Next time you get pulled over by a copper for a speeding ticket, a seat belt violation, or any other victimless crime, ask the office, "Who is the injured party?" If they say say something like "The State/Province of ________" tell them "The State/Province of _______ doesn't exist. _________ state/province exists." Ask them if you were to call The State/Province of _______ to the stand, who would show up.

Post results.

Next time you get pulled over by a copper for a speeding ticket, a seat belt violation, or any other victimless crime, ask the office, "Who is the injured party?" If they say say something like "The State/Province of ________" tell them "The State/Province of _______ doesn't exist. _________ state/province exists." Ask them if you were to call The State/Province of _______ to the stand, who would show up.

Post results.

The (A)DA represents the people (state/country).

A fictional entity cannot be injured.

Yeah, OK. Try that. See what happens.

A fictional entity cannot be injured.

By driving to fast / Driving dangerously you endanger the lives of other, "the people". Since we can't have 400.000.000 people in one courtroom complaining about your driving, the judicial system where the ADA represents the people is called into action.

Not wearing a seatbelt however, that is a matter of discussion since it only concerns your own safety. One could speculate however that the party injured in this case is yourself and therefor the people prosecute because you are injuring a member of the people it represents, you yourself.

The "you must wear a seatbelt" law is bs. you only hurt yourself. And Driving "too fast" at night when no1 else is on the road shouldnt be illegal, because once again no1 is there to be injured but yourself

The "you must wear a seatbelt" law is bs. you only hurt yourself. And Driving "too fast" at night when no1 else is on the road shouldnt be illegal, because once again no1 is there to be injured but yourself

how can you guarantee there is no one else around that could be injured? and the cost to the state, should you injure yourself...

Not wearing a seatbelt however, that is a matter of discussion since it only concerns your own safety. One could speculate however that the party injured in this case is yourself and therefor the people prosecute because you are injuring a member of the people it represents, you yourself.

I do think seatbelt laws are going too far, they're a personal choice (no-brainers, but it's not the governments business). However, you should also consider that, given tens of thousands of car accidents occur each year, a lack of seatbealt causes profound injury, and that almost 1 in 3 americans is without health coverage, lots of people are going to get hurt, and the state will have to pick up their medical bills. That gets passed on to The People in the form of taxes, and puts a strain on medical resources.

You've never watched Law and Order have you?

"The people of ______ vs. ______"

For fucks sake.

DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

If I were driving without a seatbelt, and hit a phone pole, I could fly out of my windshield and hit a passerby. What about that?

The "you must wear a seatbelt" law is bs. you only hurt yourself. And Driving "too fast" at night when no1 else is on the road shouldnt be illegal, because once again no1 is there to be injured but yourself

You can easily bounce around and injure other people in the car or pass through the windshield and hurt someone.

I'm not saying its right for driving without a seat belt to be illegal, but at the very least if you get into an accident your (or their) insurance shouldn't cover you for any injuries you encounter.

A lot of laws like no driving while drunk, no driving while on your cell, you must wear a seatbelt, no speeding, ect. Well, they don't actually prevent people from engaging in those activities. If they don't stop people anyways, then they shouldn't be illegal. But lets say you were driving drunk and got into a crash that was your fault; insurance shouldn't cover you whatsoever and if you hurt someone you should be charged criminally because you chose to endanger them.

If you're swerving all over the road and endangering people because you're drunk, then you should be charged accordingly. But if you're simply speeding and still able to exert a reasonable and standard amount of control over your vehicle, well then it shouldn't matter if you're high on meth with an infant in the back or that you were even speeding in the first place.

----------

The other thing that pisses me off about driving laws is special laws that target minors. One of the main problems with these laws is that the people who can vote don't care because it doesn't effect them. Well I can vote and I still care because they are so fucked up its insane.

In Massachusetts a single speeding ticket if you're under 18 means losing your license for 6 months, paying $1000 in fines, taking a course on road rage, and then retaking your driving test to see if you can get it back.

The important thing isn't that the law is so harsh, its that it only target minors, not all new drivers. Surely a 17 year old that drove every day for the last 18 months is a better driver than an 18 year old who just got his license a week ago.

I can personally recall many friends who didn't even bother getting their licenses until they turned 18. In Massachusetts now you have to go to 35 hours worth of classes, perform 10 hours of driving lessons, 10 hours of observation, and 30 something hours of supervised driving. Its not hard to believe that people will just wait a year and get their license, especially when you live in the city.

So now you're punishing people with more experience and who attended all of these classes and driving lessons more than the people who slacked off and got their license late. If you're going to make an insanely harsh law like that, it should target ALL new drivers, not just the young ones. So why doesn't that happen? Because the people who vote don't care how harsh the law is when it doesn't effect them. Only the defenseless get punished.

This post is longer than I planned. Driving laws piss me off.

I hope they put up speed cameras in my city so I can personally go around smashing them in with a bat.

The "you must wear a seatbelt" law is bs. you only hurt yourself. And Driving "too fast" at night when no1 else is on the road shouldnt be illegal, because once again no1 is there to be injured but yourself

You can easily bounce around and injure other people in the car or pass through the windshield and hurt someone.

I'm not saying its right for driving without a seat belt to be illegal, but at the very least if you get into an accident your (or their) insurance shouldn't cover you for any injuries you encounter.

A lot of laws like no driving while drunk, no driving while on your cell, you must wear a seatbelt, no speeding, ect. Well, they don't actually prevent people from engaging in those activities. If they don't stop people anyways, then they shouldn't be illegal. But lets say you were driving drunk and got into a crash that was your fault; insurance shouldn't cover you whatsoever and if you hurt someone you should be charged criminally because you chose to endanger them.

If you're swerving all over the road and endangering people because you're drunk, then you should be charged accordingly. But if you're simply speeding and still able to exert a reasonable and standard amount of control over your vehicle, well then it shouldn't matter if you're high on meth with an infant in the back or that you were even speeding in the first place.

----------

The other thing that pisses me off about driving laws is special laws that target minors. One of the main problems with these laws is that the people who can vote don't care because it doesn't effect them. Well I can vote and I still care because they are so fucked up its insane.

In Massachusetts a single speeding ticket if you're under 18 means losing your license for 6 months, paying $1000 in fines, taking a course on road rage, and then retaking your driving test to see if you can get it back.

The important thing isn't that the law is so harsh, its that it only target minors, not all new drivers. Surely a 17 year old that drove every day for the last 18 months is a better driver than an 18 year old who just got his license a week ago.

I can personally recall many friends who didn't even bother getting their licenses until they turned 18. In Massachusetts now you have to go to 35 hours worth of classes, perform 10 hours of driving lessons, 10 hours of observation, and 30 something hours of supervised driving. Its not hard to believe that people will just wait a year and get their license, especially when you live in the city.

So now you're punishing people with more experience and who attended all of these classes and driving lessons more than the people who slacked off and got their license late. If you're going to make an insanely harsh law like that, it should target ALL new drivers, not just the young ones. So why doesn't that happen? Because the people who vote don't care how harsh the law is when it doesn't effect them. Only the defenseless get punished.

This post is longer than I planned. Driving laws piss me off.

If I were driving without a seatbelt, and hit a phone pole, I could fly out of my windshield and hit a passerby. What about that?

Yeah, it pisses me off as well that Niko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niko_Bellic#Niko_Bellic) won't wear a seatbelt.

I can personally recall many friends who didn't even bother getting their licenses until they turned 18. In Massachusetts now you have to go to 35 hours worth of classes, perform 10 hours of driving lessons, 10 hours of observation, and 30 something hours of supervised driving. Its not hard to believe that people will just wait a year and get their license, especially when you live in the city.


Having to take more hours of classes than of practical driving experience is stupid.

Over here learners are mandated 120 hours of supervised practice including something like 10 at night.

You can't learn how to drive from a book.

Yeah, it pisses me off as well that Niko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niko_Bellic#Niko_Bellic) won't wear a seatbelt.

I luled a little bit.

Over here learners are mandated 120 hours of supervised practice including something like 10 at night.

Now that is stupid. How the fuck is someone supposed to get 120 hours of practice. I doubt i had 20 hours of practice when I got my N(It's sort of like I can drive, but only with one friend and a 0.00 bac).

Now that is stupid. How the fuck is someone supposed to get 120 hours of practice. I doubt i had 20 hours of practice when I got my N(It's sort of like I can drive, but only with one friend and a 0.00 bac).

No idea, but it will make you safer.

Yes,but still that's a lot of supervised driving.

Also, the 5 or 6 hours I spent with an instructor>120 hours with my mom.