An awl is a long pointed instrument. Hence it can also be used to inflict as little or as much pain as the user who wields it sees fit.
And if law can be so vague as be rejuggled to read as awl, the effect is the same.
Driving on the phone isn't dangerous
I would like to know if Joyce is right, because that makes the specific case cited very different and pretty clear cut.
I have Bluetooth handsfree, on the presumption that it is 'legal'. But I have to confess that I don't think my attention to driving is a good compared to without. Obviously. So it is, at the very least 'more dangerous'. However, the same can be said for having a passenger in conversation. Maybe even worse as one tends to glance across. So one gets into areas of relativity and practicality.
Hence I merely respond, in agreement, only to the point you make: 'Either hands-free phones are legal to use or they are not.'
I have major concerns with this, and a lot of other driving-related 'laws'... AND others across every aspect of one's existence in this blighted isle, where there are way too many grey areas of definition that somehow can get escalated to perfect clarity to impose fines and/or prosecutions if the authorities feel so disposed.
It used to be 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I'm sorry, but if the law is incapable of making itself clear such that the law-abiding can know how to obey it... THAT is inexcusable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.