The hazard was caused by the fact that he signalled his disapproval with a stern beep. Even if he had been a young adult male(not a really senior citizen) who was just an ordinary Joe and not chief of police , Mr Road Rage would have got into a fist fight(especially if Mr Road Rage was tall and well built and Mr ordinary Joe was just average build and height).

A teenage male or a normal adult male who was not the chief of police would have just kept quiet or at max called 911 and given the vehicle registration number and location to the police for them to handle.

Quite a few women may have tried to signal their disapproval because women are spared the harsh realities of life(fist fight) that men have to face and put up with. Since men are so extremely socially conditioned not to hit women, women do feel that they are completely entitled to not be hit anyway no matter what they do(until they actually get hit ............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvkEPOo6REo....)I saw this video first on Dr Helen and the woman's sense of entitlement is so obvious.

But the law is still pretty dumb. I mean, you actually want to tell others who is driving the vehicle based on a stereotype about teen drivers being inattentive. That is a generalization that is quite broad and unacceptable...and what about privacy.

The only exception is police and ambulances and other special purpose vehicles.

Of course, in the case of Mr Janicelli, it is possible that the Mr Road Rage took time to evaluate whether to go have a fist fight with the tahoe based on the decal. But there was a 50-50 probability that he might have come out for a fist fight even if the decal was not present. And there might have been a fist fight even if there was no decal and the car had an adult male driving it if the guy did come out. The decal probably increased the probability of the guy coming out for a fist fight, but I think that increase in probability was nominal.

Making new laws should be difficult! Currently, legislators hop onto every emotional bandwagon going by - a special law for everyone, because it get them good publicity (or avoids bad publicity).

Legislation must have a price. It should require an investment of time, money, or something else, so that legislators will be reluctant to vote for stupid, feel-good bills.

There are lots of proposals out there, and I'll mention a couple below. The problem is: the legislatures themselves have to vote for the restrictions, and - of course - they don't want to.

Proposals that I have heard include:

• Sunset. Every bill expires, unless explicitly renewed. This doesn't prevent stupid legislation, but at least it eventually goes away.
  


• Read the bill.Every bill must be read in its entirety on the legislature floor. For larger bills, this imposes a real costs of time. For smaller bills, it doesn't help much.
  


• Total size of laws.The total laws of a State (or municipality, or the federal government) cannot be larger than a certain size - this size being chosen to be what a reasonable citizen could stay abreast of. Since the government would inevitably fill this up, passing a new law would mean getting rid of an old one.
  

The last one is my personal favorite. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, the government ought to make it possible for an average citizen to know what the law is. The problem is: current laws are already hundreds of times the size that any single person can possibly understand.

"Making new laws should be difficult! Currently, legislators hop onto every emotional bandwagon going by - a special law for everyone, because it get them good publicity (or avoids bad publicity)."

It used to be the case that most state constitutions had mandatory waiting periods between the start of debate on a bill and when it could be voted on. I guess that got too much in the way of politicians looking to cash in on tragedies.

"But the law is still pretty dumb. I mean, you actually want to tell others who is driving the vehicle based on a stereotype about teen drivers being inattentive."

Well, it's not a stereotype that teen drivers are inexperienced. Most auto racing series require that cars driven by rookie drivers be marked somehow -- the traditional "yellow stripe". So in theory, it's not a bad idea. But in practice... yeah, too many unintended consequences.

Cousin Dave is right -- making new laws should be difficult.

And this, from a_random_guy, would have stopped Obamacare:

Read the bill.Every bill must be read in its entirety on the legislature floor.

I find those stickers on cars as redundant and useless as the "Baby on Board" signs on cars, only those BOB signs aren't mandatory by law....yet...

Asshole drivers don't look at stickers and signs on cars no matter how much people would like to fool themselves into believing it. If they are blowing through stop signs and red lights, which are HARD to miss, the sticker on your car isn't gonna even be a blip on thier radar. Even if they do notice it, do you think they are gonna care?

My guess is the road rage guy in the above example got out of his car in a fit of rage, not even thinking about who it might be behind the wheel. It wasn't until he saw who it was that he stopped. If the chief hadn't been in uniform, I bet he would have continued picking a fight because guys with road rage like that have a Hercules complex to boot. It was the uniform that stopped him, not the fact that it was a grown man. That sticker likely never even registered in his mind.

"My guess is the road rage guy in the above example got out of his car in a fit of rage, not even thinking about who it might be behind the wheel."

I'll buy that. I've only run into road-rage once, and these people are just nuts. I was driving in the left lane on a two-lane, divided highway. The guy behind me wanted me to let him pass. I had no reason to do so - both lanes were packed, and I was moving along just as fast as the traffic allowed.

To let me know he thought I ought to get out of his way, he was tailgating - incredibly close, I couldn't even see his front bumper. To let him know what I thought of this, I tapped my brakes. Of course, he slammed on his brakes, and that triggered the road-rage. He managed to swerve around me in the right lane, and started groping around in his car, throwing whatever he found out the window at my car. Trash, full cans of coke, whatever he could reach.

Nuts...

Technical impediments to lawmaking, such as those suggested above by a_random_guy would only have a short-term effect on what laws are passed, and how quickly. Lawmakers would certainly figure out how to game that system, as people always do. The better bet for reducing the number of bad laws is by electing better representatives.

In England, drivers who are not yet fully licensed have white circular stickers with a prominent red "L".

Works great. Other drivers give them a little wider berth, and cut them some slack.

As a teen driver in New Jersey, I find Kyleigh's Law really infuriating. The law doesn't affect older beginning drivers or extremely senior drivers (who have the second highest accident rate, if I remember correctly), and it mostly makes it very obvious that I'm an underage girl driving alone.
Hehe, it's hard to say how much the decals do anyway-- more than a few of my friends "forget" to put them on ;)

The better bet for reducing the number of bad laws is by electing better representatives.

Posted by: Christopher

Right, now if we can only find a way do disenfrachise the moronic emotions based voters who vote in the moronic emotions based legislators

Sorry chris but when more people vote for american idol the the fucking president, asking for people to be smarter about who the vote for is as pointless as asking for a world where all women are hot want to have sex as often as men and wander around topless.

Sure its a nice idea, but it will never happen

Sure its a nice idea, but it will never happen

A guy can hope!

This reminds me of a book that I've had on my list to read for a little while. It is called "the death of common sense" by Philip Howard I think it talks about the problems we have created by making so many laws and having no expiration dates on laws. Has anyone here read it? I'd be curious what you thought if you did. I have so many books on my list to read it is hard to get to them all.

It is ironic that you could be legally married with a couple of kids and still have to drive with an fucking sticker on your car in New Jersey. You also could have spent three years in the military and still be required to display the sticker.

I find the whole idea of setting the standards for adult responsibility at different ages with probationary periods appalling. There should be one age, period for everything. You are either an adult, or your not, unless you are so mentally incapacitated that you need a guardian.

Additional risks for younger drivers, drinking, drug users etc, should be determined by your insurance carrier and not government.

I find the whole idea of setting the standards for adult responsibility at different ages with probationary periods appalling. There should be one age, period for everything.

Pilots have all manner of qualifications, from beginning to advanced, based on accumulated experience. Which, by definition, means age.

Next time you get on an airliner, ask yourself if you really find differing standards and probationary periods all that appalling.

Pilots have all manner of qualifications, from beginning to advanced, based on accumulated experience. Which, by definition, means age.

Next time you get on an airliner, ask yourself if you really find differing standards and probationary periods all that appalling.

That is sort of an apple to oranges comparison. The standards for a pilot are based on hours and experience that is constantly logged along with check rides and simulators and the rest.

The U.S. standards for driver's licenses are much lower. And I can guarantee you that a typical middle American farm kid has more time on tractors and in pick-ups than some 18 year old living in an urban center.

The difference would be exactly what you say: experience, not age. If I decide to become a pilot after a career of doing something else, I'd be just as qualified (or unqualified) as all the kids starting out. It isn't based on age.

Specifically for driving, I agree with Isabel. You either can drive, or you can't. we already have tests, both written and practical, in the US. If those aren't good enough, then update the standards, don't force someone to declare themselves essentially a bad driver because of their age.

In Germany where I lived for three years, they controlled who drove a different way. You had to be 18 to get a liscense. You had to go to a commercial driving school, (no drivers ed in school)and then you had to be able to buy a car that was not a junker. Junkers were not allowed on the road.

If a car had rust you could not register it. Then you paid a very expensive tag fee on the car, and your insurance was sky high. Oh, and gas was about 7 dollars a gallon.

So, in other words, unless you were an adult with a good job or had parents who were filthy rich, you did not drive.
There is some merit to this system. It kept a lot of riff raff off the roads. Think this is superior to the US? Lufthansa has several flights a day going that way. :-)

"The better bet for reducing the number of bad laws is by electing better representatives."

Which came first, the idiot legislator or the dumb voter? Go, Gata!

Hey - laws should be easy to make. How else can you be forced to do what I want? What YOU do is wrong, and should be criminally prosecuted!

-----

By age 12, I was running yachts up and down the Intracoastal Waterway in Florida for my Dad. I won him $100 in a bet with a guy who hit our fuel dock with his 40-footer - the guy looked at him and said, "Hey, you do better!" The guy was amazed when I taught him in 30 minutes or so how to handle his boat - as I am sure LS can verify, lots of people don't practice basics. Kids are a LOT better at a LOT more than anyone is willing to admit.

Anyway. It was common for boat owners to ask us to make sure the boat got some "exercise", too. By age 20, I was amazed to that the legal environment had changed so much for the worse in Florida that I couldn't even tow anyone anywhere. Insulting.

Look in the mirror. Greedy people come first and always, even in law.

"Think this is superior to the US?"

Now, apply the same rationale to motorcycle licensing and see if you don't like it a bit more.

I'm told it costs about $4000 to get a license for a large motorcycle in Japan, and if you fail the test, you're done, thanks for the $$.

Isn't it funny when we demand that other people know what they are doing, but we should get a pass?

Ras is right, with few notable exceptions each generation is usually more capable the the last, growing up with far more sensory and data input makes them if not smarter at least more competent.

I read an interseting article, said that children who grew up texting as toddlers dont show the same 'drunken' signs of imparment that drivers who started texing in their late teens and beyond do

Rad, I actually prefer the German and the Japanese systems. However, in this country people get their panties in a wad over economic rationing. Because they want everything. "Subsidized" by the state, they end up with nanny state controls like this stupid sticker law.
Two bits a system like Germany's or Japans rigerously enforced would end illegal immigration in about a year and also keep most teenagers and irresponsible adults off the roads.