MA: Common Courtesy While Driving Act (Vetoed)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've said, I can't find any other jurisdiction who gives out one warning before issuing a ticket.  $100 is not a huge fine.  I think this is entirely reasonable.  I think it's absurd to say that you could be blasting your horn for no reason and a cop has no authority to issue a ticket.  A cop is always able to give only a warning if he wants.  Mandating the warning just doesn't make sense here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And since we just had a debate on this, I'm going to forgo the usual 24-hour debate on amendments.  We haven't had debate recently, and the last debate was regarding the subject of this amendment.  So, voting on my amendment is now open.  Members will vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[tmthforu94]

The text of this leaves a lot open to interpretation, especially with the high beams clause. How can we determine when it is necessary to have them on? I think a warning is fair with the way this bill is written - often if you've had a clean record and have never been stopped, officers often issue verbal and written warnings - I don't see why it couldn't be included for these items as well.

[Talleyrand]

I echo Governor Tmthforu94's sentiments. For those reasons and others I stated when I first suggested the amendment, I will not vote to remove the warning system.

NAY

[Gass3268]

Nay

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The text of this leaves a lot open to interpretation, especially with the high beams clause. How can we determine when it is necessary to have them on? I think a warning is fair with the way this bill is written - often if you've had a clean record and have never been stopped, officers often issue verbal and written warnings - I don't see why it couldn't be included for these items as well.

If a cop can see that your a driver's high beams are on, they shouldn't be on... because it's a hazard to other drivers.

Yes, if you have a clean record, officers often issue warnings; however, it's AT THEIR DISCRETION.  This bill completely removes discretion and tells the officer that they have to issue a warning.  Someone could be completely obnoxious, honking their horn, flashing their high beams and making faces at some poor old woman, and all the cop can do is give a warning?  No jurisdiction has such a relaxed law.

We already trust police officers with discretion in instances of driving too fast for conditions.  Should we mandate warnings there too?

[ZuWo]

Aye

[Lumine]

Taking some of the conflicting positions (and before I cast my vote), I think that the problem here is the lack of specific references. And since it looks like it will be a big problem to interpretate the Amendment in the right way, I have some basic doubts:

Speaker Inks mentioned that we leave situations like driving too fast to the discretion of a police officer, but I wonder if that's actually specified or it's a mere interpretation of the attributions that a police officer should have. If it was an interpretation, that would require more thought on the Act, but in the case it is specified, perhaps we should change the Amendment to something like this (it's just a mere example, forgive me if I'm wrong):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would something like that solve the problem with the Act?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm fine with Lumine's language, but keep in mind that the effect of Lumine's language and my language is exactly the same.

[Lumine]

Aye, then.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 2.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment has passed.  The bill now reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

I ask once again that this amendment be considered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Give me an example of a time that "turning on high beams when it is not necessary to do so" could lead to a ticket that "excessive flashing of high beams when it is not necessary to do so" would not be able to.

[tmthforu94]

Give me an example of a time that "turning on high beams when it is not necessary to do so" could lead to a ticket that "excessive flashing of high beams when it is not necessary to do so" would not be able to.

Upon reflection, most of the time, flashing the lights only occurs when someone else has their brights on, so I have amended it to completely remove high beams. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Inks.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well then I cannot sponsor this amendment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Seeing no further debate, the bill, in the following form, is brought to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Gass3268]

Nay

[ZuWo]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Lumine]

I don't like the idea of an amendment passing on a 3-2 vote, but since I was planning to support this from the beginning, Aye.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 2.  The AYEs have it, and the bill has passed.  The bill is now passed onto the Governor for his signature or veto.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I motion to override the veto.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

[ZuWo]

I cast a symbolic AYE