Ohio's new texting-and-driving law

• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252310 wrote:I'd rather stay, but if nanny state laws like the ones you seem to support here continue to get worse, I may indeed leave, because it will no longer be the same country. Even now, I get a little bit of a chuckle at the name "Statue of Liberty," when liberty is so freely surrendered to the state in exchange for them regulating our safety from ourselves.
  
  America: The Land of the Safe ... not the free

  
  Then GTF off the computer and do something about it. Or leave. Or STFU.
  
  Don't try to push your insurance idea, though. It's a ridiculous joke.
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252315 wrote:Then GTF off the computer and do something about it. Or leave. Or STFU.
  
  Don't try to push your insurance idea, though. It's a ridiculous joke.

  I know. Not nannying people and forcing them to make ... *shudder* ... choices for themselves is pure insanity.
  
  I'm currently on a computer because I'm waiting on a file at work, which I do in part to cover the insurances that I use, both the ones I'm forced to have and the ones I choose to have because it's a smart idea.
  
  I tell you, it's certainly a good thing we have this kind of pervasive, micromanaging government to make decisions for us like whether or not we should protect ourselves by getting insurance.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252327 wrote:I know. Not nannying people and forcing them to make ... *shudder* ... choices for themselves is pure insanity.
  
  I'm currently on a computer because I'm waiting on a file at work, which I do in part to cover the insurances that I use, both the ones I'm forced to have and the ones I choose to have because it's a smart idea.
  
  I tell you, it's certainly a good thing we have this kind of pervasive, micromanaging government to make decisions for us like whether or not we should protect ourselves by getting insurance.

  
  Your insurance idea is cost prohibitive. It will never happen....again.
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252337 wrote:Your insurance idea is cost prohibitive.

  How so?
  
  I agree it likely will never happen. When was the last time a governmental mandate was relinquished?
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252350 wrote:How so?
  
  I agree it likely will never happen. When was the last time a governmental mandate was relinquished?

  
  Enforcement and legal costs.
• FatHobbit

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252373 wrote:Enforcement and legal costs.

  Are you talking about the war on drugs?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I like otrap, but I hate reading threads on which he posts his novels.
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252373 wrote:Enforcement and legal costs.

  
  Enforcement of a larger number of laws is more resource-consuming than enforcement of a smaller number of laws. In actuality, our current setup is worse from an enforcement standpoint.
  
  As for legal costs ... part of the risk a person would take by refusing to get auto insurance. It would be a foolish decision not to have it, but there's no intellectually honest reason that it shouldn't still be a decision instead of a mandate.
  

  ernest_t_bass;1252388 wrote:I like otrap, but I hate reading threads on which he posts his novels.

  Oh come on. These aren't that long.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252396 wrote:Enforcement of a larger number of laws is more resource-consuming than enforcement of a smaller number of laws. In actuality, our current setup is worse from an enforcement standpoint.
  
  As for legal costs ... part of the risk a person would take by refusing to get auto insurance. It would be a foolish decision not to have it, but there's no intellectually honest reason that it shouldn't still be a decision instead of a mandate.
  
  
  
  Oh come on. These aren't that long.

  
  
  Many people who refuse the insurance are the ones who would refuse to pay damages. What then? Who enforces the reparation?
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252400 wrote:Many people who refuse the insurance are the ones who would refuse to pay damages. What then? Who enforces the reparation?

  That is what civil court is for. Repossession of assets and garnishment of wages. If someone's actions have resulted in loss or injury to a person, THEN the law gets involved ... just like it already does.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252402 wrote:That is what civil court is for. Repossession of assets and garnishment of wages. If someone's actions have resulted in loss or injury to a person, THEN the law gets involved ... just like it already does.

  
  How do you garnish a section 8 apartment and a monthly welfare check? Wait, maybe sieze their car. Oh, wait the car is wrecked. Never mind.
• FatHobbit

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252404 wrote:How do you garnish a section 8 apartment and a monthly welfare check? Wait, maybe sieze their car. Oh, wait the car is wrecked. Never mind.

  You assume those people have insurance now?
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252404 wrote:How do you garnish a section 8 apartment and a monthly welfare check? Wait, maybe sieze their car. Oh, wait the car is wrecked. Never mind.

  Those people are already driving without insurance now, so the current system has not solved that problem.
  
  My wife was just hit by one about a month ago who didn't have insurance. Thankfully, we've always considered it to be in OUR best interest to have Uninsured Driver Coverage. Would work the same under what I'm proposing as it does now. Again, thorough coverage insurance is a wise investment.
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;1252407 wrote:You assume those people have insurance now?

  Reps.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252410 wrote:Those people are already driving without insurance now, so the current system has not solved that problem.
  
  My wife was just hit by one about a month ago who didn't have insurance. Thankfully, we've always considered it to be in OUR best interest to have Uninsured Driver Coverage. Would work the same under what I'm proposing as it does now. Again, thorough coverage insurance is a wise investment.

  
  Those people? Which people?
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252430 wrote:Those people? Which people?

  Those who wouldn't want to get insurance. Most people I've known to have such a persuasion don't.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252434 wrote:Those who wouldn't want to get insurance. Most people I've known to have such a persuasion don't.

  Those who choose not to get insurance aren't allowed to drive.
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252438 wrote:Those who choose not to get insurance aren't allowed to drive.

  And they still do.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252445 wrote:And they still do.

  
  Maybe we need more government enforcement of the law.
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252449 wrote:Maybe we need more government enforcement of the law.

  Or fewer laws, as is likely the more practical solution.
• Steel Valley Football

  O-Trap;1252517 wrote:Or fewer laws, as is likely the more practical solution.

  
  Or no laws. Let the people be the responsible citizens that they are. Right?
• friendfromlowry

  Pretty sweet that you have to be >18 to use a phone while driving. I wonder if teenagers will start celebrating their 18th birthday by going out at midnight and driving while making a phone call? It's funny though; every time I've almost been in an accident, it was because an elderly person wasn't aware of what was going on (randomly cutting across a parking lot, speeding through a flashing-redlight intersection not treating it as a stop sign.) I don't think I've ever had a problem with teenage drivers. Now I'll probably get run over by one leaving work tomorrow. Better call in.
  
  Kind of similar, but I never understood why wearing a seatbelt is a law. I understand the self-protection aspect of it. And since it is a law, why not start manufacturing cars so that they can't be shifted into drive without the seatbelt clicked in?
• O-Trap

  

  Steel Valley Football;1252702 wrote:Or no laws. Let the people be the responsible citizens that they are. Right?

  Not at all, as voluntaryism typically works only for a short while, but eventually ends up being a dictatorship ... "he who has the biggest guns wins."
  
  However, limiting what is considered a crime to only that which has a victim of loss or injury would do three things:
  (a) It would lessen the strain on law enforcement,
  (b) It would expand the civil liberties of the people, and
  (c) It is acceptable under virtually all state constitutions, as well as the Federal one.
• Con_Alma

  Steel Valley Football;1252438 wrote:Those who choose not to get insurance aren't allowed to drive.

  That's jut not true.
  
  In the State of Ohio your are not required to have insurance to drive. There are other solutions available.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1252848 wrote:That's jut not true.
  
  In the State of Ohio your are not required to have insurance to drive. There are other solutions available.

  You have to prove the financial ability to cover damages to a reasonable degree if you don't have it, don't you?