Not just Libertarian Land. California too.
Cars have been set on fire, also.
How often does this happen at protests in reality?
Are we legalizing vehicular homicide for an incredibly rare possibility?
Seems like a big government overreaction to a couple of isolated incidents that have been blown up into a much bigger deal by certain media outlets.
Are there statistics for how often this kind of thing happens, where people are attacking cars with tire irons etc?
In this context, the word “right” is being used loosely. In fact, if you read the law, nobody “has the right” to be on the road - they just are allowed to use it, which is most definitely not a similar thing.
A person always has the right to drive, assuming you mean on the proper roads and following the traffic regulations.
A group always has the right to protest.
There’s a conflict, obviously. It has to be worked out case by case. There - problem solved.
I don’t have any statistics on the matter. I’d be pleasantly surprised if anyone did.
I would hazard a guess that the cases of vehicular homicide resulting from a change like this would, themselves, be incredibly rare.
A Sacramento Sheriff’s Department vehicle recently hit a protester while moving through a crowd. The police said the back window was shattered and the protesters were striking the vehicle. I suspect no charges will result for the driver.
That’s why I say we need a clarification of the law so people are not being killed.
Incidentally, it’s a lot harder than most people think to shatter a car window, even with a hammer, baseball bat, or other tool.
No, no they don’t. Protest groups are subject to “time, place, and manner” restrictions. A reasonable place restriction might be “you can’t protest on the freeway”, for example.
Well that dental appointment you have been waiting days for or that job interview your are desperate for could be VERY important.
In that case I dont see anything wrong if you lay on your horn and slowly work your way thru. Yes, your cars going to get alot of dents and scratches. But I think if you used diligence in trying to be safe I dont see an issue.
Plus are we also advocating persons have the right to walk out onto any street they wish and stop traffic? Do people have that right? When you think about it just swerving to avoid someone could cause an accident.
We are not talking about an organized demonstration where a group has a permit to say be on a road from say 1-3 pm. We are talking about sometimes violent people who take it upon themselves to run out in front of traffic.
I would think the cases of people emboldened to injure or kill protesters who are protesting for things the driver disagrees with will be larger than the number of times a person successfully defends themselves from murderous protesters trying to kill innocent drivers.
I think this is a way to discourage protests because those in charge passing these laws are on the other political side from the current protesters and they’d like to find a legal way to make them feel threatened. That seems far more likely than all of a sudden we have this terrible pervasive problem of poor drivers being assualted while in their cars that we simply must pass a law about.
I don’t think either of us have any way of knowing if your speculation is correct or not. I would hope that the net effect of the law would be that protesters wise up, change their behavior, and stay the hell out of traffic.
So, let’s say you hear od a demo, but you do have a dental appt. But you figure it wont be violent, and it’s a half a dozen blocks away from your dentist.
But it does turn out to be violent, due to anarchists and it spreads. Are you saying that every time there is a protest, everyone in that city must stay home?
Yes, because a protest should never ever inconvenience anyone at all ever.
I can’t say I have much experience smashing windows. but there are lots of videos on YouTube showing people easily shattering car windows with fragments of porcelain from a broken spark plug.
Cities are large, hence the name. There are probably some parts of the city that won’t be affected by violent, anarchist-spread demonstration/riots. So no, everyone in that city does not have to stay home.
I’m sure we don’t have any way of knowing for certain which of our speculations is closer to what will happen, but if this is your concern, then why not make a law making it illegal to protest in the street? Why jump to “let’s make it ok to run them down”? Because one is more intimidating and threatening? If it was illegal to protest in the street, then they can be ordered to disperse and arrested if they don’t. Is it because it’s easier to pass the “run them over” law then the “you can’t protest in certain areas” law?
So you do agree that these bills are about trying to make the protesters stop protesting, or at least to stop protesting in a way that might be inconvenient to you then? Because my supposition is that its more about that than any legitimate safety concerns for drivers.
Protesters ought to adhere to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, IMHO (and, conveniently for me, in the eyes of the law too). It also seems stupidly counter-productive if your primary tactic is to annoy and frustrate people. I don’t think many of the Tea Party protests adopted these techniques.
No I think the idea is:
Don’t Kill People With Your Car
Is it really that hard to figure out how to not do that?
Under traffic laws, yes it’s illegal. The details vary from location to location. By the time a major highway has been closed down, though, the moment for issuing jaywalking tickets has usually passed.