MA: Return to Normalcy Act (Failed)

[PPT Spiral]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mechaman

[PPT Spiral]

For everybody's reference, this is the law that the bill seeks to repeal.

I support this. If a full repeal wouldn't pass, then I would of course be open to modifying some parts of the law instead.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm fine with removing the cell phone provisions. I will veto it if it passes with the seat belt provisions removed, however.

[tmthforu94]

I am strongly opposed to removing Clause 3.

[Mechaman]

For everybody's reference, this is the law that the bill seeks to repeal.

I support this. If a full repeal wouldn't pass, then I would of course be open to modifying some parts of the law instead.

Indeed.

Whatever happens, we need to at least get rid of Clause 2.  I will not stand for any law that mandates that there are places where an Atlasian citizen's right to speech is not allowed.

While the law does have good intentions I must comment that at the end of the day not wearing your seatbelt is a victimless crime.  Sure, if you get in a wreck you are boned, but again let me stress that we as a society should be scared of legislation like this that forces common sense on people.  There are already laws that require all automobiles to have seat belts.  Use them.  Further, I find it a bit too daddy-statist to have the government mandate that any child up to six years of age sit in a "government approved" child seat or face penalties.  Some children grow up much faster than others and having a six year old sit in a freaking baby's chair is just well a joke.

I could possibly compromise for a "child's seat" law lowering the max age to 4 and reducing the penalties to $50 (though again, let me stress my strong reluctance to having the words "government approved" in determining what makes a high quality car seat).  However, I strongly oppose any efforts to force grown up adult Atlasians to wear seat belts while driving.

[tmthforu94]

How would you feel about a height or weight requirement instead?

[Mechaman]

How would you feel about a height or weight requirement instead?

That might work.

My main concern was about the mental impact on a child's development.

[Cassius]

Of course, should Clause 2 of this bill be repealed, then quite a number of people will have their right to free speech severely curtailed, on account of them being severely maimed or dead. Clause 2 is a common sense measure designed to reduce the likelihood of people utilising mobiles in cars, which, as I can attest to, are extremely distracting and cause people to make needless errors.

I must say, this just seems another one of those poorly thought through 'freederms' bills, where the main argument utilised in support is, you guessed it, 'mah freederms'. Of course, I've always felt that the concept of freedom to be a rather superfluous one is it leads to you crashing your car into another car or ramming it into the side of a tree. We need to keep the roads safe, and this can be done at least partially through the maintenance of a legal code of conduct as shown here.

I would say, however, that Tmthforu's proposal with regards to safety seats is a common sense one, and should be implemented.

[Hifly]

I support refining clause 3 to introduce a weight requirement as opposed to an age requirement.
I do not support removing clauses 1 or 2. It's dangerous.

[Mechaman]

Of course, should Clause 2 of this bill be repealed, then quite a number of people will have their right to free speech severely curtailed, on account of them being severely maimed or dead. Clause 2 is a common sense measure designed to reduce the likelihood of people utilising mobiles in cars, which, as I can attest to, are extremely distracting and cause people to make needless errors.

I must say, this just seems another one of those poorly thought through 'freederms' bills, where the main argument utilised in support is, you guessed it, 'mah freederms'. Of course, I've always felt that the concept of freedom to be a rather superfluous one is it leads to you crashing your car into another car or ramming it into the side of a tree. We need to keep the roads safe, and this can be done at least partially through the maintenance of a legal code of conduct as shown here.

I would say, however, that Tmthforu's proposal with regards to safety seats is a common sense one, and should be implemented.

I would say the idea that using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous and commonplace to require legislation to address it is a dangerous one.  Likewise, it implies that there is a degree more danger to talking on a cellphone, the action of having one hand up against your ear while also looking both ways and other common sense driving tactics apply to other actions that one might do in a car. . . .  like driving around with full blast metal music, having a chair in your car that blocks the "blind spots" of your car, or having more than one person in your vehicle.  I can say, especially in the case of the latter, there is just as much if not more of a danger associated with it than talking on your cell phone in traffic.

Don't believe me?  You try driving a thousand miles with your sister-inlaw and telling me it isn't a factor.

So, should we ban driving with your inlaws too?  Since that would inevitably take away somebody's freedom of speech because they might get killed by your car or they just won't shut the hell up?

Of course, in this kind of culture where people prefer to blame inanimate objects over their own stupidity, I am not surprised this is the first argument the Reich Wing resorts to.  I'll compromise on this bill, but I will never buy this flawed "anythings fault but mine!" logic sold to us by the Federalists of this region.  We should hold bad drivers accountable for being bad drivers, nothing more and nothing less.

[Mechaman]

I support refining clause 3 to introduce a weight requirement as opposed to an age requirement.
I do not support removing clauses 1 or 2. It's dangerous.

Yes, because people are just dying to not wear their seat belts, despite decades of research and public information television telling them that it's generally a dumb focking idea to drive around without it on.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Of course, should Clause 2 of this bill be repealed, then quite a number of people will have their right to free speech severely curtailed, on account of them being severely maimed or dead. Clause 2 is a common sense measure designed to reduce the likelihood of people utilising mobiles in cars, which, as I can attest to, are extremely distracting and cause people to make needless errors.

I must say, this just seems another one of those poorly thought through 'freederms' bills, where the main argument utilised in support is, you guessed it, 'mah freederms'. Of course, I've always felt that the concept of freedom to be a rather superfluous one is it leads to you crashing your car into another car or ramming it into the side of a tree. We need to keep the roads safe, and this can be done at least partially through the maintenance of a legal code of conduct as shown here.

Mmm. Texting while driving is indeed dangerous. It seems intuitive to think that bans on texting while driving would help protect public safety.

That hasn't been the case so far, however. Several states have banned texting while driving, and the results haven't been fruitful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

Well-intentioned and common-sense enough, sure. However, the statistics and implications haven't borne out any positive gains from bans in the same vein as Clause 2. Why is that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

In other words, these prohibitions make would-be texters hold their phones lower, divert their eyes from the road even more, and actually make drivers less safe.

Or uh, as you'd understand it, "freederms."

With regard to the child safety seats it should be reformed to account for height and weight as opposed to age - I can try and look into the matter a bit further.

[PPT Spiral]

This will now head to a final vote lasting up to 72 hours. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[PPT Spiral]

Aye

[Mechaman]

Aye

[PPT Spiral]

This bill has passed with 2 votes in the affirmative.

[Mechaman]

I intend to override TJ's veto.

[Hifly]

That is impossible so I shall not open a vote on it.

[PPT Spiral]

A vote to override Governor TJ's veto will go on for the next 48 hours.

[PPT Spiral]

Aye

[Hifly]

Nay

[Hifly]

The override has failed.

[Mechaman]

Aye

The override has failed.

Again this means nothing.

[PPT Spiral]

The Assembly has failed to override the Governor's veto.