The choice is up to you, please choose wisely. I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because the majority of car crashes are caused by reckless drivers who are distracted by their phones and pay no attention the the road that is ahead of them. Everyday, at least one person will have an accident because they are not paying attention to the road that is ahead of them. It is not safe for a driver to have any distractions
People do not realize how likely getting into an accident, resulting from sending one text on their phones, while being behind the wheel is. The Federal Communication Commission did research on how likely getting into an accident while texting ←and→ driving, resulted that an individual is “23 times more likely to cause ←or→ be in an accident,” (The Dangers of Texting While Driving). By sending one text an individual puts their life in danger, also the surrounding people. If people understood how likely getting into an accident while driving most people would stop. The ban would make it illegal to text, additionally it would be the main reason why people stop sending texts while driving because the punishment would not be worth it.
Laws are put in place for the well-being and health of the people, but in Bradbury’s utopia, it seems that the laws are more focused on benefiting the government. In Bradbury’s world you can be arrested for being a pedestrian or driving slower than 40 miles an hour. The government took away front porches to stop the citizens from questioning their laws and voicing their own opinions. Bradbury’s laws are put in place to stop the public from slowing down and noticing the beauties and peculiarities of their world. In contrast our laws are there to protect the public and encourage freedom of speech.
Drunk driving is a serious problem that continues to take thousands of deaths each year. Too many innocent lives been lost to drunk driving. A death from drunk driving does not only affect the victim but it affects everyone around them such as family and friends. One night, one drink, one mistake is all it takes for drunk driving to take its toll. There are many solutions to prevent drunk driving, but they will only work if we put them into play.
Magdalena Perez English 106 Mr. Skyler Meek June 10, 2015/ Up dated June 27, 2015 Cell phones while driving According to NSC's website, there have been an estimated 245,358 car crashes involving drivers using cellphones so far this year. One effect cellphone use has on drivers is an increased reaction time, which is similar regardless of handheld or hands-free phone use. Every year many lives are lost because of the distraction on the road and for this reason use of cell phones while driving should be illegal in all of the states. The National Safety Council's annual injury and fatality report, "Injury Facts," found that the use of cellphones causes 26% of the nation's car accidents, a modest increase from the previous year. The 2014 edition of the report compares data from 2013 and earlier.
In his response, Stewart comments that "we have to strict blood alcohol limit, raise the drinking age, enforcement penalties for the drunk driver that help bring drunk driving rates down; I don 't know by 2/3 in a few decades". Stewart comment seems funny, but he uses the same logic that Ventura uses to prove his point. If people take steps to lower the number of drunk drivers, they take steps to limit child deaths in auto accidents, accidental poisoning, etc. Why people will not take steps when it comes to gun control? Mostly pro-guns extremists use slippery slope fallacy in all their debates, and they look for sly opportunities.
The damage from the earthquake paled in comparison to the level of destruction that followed. The quake cost 3,000 people their lives and not only rattled the residences of San Francisco, but people from Oregon to L.A and as far inland as Nevada(history.com).
I believe that restorative justice could be a good idea for the United States if it is used correctly. I think that if restorative justice is used correctly, it could really benefit everyone involved: the victim, offender, family, and the community. Some of the restorative justice ways can also help victims move past what has happened to them and live a more normal life again. I think restorative justice would also benefit the United States because it can help the offender have a better life after. I think that restorative justice needs to be used correctly because if it is not done right it could actually cause more harm.
She sent her last text but little did you know she was behind the wheel. Some people think it is completely fine to text and drive, but there are facts and very strong opinions that say otherwise. Can’t we all agree that texting and driving is an awful thing? Going on your technology when driving is a horrible thing to do, think about how many people get injured per day or year due to it, how it has an effect on other people, and how can we fix the problem. How many people get hurt and die from texting and driving?
People seem to not grasp the concept that texting while driving is dangerous, it does not matter the level of experience or the age. Per the National Highway Traffic Safeway Administration, talking on a cell phone causes nearly 25 percent of car crashes. That statistic directly points to the key fact that texting and driving is a key cause of most accidents on the road. Most people would be quick to the jump to the defense that these people aren’t them and they can do it better or be safer. But a study published by icebike.org refutes that as well.
Maybe when talking on the phone you 're still able to watch the road, but your focus is on who is talking to and what they 're talking about. If an argument starts, becoming upset will only cause your driving to be worse. Hundreds of accidents are caused daily by talking on the phone. Driving while emotional isn 't a good idea to begin with and adding cell phone use to the mix makes it even worse. In conclusion using cell phones while driving should be illegal in all states.
Roe filed a lawsuit on wade claiming that a Texas law was criminalizing majority of every abortion. During that time period abortion were really only considered if the pregnancy was considered life threatening to the mother. This court case still remains one of the most intensely debated cases making the House Bill 3994 stand out. With this bill come many different opinions with some highly though of voices claiming there thought on the bill. Some representatives think that the bill is covering all the loopholes and clarifying the rules for underage minors who wish to proceed with and abortion without the consent of parent or guardian but the consent of a judge while others are seeing the complication with constitutional rights and the right to privacy.
Abidjan Bright Badih Elarba Texas Politics 1133.010 Fall 2015 Voter ID law in Texas It was in 2011 that the Legislature passed Bill 14 that allowed Texas to have a strict voter ID law for the November election. Many people were opposed to this because it limited many eligible citizens from voting causing a lower voter turnout than what Texas has already had. This is a major problem in Texas because majority of our population consists of immigrants from Mexico and many of them are still fighting for citizenship. Because of this law it is in question, how much power does our state actually have in the regulation of elections? Limits on voter qualifications are stated in the US constitution and within federal laws as well.
We all see the commercials about people that get in a crash and die from using their cellphones while driving. Although most drivers feel that they are to good of drivers and that could never happen to them. Many drivers still do this without thinking of the outcome of this foolish act. Driving and using cellphone or handheld device kills many drivers each day. Some states are making it illegal to using this device while driving.
Where the weapons were obtained in the sandy hook shooting and the Orlando shooting were dramatically different. Lanza took the weapons from his mother who owned them legally, but Lanza was unable to have firearms because of his mental illness. Mateen was cleared by the federal background check even though the FBI did some monitoring on him. His radical beliefs caught the eye of the federal government, but someone 's religion can not be used to stip individuals of their rights. Lastly he explains that, “cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations,” (Wozniak 2).