Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Authorities in Essex say they will check ashtrays and impose fines over smoking in company cars and commercial vehicles, which has been banned in England since 2007. [Telegraph via Stuttaford, NRO] We may need to develop a new terminology here: was Nanny herself ever so bossy and intrusive?
{ 9 comments }
[cross-posted from Cato at Liberty]
New York state senator Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) is crusading to ban pedestrians’ use of cellphones and other mobile devices while crossing the street. It’s for your own good, you must understand:
“When people are doing things that are detrimental to their own well being, then government should step in.”
The Daily Caller asked me to write an opinion piece about this proposal so I just did. Excerpt:
Phone use on the street has become near-ubiquitous in recent years, yet over nearly all that time — nationally as in Gotham — pedestrian death rates were falling steadily, just as highway fatalities fell steadily over the years in which “distracted driving” became a big concern.
In the first half of 2010, the national statistics showed a tiny upward blip (0.4 percent), occasioned by a relative handful of fatalities in a few states. Even a spokesman for the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, Jonathan Adkins, seems to agree it’s premature to jump to conclusions: “You don’t want to overreact to six months of data,” he told columnist Steve Chapman.
Like others who seek quasi-parental control over adults, Sen. Kruger tends to infantilize his charges. He told the Times: “We’re taught from knee-high to look in both directions, wait, listen and then cross. You can perform none of those functions if you are engaged in some kind of wired activity.”
This drew proper scorn from columnist Chapman: “Actually, you can perform all those functions and dance an Irish jig, even with text messages or rock music bombarding you.” That some ear bud devotees don’t take due caution is no reason to pretend they can’t.
C.S. Lewis, Lily Tomlin and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood all get walk-on parts as well.
{ 4 comments }
{ 3 comments }
A New Jersey proposal is shelved.
{ 1 comment }
In an elaborate scheme discussed in this space in May, a northern California towing operator towed cars without authority, then proceeded to sue the owners — and even some non-owners — for exaggerated storage and handling fees. The enterprise was eventually exposed by Greg Adler, a young lawyer who estimates that he spent 1,200 hours documenting the misdeeds. Two of the scammers are now headed to prison, with one receiving a 14-year sentence. [San Jose Mercury News via Legal Ethics Forum]
{ 1 comment }
Las Vegas: “Allegedly, [13-year-old] Takara Davis was jaywalking when she got hit [by a car]. So a police officer showed up at the hospital and gave the ticket to her mother, Kellie Obong.” [Above the Law]
{ 25 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Sacrificing not only passenger convenience, but also important elements of emergency response and crime prevention, to the Government That Knows Best: “Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.” [Daily Caller] Post-furor update: DOT “currently has no plans” to do this.
{ 14 comments }
“Should red light cameras be used to catch drivers on cellphones?” [L.A. Times]
{ 2 comments }
British attorney Nick Freeman “is notorious for using legal loopholes to successfully defend celebrity clients accused of motoring offenses. But Mr. Loophole, as he is nicknamed, last week refused to use his expertise to get his daughter off a speeding charge…. ‘Sophie had to understand the consequences of breaking the law,’ [he said].” [Patrick Kingsley, Guardian]
{ 2 comments }
He’s basically fine and so is his bike after being doored by the NYC officer, but friends advise suing anyway. Should he? New York Times ethicist Randy Cohen fields the question. [NYT Magazine]
{ 5 comments }
A Massachusetts woman isn’t getting a huge amount of local sympathy after suing the town of Danvers over the $300 ticket its officers wrote her for briefly parking her Mercedes SUV in a handicapped zone. She says the ticket was soaked by the rain and she was sort of disabled that day anyway, having her arm in a sling and being on medication following surgery. [WHDH]
{ 19 comments }
A new law enforcement trend seems to press impaired-driving law into service as a way of pursuing other, unrelated law enforcement goals [Sullum, Reason]
{ 1 comment }
Yes, that’s what Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has actually suggested. Think of what a great idea in emergencies! [Bedard/U.S. News via Radley Balko, Reason "Hit and Run"]
{ 8 comments }
“Police in Washington state will have the power to take any car for at least twelve hours under legislation passed unanimously by the state House earlier this month and considered by a Senate committee yesterday.” The bill would provide for minimum 12 hour impoundment of any vehicle in a DUI arrest, whether or not the charges are dropped or the vehicle is owned by an innocent third party. “The Towing and Recovery Association of Washington is one of the main lobbying organizations pushing for the adoption of the law.” [TheNewspaper.com]
{ 5 comments }
And then demands attorneys fees over unjustified litigation; the dispute was over a parking ticket issued to one of its own departments which it wrongly presumed to be legally independent. Another local council won a fine against itself which it then had to pay, according to British author Barrie Segal [Lowering the Bar, Times Online "Money Central"]
{ 3 comments }
{ 6 comments }
“Window obstructions” can give cops the pretext for a stop [Chicago Tribune]
{ 3 comments }
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.