Discussion in 'General' started by erratum1, 16 Nov 2011.
Now that's tricky. Would have to think about that one.
I dont think smoking should be banable - but lighting a ciggy should be, as it requires you to take a hand of the steering wheel which limits control, and looking at the lighter whilst lighting a ciggy takes attention from the road. If someone lights it and gives it to you, its slightly better.
If you can be done for 'due care and attention' for eating a mars bar at the lights, smoking should be banned too.
As for zero tolerance to drinking and driving.. please. Thats just silly. Nothing ever has 'zero' tolerance for one, and its also just downright unfair, people make mistakes. I know thats not an excuse for breaking the law, but its a fact of human nature. And Throbbi, if your 'laws' were to be implemented before long the prisons would be overflowing and there would be many many people broke and on the street.
EDIT: For Death, i think it should be treated as a 2nd or 3rd degree murder. Whilst you didn't have the attention of killing them, you did, and put yourself in the position to do it.
I can get my cigarettes, take one out, replace box, get lighter, light cigarette, replace lighter all without taking my eyes off the road....
And quicker than going through the gears first to top which is often done without replacing hand back on steering wheel.
WOW, I didn't know people could be fined for eating a mars bar over there
Is now the wrong to time to bring up that I used to smoke on my M-bike when wearing an open faced lid
Laws are introduced not based on what the best can do but what the majority will do.
Yay I r bestest smoker, you heard here first folks.
But seriously, if even a non smoker couldn't do that I would question their hand eye coordination, spatial awareness and cognitive abilities, in fact I'd go so far as to say they shouldnt be driving.
I have to agree although I'm a non smoker I dont think it should be banned its just stupid, Dont most cars come with cigarette lighters fitted as standard? maybe they should be banned as well.
Fixed that, And yes I do believe someone was done for that but the whole phrase without due care and attention is fairly ambigious
What was actually said was that a person should not be allowed to drive or be in charge of a vehicle after drinking any amount of alcohol = zero level of alcohol
What I mean is the majority of people will look at the cigarette whilst lighting it, so even though you make an effort to do it without your eyes leaving the road, the majority of people wont do that and will take their eyes off the road.
You're wrong, I make no conscious effort to not look, the same way you dont look to change the radio station, the same way I can lower the window, the same way everyone can pick up and unlock their phone without looking.
^^ I cant do ANY of those things without looking...
**** you, man. I'm calling this out as sexist ********.
I'll get a 3-day at least for saying so, but I won't let it pass. I won't let it be implied that my only motivation for defending a cause or holding a belief is personal vested interest and gain. Absurd, sexist and insulting. You've always had a habit of dragging gender into things on a personal level where it's wholly irrelevant, but this really crowns it all.
lawl nerd rage
Yeah she made a cheeky joke, but I assume from the smiley that she wasn't serious.
I agree that no child deserves to be abused, especially not by adults, and I consider pregnant women that take harmfull drugs such as cigarettes, alcohol, etc, or even those that live on a poor diet, to be a negligent/abusive parent.
Carrie made a fair enough point though, that police can't do much about negligent or abusive parents, unless things get really out of hand. Just imagine the headlines if a police officer tasered or pepper sprayed a parent who refused to stop smoking whilst driving with her kids in the car... or worse yet if a police officer took affirmative action against a pregnant woman
Looking at recent protests, it seems the idea of using young children as human shields might unfortunately become a popular choice for some protesters.... hopefully pregnant woman don't follow suit
You clearly think too much of me, if I dont look at the radio when I change it, I have no idea what button I am pushing!
so no more clambake then
by the way i don't smoke
lol, tell me you are kidding, that's the least offensive, sexist or insulting remark I have read in a long time.
No matter how good a driver you think you are, your reaction times are reduced when not wholly concentrating on driving whether you are smoking, drinking or eating.
The attitude of its my car, my life, I do what I please is all very well until the time you cause an accident and maybe take someone elses life. Yes, it maybe a bit melodramatic, but its entirely possible. Why take the risk? It's just common sense.
Fixed that for you
Seriously though you are joking? I dont know what you was on when you posted that But can I have some lol
Well i hope you dont get a 3 day ban merely for reacting negatively to and misinterpreting my wry sense of humour. Obviously Canon and Teelzebub and even mvagusta know me far better than you but also have a far more sophisticated sense of humour too and dont jump to conclusions.
I assure you sexist i am not.
Ugh, disregard all preceding, I was just having a minor anger-induced breakdown that day and looking for an excuse to rage at something. I make no excuses for it, just been a rough week, it was out of character. Sorry, proceed with thread.
On-topic, I don't think difficulties in policing are a good reason to skip over the potential importance of child- and pregnancy-related anti-smoking laws. It's very difficult (often impossible) to enforce child abuse laws, too, but we still have them, because child abuse is wrong. Similarly, I think having laws about smoking whilst pregnant and smoking around children is important just in principle - it sends a message and draws a line. To not draw that line is to tacitly declare that smoking around children or whilst pregnant isn't particularly objectionable (I'm not actually big on morally prescriptive law, but that's how people interpret it in reality, there's no escaping that.)
Separate names with a comma.