🚀 go-pugleaf

Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93199E68C8D70VeebleFetzer@news.visi.com>...
> bashley@myrealbox.com (The Real Bev) wrote in
> news:3E418187.B5CB814@myrealbox.com: 
> >> "Roy Shroyer" <badcam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > That said, I believe that if there is conclusive proof that
> >> > > > the person at fault in the accident was talking on the
> >> > > > cellphone when the accident occurred, that there should be
> >> > > > severe penalites added, akin to the penalites assigned when
> >> > > > the driver at fault is drunk. 
> > 
> > In addition:  similar penalties for driving while adjusting the
> > radio, eating, shaving, yelling at your dog/child, putting on
> > makeup, reading, etc.?  That's like punishing people for having bad
> > thoughts even though they haven't actually done anything illegal or
> > immoral. 
> 
> I think you missed the part where he said "if there is conclusive
> proof that the person at fault in the accident ... ".
> 
> So, nobody is calling for adjusting the radio, eating, etc. to be
> criminalized, but that enhanced penalties be available ->if it can be
> proven that the driver was doing something inappropriate, like
> talking on a cell phone, that contributed to an actual accident. 
> 

Sounds good to me.

> Carrying this line of thought to an extreme, you could make the case
> that there's nothing inherently wrong with driving with a blood
> alcohol content of 0.08%. If you're able to pull it off without
> getting into an accident, well, more power to you! But, if you do get
> into an accident, let the state throw the book at you.

and, IMHO, you'd be correct.  I really don't care whether the driver
next to me is snockered or not, all I really care about is that he's
not going to run into me.

nate