Other Resources My Cup of Joe » "Crotches Kill" ad campaign Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2013-02-26 6:20 PM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Seattle
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
bcraht - 2013-02-24 8:43 PM

This cracked me up--I hope it helps with distracted driving!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/02/21/calgary-crotches-kill.html

Ahhh, sigh, effin' Canadians. 



2013-02-26 10:38 PM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

The first thing that needs to happen is people need to decide who they actually want in jail/prison.  It's not an infinite amount of space, ya know?

Would you like all violent people put away, would you prefer drug dealers stuffed there, how about chronic DWI offenders?  Bank raiders?  The evil texters?  And the people who lie on their gun purchase applications......maybe the rack for those folks?  Spouse abusers?  How about burglars....we should definately lock those bastages up, huh?

I gotta tell you, people who are texting and driving are pretty damn low on the list of folks we're willing to spend alot of time with (at least in my experience)......sorry.  You can like it or hate it, but it's reality.  Again, sorry.....no matter how important it is to you, Mr. Jones also wants our time spent sitting on his street catching those pesky speeders...and by God, he wants them locked up!!

This thread and others kind of crack me up.  I look at threads like this one ,and the ones about littering a race course, or hitting someone while swimming, or any number of behaviors that are generally frowned upon, and everyone is outraged and nobody would ever commit such an act....and yet it's a "constant problem", or "out of hand", or whatever......yeah, that's it, whatever.  Laughing

Yes, Crotches kill...... so, apparently, do guns, doctors, triathlons, marathons, walking, eating, driving, swimming, having sex,  and just generally living.  Somebody needs to be locked up!!!

2013-02-27 8:30 PM
in reply to: #4637494

User image

Veteran
2297
2000100100252525
Great White North
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
The campaign comes from here in Alberta. The notion of Primary/Secondary offences for vehicle stops is an American idea. Any violation can get you pulled over in Canada, in fact police can pull someone over to confirm valid licence, insurance and registration, this has been challenged and in court and the courts sided with police/crown on that.
2013-02-27 8:32 PM
in reply to: #4638470

User image

Veteran
2297
2000100100252525
Great White North
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
The fine is $172-
2013-02-28 7:25 AM
in reply to: #4637718

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 



Here. This is a perfect example of a law that, as we used to say in the Army, "briefed well". That means it sounds good on paper but is horrible in execution, just like a lot of the texting laws would be if they were 100% enforced:

Couple face felony charges for sneaking into movie
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/couple-face-felon...

2013-02-28 7:28 AM
in reply to: #4639825

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
simpsonbo - 2013-02-27 9:30 PM

The campaign comes from here in Alberta. The notion of Primary/Secondary offences for vehicle stops is an American idea. Any violation can get you pulled over in Canada, in fact police can pull someone over to confirm valid licence, insurance and registration, this has been challenged and in court and the courts sided with police/crown on that.


Primary and secondary came into vogue in the '70s and '80s with the mandatory seatbelt laws that states had to pass or lose their federal highway funds. A lot of states have it as a primary law and more than a few still have it as a secondary law.

The threat of loss of hwy funds went away and New Hampshire still doesn't have any seatbelt law for adults on the books at all.



2013-02-28 9:39 AM
in reply to: #4640116

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
DanielG - 2013-02-28 7:25 AM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 

Here. This is a perfect example of a law that, as we used to say in the Army, "briefed well". That means it sounds good on paper but is horrible in execution, just like a lot of the texting laws would be if they were 100% enforced: Couple face felony charges for sneaking into movie http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/couple-face-felon...

Just curious, what constitutes "100% enforced"?

2013-02-28 10:08 AM
in reply to: #4639825

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

simpsonbo - 2013-02-27 9:30 PM The campaign comes from here in Alberta. The notion of Primary/Secondary offences for vehicle stops is an American idea. Any violation can get you pulled over in Canada, in fact police can pull someone over to confirm valid licence, insurance and registration, this has been challenged and in court and the courts sided with police/crown on that.

it will be a long time before america allows a law where a cop can pull you over for no reason at all.  thank god for lawful search and seizure.



Edited by mehaner 2013-02-28 10:09 AM
2013-02-28 10:09 AM
in reply to: #4640318

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
Left Brain - 2013-02-28 10:39 AM

DanielG - 2013-02-28 7:25 AM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 

Here. This is a perfect example of a law that, as we used to say in the Army, "briefed well". That means it sounds good on paper but is horrible in execution, just like a lot of the texting laws would be if they were 100% enforced: Couple face felony charges for sneaking into movie http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/couple-face-felon...

Just curious, what constitutes "100% enforced"?



Every time a cop saw someone who could be texting, it would initiate a traffic stop. If that meant pulling someone over by walking in front of the car whilst writing another car a ticket, so be it. Every one, every time. If the cop were on an armed robbery in progress call, nope, have to pull over the texter and get back to the armed robbery call.


2013-02-28 10:10 AM
in reply to: #4640355

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
mehaner - 2013-02-28 11:08 AM

simpsonbo - 2013-02-27 9:30 PM The campaign comes from here in Alberta. The notion of Primary/Secondary offences for vehicle stops is an American idea. Any violation can get you pulled over in Canada, in fact police can pull someone over to confirm valid licence, insurance and registration, this has been challenged and in court and the courts sided with police/crown on that.

it will be a long time before america allows a law where a cop can pull you over for no reason at all.  thank god for lawful search and seizure.



Drive 10 miles from your house in a way that you cannot be pulled over. No 36 in a 35 zone, no low tire pressure, no lights out or "dim", no slow and go, signals for every lane movement, etc.

it's already here.
2013-02-28 10:33 AM
in reply to: #4640356

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
DanielG - 2013-02-28 10:09 AM
Left Brain - 2013-02-28 10:39 AM
DanielG - 2013-02-28 7:25 AM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 

Here. This is a perfect example of a law that, as we used to say in the Army, "briefed well". That means it sounds good on paper but is horrible in execution, just like a lot of the texting laws would be if they were 100% enforced: Couple face felony charges for sneaking into movie http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/couple-face-felon...

Just curious, what constitutes "100% enforced"?

Every time a cop saw someone who could be texting, it would initiate a traffic stop. If that meant pulling someone over by walking in front of the car whilst writing another car a ticket, so be it. Every one, every time. If the cop were on an armed robbery in progress call, nope, have to pull over the texter and get back to the armed robbery call.

Well, yeah, there is that.....  Laughing



2013-02-28 10:57 AM
in reply to: #4640356

User image

Champion
10020
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
DanielG - 2013-02-28 10:09 AM
Left Brain - 2013-02-28 10:39 AM
DanielG - 2013-02-28 7:25 AM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 

Here. This is a perfect example of a law that, as we used to say in the Army, "briefed well". That means it sounds good on paper but is horrible in execution, just like a lot of the texting laws would be if they were 100% enforced: Couple face felony charges for sneaking into movie http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/couple-face-felon...

Just curious, what constitutes "100% enforced"?

Every time a cop saw someone who could be texting, it would initiate a traffic stop. If that meant pulling someone over by walking in front of the car whilst writing another car a ticket, so be it. Every one, every time. If the cop were on an armed robbery in progress call, nope, have to pull over the texter and get back to the armed robbery call.

There are a lot of citations to be written that fall between the percentage that are written now and 100%.  And I don't want these people to go to jail.  I want some dumb kid, who thinks he's above the law, to get a citation that is expensive enough to make him think twice about texting and driving.   If I can see multiple people texting on my commute to/from work, there should be more people getting pulled over.    It seems more dangerous than the stories I have been hearing from friends getting speeding tickets for 35 in a 30, because (this is rumor, might be true) the city needs the money.    I'd like to see which is more dangerous: an attentive driving going 5 over and an inattentive driver going 5 under, but can't react.

2013-02-28 11:00 AM
in reply to: #4640442

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-28 10:57 AM
DanielG - 2013-02-28 10:09 AM
Left Brain - 2013-02-28 10:39 AM
DanielG - 2013-02-28 7:25 AM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 

Here. This is a perfect example of a law that, as we used to say in the Army, "briefed well". That means it sounds good on paper but is horrible in execution, just like a lot of the texting laws would be if they were 100% enforced: Couple face felony charges for sneaking into movie http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/portage/couple-face-felon...

Just curious, what constitutes "100% enforced"?

Every time a cop saw someone who could be texting, it would initiate a traffic stop. If that meant pulling someone over by walking in front of the car whilst writing another car a ticket, so be it. Every one, every time. If the cop were on an armed robbery in progress call, nope, have to pull over the texter and get back to the armed robbery call.

There are a lot of citations to be written that fall between the percentage that are written now and 100%.  And I don't want these people to go to jail.  I want some dumb kid, who thinks he's above the law, to get a citation that is expensive enough to make him think twice about texting and driving.   If I can see multiple people texting on my commute to/from work, there should be more people getting pulled over.    It seems more dangerous than the stories I have been hearing from friends getting speeding tickets for 35 in a 30, because (this is rumor, might be true) the city needs the money.    I'd like to see which is more dangerous: an attentive driving going 5 over and an inattentive driver going 5 under, but can't react.

Eh......I doubt that much thought goes into it.  The kid's just talking to his/her buddies.....it takes awhile to figure out how serious the consequences can be.  Kids have been doing dumb things in cars, and while driving, since there have been kids and cars. 

And....the city gets the money no matter what the violation. 

Also....I see alot more violations of every sort when I'm in my own car than I do when I'm in a marked police car.....those kind of stand out and cause people to put their phones down.

Here's a question.......are deaths from motor vehicle crashes up since the advent of texting?  I'm asking...I have no idea.



Edited by Left Brain 2013-02-28 11:02 AM
2013-02-28 11:11 AM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
I found this....pretty interesting.  Looks like a pretty steady decline in fatalities over the years, with a bigger drop than normal the last 6 or 7 years.  It doesn't mean much, but I don't see any carnage from texting as it has gained popularity the last few years.



(small graph.png)



Attachments
----------------
small graph.png (31KB - 6 downloads)
2013-02-28 11:12 AM
in reply to: #4640442

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-28 11:57 AM

There are a lot of citations to be written that fall between the percentage that are written now and 100%.  And I don't want these people to go to jail.  I want some dumb kid, who thinks he's above the law, to get a citation that is expensive enough to make him think twice about texting and driving.   If I can see multiple people texting on my commute to/from work, there should be more people getting pulled over.    It seems more dangerous than the stories I have been hearing from friends getting speeding tickets for 35 in a 30, because (this is rumor, might be true) the city needs the money.    I'd like to see which is more dangerous: an attentive driving going 5 over and an inattentive driver going 5 under, but can't react.



There you go, now we're getting to the real issue. Speeding and texting while driving are the same level of violation and deserve the same enforcement.

If you want to go on most dangerous, the last "what's the most dangerous distraction while driving" I saw included putting on makup, reading (READING! for God's sake), and the number 1 distraction that created the worst swerving was girls in skimpy clothing. So we really do need to make sure the girl skin is covered up whenever one's near a road.

You believe you know when someone is doing it. Well, the people who enforce laws tend to not agree with you:
Texting while driving law rarely enforced
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/texting-while-driving-law-rarely-enfor...

Is it okay at stop signs? Red Lights? How about bumper to bumper traffic? What you see as "Obviously that guy's texting" is not court enforceable and if you start slipping on what it takes to get a conviction, then all laws are up for grabs for it. No, you don't get to pick and choose which ones have lower standards.

It's always easy to say "This should be illegal" Much harder to actually not only have a law but also be able to enforce the thing.

Does it matter WHY a law is being enforced? If it shouldn't be enforced, it shouldn't be a law.

Now I completely agree with:
Massachusetts teen convicted of homicide in texting-while-driving case
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/justice/massachusetts-texting-trial

I believe the guy should get more than a year but a year is better than time served.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » "Crotches Kill" ad campaign Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2