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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Consider me on the fence as well.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Consider me on the fence as well.

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Proposed Amendment:

Section 2 of the Amendment to The Common Courtesy While Driving Act shall be amended to read as follows:

2. "Excessive noise or havoc" shall be defined as excessively intimidating drivers, and/or using profane language that is audible to other motorists."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here is the bill in its current form:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing no further debate on Mr. X's amendment, that is brought to a vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24 hour vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NAY

[Talleyrand]

Nay.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Aye

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Aye

You crafted the original bill.  Why are you removing the highbeams and horn honking provisions?

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Aye

You crafted the original bill.  Why are you removing the highbeams and horn honking provisions?

Cuz that was a flaw of the original bill that I now see as superfluous and useless if it were to remain in there.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 2, and the NAYs are 2, with 1 not voting.  The AYEs not having reached a majority, the amendment is not adopted.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I introduce the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting on the amendment is now open.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Abstain

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[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?

[Gass3268]

NAY

[Talleyrand]

Abstain.