Champaign City Council has declined to take up a cell phone driving ban ordinance. Mayor Schweighart passed the study session request form to his colleagues but members were not anxious to take up the issue.
As I posted a few months ago, there are countless types of distracted driving and we cannot ban them all. We cannot ban children from fighting with each other in the back seat, from drivers reaching for a coke, from changing radio stations. I can appreciate the tragedy of the Wilhelms. Many years ago, I lost my high school-aged brother because of a distracted semi-truck driver. It's understandable to want to do something after the needless and tragic loss of Matt Wilhelm. But a ban on cell phone usage is a reactive and incomplete response.
Rep. Bill Black of Danville is advocating a task force to address the whole “distracted driver” problem with possible tougher legislation in the vehicle code. Working with law enforcement officials and other legislators will produce a more comprehensive approach.
I think the suggested new crime class the Rietz suggested is a good idea - something less than reckless homicide, but more than a ticket.
While the G.A. is at it, a new "guilty but insane" option would be good too. I heard talk of some lady (not Illinois I think) slated to get out two years after killing her kids - as long as she takes her meds she is "fine".
It is impossible to pass laws forbidding people to act "stupid".
When in doubt, pass a new law, right? That's a poor impulse. Why don't we just enforce the laws already in the books? There are plenty that address careless drivers.
I live in Cook Co. where there is currently a 1-year-old ban on using a cell phone without the aid of a headset. Other than drive some Bluetooth sales, the ban has done little more than create an increase in dropped calls around police.
And just about the time the future “texting in a car ban” reaches its first birthday, we'll see the importance in banning the use of non-speaking GPS units that require more focus.
My biggest driving problem is wiping some of the tartar sauce off my McDonalds fish sandwich so it doesn't squeeze out on my tie when I bite down while I am listening to Rush on the radio and adjusting the vent so it doesn't cool my fries. I tried a headset, but that didn't help, so I think legislation is the only answer. I must be stopped.
John
John, don't forget to add in the non-biodegradable styrofoam McDonald's food container and the hot McDonald's coffee that might spill on your lap giving you recourse to sue the fast food chain thus prompting the need for another distracted driving law.
John, don't forget to add in the non-biodegradable styrofoam McDonald's food container and the hot McDonald's coffee that might spill on your lap giving you recourse to sue the fast food chain thus prompting the need for another distracted driving law.
Do you know the actual facts of this case? I find that it's many people's favorite case, but they know little of the actual details that dictated the initial verdict, nor do they know the eventual outcome.
Dear Xian,
Congratulations. Up to this point I thought only lawyers supported the McDonalds verdict. You have their story down pat.
John
If you are refering to 81 year-old Stella Liebeck's suit against Micky D, there are now "Stella" awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States.
I take that as "No, I have no idea about the details of the case, so I'm just going to insult you because I'm trying to be an ass!" How do you know that I have their story down pat if you don't know my stance on the case? Are you that against even discussing the case?
Was that what you were trying to say?
This is my take on the case:
There are several questions at hand:
1) What percentage can fault be assigned at?
2) How much was the damage done?
The percentage was determined by the court to be 80%. I think that's too high, but let's be careful--we are not talking about the fault of the cup spilling, but instead of "the coffee burning the woman".
The percentage was determined based on the fact that McDonald's kept their coffee at a temperature that virtually guaranteed third-degree burns if there was any extended contact with skin. By "extended contact" I mean "several seconds". I believe that there was also at least one judicial directive regarding the temperature of the coffee that McDonald's ignored prior to this suit.
Some of the fallicious arguments that have plagued this case:
There had been "only" 700 reports of burns originating from McDonald's Coffee. That represents one dangerous cup out of 24 million.
That's idiotic. We aren't testing all of the cups, we are testing cups that are spilled in such a way that caused extended skin contact. If my product maims people, I can't say, "Well, it doesn't maim people most of the time!"
The coffee manufacturers recommend an extremely high temperature for coffee to be kept at before drinking.
Once again, irrelevant--The coffee manufacturers are talking generally, not recommending about coffee that is being transported in an easily spillable container.
The second question is easily answered. The woman suffered third-degree burns over a large fraction of her body, including the practical liquidation of her private parts.
That was "only" determined to be worth $200,000 in compensatory damages, but punitive damages are not intended to compensate the plantiff, but rather penalize the entity committing the negligence in order to dissauge the behavior. If anything, the $2.7 million was NOT ENOUGH, as it was not pariticularly persuasive to McD's to change the behavior.
Of course, the ruling itself is pretty worthless. It's like complaining that Santa Claus is not a nice man. What you are actually interested in is the final outcome. Does anyone know what that was?
Basically, my other question was, "Have you ever spilled something hot on yourself?" "Have you ever worn absorbent material?"
My follow-up question:
"May I take a blow-torch to your genitals?"
Xian,
If you are actually interested in my opinion, I can email my article from that time. I was writing in response to Philip Corboy's article defending the verdict.
By the way, who spilled that coffee?
John (damn that Mr. Misty eyeache, where's my lawyer) Bramfeld