[thefreak]

Originally Posted by kartikkumar

I've been following this thread for a while to get a measure of people's reactions to the enforcement of a law.

Parallel arguments of emergencies, business calls, etc, are just that...arguments that one uses to justify one's actions.

Hmm.. well that is not how I see it. I am all for laws. I have never knowingly broken a law. I can proudly say that I have never taken a call when driving. Ever. Either it has been pull aside and take a call or return the call at home.

I am against illogical laws. I choose to share my views. In a democracy I have that option.

Originally Posted by kartikkumar

Think about it guys. Its not just about mobile phones and driving, it is about learning to respect the law and follow it, moving towards a more orderly society.

Silly laws arent the way to orderly society mate. The laws have to be sensible.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by kartikkumar

Think about it guys. Its not just about mobile phones and driving, it is about learning to respect the law and follow it, moving towards a more orderly society.

Originally Posted by thefreak

I am against illogical laws. I choose to share my views.
....
Silly laws arent the way to orderly society mate. The laws have to be sensible.

The problem is: Who decides whether a law is silly or illogical?
What then is the next step?
Each citizen has the privilege to have his views on it.
BUT, do you have the liberty to NOT follow a law because you disagree with it?
How then is the nation to be governed? If each citizen CHOOSES the laws that are 'sensible' and worth following, and does not follow other laws that are 'silly', where does that take us?

There is a system to enact laws and to review and amend existing ones. Is that not the only logical course to follow?
And once, after due process, a set of laws is enacted or in place, no country allows citizens room for personal evaluations regarding the 'merit' of them and whether they need to be followed. You simply have to live by the law of the land.

And this is where we, as a nation, seem to run into a problem.

Most of us 'know' better than the 'powers that be'.

Many of us follow only the laws that each of us has decided are 'sensible' laws.
There is no need to follow silly laws. There is even less need to follow 'illogical' laws.
And of course, some of us are more equal than others.


Is it at all possible that these attitudes might, just might, be holding us back from being an orderly society and a super-power?

[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by kartikkumar

Think about it guys. Its not just about mobile phones and driving, it is about learning to respect the law and follow it, moving towards a more orderly society.
Cheers!

Sure we should respect the laws of land, but we should also remember that we are living in a democratic society and not a 15th century monarchy. Laws are made by representatives of people in order to benefit a vast majority of people. There would be debate before something is made into a law and one is not expected to seek court for redress. In a sane country, before any law is mandated the opinion of subject matter experts is sought. A proposal is drafted and made public for people to debate it. Based on the outcome of debate, the draft is amended and put in for vote. The elected bodies then make a decision on it based on the feedback they get from their constituencies and/or from independent analysts. Then the proposal is made into a law and people are expected to respect it or challenge in court. For simple issues like traffic rules, you do not need to go through such a lengthy process. The rule makers usually go by statistics, scientific studies, road conditions, economic fall outs etc and then a traffic rule is passed. People are given sufficient warning too.

Now tell me if any of these are followed in India. We make laws on the whims and fancy of the law makers. Example: When helmet rule was imposed in Hyderabad, the traffic police issued standards that have to be adhered for helmet makers. Now the beat constable or a traffic cop are faced with the problem of verifying that the helmet a motorist is wearing adheres to the safety standards. The police commissioner had a brain wave that all helmets that meet the standards should be painted white. The idea is that a cop can recognize it from a distance and all non-white helmets are presumed to be unsafe and fined. Unfortunately the comissioned never knew that people can buy white paint from stores and some other people may not like to wear white helmets in a polluted city.... but then when was the last time people's opinion was taken into consideration?

[thefreak]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Example: When helmet rule was imposed in Hyderabad, the traffic police issued standards that have to be adhered for helmet makers. Now the beat constable or a traffic cop are faced with the problem of verifying that the helmet a motorist is wearing adheres to the safety standards. The police commissioner had a brain wave that all helmets that meet the standards should be painted white. The idea is that a cop can recognize it from a distance and all non-white helmets are presumed to be unsafe and fined. Unfortunately the comissioned never knew that people can buy white paint from stores and some other people may not like to wear white helmets in a polluted city...

Reaction 1:
Reaction 2:

Man what a law! I love this!

Illogical laws at their very best. But we should/have to follow them.

The problem is: Who decides whether a law is silly or illogical?
What then is the next step?
Each citizen has the privilege to have his views on it.
BUT, do you have the liberty to NOT follow a law because you disagree with it?
How then is the nation to be governed? If each citizen CHOOSES the laws that are 'sensible' and worth following, and does not follow other laws that are 'silly', where does that take us

No mate. If the law is framed we have to follow it. Doesnt mean that the law becomes sensible or we are not allowed to be grumpy about it.

[normally_crazy]

One more question - why are only people in 4 wheelers subject to this scrutiny ?

What about those morons who ride a bike with a mobile phone tucked away between the helmet and their ear ? I have one such moron in my factory and after eating his brains day and night about his silly act - he finally went and fot a bluetooth handsfree. phew !!

And worse are those idiots who just ride in the fast lane at 20 kmph with their heads tilted on one side yakking away oblivious to the traffic and the stress they cause to other road users.

[thefreak]

@normally

I travel everyday on the Gurgaon Faridabad road and there is not a single day which passes when I do not see atleast 2 accidents here. Twists and turns, no lights and no dividers. Dangerous road. And a fellow was riding a bike and typing a SMS!! Can you beat him at stupidity?

There are some laws which are not enforceable. For example switch off the mobile in car law. Do the cops check every car? Imagine the traffic jams. A person can have a mobile in his pocket and how does the policeman find this out? They don't.

[amit]

Here is an interesting statstic that the cops, media and people in general are conviniantly ignoring.

For years we have been hearing about how "rich brats driving swanky cars" under influence of alcohal mow down poor people on our roads. Then, after the Carter Road incident, the cops went into overdrive against drunk driving to stop rich drunk brats from repeating what happened at Carter Road.

The cops themselves say that almost 70% of drunk drivers are two wheeler riders.

Yesterday, I was at the Telecom factory signal at Chembur at 9.20 AM. On the opposite side of the road, all vehicles were waiting at the red light when a white ambassador with red lights on top driven by a guy in uniform coolly drove through. Mind you the sirens were not blaring so the guy was not on duty. Too bad I didn't have a camera or video cam ready to shoot. It's time we installed video cams in our cars like cops abroad. So why wasn't that guy and his boss jailed for rash driving? There was no cop at the signal but even if there was, all he would have done is saluted the car as it drove past him.

[diabloo]

People can't give up talking on mobile phone. They can't miss that important call just because they are on the move. Also they can't break the law now.
So, after this new rule, the demand for drivers will go up. People will hire drivers, let them drive and still talk on mobile phone.

Do you also think demand for drivers will shoot up after this law?

[anupmathur]

No.
_________________

[nirav_j]

Originally Posted by thefreak

I am against illogical laws. I choose to share my views. In a democracy I have that option.

Silly laws arent the way to orderly society mate. The laws have to be sensible.

if that was the case ,,, that all laws have to be sensible for an orderly society ,, then i guess the US would never be an orderly society nor a developed country ....

they have *many many* silly laws .. this one is just an example of the many

Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have blue laws, old laws, and just plain weird laws!

Law Summary

A law to reduce crime states: “It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town.

Why does this law exist?

This law was set up to cub an ever increasing crime rate in the area. Due to its sheer stupidity, however, it is needless to say that the law has affected nothing.