Police officer does everything right to stop a knife wielding madman
21 - 40 of 94 Posts
Joined
·
12,888 Posts
There are plenty of hard surfaced roads in neighborhoods and arterial roads between built up areas.
Why do you feel that there shouldn't be restrictions on pedestrians on high speed roadways?
Should they be allowed to walk upon railway tracks as well since there's no way they'll knock a train off its wheels?
Joined
·
9,362 Posts
what authority do you, Fallshirmjager, have to prohibit me from doing things that you consider pre-crimes?
Someone walking on the side of the interstate does not harm anyone else or their property. End of story as far as I'm concerned.
I still don't see how it endangers you.
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
FYI-
Most U.S. States with low population densities commonly permit bicycle use on interstate freeways outside urban areas.
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Idaho
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Texas
- Utah
- Washington
- Wyoming
- California
- Colorado
- Florida
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
I say we grant special permits to any person whom can walk, jog, run, or cycle at a minimum of 40 mph without falling below that pace access limited user access freeways. Such persons will also have to have proper lighting, signals, and have paid their taxes to use such road and display payment of tax in the form of a current state issued tag.
Would you tell the owner of a private tollway that prohibits pedestrians that you are responsible for your own safety? Would you tell the owner of a private tollway that you do not have to have safety equipment to use their tollway if they require it of you?
Would you tell the owner of a private tollway that prohibits pedestrians that you are responsible for your own safety? Would you tell the owner of a private tollway that you do not have to have safety equipment to use their tollway if they require it of you?
Joined
·
21,257 Posts
You walk on the side of the interstate. You run of out of water and faint or trip or move toward the travel lane to avoid a roadkill animal.
Because of that you fall, step or whatever into my lane. I hit you and lose control causing injury to me. Or I see you step out real close in front of me, avoid you and lose control causing injury to me.
Thats how it endangers me. Keep your hoofing backside off the shoulder and out of the road. Walk along down in the high grass just on the other side of the fence but not on the (#&*&*# highway shoulder.
Nemo
Joined
·
30,348 Posts
If you (society, per laws made by our elected representatives) let people walk along interstate highways, you'll have teenagers dribbling basketballs while they walk, occasionally losing control of said balls and letting them bounce out into traffic. You'll have little toddlers walking with their parents. People will bring their pets, and not always on a leash ( EJR and Phaed wouldn't want those statist leash laws either). Pets will dash out into traffic. On a regular street this would just mean the animal becomes roadkill. But on the interstate highway with people going 80 miles an hour, tailgating each other like they do all the time in Atlanta, this would mean a multi car high speed rack with rollovers and fires and big loss of life.
Joined
·
8,506 Posts
I love all the wild speculation used to justify enforcement against people molesting their own business. You do realize people could toss dynamite from their car windows. Our randomly shoot at passing motorists. Better prohibit guns in cars and more than one person at a time on the freeway. And absolutely no carts on overpasses.
Guys, either a person has committed a crime or they have not. One cannot be guilty of whatever nonsense you can dream up.
Guys, either a person has committed a crime or they have not. One cannot be guilty of whatever nonsense you can dream up.
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Do you see a difference in the two that would exclude discussion about private motorways?
Joined
·
12,888 Posts
Stop molesting me, you pervert!!
Tossing dynamite is illegal.
Shooting at passing motorists is illegal.
... and walking on limited access roadways or riding a bicycle, tricycle, pair of rollerblades, and horse drawn carts is illegal.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be illegal. That's a silly argument.
Joined
·
12,888 Posts
But in this case, it's not illegal just because its illegal, it's illegal for a very good reason - safety of pedestrians and motorists.
One may note that pedestrians, bicyclists, handcarts, horse drawn carts, horses, and scooters are allowed on surface streets but not limited access ones, care to give it a thought as to why?
One may note that pedestrians, bicyclists, handcarts, horse drawn carts, horses, and scooters are allowed on surface streets but not limited access ones, care to give it a thought as to why?
The only good reason for anything to be illegal is because it directly harms someone or their property. Walking along the side of the interstate does neither. The fact that a pedestrian could possibly decide to just throw themselves into traffic is no different than the fact that you could decide to just jerk the steering wheel and smash into the car next to you. The pedestrian is facing far greater danger. The government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.
Joined
·
8,506 Posts
^^ This.
No. Just as the things I cited, it's illegal because of wild speculation about what might possibly happen.
Joined
·
9,362 Posts
basically, some of you guys support mala in se laws only, and some support the existence of mala prohibita laws in addition to them.
even back when i did support the concept of rule of law, i found mala prohibita very difficult to defend. i see that hasn't changed.
btw, still waiting on you to answer this question Falls...
even back when i did support the concept of rule of law, i found mala prohibita very difficult to defend. i see that hasn't changed.
btw, still waiting on you to answer this question Falls...
Joined
·
12,888 Posts
By your reasoning then, there should be no laws mandating that cars only drive on the right side of the roadway as no one is being 'harmed' unless and until two cars crash into each other. But that's not the way it works, is it? Nope.
By your reasoning, there's no reason that boats should be prohibited inside the orange buoy's at Lake Lanier's dam because no one's being 'hurt' by their presence there.
By your reasoning, there's no reason why pedestrians shouldn't occupy the entire land of a roadway instead of being forced to walk on sidewalks on on the verge.
By your reasoning, there's no reason to obtain a driving license, nor a private pilot's license because 'no one's being hurt' by your driving or piloting unless you decide to just smash into oncoming traffic or aircraft.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but there are plenty of laws passed by the people (as represented by their government) with the sole purpose of keeping people from harming themselves. The lack of court decisions rescinding said laws says plenty about their Constitutionality and the role of government.
Tell me this though, if "the government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves" does the same also apply to manufacturers?
Should there be a warning not to use pistol powders when loading shotgun shells?
Should there warnings that high voltage wires are behind certain doors?
Should there be warnings that some lakes and inland waters in Florida harbor alligators?
.... or should it be left up to the consumer as it's 'not someone's place'?
Right, those laws shouldn't exist either. Do you need a law to tell you which side of the road to drive on? If traffic laws ceased to exist today, would you start driving on the left side of the road? People don't need the law to tell them how to live every little aspect of their lives. People would not just lose their minds and start acting irrationally in the absence of law.
The "that's the way it's always been" argument doesn't make it right or mean that's how it should be. I could care less what is Constitutional and what isn't. The Constitution is just a piece of paper as far as I'm concerned. We don't need a Constitution to tell us not to harm people and their property. All the Constitution does is give far too much power to government.
As far as your point about manufacturers, they should be able to do whatever the heck they want to do. If they're putting out dangerous products and misleading people they're not going to be in business very long. They have a natural incentive to protect their customers, otherwise they're going to run out of customers fast.
21 - 40 of 94 Posts
