protest paying for insurance even with pristine driver`s record.
What`s that if not violation of presumption of innocence principle?
If I drove for 20 years with zero accidents why the hell i have to have insurance?

Soooo...a 20 year clean driving record is the magic line after which you don't have to carry insurance?

Hate to break it to you slick, but there are plenty of octogenarians having accidents for the first time in decades.

I'd have no problem abolishing mandatory insurance for people who have plenty of juicy assets in play...however, most deadbeats with no insurance don't have a nickel to their name...do I get to go madmax on the destitute who wreck my ride?


.

 

[nevada]

ACA made possible for low income people to have insurance.
You don`t want them to die on the streets don`t you?

sarcasm? I cant tell.
but, those people you are talking about were covered before. they are still covered now. the only difference, our government wasn't shy about saying the rest of us have to pay for it.

its total bullshit. but, luckily its failing. as expected. I don't know how much longer it will last. there are hardly any companies left on the exchanges. lol. nothing the government ever decides to do actually works. well, except steal our money. they are great at that.

 

[Victor_inox]

Soooo...a 20 year clean driving record is the magic line after which you don't have to carry insurance?

Hate to break it to you slick, but there are plenty of octogenarians having accidents for the first time in decades.

I'd have no problem abolishing mandatory insurance for people who have plenty of juicy assets in play...however, most deadbeats with no insurance don't have a nickel to their name...do I get to go madmax on the destitute who wreck my ride?


.

I was just following nevada`s logic, I understand reasons we have insurance.
FYI, statistically there is many more teenaagers than octogenarians that wreck their rides...

 

[Victor_inox]

sarcasm? I cant tell.
but, those people you are talking about were covered before. they are still covered now. the only difference, our government wasn't shy about saying the rest of us have to pay for it.

its total bullshit. but, luckily its failing. as expected. I don't know how much longer it will last. there are hardly any companies left on the exchanges. lol. nothing the government ever decides to do actually works. well, except steal our money. they are great at that.

bailouts of auto industry kinda worked...:car:

Fannie May/ freddie mac bailout worked wonderfully for them.....
reason less companies left in exchanges are not that but rather bigger companies absorb smaller once but that is the way capitalism in america progress. Very soon there will be no competition and weak anti monopoly laws not gonna help. :evil:

 

[Hepar]

yes, the seat belt law should not exist. same with helmet law. I choose to wear them both, regardless of the law. but it should be my choice.

during an emergency they should be more attentive to the road and their driving, as they would typically be driving much faster than normal.

Hell yeah, we totally agree. One thing I will add, the insurance industry lobbied for seat belts/helmets to be mandatory, it was about money and so will future restrictions. When sh!t does not make sense, follow the money.

I agree too on this one. In my opinion, anyone under 18 should be required to wear one, but over 18 and it's your personal responsibility. Not wearing one effect you and your safety. Whereas distracted driving can directly effect mine.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

ACA made possible for low income people to have insurance.
You don`t want them to die on the streets don`t you?

They always got care when going to the hospital, we always paid for it, it's just more expensive now with the ACA and Big Government is in the healthcare business messing it up even more than it was before.

How is not wanting too pay for other peoples shit and not wanting our government to mandate that we must purchase a product or pay a tax penalty= equal to wanting people to "die on the streets".

A bit of a strawman isn't it? A LOT of emotional BS.

Forcing people to buy healthcare is as much of a solution to the healthcare issues we STILL have as forcing people to buy a house would be to solving homeless issues. It''s a crock of shite.

ETA: Maybe I read your post wrong and you were being sarcastic? Hard to tell on the net sometimes.

 

[Yukon4Runner]

Hikenbike climbs Trump Tower!

Hey! [MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] is climbing Trump Tower! Give the forum a shout out!

.

 

[Elan_]

How is not wanting too pay for other peoples shit and not wanting our government to mandate that we must purchase a product or pay a tax penalty

How do you feel about all the other products the government mandates that you purchase? Do you also feel those should be abolished?

 

[hikenbike]

Hey! [MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] is climbing Trump Tower! Give the forum a shout out!

.

Hey man, its a REALLY cool view from up here !!! Can see most of Central Park!! ROCK ON!!

 

[nevada]

How do you feel about all the other products the government mandates that you purchase? Do you also feel those should be abolished?

you have my interest. what products would those be exactly? do you have a list?