Ontario recently passed a distracted driving law, effective oct 26 police can fine drives caught using electronic device in their vehicles, this include cellphones, ipods, gps units, cd/dvd players
TORONTO, Oct. 28 /CNW/ -
NEWS
Ontario is proposing a ban on the use of hand-held devices to talk, text
or e-mail while driving.
Under a bill to be introduced this afternoon, police would be able to
charge drivers who use a hand-held cell phone, send email or text messages, or
use other hand-held electronic devices while driving. The use of hands-free
devices would be permitted.
Emergency calls, such as 911, would not be affected.
Transport Canada estimates that driver distraction is a contributing
factor in about 20 per cent of all collisions. Drivers who use cell phones are
four times more likely to be in a crash than a driver who is focused on the
road.
QUOTES
"We know these new technologies have created some tremendous
conveniences, but we know something else: deep down, we all know it is
dangerous to use them while driving," said Transportation Minister Jim Bradley
"Distracted driving is one of today's most serious road safety issues,"
said Insurance Bureau of Canada Ontario Vice-President, Don Forgeron. "With high-tech distractions like cell phones and MP3 players
becoming increasingly common, it's getting harder for drivers to focus on the
task of driving."
- Under the proposed legislation, drivers who continue to text, type,
email, dial, or chat using a prohibited hand-held device could face
fines of up to $500.
i can however continue to eat 3 meals a day behind the wheel with no problem
@farmerman,
Quote: Taking kids away from parents who act criminally irresponsible is the key .
You have failed to explain how this helps anything.
It is extremely unlikely that the remaining kids of these "criminally irresponsible" parents are in any risk. Not only was the death of this girl a statistical improbability anyway, the fact that the other kids are now being watched takes away any real danger.
Given that taking kids away from their family is so traumatic, whatever benefit (whether deterrence or vengeance) is greatly outweighed by the objective best interest of the kids.
But I thought you were suggesting something more generic-- where all kids of certain targeted religions would be preemptively removed to stop any of them from dying.
@ebrown p,
Quote:It is extremely unlikely that the remaining kids of these "criminally irresponsible" parents are in any risk. Not only was the death of this girl a statistical improbability anyway, the fact that the other kids are now being watched takes away any real danger.
Bullshit. Her death was a statistical probability, given her condition and the lack of rational care. Influenza could kill these children if they are not properly treated and develop pneumonia, which is what most often kills people who contract influenza.
You're just insanely fanatical about the right of religious idiots to treat their children as chattels.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Taking kids away from parents who act criminally irresponsible is the key .
IMO, the difficulty is determining what constitutes "criminally irresponsible".
There are plenty of parents who do not get their kids vaccinated, and not out of religious convictions. (I've heard several misguided ideas ranging from Autism fears to the idea that other kids are vaccinated so they don't need to subject their children to the small risks involved in a vaccination.)
All of these anti-vaccination people are putting their kids, and my kids, at higher risks of dangerous childhood diseases.
If a kid gets whooping cough and dies, should that be considered "criminally irresponsible"? Where do you draw the line?
