lrd (12/09/82)
The following items are quoted from a column in the January, 1983 issue of CYCLE GUIDE magazine, that reports on current or pending legislation of interest to motorcylists (and motorists in general). "Pennsylvania is considering adopting a law which has all the spirit of Nathanial Hawthorne and the Scarlet Letter. SB1561 proposes that motorists convicted of driving under the influence be issued special license plates, thereby marking them as transgressors. Standard colors for Penn- sylvania plates are yellow with dark blue letters; con- victed offenders would get red plates with yellow letters, the same colors that Hester Prine was forced to wear." "The use of radar detectors no longer is illegal in Michigan. A recent Supreme Court decision in that state has overturned a 1929 statute that state troopers had cited as grounds for confiscating detectors. The 54- year-old law prohibited listening in on 'police radio' bands; the troopers were loosely interpreting that to include radar. The Supreme Court didn't agree." "New Jersey is the latest state to propose legislation against the use of stereophonic headphones while operating a motor vehicle. New Jersey's bill, AB 1750, goes one step further, however, and would also ban headphone use by pedestrians -- if they're on public roads. Punishment would be the same -- whether on foot or on wheels; $75 for a first offense and $100 thereafter." Comment: I hope the Michigan action is used as a precedent for similar action in the other states that ban the use of detectors. If I were a resident of either Pennsylvania or New Jersey, I would certainly let my legislative representatives know that I wanted them to support the proposed bills -- particularly the Pennsylvania action! I wonder if I should be wearing an asbestos suit -- I think I feel a flame or two coming my way... L. R. DuBroff Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois
mark (12/09/82)
Oh really? You think it should be a $75 fine for a pedestrian or driver to wear headphones? Boy, I'd like to see the Supreme Court handle that one! If you outlaw headphones for drivers, you had better outlaw all radios that can drown out road noise, all luxury cars with such good sound deadening that you can cut a diamond in the back, and you also had better make it illegal for deaf people to drive.
jls (12/11/82)
What do they propose to do in Pennsylvania when the person driving under the influence doesn't own a car? Also suppose that the person caught does own the car but others in the family frequently drive it. With the different colored plates, the wrong people get tagged with the "under the influence" label when they drive the car. There are probably other problems with the idea.
hsc (12/14/82)
Pedestrians can change direction AWFUL fast. I get nervous passing them, and generally tap my horn before I go by if there's any chance they don't notice me and might cut in my path. I would be unhappy if the pedestrian was wearing earphones (do I swing wide and chance hitting an oncoming car? do I cruise up at 5 mph and display a sign that says "EXCUSE ME"?). It's not fair that automobile drivers can have heavy soundproofing and 100-watt stereos, but so what? I hit a kid once (just some light bruises, and the court ruled it wasn't my fault); anything that will reduce the chance of hitting another is OK with me. I have enough to do looking out for cars; I don't want to impair the little guys' ability to look out for me. Harvey S. Cohen BTL-LZ1C314 (201)576-6059 houxn!hsc Lincroft, NJ (ABI 1/1/83)
laura (12/14/82)
I think that any car driven by a person "under the influence" should get the fancy plates. Who knows -- maybe the people who will drink and drive as a means of "thumbing their nose" at police and "the establishment" in general will quake at the thought of risking the wrath of their parents or spouses. I figure that after 10 years or so, an offending car might be awarded "normal" licence plates. Of course, how many cars do you know that last ten years? Laura Creighton decvax!utzoo!laura
burris (12/15/82)
#R:utzoo:-268900:ihlpb:4100005: 0:127 ihlpb!burris Dec 14 12:34:00 1982 As in gun legislation - Cars do not commit crimes against society, PEOPLE DO!!!!! Dave Burris ihopa!burris BTL - Naperville
laura (12/17/82)
The simple solution posted here is also unworkable because it is difficult to really count the cost of a drunk driving offense. Recently, two people were killed in an accident when their car was sideswiped by a drunk truck driver. They both worked for the same company and in fact were half of the entire programming staff. After their deaths, the company found that it could not train new people fast enough to maintain their preliminary attempt to computerise. Net loss for the company, 12K. So they dropped their computer efforts, canned the third member of the three man computer team, and went back to contracting their programming out to "experts". Six months later, they had to lay off some of their non-technical staff to offset the costs which they could not cover. They claimed the "cost of computing required" as their reason to fire otherwise acceptible employees. Still no relief. The end result was that they suspended their Toronto division and now only work in Montreal and Vancouver. It was bad planning for the company to sink so much resources and rely so heavily on the three man programming staff, sure, but I believe that they could build a reasonable case for suing the truck driver for a net loss which is now in the hundreds of thousands. Drunk drivers kill wonderful, useful, productive people. We all pay the cost. When is the real cost of drunk driving going to be considered? Laura Creighton decvax!utzoo!laura p.s. the truck driver received a $500 fine and a three month license suspension. (maybe a $250 fine -- I forget). The cost of one of the funerals (required shipping the body to West Germany) was nearly $500, and the victims families were not compensated. It was a first offense for the truck driver.