MA: Common Courtesy While Driving Act (Vetoed)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: ZuWo

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll be supporting this.

[Gass3268]

I voted for the repeal of the original bill, so I won't be supporting its return.

[ZuWo]

I voted for the repeal of the original bill, so I won't be supporting its return.

I removed the controversial bits of the original bill and lowered the fine so this is actually a compromise. Here's the old, repealed text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Modernity has failed us]

hey i wrote the original bill

[Lumine]

I think I will be supporting this act, but I have a small problem with the "excessively honking one's car horn". Any chance we could leave "excessively" even more specific? Otherwise it might be too ambiguous, specially if each case is going to be handled individually.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose the preceding amendment.

One of the main concerns brought up when we repealed the original act was that this bill left a huge amount of discretion at the hands of individual policemen, especially regarding "excessive honking". Not only will a warning system prevent people from performing these acts, it will help weed out the real offenders by finding those who commit multiple offenses.

[tmthforu94]

Due to reasons I have expressed in previous debates, primarily my support for free speech and my feeling that this leaves too much at police officers discretion, this will not get my signature, though I am open to suggestions.

I will say one thing, which I heavily fought over when this was debated before, and that is my opposition to getting ticketed for leaving your high beams on, as it is too vague and simply shouldn't be enforced by the government.

[ZuWo]

I accept Talleyrand's amendment.

Due to reasons I have expressed in previous debates, primarily my support for free speech [...] this will not get my signature, though I am open to suggestions.

In what way does this bill violate the principle of free speech?

[tmthforu94]

I accept Talleyrand's amendment.

Due to reasons I have expressed in previous debates, primarily my support for free speech [...] this will not get my signature, though I am open to suggestions.

In what way does this bill violate the principle of free speech?

Leaving the entire issue at a policeman's discretion certainly open this up for many attacks on free speech, as the guidelines are not specific at all and could be open to a wide range of interpretations.

I would appreciate if my other concerns could be addressed as well instead of this turning into a never-ending back and forth over whether this violates free speech (not that it can't be discussed in more depth, I just don't want other issues with this legislation to be ignored)

[ZuWo]

Since this is the only bill that the Assembly is debating at the moment I think we have enough time to have an in-depth discussion on all facets concerning this piece of legislation. I will certainly address your other concerns at a later point. However, since you said that you oppose the bill "primarily because of your support for free speech" I think it's important to clarify if and how this bill violates the principle of free speech. In fact, I am convinced that it doesn't.

I agree that the bill leaves certain things at a policeman's discretion (e.g. "excessive honking") so I'm ready to amend certain parts of the bill if necessary. But I don't see how this bill could possibly infringe on someone's right to say what they want, i.e. their freedom of speech (unless we consider it a human right to intimidate and threaten others physically and verbally, but that's highly problematic in my opinion). I admit that the old, repealed version of the bill could be argued to be at odds with the principle of free speech, but I don't see how that's the case with this bill.

[tmthforu94]

Because as I've already said, the language used, particularly "intimidating drivers", could lead to many different interpretations. How do you define "intimidating drivers", Assemblyman ZuWo?

[ZuWo]

Because as I've already said, the language used, particularly "intimidating drivers", could lead to many different interpretations. How do you define "intimidating drivers", Assemblyman ZuWo?

I guess we have to accept the fact that legal language is hardly ever completely unambiguous, but we can easily find a good definition of "intimidating drivers" if that's your main concern. What about changing the term "intimidating drivers" to "threatening drivers" and defining "threatening" as "intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury"*?

*from wikipedia "criminal threatening"

[tmthforu94]

Then that still brings me back to my original concern, plus others, which I am hoping you can address:
1. Police Discretion - I think there needs to be very clear and specific guidelines to go off of so that there isn't much wiggle room.
2. High Beams - I might be more willing if it said "excessive flashing of lights" instead, but allowing ticketing for leaving your high beams on is pushing it too far.
3. Agreeing with Assemblyman Lumine, I also believe the language used for honking the horn is too ambiguous.

On another note, I don't like the idea of suspending one's license for multiple offenses, especially with the current language. At least set a number of times before it would be plausible.

[ZuWo]

I'll say it again: Language is ambiguous to a certain extent. The definition of "threatening drivers" I have offered is the one that is widely used in the definition of "criminal threatening". If you look at how "criminal threatening" is defined in civil codes in countries all around the world you won't find a much better definition. Thus, I'm afraid it's impossible to avoid that there is some "wiggle room". Indeed, there's probably no statute which doesn't leave certain things open to interpretation.

I will address your other points later when I have more time.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Most statutes don't define "excessive use of horn"; it's up to the officer's discretion, and that's reviewable by a court.  I think what we have now is fine and in line with most statutes in the U.S.

[ZuWo]

To address certain points that have been raised:

- Firstly, I have no problem with replacing "turning on high beams" with "excessive flashing of lights".
- Secondly, we can also define the number of "multiple offences". What about three?
- Finally, I agree with Inks that a formulation along the lines of "excessive use of horn" is good enough. Why should we have to come up with a more precise definition than what we have in most statutes in the U.S., where these definitions apparently don't cause any problems?

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thoughts?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see the need for a warning.  Can supporters of the warning provide an example of any jurisdiction who gives a mandatory warning before giving a fine?

[tmthforu94]

I don't see the need for a warning.  Can supporters of the warning provide an example of any jurisdiction who gives a mandatory warning before giving a fine?

I support establishing a warning due to the high level of individual officer's discretion that is created through this legislation.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see the need for a warning.  Can supporters of the warning provide an example of any jurisdiction who gives a mandatory warning before giving a fine?

I support establishing a warning due to the high level of individual officer's discretion that is created through this legislation.

I understand that.  But that's not what I asked.  Can you give an example of any jurisdiction that requires a warning before a fine is given?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see the need for a warning.  Can supporters of the warning provide an example of any jurisdiction who gives a mandatory warning before giving a fine?

I support establishing a warning due to the high level of individual officer's discretion that is created through this legislation.

I understand that.  But that's not what I asked.  Can you give an example of any jurisdiction that requires a warning before a fine is given?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

[tmthforu94]

I don't see the need for a warning.  Can supporters of the warning provide an example of any jurisdiction who gives a mandatory warning before giving a fine?

I support establishing a warning due to the high level of individual officer's discretion that is created through this legislation.

I understand that.  But that's not what I asked.  Can you give an example of any jurisdiction that requires a warning before a fine is given?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

Grow up, Inks. It's been a few hours, and I had a night class. Quit being so dramatic.

But anyways, who cares if there might not be any other jurisdiction that requires a warning? I, as well as other members of the Assembly, believe it appropriate in this instance, for reasons already mentioned in this thread.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You posted 2 responses to the other debate while not posting any here... I was worried you were going to ignore my question.

I see no harm in giving police discretion.  We do that all the time.  Improper start from a red light; running a yellow light; tailgating; driving too fast in adverse road conditions.

All of those are discretion left up to the officer.  And all of those are reviewable by a judge.  I don't hear cries of mass police abuse of discretion.  I think a warning is absolutely unnecessary.

Furthermore, I fail to see why flashing of high beams should be used over excessive use.  Having high beams on when it is not necessary is a traffic hazard.  If you're driving with your high beams left on, and there are cars around, you should be ticketed.  It's a hazard, plain and simple.

[ZuWo]

Indeed, I don't consider it a problem at all that this bill leaves certain things up to a police officer's discretion. As Inks made clear with several examples, this is the case in numerous situations that can arise when you are on the street. "Wiggle room" for police officers is okay. It's their duty to assess certain situations in an accurate way and I think we can trust them to do their job right.