New Law - No Mad Driving.

[Technosoul]

I would like to propose a new law that makes it unlawful to drive when upset with anger or resentment or any kind of emotional hostilty..

I believe it is as or more dangerous to drive when mad then while feeling a little sleepy, In both cases you should not be behind the wheel on a public street.

Anger is like a drug because it can change you consciousness so that you think in ways that are not rational and safe, it can even cause you to speed up and take dangerous chances. We must get them mad drivers off the road, so that we can cut down amoung other thing the accidents where innocent people are hurt and to reduce road rage.

The police do not currently have a method to test people for their emotional status but they know a hostle person when they see one because they deal with people all day long and must make those kinds of judgements when confronting possible suspects. Like if they see someone giving another driver the bird then ' they get a ticket' for driving while mad. Makes sense to me.

Do you agree with such a new law?

[Osborn F Enready]

No.

Unenforceable, useless, and would have little to no effect of measure.

Most road rage would decline dramaticly if slow drivers simply merged into the TRAVEL LANE, and avoided driving in the PASSING LANE, or they allowed faster drivers to pass.

[The Dunedan]

Horrid idea, even worse than your usual offerings.

Not only does this give cops yet another toy to abuse (Asset Forfeiture, anyone?) it brings an absurd level of subjectivity into Law Enforcement.

And it's the confluence of these two traits that make this such a dreadful idea. Why? Here's an example.

Dunedan is driving down the road. Like every other car on the road at the moment, Dunedan is doing about 10mph over the speed limit. Dunedan, however, "gets lucky" and gets stopped by a police officer. Now, as we all know, Dunedan is an Asshole Reactionary Libertarian Prick, who dislikes cops rather intensely. Dunedan is, therefore, going to be a little peeved about being stopped.

At this point, one of two things will probably happen:

1: The cop, noting Dunedan's polite (but clearly aggravated) tone, decides that Dunedan is driving-while-angry and writes him a ticket. Since there's no way to prove a negative "I wasn't driving mad, yeronner, I got mad after I was stopped!" and it's a cop's word against a Prole, the ticket will stand.

2: The cop, seeing and disliking Dunedan's insufficiantly-servile attitude, cites him for driving-while-angry. Since there's no way to prove a negative "I wasn't driving mad, yeronner, I got mad after I was stopped!" and it's a cop's word against a Prole, the ticket will stand.

Given the propensity of American police to taze, beat, threaten, and torture those with whom they have some "beef," the meat in question usually arising from the Subject's insufficiant deference to the whims of the State and its' agents, I'm confident in saying that any such law -would- be abused, it would be abused with obscene frequency, and it would lead to further troubles down the line.

[insanegloss]

While i understand your point for the law, its just not practically enforceable. Simply because how do you quantify how much anger constitutes the law enforcing?

[Slevin57]

Well if there is scientific evidence that supports your claim, perhaps I would be inclined to agree.

[insanegloss]

There is no scientific evidence for my claim. Because it cannot exist without it being pseudo-science. Anger in itself is simply subjective, and thus cannot be measured in relative or absolute terms as a strict science would require. In order to measure it as such would require a benchmark of anger. Such a thing cannot exist, as it is a subjective point.

[ZNFYRH]

Technosoul

I'd like to offer more constructive response to your proposal.

The problem is that this is up there with drinking and driving, or driving while drowsy... you won't be able to charge someone with it unless they're already doing it.

Then you have to check on how to prove it.

If cops see someone driving with road rage, that alone is an offense. There is no need to test them further.

This suggests, then, that they would be pulling people over because they seem to be driving angry. Then they would have to do a pulse check and blood pressure check... which isn't accurate because both would increase if the person was nervous about being pulled over.

Basically, there is no accurate forensic way to determine if someone is angry or just upset or even very happy. Not unless they are stupid enough to "admit" it, either through words or through road rage.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: If cops see someone driving with road rage, that alone is an offense. There is no need to test them further.

What if a policeman sees a driver with road-rage, and right in front of that guy with road-rage are two cars on a two lane highway pacing each other for miles on end?

Is that a clear-cut case?
What if the guy with road-rage is behing these two other vehicles trying to rush his wife to the hospital with a stroke, or compound fracture, pregnancy?

Road Rage is most often caused by people abusing the laws of the lanes.

[WindWip]

Hahahaha.. oh man that's a good one techno. So tell me, how would an officer decide if a person was angry? Check their heartrate? Maybe they could see if you have that angry look in your eyes.

'Your headlights were busted - only a 10 dollar fix-it ticket. Wait... sir, are you angry? Oh shit you've got them angry eyes! That's going to be another 200 and some road rage courses.'

[DEEJ85]

One thing that hasn't even been considered yet is why being angry behind the wheel should be an offense. It is possible for someone to feel strong emotions such as anger and still drive according to the law. I could be angry as heck and still drive just fine. the OP seems to be putting the negative effects of alcohol which are involuntary outside of control of the person onto anger which has negative effects which can be controlled and stamped out with effort. If someone cannot control the negative effects of anger then that person needs to get help, Which is the whole point of why there are such thing as anger management courses.

To reiterate: Alcohol is a drug which causes intoxication which is outside the control of the person who is intoxicated, Anger is something that can be handled, lessened and even stamped out by anyone who has self control. Anger doesn't directly cause unsafe driving.

Also as mentioned earlier, how would you determine or measure what an unsafe level of anger is? If you have 8 anger points you can get ticketed? There is no use of measurement that you can deduce to see how angry a person is, unless you ask them assuming they will tell the truth. As it was mentioned earlier it would be entirely subjective to what the police officer thinks, perhaps he has had a bad day.

Anger in itself is not bad, its the bad choices and actions people make that is the problem. Anger can be an influence, but most of us learn as small children that it is not ok to do something out of anger.

[WindWip]

Quote by: DEEJ85 One thing that hasn't even been considered yet is why being angry behind the wheel should be an offense. It is possible for someone to feel strong emotions such as anger and still drive according to the law. I could be angry as heck and still drive just fine. the OP seems to be putting the negative effects of alcohol which are involuntary outside of control of the person onto anger which has negative effects which can be controlled and stamped out with effort. If someone cannot control the negative effects of anger then that person needs to get help, Which is the whole point of why there are such thing as anger management courses. To reiterate: Alcohol is a drug which causes intoxication which is outside the control of the person who is intoxicated, Anger is something that can be handled, lessened and even stamped out by anyone who has self control. Anger doesn't directly cause unsafe driving.

I disagree. Anger can definitely directly cause unsafe driving. For example, your girlfriend of 3 years sleeps with your dad and your best friend. You go for a ride. Your mind is not on the road at all. From my experience, a person who is very angry will drive much faster than normal. I've seen angry drivers grip the steering wheel until their knuckles turn white and slam on the gas so much that they are nearly skidding around corners simply because they are angry. Road rage for example, you get pissed at a driver who cut you off and then slowed down, so you slam on the gas and try to cut them off. It is possible to control your anger, but people often let it get the better of them.

Same thing for drunks. You can act sober if you try (note I said 'act' not 'be'). If you really concentrate you can drive just fine depending on the number of drinks and your tolerance, the problem is that most people don't concentrate or they get distracted (easy to do when drunk).

The difference is that drunkenness is a self-induced state, while anger often is caused by others.

Also as mentioned earlier, how would you determine or measure what an unsafe level of anger is? If you have 8 anger points you can get ticketed?

No way, 6 anger points and they haul you off to jail. 8 and they gun you down.

[Madeline]

Quote by: Technosoul I would like to propose a new law that makes it unlawful to drive when upset with anger or resentment or any kind of emotional hostilty.. I believe it is as or more dangerous to drive when mad then while feeling a little sleepy, In both cases you should not be behind the wheel on a public street. Anger is like a drug because it can change you consciousness so that you think in ways that are not rational and safe, it can even cause you to speed up and take dangerous chances. We must get them mad drivers off the road, so that we can cut down amoung other thing the accidents where innocent people are hurt and to reduce road rage. The police do not currently have a method to test people for their emotional status but they know a hostle person when they see one because they deal with people all day long and must make those kinds of judgements when confronting possible suspects. Like if they see someone giving another driver the bird then ' they get a ticket' for driving while mad. Makes sense to me. Do you agree with such a new law?

There's road rage left and right in the city I live in. If that law were to be passed, I'd say that most people would be walking -- or riding bikes.

Love,
Madeline

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No. Unenforceable, useless, and would have little to no effect of measure. Most road rage would decline dramaticly if slow drivers simply merged into the TRAVEL LANE, and avoided driving in the PASSING LANE, or they allowed faster drivers to pass.

Sounds like you are a mad driver at times. Prepare for the tickets.

[Epistemologist]

Since there seem to be practicality issues in enforcement of this law, perhaps punishment shouldn't be the priority; they should work for prevention. So what they do?

Maybe replace all the advertisements and billboards that litter the streets with happy signs, with maybe smiley faces, bunnies, flowers, and inspirational quotes. Or maybe have a mini-circus on the side of the road near traffic jams. Or an ice cream truck.

Yeah, instead of state and local governments wasting money on sidewalks that no one ever uses and retarring roads for hardly any better effect, they can fund free ice cream for people in traffic jams. But then maybe lactose intolerant people would be mad. Ah, then let them cake.

The point is, though, that these governments are extravagantly wasteful, thinking their money is coming from nowhere; they're stupid to some degree. Why not attack the problem at its stem?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Dunedan Horrid idea, even worse than your usual offerings. Not only does this give cops yet another toy to abuse (Asset Forfeiture, anyone?) it brings an absurd level of subjectivity into Law Enforcement. And it's the confluence of these two traits that make this such a dreadful idea. Why? Here's an example. Dunedan is driving down the road. Like every other car on the road at the moment, Dunedan is doing about 10mph over the speed limit. Dunedan, however, "gets lucky" and gets stopped by a police officer. Now, as we all know, Dunedan is an Asshole Reactionary Libertarian Prick, who dislikes cops rather intensely. Dunedan is, therefore, going to be a little peeved about being stopped. At this point, one of two things will probably happen: 1: The cop, noting Dunedan's polite (but clearly aggravated) tone, decides that Dunedan is driving-while-angry and writes him a ticket. Since there's no way to prove a negative "I wasn't driving mad, yeronner, I got mad after I was stopped!" and it's a cop's word against a Prole, the ticket will stand. 2: The cop, seeing and disliking Dunedan's insufficiantly-servile attitude, cites him for driving-while-angry. Since there's no way to prove a negative "I wasn't driving mad, yeronner, I got mad after I was stopped!" and it's a cop's word against a Prole, the ticket will stand. Given the propensity of American police to taze, beat, threaten, and torture those with whom they have some "beef," the meat in question usually arising from the Subject's insufficiant deference to the whims of the State and its' agents, I'm confident in saying that any such law -would- be abused, it would be abused with obscene frequency, and it would lead to further troubles down the line.

Cops cannot lawfully abuse their authority and you can sue them if you feel your rights were violated unjustly via the improper use of force.

You can take the ticket to court and tell the judge that you got mad after being stopped and was not mad while driving, then the officer would need to present proof why he observed you driving in a hostle way. You might win that case I would think. Good luck.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: insanegloss While i understand your point for the law, its just not practically enforceable. Simply because how do you quantify how much anger constitutes the law enforcing?

When a cop is making an arrest how can he judge if the suspects hostility is enough to warrent a baton? He knows because he is trained to make those kinds of judgments and because of his experience dealing with situations. (assuming he is acting in a professional manner).

However "how much" is not part of the law. It is not like testing the blood to see how much beer you drank. If the anger is observed to be effecting how you dirve then that is enough to warrent getting pulled over.

A automoble is concidered the same as a deadly weapon when in motion and should not be used to express one's bad attitudes of hostility.

The main purpose of the law is to bring awareness to the fact that hostle driving is unsafe and represents a danger to others on the road. It set a standard so that everyone will know that such driving habits are un-acceptable in society.

Don't drive after drinking. Do not drive while distracted by yakking on a cell phone. Don't dirve when you feel sleepy. Don't drive when you feel mad at the world. Common sense standards that the laws should encourage "in the book". Needless to say if you ran over someone twice because you were mad at that person then you could get busted for murder. That would be one of the more extreme examples of driving when mad. When driving it is best to be cool, calm, and collected, and paying attention and being polite.

Many laws are not easy to enforce in every case because of the difficulty for the officers to know if or if not the suspect is in violation. So no doubt only the worse and most apparent offenders would be pulled over. But how it can be enforced in not the topic nor my problem.... I am only for making the law and leaving the rest for the authorities to find a way to adopt it's enforcements. I think it should be on the books as a law because driving in a hostle way is dangerous and some people are too stupid to know it.... if it is the law then they will know.

People who are out-of-control with anger need controlling and that is why we hire the police with our taxes to make our streets more secure for us normal people. For our children... for our kitty cats who also cross the streets, and because of our flag waving right to pursue driving while happy (without some rude person violating the right to pursue our happy Sunday drive with the family). How about that?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn What if a policeman sees a driver with road-rage, and right in front of that guy with road-rage are two cars on a two lane highway pacing each other for miles on end? Is that a clear-cut case?

Neither car is breaking the law. The person with road-rage is in violation.

Quote by: Osborn What if the guy with road-rage is behing these two other vehicles trying to rush his wife to the hospital with a stroke, or compound fracture, pregnancy?

Then the guy wouldn't be charged with road rage.

Quote by: Osborn Road Rage is most often caused by people abusing the laws of the lanes.

I don't doubt that.

But that doesn't mean excuses are permissible. Driving 10 MPH faster saves less than 9 seconds per mile. The reason road rage is illegal is because that person, for whatever reason, is posing a risk to other drivers.

Usually for 9 seconds per mile.

[grandpa]

This is a bad idea for all kinds of reasons, including the one Os provided: It's not even enforceable. How do you measure people's anger?

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Neither car is breaking the law. The person with road-rage is in violation.

WRONG. There are lane laws in the United States that ARE NOT ENFORCED, which is WHY WE HAVE ROAD RAGE.

Do you have a license? Do you NOT know the laws of the lanes?

ZNYFRH said: Then the guy wouldn't be charged with road rage.

Yea, that'll show'em. Maybe he will even refuse to stop, placing his wifes life above the intrests of the "traffic cop" behind him, and then they can have a full scale high speed pursuit and endanger even more innocent people...... great idea of justice.

ZNYFRH said: I don't doubt that. But that doesn't mean excuses are permissible. Driving 10 MPH faster saves less than 9 seconds per mile. The reason road rage is illegal is because that person, for whatever reason, is posing a risk to other drivers. Usually for 9 seconds per mile.

MY POINT IS, there are already laws created that would help QUELL Road Rage, and the laws aren't being enforced, as with most laws in the nation because the cops have TOO MANY laws to attempt to enforce.

Technosouls answer? LETS MAKE MORE LAWS!

Brilliant.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn WRONG. There are lane laws in the United States that ARE NOT ENFORCED, which is WHY WE HAVE ROAD RAGE. Do you have a license? Do you NOT know the laws of the lanes?

Those laws are determined by the state. I do have a license, and I do know the laws in my state. Perhaps you could cite something specific instead of all-capping a rebuttal with nothing to back it up?

Quote by: Osborn Yea, that'll show'em. Maybe he will even refuse to stop, placing his wifes life above the intrests of the "traffic cop" behind him, and then they can have a full scale high speed pursuit and endanger even more innocent people...... great idea of justice.

Don't confuse awareness with agreement.

I know it wouldn't be road rage, but that doesn't mean I think it's "just" for a person to drive like a maniac with an injured person in the back. That's what ambulances are for.

I was simply letting you know that the person would not be charged with road rage.

Quote by: Osborn MY POINT IS, there are already laws created that would help QUELL Road Rage

What laws are there to quell a state of mind?