Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17378)	6/26/2001 10:32:40 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Would you put drinking a hot cup of coffee while driving in the same category as cell phone use? Tis a slippery slope you are approaching when a law forbids use of cell phone while driving. Could we have more personal responsibility to govern these problems?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17378)	6/26/2001 12:35:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Cell phone usage while driving is less dangerous then drinking, and IMO less dangerous then trying to manage the kids in the back seat while driving. It is probably less dangerous then changing a CD but it doesn't take as long to change the CD. With the CD you would have a greater danger for a few seconds, with the cell phone call you would have a lesser degree of danger for a greater length of time. I think at least car speaker phones or headset use should not be illegal. It can be distracting even then but so can talking to a passenger or listening to something on the radio that causes an emotion response (perhaps a song that brings back memories, or a obnoxious political commentator) Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (17378)	6/26/2001 2:09:35 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I missed the seat belt discussion, but assume you convinced X that mandatory seat belt laws were bad. Did you couple that with the principle that anyone not wearing a seat belt should be required personally to pay for all their medical costs if they are injured in an accident, or should be let die if they can't afford care? That's one of those issues where as a libertarian I agree with the no-mandatory-seat-belt position, but as a taxpayer I resent having to pay millions of dollars of medical care for people who choose not to wear seat belts but expect society to pay their medical bills is they are injured by not wearing one. I would gladly agree with the no seat belt law position if those who chose not to wear belts were required themselves to bear the costs of their decisions. But at this point, that doesn't look likely.