So you pay your taxes, how nice. Show me in the Constitution where you have the RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. I'll wait. Can't find it? That's because it's not there. You have a right to freedom of travel, but NOT by any means you deem fit and in any manner you choose.
I'm curious, exactly what traffic laws do you support, if any? So far as I can tell, you don't want any. That's not going to end well. Of course, on your own property you can do what you like, no license, insurance, speed limits etc., have fun.
Rules of the road make sense for those that are inclined to follow the law.
Post up a speed limit and people will generally stay within a reasonable approximation.
Dont have any limit that generally law abiding person is going to drive above his skill set and mayhem will ensue.
So some basic rules of the road that when followed will generally make for a better commuting experience make sense - move right, dont tailgate, drive at a reasonable speed to match the skills of the average driver (sure our highways are engineered for higher speeds but our driver training is not), make safe lane changes.
Sadly these things are tailored to the lowest common denominator even though a general population exceeds that standard.
Still there are enough LCDs that every commuter day on the road would be a nightmare.
When I think of crashes I dont think of the effect of the person that caused it. I think of the effect on the perhaps thousands of commuters perhaps inconvenienced by it. Consider the economic impact of three thousand commuters late to work by fifteen minutes because of a no injury left lane tailgating accident. That is a real cost impact that would far exceed the property damage but no one ever talks about it.
Im more against laws that "layer" upon already existing laws.
So cell phone use is becoming a popular cite-able offense.
Creation of the law to me seems to be purely political grandstanding - "Look how much we care" - and revenue producing - how the fuck did the insurance company get its camel nose under the tent?
For the higher number of people that seem to multi task and operate both a MV and a phone why are they at risk?
How about instead of citing based on purely cell phone use the officer uses the law already on the books "Negligent Operation" as evidenced by the fact you created a crash using your phone instead of driving.
Seems kind of hypocritical for a PO to cite someone for cell phone useage as talk about distracting Im guessing cops have to monitor a radio, perhaps two, a scanner, they use a computer, they enter information in the computer and because they are exempt while on duty they can use their phone. If anyone is distracted Id say its a cop.