Originally Posted by Blackedout95
You are right, being a man is so 1800's, now we feel the right to not have to answer for our actions, minor or not. I mean screw it, maybe when I see you Ill give your car a love tap and flee the scene, no need to man up or take respondsibility. Where is the line exactly when one must be a man? Thank god it isn't up to the last couple generations. Maybe just maybe if people took respondsibility they would think twice next time... sad world.
how one can equate looking at a phone in near grid lock (same difficulty level as changing a radio station) which is a statute/reg to a actual Crime 'fleeing an accident) which caused Actual property damage & possibly Injuries is beyond me. its kinda like 'reefer madness' type thinking imo.
see: one is victimless crime with a profit driven motive to suck money out of already over taxed people. the other one has actual property damage & possible injury to people. the end game of your logic is that to keep us safe we must ban driving! or have the gov watch us drive with a 100K p/year beaurocrat intently watching our every action with that in cabin cctv, ready to assume control at any moment to keep us all 'safe'
Officer on cell phone rear ends car
A senior Vancouver police officer who rear-ended a car while using his cell phone has been issued a ticket for distracted driving.
Deputy Chief Constable Warren Lemcke, head of the Vancouver Police Departmentís investigation division, was making a "work-related call" January 4 when the traffic in front of him stopped abruptly.
Constable Lemcke was looking down at his phone and by the time he realized the car ahead of him wasn't moving, it was too late to avoid a collision, reports the Globe and Mail.
No one was seriously injured, and the car Cst. Lemcke struck was able to drive away. His cruiser, however, had to be towed.