Article View: misc.consumers
Article #9463Re: Should Md. Ban Cell phones in cars?
From: James Knott
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:44
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:44
27 lines
2733 bytes
2733 bytes
Marc wrote: >>Such laws may have different names, but the intent is the same. It >>requires >>motorists to concentrate on the traffic and not something else. If the >>laws were required to specify each possible distraction, it would make for >>some very long lists. > > I'm stating that there is no such law as you imply. There is nothing in > TX > that requires that drivers concentrate on traffic. There are no laws with > the "intent" to prevent inattentive driving. > So, should someone involved in such a distracting activity, cause a collision, would they be charged? And if so, what would the charge be? Incidentally, are you so familiar with the traffic laws, that you can state with absolute certainty, that there is no such law? Nothing about negligence etc.? -- Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong. To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with james.knott.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<IY61a.299437$pDv.282704@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!news03.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com!news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<3E40C784.881CE850@nospam.com> <b1r0vt0cqk@enews1.newsguy.com> <WWh0a.232042$ej1.63889@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <2as64v48n394ptuj97q7vsqchgbdifv57k@4ax.com> <UbN0a.241339$ej1.107054@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <b2n94v4luub8btfm6unatj83b7hnesqau3@4ax.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10774d,53c72126a599145a X-Google-Attributes: gid10774d,public X-Google-Thread: 108b95,53c72126a599145a X-Google-Attributes: gid108b95,public X-Google-Thread: 107518,53c72126a599145a X-Google-Attributes: gid107518,public X-Google-Thread: 10e16d,53c72126a599145a X-Google-Attributes: gid10e16d,public X-Google-Thread: 1011e5,53c72126a599145a X-Google-Attributes: gid1011e5,public X-Google-Thread: 11299e,53c72126a599145a X-Google-Attributes: gid11299e,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-08 04:44:48 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!news03.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com!news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: James Knott <bit_bucket@rogers.com> Subject: Re: Should Md. Ban Cell phones in cars? Newsgroups: misc.consumers,rec.autos.driving,alt.cellular,md.general,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,dc.driving References: <3E40C784.881CE850@nospam.com> <b1r0vt0cqk@enews1.newsguy.com> <WWh0a.232042$ej1.63889@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <2as64v48n394ptuj97q7vsqchgbdifv57k@4ax.com> <UbN0a.241339$ej1.107054@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <b2n94v4luub8btfm6unatj83b7hnesqau3@4ax.com> Lines: 27 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: <IY61a.299437$pDv.282704@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:44:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.157.224.139 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com X-Trace: news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com 1044708264 24.157.224.139 (Sat, 08 Feb 2003 07:44:24 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 07:44:24 EST