Violation12814.6

[CdwJava]

Carl, Gotta give the kid credit for some big time hoozpa don't ya think??

Both wrong - it's "Chutzpah"!

Either that or a lack of brains. Hard to tell. I'm hoping for the stones ... but, since he blames California's Vehicle Code for his problem, and he blames this law on Republicans, I'm afraid it's the lacking portion.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

I never stated that I was right,

Good thing.

So what, I dont like republicans, and I disagree with certain aspects of the vehicle code, those are my opinions.

Blaming a group of people for something they did not do is wrong. Disagreeing with the vehicle code is certainly your right. Blaming the CVC for your being violation, though, is not.

So somewhere in the law it states that you cant even park your own car in front of your own house without moving it for more than 72 hours!

Actually, it doesn't. Your local municipal code might say something like that, and state law might allow local jurisdiction to create such an ordinance, but it is not a state law and is not in the CVC.

So you take a vacation and your neighbor calls on your car, and it gets towed,

Mine wouldn't - I park it in my driveway. Sometimes even in (gasp!) my garage.

Look, there are a lot of kids who think they have all the answers. Fine. Kids are that way - they always have been and they probably always will. You have the freedom to believe what you wish. As time goes on, reality, common sense, and even responsibility, will combine to tame some of those ideas that you have. Quoting platitudes and blaming the world's problems on evil Republicans is an indication of a lack of reasoning on your part. if you are going to blame an individual or a group of people, at least take the time to understand what it is you are blaming them for.

And as I said, the law concerning provisional licensing restrictions is there due to a REAL and statistically proven situation regarding the serious lack of maturity or common sense behind a wheel that results in so many serious injury and fatal collisions among kids in your age group. These provisions were not in place when I was your age. Back then the number one killer of kids in that age group was not drugs, guns, gangs, or alcohol - it was traffic collisions. Thanks to laws like this one, I believe (though I have not looked it up tonight) that it has diminished its lead.

- Carl

 

[Ohiogal]

Well baystate girl, I was just expressing my opinion that America is quickly putting every little restriction on every little thing you can do, soon there will be a subdivision for everything! Clearly, you will question nothing, and agree with all of these policies, created by people with no perspective, regardless of their negative overall effects. So a few kids are saved cause their friend(driver of 8 months) wouldnt drive them around and he just so happended to crash that night right? Nice accomplishment by the law right, only one kid is hurt.


And the law is based on statistics that show that teens driving with other teens are more likely to get into a car accident than teens driving no one else.

But oh no, now, lets say johns had it for 8 months and drives with two friends, he hits a car and everyone gets injured, so now , in addition to the injuries, Johns parents will be sued for probably everything they own, since their son decided to break the law. Nice, now instead of only having injuries, you have several injuries and for sure a law suit against johns parents.


A law against driving other teens does not result in the lawsuit. The injured passengers could have sued John anyway if he was the cause of their injuries. So your ignorance is showing. And JOhn's parents are legally and financially responsible for him until he turns 18.


Adding more negatives to any situation only makes it a better one doesnt it? You have to think realistically, how many more kids are going to break this law than follow it? With what I have seen its about 95% ignored.

Then what you are saying is a bunch of teens are criminals. Says something about your generation.

So it doesnt increase anyones safety, but possibly increases serious lawsuits against the parents, who never made the choice to let their kids drive people in the first place.

They made the choice to let their children drive however. Driving is NOT a right -- it is a privilege. And if tenns don't want to follow the law then they do not deserve to drive.

With the republicans in office though, what should we expect, they cant accomplish anything positive anyway.

Anyway shay, I understand that the tailight stop was his duty, and was an acceptable reason to pull me over, which is why I dont mind that. Yes, I do feel that saying "I just saved your life by hopefully taking away your license" is an arrogant, unnecessary comment. In the situation, comments like these are only meant to get some kind of response out of people. Its like when you are arrested for possession of marijuana, and the officer tells you hes saving your life. Simply put, HES NOT!

You need to grow up. YOu really do. Laws are there to be followed. If you disagree with the law then you try to change it but if you break it you have to deal with the consequences. Too bad you are nto mature enough to see that.