From: turnkey@q.com   
      
   On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:03:20 PM UTC-8, nospam wrote:   
   > In article <1eef33ee-5adb-4f13-b1a0-6801c76887c5@googlegroups.com>,   
   > Harry K wrote:   
      
   > > > So why not make this simple and get rid of all laws that define    
   > > > victimless crimes such as using a hand held GPS while driving, Simply    
   > > > put, if a particular driver ends up crashing an injuring or killing    
   > > > someone, then charge him based on the results of the crash (property    
   > > > damage, injury, death, etc.).  I don't care whether he was drunk,    
   > > > reaching for something on the passenger floor, using a hand held GPS,    
   > > > fell asleep or whatever else might of happened.  If he ends up killing    
   > > > someone in a crash, then charge him with vehicular manslaughter.   
      
   > > Becauise bans on handheld and toys with screens are aimed at REDUCING the   
   > > number of crashes caused by stupid bahaviour.  Is it working?  Dunno but by   
   > > the people who don't want their right to be stupid curtailed I doubt it.    
      
   > > You can't cure stupid.   
      
   > true, you can't, so why inconvenience those who aren't stupid and use   
   > technology in a safe manner by restricting devices that make their trip   
   > easier and safer?   
      
   Because it using technology that takes the driver's eyes AND ATTENTION off the   
   road does NOT make their trip easier and safer.  Many studies have shown that   
   that has the same effect as driving intoxicated.   
      
   Just talking on a cellphone hands free takes your attention way from driving.   
   Try one of the many "reaction timers" available on the net and then try it   
   while talking on the phone. Oddly, no matter how many times I have suggested   
   the anti's do that, no    
   one has ever reported back with the results.  Not even with a dishonest report.   
      
   Harry K   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)