infringing on personal rights or what!

 

A few small rural communities in Iowa are starting to ban the use of a GPS supposedly gps units are to much of distraction and are dangerous to the public especially when all ths started when a 16 yearold ran down 80 year old so all gps owners will do the same i guess .

<<Page 2

I vote to ban the

I vote to ban the politicians who want to ban the GPS's!

Go ahead

you have that ability on election day!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

BETTER BAN

THEY BETTER BAN PRETTY 16+ YEAR OLD GIRLS WALKING DOWN THE STREET WEARING SHORT SHORTS, THATS NOT A DISTRACTION FOR HIM? I THINK SO. ME I LOVE MY SLENDER GPS - Doh!!!!! SHE'S TRUE TO ME 99% OF THE TIME..

--
Nuvi-3760 *** Magellan-5045

Further...

LOstn6tz wrote:

THEY BETTER BAN PRETTY 16+ YEAR OLD GIRLS WALKING DOWN THE STREET WEARING SHORT SHORTS, THATS NOT A DISTRACTION FOR HIM? I THINK SO. ME I LOVE MY SLENDER GPS - Doh!!!!! SHE'S TRUE TO ME 99% OF THE TIME..

You could take this one step further..
X's wife wears very short shirts and rides in the car with X 99% of the time, it's very distracting.
Are they going to ban X's wife from driving with X because she is a distraction?

Having said that, I agree with tougher laws on cell phone use in cars.

With respect to a GPS being

With respect to a GPS being a distraction, yes, looking at your GPS does take your eyes off the road for a moment. So does looking at your speedometer. So, for that matter, does looking in your rear-view mirror. I don't hear anyone clamoring for the removal of speedometers or rear-view mirrors from our cars.

--
"Recalculating... drive 0.2 miles, then abandon vehicle." ------------- [ETrex Venture CX; Nüvi 40; Drive 52]

Attention!

Dsorgnzd wrote:

With respect to a GPS being a distraction, yes, looking at your GPS does take your eyes off the road for a moment. So does looking at your speedometer. So, for that matter, does looking in your rear-view mirror. I don't hear anyone clamoring for the removal of speedometers or rear-view mirrors from our cars.

That depends upon how much attention you pay to the GPS!

--
Nüvi 765T, Nüvi 1390T, Nüvi 2559 and 2695 LMT, GPS12, GPS18 (used in nRoute and Oziexplorer on laptop), GPSmap76CSx, SonyEricsson X1 (For OziExplorer CE maps)

.

JD4x4 wrote:
Motorcycle Mama wrote:

And yes, if it's not in the Constitution, typically in our legal system, it's not a right.

You're joking, correct? Or are you lamenting that sad but apparent situation? I can't tell for certain.

Not joking. The original post title asked "infringing on personal rights or what!".

My follow up was that "I agree that it's probably not okay for them to want to ban the use of GPS units, however, can you tell me what "right" they are violating?"

And the follow up to that was "are you implying that unless a right is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution that it does not exist?"

And my answer was what you quoted.

In our legal system in the United States, if it's not in the Constitution, typically in our legal system, it's not a right.

People are quick to say "my rights are being violated" when they aren't. So, I was asking "what right is being violated".

I'm not arguing whether banning the use of GPS units is okay or not. I'm just saying that it's not a right.

Rights are typically entitlements whereas privileges are not.

Some laws are to protect town/city from liability

In my fair town, it once was against the law to wear heels higher than 2 inches. Not because no one enjoyed the look of a nicely shaped ankle, but because the stilettos/spike-heeled shoes so popular at the time, would stick in the cracks in the sidewalks, sink into the asphalt, and some fashionable lady would fall and injure herself.

So it was cheaper for them to make the heels against the law than to remove all the damaged sidewalks. It became a "safety hazard"--meaning the heels. I haven't checked lately to see if that law is still on the books here in Mobile, but now I am curious.

I personally do not see how the GPS could constitute a hazard to a pedestrian...

--
"Making tracks..." {:)-<=| Nuvi 880

GPS Ban???

Lets ban cars. This way no one will get into a motorvehicle accident!

--
"If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score" Lombardi

Fines

Maybe no one is speeding in those communities and they need something else to fine $$$

Outlaw GPS?

geske wrote:
IAMCORREY wrote:

There is a point here: IF drivers are just as occupied with their GPS as some drivers are with their cell phones when driving, we have a safety risk to consider. Non-hand held cell phones does not solve the problem. The problem with using your cell phone while driving is: your attention is on the one you are speaking to! Watch out when using your GPS, it's fun but not a toy!
Do I have a problem now being among GPS freaks!??

I think everyone is missing an important point here. You can't legislate responsibility into people. Pass all the laws you want, wrecks are still going to happen because someone isn't paying attention to what he's doing. There are distractions upon distractions when you're driving. Looking for an address, looking at scenery, tuning the radio, changing a CD, talking to the person riding with you (and listening to them), sending and receiving CW (Morse code), talking on the CB/Ham radio, I could go on for hours. A GPS is just one of a multitude of distractions. Outlaw GPSs and only outlaws will have GPSs (or cell phones or MP3 players or sunglasses or etc.)

I suggest that we put the driver in a hermetically sealed capsule without anything to distract him. The only thing allowed in there is a steering wheel, a gas pedal and a brake pedal. If he is caught with anything else, like chewing gum, it a mandatory death sentence.

Jack j

Interesting.

Motorcycle Mama wrote:

Rights are typically entitlements whereas privileges are not.

Entitlements and privileges are the domain of rules, laws, and governance's. They have no bearing whatsoever on "rights" other than to vainly attempt to authenticate, define, and either enumerate or restrict them.

I suppose I see your point somewhat though. The only rights that anyone actually has are those that they take, and are willing to pay for as required.

So I'm still not clear on your position as to when it's NOT ok to restrict or revoke your privilege to access or use, say, a two wheeled vehicle.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

Love it!

Motorcycle Mama wrote:
JD4x4 wrote:
Motorcycle Mama wrote:

And yes, if it's not in the Constitution, typically in our legal system, it's not a right.

You're joking, correct? Or are you lamenting that sad but apparent situation? I can't tell for certain.

Not joking. The original post title asked "infringing on personal rights or what!".

My follow up was that "I agree that it's probably not okay for them to want to ban the use of GPS units, however, can you tell me what "right" they are violating?"

And the follow up to that was "are you implying that unless a right is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution that it does not exist?"

And my answer was what you quoted.

In our legal system in the United States, if it's not in the Constitution, typically in our legal system, it's not a right.

People are quick to say "my rights are being violated" when they aren't. So, I was asking "what right is being violated".

I'm not arguing whether banning the use of GPS units is okay or not. I'm just saying that it's not a right.

Rights are typically entitlements whereas privileges are not.

Love you way of arguing, precise!!

--
Nüvi 765T, Nüvi 1390T, Nüvi 2559 and 2695 LMT, GPS12, GPS18 (used in nRoute and Oziexplorer on laptop), GPSmap76CSx, SonyEricsson X1 (For OziExplorer CE maps)

I wonder....

whatever happened to common sense

--
2597 Sometimes I wonder..."Why is that Frisbee getting bigger?"...and then, it hits me.

.

JD4x4 wrote:
Motorcycle Mama wrote:

Rights are typically entitlements whereas privileges are not.

Entitlements and privileges are the domain of rules, laws, and governance's. They have no bearing whatsoever on "rights" other than to vainly attempt to authenticate, define, and either enumerate or restrict them.

I suppose I see your point somewhat though. The only rights that anyone actually has are those that they take, and are willing to pay for as required.

So I'm still not clear on your position as to when it's NOT ok to restrict or revoke your privilege to access or use, say, a two wheeled vehicle.

It’s interesting that you flipped my sentence around. smile I said that “rights are typically entitlements” not that entitlements are rights. There’s a BIG difference between those two statements. smile

Rights are something that is generally guaranteed under the proper set of circumstances. Privileges are not guaranteed.

It’s interesting that you bring up “two-wheeled vehicles” because driving is a privilege. It is definitely not a right. That gets confused a lot.

So if you are asking what my opinion would be if they decided to restrict access to “a two wheeled vehicle”. I may or may not like it or agree with it, but I would not argue that my rights were being violated or infringed upon. It’s not a right.

Another example is smoking. Many localities and states are restricting (or already have restricted) smoking inside buildings. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the restrictions, it’s not a right, so no rights are being violated.

And, for example, if a locality restricts alcohol sales to a certain time frame, no rights are being violated.

Well, you could always join

Well, you could always join a website with approximately 8,768 members to make change in our country. I joined the We Surround Them website and am doing my part to change the direction of our country. You can see my page here:

http://wesurroundthemusa.ning.com/profile/Clint

and the main site is here:

http://wesurroundthemusa.ning.com/

If you listen to Glenn Beck then this is old news to you but if you don't you should check into it IMO.

Ok, back under my rock I go.

--
Your Portion Of Light Whether you are a brilliant flame or but a tiny spark matters not-for the world needs whatever portion of light is yours to give.

So Interesting...

gpsaccount wrote:

However I do tend to agree with the comment about 16 year old drivers. I've often thought the drinking/driving age thing would make more sense if it were reversed. Drink at 16 (which they do anyway) but can't drive until 19, by which time they might have learned to drink sensibly.

I have also thought this for years. A 16 yr old drinking will hurt no one but that individual; give them a car and they can destroy a family. We think 18 yr olds can join the military and die for us, but not have a beer. I was just saying the other day that when a person is underage, they drink every time alcohol is presented, because who knows when the next chance will come up. After 21, if you don't feel like drinking, you don't, because you can get it any time you want.

I think further evidence that not all 16 yr olds who drink become drunks is the number of other societies which allow drinking at an earlier age. Alcohol is something to be respected. The sooner the mystery is taken away, the better.

I also agree with MM. People think they have all kinds of 'rights' which are not rights at all. I think that most people use that term because they are tired of government growing more each year. Honestly, with the mobility of society, the city government should not be allowed to make local laws anymore. We have plenty of Federal and State laws to cover every possible situation. We don't need any more.

Same with banning GPS and cell phones. We already have laws like 'Careless Driving' which covers all the distractions. Basically, if you are distracted to the extent that there is a safety issue, by anything, you are being careless. We should not have a law for every possible distraction. We need to get back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Life isn't safe, and you can't be protected from everything. Just as stated earlier, why don't we ban cars and make everyone stay inside their homes, as that is the safest place for us.

America's legal system is reactive in nature. After you break a law or hurt someone, you are punished and corrected. The only way to protect people is through personal responsibility. If the activity does not directly hurt someone else, then the government should stay out of it.

That's my rant. Sorry and Thanks.

..

Motorcycle Mama wrote:

So if you are asking what my opinion would be if they decided to restrict access to “a two wheeled vehicle”. I may or may not like it or agree with it, but I would not argue that my rights were being violated or infringed upon. It’s not a right.

Yes, that was what I was asking. At what point in your relationship to a two-wheeled vehicle do you assert any "right", or is there none in your opinion? Possession?

I agree that rights and entitlements are not the same. I'm just curious as to exactly how you define a "right", if indeed you even agree that there are such things outside of a purely authoritarian (legal) framework.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

Huh

Motorcycle Mama wrote:

Edited
Another example is smoking. Many localities and states are restricting (or already have restricted) smoking inside buildings. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the restrictions, it’s not a right, so no rights are being violated.

edited

FirstI don't smoke!
But your saying if I wanted to, It's not my right to? And I strongly disagree with the laws being put into place by wayward politicians. When in a bar and some one lights up, I get them a ashtray. I have had enough of personal rights being taken away, If you don't smoke don't go in to the bar that allows smoking, if you ask me people that do are dumber than a rock anyway.

Why not give the business owners the choice to put a sign up that says "this is a smoking establishment" or the reverse? why take money from tavern owners, bowling alleys, restaurants or private clubs by taking the rights of smokers away?

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

...

Has our argueing here gone far enough yet?
"Can't we all just get along?" ;p

A government's job is to secure and protect peace and safety. It is supposed to make rules that tell the citizens what is too dangerous to do. Our Government has laws limiting how fast we drive in order to keep us from going at uncontrolable speeds. There is a balance between these rules going to far and not far enough, and if you find the perfect balance please, go tell the government.

--
~Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the most dangerous substances known to man!~

Nope

Not as long as there are a handful of people that think they know whats best for the rest of us.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Smoking is a bad example...

BobDee wrote:

FirstI don't smoke!
But your saying if I wanted to, It's not my right to? And I strongly disagree with the laws being put into place by wayward politicians. When in a bar and some one lights up, I get them a ashtray. I have had enough of personal rights being taken away, If you don't smoke don't go in to the bar that allows smoking, if you ask me people that do are dumber than a rock anyway.

Why not give the business owners the choice to put a sign up that says "this is a smoking establishment" or the reverse? why take money from tavern owners, bowling alleys, restaurants or private clubs by taking the rights of smokers away?

Smoking is a bad example, because any argument you make that says smoking should be legal can be used to argue Marijuana should be legal. But two things to consider:

(1) What about people's right to breathe clean air? Not everyone wants to smell your smoke, especially employees who can't choose to leave. My first job was at Pizza Hut, and despite me telling the managers I was allergic to cigarette smoke, they repeatedly put me in the smoking section. At that age, you don't have the common sense to quit (or maybe I am just to dedicated). I can actually smell it in my car with the windows up and A/C on when in traffic and someone close is smoking with their windows down. (No, I don't see it and think I smell it, I smell it and think 'how the heck can I smell that' and then see it.)

(2) What about the cost to pay for these choices? We know the health risks, and we know the medical costs (it's not cheap). There is cancer, lung infections, ear infections, childhood illness, etc. Now they have even linked female infertility to being exposed to smoke as a child. When all these people get sick, either the insurance company, the government, or the hospital (through writing off the debt) pay for it. When they pay, we pay.

Either way you go, I am being affected by their decisions. I think smoking is a horrible example because it is not something that affects no one else (like having a GPS unit in your car). Laws should prohibit behavior that negatively impact other people, and other than that they should stay out. Government IS getting into legislating behavior FAR more than it should.

Ban

I agree with placing the blame where the problem is, 16 year old drivers.

....

BobDee is correct.

And what many seem to fail to realize is that we will NEVER agree on what's best for ALL of us, because we are each individuals.

And, most importantly we should understand that the ONLY absolute purpose and function of government is to forcefully exert authority.

Ours (in the U.S.) was originally formed with the explicit premise and purpose that it derives it's authority for existence and the use of it's force from it's people. And it also made quite clear that it's people had unalienable RIGHTS. And that among those were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (None of which are trivial). Later it was spelled out just as clearly that the government would not attempt to define all of these self-evident and unstated RIGHTS, just to be clear that it would continue to derive it's authority from ALL of it's people. All by the way, does NOT necessarily mean the majority.

The problems come when those that exercise these RIGHTS don't realize that it doesn't give THEM the authority to violate the same for others, even when they themselves don't see the violation. And then again when others claim violation because they are self-serving or intolerant.

It may not be an easy tightrope to walk, but most assuredly EVERYONE has the authority to exercise these RIGHTS along with the RESPONSIBILITY to use them justly.

It's simply easier for some to give their authority and responsibility to someone or something other than themselves. And to do that it's wise to have binding rules.

Myself, I try to play by one rule and that is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and I grant the government only that authority and would also defend that at the cost of life.

However anyone can, at any time, probably overpower me and force their own will upon me. That is ALSO self-evident.

So, MM.. Possession? How about just thinking about two-wheeled vehicles? I'm quite positive that I can find a following that abhors both of those notions.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

A Government's Job

allaroundgeek wrote:

Has our argueing here gone far enough yet?
"Can't we all just get along?" ;p

A government's job is to secure and protect peace and safety. It is supposed to make rules that tell the citizens what is too dangerous to do. Our Government has laws limiting how fast we drive in order to keep us from going at uncontrolable speeds. There is a balance between these rules going to far and not far enough, and if you find the perfect balance please, go tell the government.

The job of a good government is to do for it's citizens what they can not do for themselves. Provide for the common defense (the armed forces). Arbitrate disputes between it's citizens (the courts). Provide a framework for it's citizens to live within harmoniously (legislature). Anything beyond those tasks is, or should be, beyond the scope of good government.

It is the citizen's job to provide for his/her personal defense. It's also the citizen's job to contribute to the defense of the village, city, state or country. It's also the citizen's job to attempt to settle any disputes he/she has with others and to make the court the option of last resort.

It isn't the job of government to tell me what is too dangerous for me to do, that is my responsibility alone. It is a legitimate function of government to set speed limits on the highways and to enforce those limits by sanction or other means. It is NOT a legitimate function of government to tell me how fast I can change lanes on those same highways.

Those who are willing to sacrifice personal freedoms for security will loose both.

Jack j

A solution

Would this mean confiscating the unit or paying a fine with points taken off your license?

I believe in safety and looking at your GPS maps while driving is not safe. Listening to a voice is a safer way as mentioned previously that listening to a radio is safe while paying attention to the road. The human navigator (passenger) can handle a GPS while traveling but the driver is not in a safe position to handle the GPS. He can however listen to the voice and pay attention to the road. This would be a definite debate for all parties.

Its better to be safe then sorry!

.

JD4x4 wrote:

.... snip

So, MM.. Possession? How about just thinking about two-wheeled vehicles? I'm quite positive that I can find a following that abhors both of those notions.

Again, if you are asking me what my opinion would be if they decided to ban two-wheeled vehicles, even if I didn't like or agree with it, I would not argue that my rights were being violated.

There's no right to own or operate said vehicle. It's a privilege.

By the way...

By the way.. MM - Please don't think I'm picking on you. That's not my intent. I just think it's my responsibility to defend our rights, and point out that we really DO have them regardless of what anyone might think or say.

Both my wife & I put our motorcycles down as roughly #3ish on our list, right below each other (usually) and our kids (more usually).

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

almost

I define a "privilege" as a right that I have willfully (but possibly revocable) granted to another for practical implementation of in the best interest of the majority of others.

I will willfully agree to demonstrate my likelihood of non-infringement, but I do not concede that I have or will do harm to others by simply not demonstrating it.

For me, that's why I agree with the rule of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

But actually, I'm asking what (if any) actual RIGHTS you believe that you have.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

I suppose

I suppose that if you are saying that you have no RIGHTS, but have freedom & liberty, and have responsibilities, then I understand that.

You just didn't make it very clear to me. I'm not highly educated or usually very perceptive, but there are a lot of us like that out here.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

typed too fast and can't edit now

JD4x4 wrote:

I will willfully agree to demonstrate my likelihood of non-infringement, but I do not concede that I have or will do harm to others by simply not demonstrating it.

..should read "..demonstrating (my likelyhood).

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

Ban Humans!

Soon there will be legislation banning all humans. Let's face it, if we're all dead, no one can get hurt. Of course when we're gone, an occasional bird might collide, but they'll have to come up with laws themselves. They won't have us to kick around anymore.

--
Don't let people know you're having fun...they'll try to stop it! Nuvi 3490lmt,Nuvi 880, GPSV, Etrex Venture HC, Nuvi 750

Driving mistakes

dagarmin wrote:
BobDee wrote:

* I guess cars should only have one seat, when you talk to a passenger, are you really paying attention to the road?

Yeah, passengers are just as big a potential distraction to the driver as any electronic device, that's for sure.

I definitely make more mistakes driving when my wife is sitting in the passenger seat next to me, carrying on a conversation. At least... she points out many more driving mistakes made by me than I notice when I'm driving by myself. So it must be her fault wink .

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that this happens to. Thanks I feel much better.

Banning 16 year olds

JFCTexas wrote:

Those Iowa towns would probably be safer if they banned 16 year old driver instead of GPSs.

Recently in Kansas/Missouri there have been discussions regarding the issue of raising the legal age of driving to 17 or 18 for kids in these states. This is because of the actual fact, that young people do not have the experience or maturity to drive. They will still be able to receive their permits at 14 for farmers, 15 for non-agricultural drivers.

Now that I am past 16, a couple of times more or so, I don't see a problem with this. I live in an area near a high school, and many of these kids drive very high horsepower cars, and simply do not have the skill or respect of the power to drive.

Let them eat cake, if you get my drift.

However, let's not argue about GPS being a right. The government put the satellites up there, they opened the information up to the populace, so isn't it a right, or is it just for those "wealthy" enough to own GPS units.

Let's not fight about this, let's just keep them from banning a tool. They don't ban car radios, and I know for a fact that changing stations, or God forbid, changing CD's while you are driving is terribly distracting. It is also distracting to see a beautiful woman in a convertible on a sunny day, but that's just me!!! smile

Now look what you've done!

hautedawg wrote:

It is also distracting to see a beautiful woman in a convertible on a sunny day

Now you've opened a can of worms, I can just see the next "safety initiative" - Cleavage Cameras! wink

another brick in the wall.

another brick in the wall separating us from freedom.

Distracted driving is out of control

In IL, a woman killed a motorcyclist because she was applying nail polish while driving. Idiots like this ruin it for all of us.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/charges-on-allege...

Rights

Motorcycle Mama wrote:
IAMCORREY wrote:

A few small rural communities in Iowa are starting to ban the use of a GPS supposedly gps units are to much of distraction and are dangerous to the public especially when all ths started when a 16 yearold ran down 80 year old so all gps owners will do the same i guess .

I agree that it's probably not okay for them to want to ban the use of GPS units, however, can you tell me what "right" they are violating?

There's probably an argument to be made for interfering with inter-state commerce if you're headed for a commercial destination in another state.

Paul

.

Doubtful as it's not a "right" and they aren't stopping you from patronizing the business just by regulating an electronic device. And the "interstate commerce act" regulates the transportation of goods across state lines, not the transportation of a person to purchase the goods.

How about ban on paper maps?

Maybe paper maps must be banned to? They require far more attention while driving!

Boycott the small rual towns and make them smaller!

IAMCORREY wrote:

A few small rural communities in Iowa are starting to ban the use of a GPS supposedly gps units are to much of distraction and are dangerous to the public especially when all ths started when a 16 yearold ran down 80 year old so all gps owners will do the same i guess .

Just don't shop in buy gas or travel through, they will change there minds when the purse is empty. If this turns out to be a fact this needs to go to other GPS communities as well.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

"Send you off with a warning"

allaroundgeek: Telling the local constable or police officer that you "had no idea it was illegal" probably won't stop you from getting a citation. I have been in towns with low, unposted speed limits, primarily designed to catch outsiders "speeding" so they can ticket them and get money for their town. The local officer said "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Actually, if you are going to be travelling through areas you are unfamiliar with, a little research into local traffic laws is not a bad idea.

I’m currently working on a

I’m currently working on a POI project to alert all 16 year old drivers of the location of 80 year old pedestrians. The proximity alert will say something to the effect of “Alert! Elderly pedestrian ahead. You may now exercise your right to Zig or Zag. Please drive responsibly”

Zig & Zag around eldrely

With technology so advanced in not time we are being implanted with radio transmitters to avoid speeding cars driven by 16 year old and politicians thinking they can ban what they don`t like.

--
Gps! ask where to go and get there! Best of all, what we need is to have accurate pois to reach all destinations

All I can say is Far out! Your very Far out!

Huh?
Marijuana? What did that have to do with my statement?
Like you said, (Idid have common sense to quit!)
Your Kidding Right? (I can actually smell it in my car with the windows up and A/C on when in traffic and someone close is smoking with their windows down.)
I Said put signs up this is a smoking establishment, and your statement does not work, parents should not be allowed to bring kids in.
(There is cancer, lung infections, ear infections, childhood illness, etc. Now they have even linked female infertility to being exposed to smoke as a child.)

hkenney wrote:

Smoking is a bad example, because any argument you make that says smoking should be legal can be used to argue Marijuana should be legal. But two things to consider:

(1) What about people's right to breathe clean air? Not everyone wants to smell your smoke, especially employees who can't choose to leave. My first job was at Pizza Hut, and despite me telling the managers I was allergic to cigarette smoke, they repeatedly put me in the smoking section. At that age, you don't have the common sense to quit (or maybe I am just to dedicated). I can actually smell it in my car with the windows up and A/C on when in traffic and someone close is smoking with their windows down. (No, I don't see it and think I smell it, I smell it and think 'how the heck can I smell that' and then see it.)

(2) What about the cost to pay for these choices? We know the health risks, and we know the medical costs (it's not cheap). There is cancer, lung infections, ear infections, childhood illness, etc. Now they have even linked female infertility to being exposed to smoke as a child. When all these people get sick, either the insurance company, the government, or the hospital (through writing off the debt) pay for it. When they pay, we pay.

Either way you go, I am being affected by their decisions. I think smoking is a horrible example because it is not something that affects no one else (like having a GPS unit in your car). Laws should prohibit behavior that negatively impact other people, and other than that they should stay out. Government IS getting into legislating behavior FAR more than it should.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Street Survival

alokasi wrote:
IAMCORREY wrote:

Moral of the story, teach your kids to drive and DON'T think for one second that a good kid can't make a fatal mistake.

May I suggest sending drivers with more than 6 months experience driving, up to about 21 yrs to "Street Survival" driver training. It's stuff you can't legally practice on the street. (I've taught a couple of kids, one-on-one, as a volunteer.)

Spinner hubcaps :@

efflandt wrote:

I remember when an Iowa legislator wanted to ban spinner hubcaps, because he thought a vehicle stopped at a stop sign was still moving, and ran his vehicle and boat trailer off into a ditch. Life outside of the big city.

I can sympathize with him on this. As a motorcyclist I try to be very aware of other traffic and I make note of the wheels of stopped cars to get a head start to the brakes if I see movement. I wouldn't drive into a ditch because of it but I might back off the gas.

--
Nüvi 750, 2008 GoldWing
<<Page 2