Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro
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'
I have seen many of your posts in the off topic forum, and for the most part there is validity to the points you make.
But you’re only fooling yourself if you actually believe what you just wrote there.
Maybe you should re read it to yourself a few times. Then go do your research and see if your opinion changes. There is a very good reason why this law was put in place. It wasn’t cause the government was looking for a new avenue for profit. There are many ways they could accomplish that.
I for one support it. If you get caught texting in stop and go traffic, who is to say you wouldn’t later get comfortable with the idea and start texting at speed, or possibly on the Hwy one day, or maybe rolling down a street at a 40km/h crawl, and some young kid runs out from behind a car, but your nose is too buried in a text to notice (which you could have responded to 10 to 15mins later when you reach your destination, or just pull over if its that urgent) and you end that kids life, or turn them into a quadriplegic leaving the family with a life time of dependency, or the loss of a child.