<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today&#8217;s Lawbreaking Driving &#8216;Tard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/</link>
	<description>Lizard people dude. Seriously.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:54:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Mason</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21969</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Mason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21969</guid>
		<description>Cephyn -- I agree with you that talking on cell phones while driving, regardless of whether the driver is holding the phone or not, is distracting and potentially dangerous.  However, I do think that holding the phone to one&#039;s ear is more dangerous, because then the driver cannot even have both hands on the wheel.  Apparently, the legislature thought so too.

It&#039;s also a big question whether it makes sense to ban some actions behind the wheel like driving while holding &amp; talking on the phone, but not other potentially distracting actions like eating burgers, fiddling with the radio, applying makeup, reading the newspaper, etc.  I was going to write a separate post about that.  Where do you draw the line? Some people apparently think that the law should simply punish &quot;unsafe&quot; or &quot;inattentive&quot; driving evidenced by weaving, drifting into other lanes, etc., regardless of the cause, and not discriminate against specific activities.

Nevertheless, the law is the law.  The legislature and the Governor decided, after a deliberative (and yes, political) process, to ban non-hands-free cell phoning while driving.  Those were our elected representatives.  If people think it&#039;s a stupid law, they can lobby to change the law and/or vote in new, smarter representatives.  I know that bloggers are free thinkers, but the idea of letting individuals decide which laws to follow and which laws to break while driving on public roads scares me more than having this dumb law which can always be changed if it&#039;s really that dumb and ineffective.  I wouldn&#039;t feel too safe if drivers could decide for themselves to disobey traffic lights and drunk driving laws, or if they could just ram or shoot people in front of them at intersections if they felt like the person wasn&#039;t starting up fast enough.  More importantly, that&#039;s just not the way our legal and political system works.

The other issue is enforcement.  It&#039;s arguably easier to enforce laws banning specific activities like the cell phone law rather than some soft standard such as &quot;driving while inattentive.&quot;  But that raises the issue of why some activities are banned and not others, and whether banning more activities gets us too far toward a Big Brother or nanny state.

I am interested to see whether drivers obey and the police enforce the new cell phone law.  If they do not, then perhaps you will agree with me that a law with no credibility, obeyance, or enforcement behind it is worse than not having the law in place at all.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cephyn &#8212; I agree with you that talking on cell phones while driving, regardless of whether the driver is holding the phone or not, is distracting and potentially dangerous.  However, I do think that holding the phone to one&#8217;s ear is more dangerous, because then the driver cannot even have both hands on the wheel.  Apparently, the legislature thought so too.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also a big question whether it makes sense to ban some actions behind the wheel like driving while holding &amp; talking on the phone, but not other potentially distracting actions like eating burgers, fiddling with the radio, applying makeup, reading the newspaper, etc.  I was going to write a separate post about that.  Where do you draw the line? Some people apparently think that the law should simply punish &#8220;unsafe&#8221; or &#8220;inattentive&#8221; driving evidenced by weaving, drifting into other lanes, etc., regardless of the cause, and not discriminate against specific activities.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the law is the law.  The legislature and the Governor decided, after a deliberative (and yes, political) process, to ban non-hands-free cell phoning while driving.  Those were our elected representatives.  If people think it&#8217;s a stupid law, they can lobby to change the law and/or vote in new, smarter representatives.  I know that bloggers are free thinkers, but the idea of letting individuals decide which laws to follow and which laws to break while driving on public roads scares me more than having this dumb law which can always be changed if it&#8217;s really that dumb and ineffective.  I wouldn&#8217;t feel too safe if drivers could decide for themselves to disobey traffic lights and drunk driving laws, or if they could just ram or shoot people in front of them at intersections if they felt like the person wasn&#8217;t starting up fast enough.  More importantly, that&#8217;s just not the way our legal and political system works.</p>
<p>The other issue is enforcement.  It&#8217;s arguably easier to enforce laws banning specific activities like the cell phone law rather than some soft standard such as &#8220;driving while inattentive.&#8221;  But that raises the issue of why some activities are banned and not others, and whether banning more activities gets us too far toward a Big Brother or nanny state.</p>
<p>I am interested to see whether drivers obey and the police enforce the new cell phone law.  If they do not, then perhaps you will agree with me that a law with no credibility, obeyance, or enforcement behind it is worse than not having the law in place at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cephyn</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21968</link>
		<dc:creator>cephyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21968</guid>
		<description>What a waste of all of our time. The law is ridiculous - holding a phone and talking into it isn&#039;t the problem, its TALKING INTO A PHONE that&#039;s the problem. Hands-free devices do absolutely nothing to make the driver more alert. They&#039;re just as distracted as when they hold the phone to their ear.

Way to support a stupid law. Congratulations - you&#039;ve bought into the ridiculous.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a waste of all of our time. The law is ridiculous &#8211; holding a phone and talking into it isn&#8217;t the problem, its TALKING INTO A PHONE that&#8217;s the problem. Hands-free devices do absolutely nothing to make the driver more alert. They&#8217;re just as distracted as when they hold the phone to their ear.</p>
<p>Way to support a stupid law. Congratulations &#8211; you&#8217;ve bought into the ridiculous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is Huffing While Driving a Reportable Offense? &#124; Los Angeles Metblogs</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21967</link>
		<dc:creator>Is Huffing While Driving a Reportable Offense? &#124; Los Angeles Metblogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:38:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21967</guid>
		<description>[...] I wrote a post about a young female driverillegally holding her cell phone up to her ear and talking on it while driving, without using a [...]

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I wrote a post about a young female driverillegally holding her cell phone up to her ear and talking on it while driving, without using a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wilberfan</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21966</link>
		<dc:creator>wilberfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21966</guid>
		<description>Matt, I&#039;m with you on this one.  I almost photographed a woman at a red light this afternoon doing a similar thing, only she was being a little sneakier:  Holding her cell in her left hand--but at chest height (using the speaker function).   Still chatting away one-handed (and hence, distracted).

I&#039;ve never considered willful violations of safety-oriented laws &quot;petty&quot;.  Red-light-runners, speeders...the deliberate disregard of safety issues for no other reason than personal convenience seems worthy of mention.

Plus, let&#039;s be honest, it feels good to have a place to bitch about it.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, I&#8217;m with you on this one.  I almost photographed a woman at a red light this afternoon doing a similar thing, only she was being a little sneakier:  Holding her cell in her left hand&#8211;but at chest height (using the speaker function).   Still chatting away one-handed (and hence, distracted).</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never considered willful violations of safety-oriented laws &#8220;petty&#8221;.  Red-light-runners, speeders&#8230;the deliberate disregard of safety issues for no other reason than personal convenience seems worthy of mention.</p>
<p>Plus, let&#8217;s be honest, it feels good to have a place to bitch about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ecryder</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21965</link>
		<dc:creator>ecryder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21965</guid>
		<description>lol at the thought of a citizen police blotter blog...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lol at the thought of a citizen police blotter blog&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bromike666</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21964</link>
		<dc:creator>bromike666</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21964</guid>
		<description>The real crime is the color of that ugly pos.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real crime is the color of that ugly pos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neilgavigan</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21963</link>
		<dc:creator>neilgavigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21963</guid>
		<description>Photog here as well so Im aware of the legality of this. You are perfectly within your rights to post this picture but the paparazzi argument is a little thin. A celebrity has a much lower expectation of privacy than say a random 16 year old in a car due to their higher public profile. This is why you can sell a picture of Britney so the papers and not pay her a cent, but youd have to pay me for the same thing (though I don&#039;t know what magazine would pay you for my mug). This is also much different than posting pictures of poorly parked cars (which I find amusing and much more in the spirit of this site) With the car there is essentially no identifying elements there (unless you have personalized plates but then it&#039;s still a long shot to put a face with the car).

I&#039;m not concerned with the &quot;pissy moany&quot; aspect of this post, as that would describe almost half of the posts on LA Metblogs. That&#039;s a reason Ive read this blog so long, because I relate. Nor am I a &quot;hater&quot; because I am  looking for a civilized discourse on these issues. I am just averse to the use of this blog to &quot;shame&quot; people. Regular readers and commenters on any blog site feel at least a small amount of pride and ownership about being part of a community. Like it or not LA Metblogs is a high profile public space and many members of this community could feel ashamed or offended at being associated with this public &quot;shaming&quot;.

If you want to take her picture and send to the cops, I&#039;m all for it. You want to tell her what you think, that&#039;s great. Paying the proper price for breaking the law is one thing, and the scarlet letter treatment is quite another.

And yes, as it is often pointed out on every blog &quot;you don&#039;t have to read it&quot; so I guess I just won&#039;t. Cant wait to skip over all the citizen police posts about people who play in the park after sundown, smoke cigarettes on the beach, and water their grass between before 7pm.

In all seriousness I hate nobody but in fact respect every writer on this site for keeping me informed, entertained and in the loop.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Photog here as well so Im aware of the legality of this. You are perfectly within your rights to post this picture but the paparazzi argument is a little thin. A celebrity has a much lower expectation of privacy than say a random 16 year old in a car due to their higher public profile. This is why you can sell a picture of Britney so the papers and not pay her a cent, but youd have to pay me for the same thing (though I don&#8217;t know what magazine would pay you for my mug). This is also much different than posting pictures of poorly parked cars (which I find amusing and much more in the spirit of this site) With the car there is essentially no identifying elements there (unless you have personalized plates but then it&#8217;s still a long shot to put a face with the car).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not concerned with the &#8220;pissy moany&#8221; aspect of this post, as that would describe almost half of the posts on LA Metblogs. That&#8217;s a reason Ive read this blog so long, because I relate. Nor am I a &#8220;hater&#8221; because I am  looking for a civilized discourse on these issues. I am just averse to the use of this blog to &#8220;shame&#8221; people. Regular readers and commenters on any blog site feel at least a small amount of pride and ownership about being part of a community. Like it or not LA Metblogs is a high profile public space and many members of this community could feel ashamed or offended at being associated with this public &#8220;shaming&#8221;.</p>
<p>If you want to take her picture and send to the cops, I&#8217;m all for it. You want to tell her what you think, that&#8217;s great. Paying the proper price for breaking the law is one thing, and the scarlet letter treatment is quite another.</p>
<p>And yes, as it is often pointed out on every blog &#8220;you don&#8217;t have to read it&#8221; so I guess I just won&#8217;t. Cant wait to skip over all the citizen police posts about people who play in the park after sundown, smoke cigarettes on the beach, and water their grass between before 7pm.</p>
<p>In all seriousness I hate nobody but in fact respect every writer on this site for keeping me informed, entertained and in the loop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frazgo</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21962</link>
		<dc:creator>frazgo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:39:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21962</guid>
		<description>Matt has his first haters.  You are now officially one of us posting here Matt.  I remember my first attack as well...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt has his first haters.  You are now officially one of us posting here Matt.  I remember my first attack as well&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WILL•I•AM CAMPBELL</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21961</link>
		<dc:creator>WILL•I•AM CAMPBELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:07:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21961</guid>
		<description>I love that people fail to see the irony when they get all &quot;pissy moany&quot; about what they deem is &quot;pissy moany.&quot;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love that people fail to see the irony when they get all &#8220;pissy moany&#8221; about what they deem is &#8220;pissy moany.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Burns!</title>
		<link>http://blogging.la/2008/08/15/todays-lawbreaking-driving-tard/comment-page-1/#comment-21960</link>
		<dc:creator>Burns!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.metblogs.com/?p=13932#comment-21960</guid>
		<description>The photographers rights issue has already been addressed, but c&#039;mon...she&#039;s breaking the law in a public space *and* endangering the public safety.  Are you really that concerned with posting her image without permission, or just looking for another point to nit-pick? Who&#039;s whining now? As Matt said above, if these types of posts don&#039;t interest you, there are plenty of others here at b.LA.

As a Los Angeles motorcycle rider who has had more than one recent brush with death due to some &#039;tard more involved their phone conversation than with safely piloting their 2-ton block of speeding metal, I appreciate Matt&#039;s attempt at shaming someone to do the right thing. And I like reading about it here. If he gets only one of these a-holes to think about what they&#039;re doing, even if only for the few minutes they can still see him in traffic, that might be the few minutes that save my life.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The photographers rights issue has already been addressed, but c&#8217;mon&#8230;she&#8217;s breaking the law in a public space *and* endangering the public safety.  Are you really that concerned with posting her image without permission, or just looking for another point to nit-pick? Who&#8217;s whining now? As Matt said above, if these types of posts don&#8217;t interest you, there are plenty of others here at b.LA.</p>
<p>As a Los Angeles motorcycle rider who has had more than one recent brush with death due to some &#8216;tard more involved their phone conversation than with safely piloting their 2-ton block of speeding metal, I appreciate Matt&#8217;s attempt at shaming someone to do the right thing. And I like reading about it here. If he gets only one of these a-holes to think about what they&#8217;re doing, even if only for the few minutes they can still see him in traffic, that might be the few minutes that save my life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

