When it comes to the topic of texting while driving, most of us will readily agree that it is dangerous to the safety of oneself and others. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of whether texting while driving should be illegal or not. Whereas some are convinced that driving and texting is a safe mixture. I believe driving while texting should be illegal because it distracts the driver from keeping themselves and others safe. It has been argued that texting while driving should not be banned because it is just as distracting as eating, putting on make-up, or listening to music while driving.
While to most of the people outside of New Mexico this action was progressive, loopholes were still found with this aggressive legislature. A person could simply claim a hardship which would allow them not to have the ignition interlock device installed or simply declare that they don’t own a vehicle. This same person could drive on a suspended or revoke license which shows the inefficiencies of the judicial system. One of the criteria used to judge impaired driving is the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). In the U.S. to be considered an impaired driver, the BAC level is .08 to .10 (depending on which state you live in), while in other countries; the BAC is .05 to .08.
The correlation principle states if two or more different people attempt, or succeed in an act, but their outcomes are clearly very different, those people should not all be punished in the same way. Husak's argument using the correlation principle was the most persuasive part of his article. The correlation principle is very helpful in proving that drunk driving is not as serious of an offense as many people make it out to be. His argument using the principle is also very easy to understand and agree with since it does correlate well with the people who are getting in trouble for drinking and driving by bringing up the fact that not everyone is the same, even though the government treats everyone similarly. Different people tolerate alcohol in different ways.
And hopefully, once seeing how cruel and real life can be, people can acknowledge the idea that the PSA brings and will convince them to be more careful while driving. Thus, leading to less accidents. On the other hand, there are many cases where teenagers or adults are driving using cell phones, or any other distractions, and this does not result in an accident for them. And some people may argue that the PSA is fake, and that it may mean nothing to them because they don’t know the people it happened to. I know there are many
After reading the article it almost made it sound as if the author thought most of the drinking done by police officers were because of the police culture. Many citizens have drinking problems and no one blames the company they work for or the culture they are from for it. One possibility is that they had a drinking problem before becoming a police officer. If police officer were the only one who had a drinking problem we would not have as many people driving around with the driving under the influence tags on their
This method helps the children to know how to behave with alcohol and also does not give them the urge to sneak around and act a fool with alcohol. The third reason is that traffic accidents and deaths will occur no matter what the legal drinking age is. There are many adults over 21 that get DUI’s or that have been in accidents. It is due to being irresponsible with the alcohol age may have nothing to do with it. The fourth reason is if the drinking age was lowered it would make drinking more of a social, normal, and casual thing.
They would have more years of practice, be street smart and even be more prepared for driving later on in life in case of an emergancy where the adult is not able to drive. They could also learn to be more independent and be less likely to misuse their driving privilege. Also, Drunk drivers are the main reasons for car accidents. If you want to save innocent souls, make the punishment for DUI higher. Experience is what makes a driver good, not the age they get their permit or license.
I think it should not be lowered because there is already enough accident with drinking and driving, let alone being 18 and not making the right decisions. If the legal drinking age was dropped down I think the increase in accident will go up because since your 18 you will think that just because you had a couple of sips its okay to go out and drive. Another reason the legal drinking age shouldnt be lowered is because of peer pressure in our society today. Most of the things teens do that could get them in to serious trouble is because of peer pressure. Peer pressure is the leading cause of most incidents today.
According to the Insurance Information Institute, insurers also consider local trends such as number of accidents and car thefts in areas where customers live. State Sen. Tim carpenter stated, “I don’t think good drivers should have to pay extra because other parts of the zip code, which could be miles away, may have higher crime rates or more irresponsible drivers. My bill will make sure that auto insurance premiums will be based upon the driver’s record, the years experience a driver has behind the wheel, and the miles driven, not by there zip codes.” With this new law premiums must be low enough that people can afford them and don’t end up and break the law. (Gores.1&2) Drivers in Milwaukee pay on average $1,044 in 2010, up from $979 in 2001. To people in Milwaukee, this new law is unfair.
There are some things that the government implements that are good for our country such as licensing people to drive and use other heavy machinery. There are even some bans that help the majority of our citizens like narcotics and alcohol for minors. However there is a line between control for our safety and control because the government thins its moral. One protects and nurtures the citizens the other confines and stunts them. That is why the job is to protect against internal threats not decide what is moral.