MA: Amendment to The Common Courtesy While Driving Act (Statute)

[tmthforu94]

Honestly, I would like an all-out repeal here, but I'm trying to do some sort of compromise.

What this does:
- it removed keeping your brights on from the list of "no no's". After consideration, I would be willing to include flashing your lights excessively, but I think we can all say that from time to time, we accidentally leave our brights on.
- It allows for two warnings before facing punishment, and also decreases the level of punishment received. Before, I think the punishments were pretty stiff, but now, it's still set to where most people will make an extra effort not to be rude, but also won't empty their bank accounts if they occasionally slip up.

[tmthforu94]

We all accidentally run stop signs, speed, and forget to use a turn signal too.  You may be able to convince me of the end here, but your logical means of getting there is a bit weak.  I'm on the fence... sway me.

Well, as to turn signals, I rarely see officers issue tickets for that - it's usually just a warning. Running stop signs I would say is in a different category, as that has caused many accidents. Now, with using the brights, I can honestly say that one of my roommates keeps his brights on at all times - it's not that bright, but it's because his normal lights are so dim that it makes it difficult to see.

I would be willing to amend it to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Wait, why isn't the amendment I proposed back at the beginning being voted on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already expressed why I don't think using high beams should be prohibited - many are required to use high beam because that's closer to "normal", while their normal beam is too dim. I urge the Assembly to reject this amendment and instead defer to the amendment I proposed.

[tmthforu94]

Wait, why isn't the amendment I proposed back at the beginning being voted on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already expressed why I don't think using high beams should be prohibited - many are required to use high beam because that's closer to "normal", while their normal beam is too dim. I urge the Assembly to reject this amendment and instead defer to the amendment I proposed.

The bill is your own, so it didn't need to be voted on.  I just incorporated it into the bill.

So, just to clarify for future, it only gets incorporated if no one disagrees?

[tmthforu94]

I think a lot of discretion is let up to policeman - This isn't a way to boost revenue, just a way to promote better driving habits, so I think a warning system would be better. Even $250 is more than you get for other crimes, such as speeding.

[tmthforu94]

I'm not a fan of this amendment.  There needs to be a warning system.

There's no warning for most other traffic violations.  Why this one?

I don't think this should even be a traffic violation to begin with, but I'm trying to find some sort of compromise on here. If people would feel more comfortable just outright repealing the bill, I'd be fine with that.

[tmthforu94]

As my attempts at a compromise haven't been too appealing, I'm just going to go back to the basics and introduce the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

I urge members of the Assembly to vote for this repeal - let individual rights prevail!