Bill punishes drivers who fail to clear ice off car

[MaineDem]

BOSTON --Winter drivers too lazy or rushed to clear snow and ice from their cars would face fines and even jail under a bill being considered by the state Legislature.

The bill, considered Tuesday by the Joint Committee on Transportation, seeks to reduce the danger to other drivers from chunks of snow and ice that fly off car roofs or hoods. Motorists who don't clear their vehicles face a $500 fine or a prison term of up to six months.

If it passes, Massachusetts could become the first state to require snow and ice-free cars.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Brian Knuuttila, D-Gardner, told The Boston Globe that it's urgent to pass the bill into law before winter.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/14/bill_punishes_drivers_who_fail_to_clear_ice_off_car/


The penalty seems pretty stiff. I think everyone should clear their cars off but this is a bit extreme.

[LynzM]

1. Ouch.

That does make being late for work pale somewhat in comparison. But jail time??

[halobeam]

2. It is extreme. I have an old car, doesn't have rear defrost....

so then what? Oh, that's right, I forgot. Punish the poor. I keep forgetting the new perspective.

[woofless]

7. Brooms are cheap.

That's what I use. It is foolish to drive a vehicle with several inches of snow on the roof, hood and trunk lid.

Woof

[halobeam]

162. brooms are great for that... what I get nuts about is when people

don't take it off their roof, and chunks of it fly on your windshield when you are behind them.

[ET Awful]

164. That's exactly what this law is intended to prevent :) n/t

[ET Awful]

29. Okay, let's try this one more time . . . they are NOT talking about

your visibility on your window, they are talking about big ass chunks of ice flying off the top of your car and hitting someone else.

They are talking about taking that extra minute and a half to sweep the snow and ice off the top of your car so it doesn't fly off and hit someone else's car and potentially cause an accident.

It's not punishing the poor, it's punishing the inconsiderate and dangerous.

[theHandpuppet]

35. "It's not punishing the poor..."

"...it's punishing the inconsiderate and dangerous."

Thank you. That's it in a nutshell.

[Demonaut]

204. and the lazy...

[Roland99]

66. Bingo

[halobeam]

165. gotcha.. misunderstood, thanks.

[theHandpuppet]

32. I just recently got a car with a rear defroster.

Believe it or not, there was a time when cars didn't come with that feature. That meant I cleaned off the ice by hand (and I owned an old truck -- it wasn't easy). Sorry, no pity here. All it takes is a bit of elbow grease, not money.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Ever hear of an ice scraper?

:shrug:

[halobeam]

160. oh yeah.. lol I have. Ever not have a rear defrost?

Right after you scrape the ice off, you drive about a block and if it's cold enough outside, the ice is back on the window.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. It's a real hazard. I think clear vision is more important than chunks.

Got to get people's attention.

[jayfish]

4. Sure It Is.

Are there any crash statistics available regarding this new menace?

Jay

[havocmom]

5. Agree with that! People are given vision tests to get a license,

seems reasonable to insist they also be able to see outside of their car in order to operate it on the public roadways.

There are enough risks inherent with winter driving conditions without dealing with others who just don't care enough about safety to get up and clear off their window, hoods, roofs so they can see who else is out there on the road with them.

Driving is NOT a right. There are responsibilities along with the privilege of operating a large, heavy device which is capable of causing major injury and death on the public right of way.

[MindPilot]

16. how does clearing snow off the roof help visibility?

Admittedly it's been several decades since I drove in snow (used to live in Denver) but as I recall, it's pretty near impossible to get out of the driveway with out clearing off the windows.

Then what if it's snowing and the snow sticks to the windows? Are you supposed to get out at every light and clean it off?

[ET Awful]

19. This isn't about the visibility of the driver of the car, it's about the

hazards to other cars posed by big ass chunks of ice flying off on the highway.

[DS1]

96. Not only that, there's an extra white-out while following those cars

in addition to whatever snow is already coming down.

Damn lousy winter.

[ET Awful]

123. Yup . . . which makes me think of something else I'd love to see

Stronger enforcement of the mudflap requirements on trucks . . . when it's below freezing and a truck splashes slush up on your windshield, it freezes instantly and is a pain in the ass to get off . . .

Just sayin' . . . .

[LincolnMcGrath]

128. In what direction are you referring to?

You know, are you talking about a truck passing you from the opposite direction?

[ET Awful]

134. Nope, I'm talking about two particular incidents I can think of :)

Once where he came charging down a freeway on-ramp and cut across the first lane of traffic, into the second (bad enough in itself). He had no mudflaps and hurled slush up on to my windshield (all my pasenger side windows) AND the car behind me . . talk about a mess.

The second was someone who changed lanes (legally) to avoid another driver who had stopped for no apparent reason, I had to slow down for someone in front of me, and he threw up the ice and slush as he passed me. Wouldn't have been a problem at all if he had mudflaps on the vehicle.

Honestly, most of the roads I drive on where trucks present any problems are divided roads anyway, so one coming form the other direction isn't usually a problem. It's usually ones who are, for the most part driving normally, but because the lane I'm in has to slow down they pass me and throw up a bunch of sludge.

[DS1]

130. and there was one time when some joker in Vermont

was using some of those tires that fling snow and water as far and high outwards as possible for dramatic effect - when he veered left while heading towards me and send about 20 pounds of slush flying on my windsheild while I was easing left around the side of a mountain. goddamn that shit pissed me off

[hamerfan]

218. Props to the UPS trucks!

Not only do they have union drivers, but they're about the only ones with the black fringy stuff over their truck's wheel wells. They make a huge difference in both rain and snow. I've thanked several UPS drivers in truck stops/roadside rests for having the courtesy to use them. Go UPS!!!

[maine_raptor]

21. Amazing new device now available for cars

called windshield wipers, works very well clearing falling snow off moving car windshields.

[theHandpuppet]

41. Because when the interior of the car heats up...

... that bottom layer of that snow on your roof turns to ice and the whole damn thing can slide off your roof, become airborne and smack someone else's car, that's why.

[havocmom]

51. If it's on the roof, it can fall and block your vision, or blow and blind

someone else. Pretty simple concept, if one accepts certain theories about physics ;)

[dsc]

87. Snow on roof falls off roof when you stop

This is a very reasonable idea to require. Jail time seems excessive though.

[MindPilot]

6. Boston: legislature fails to find new ways to generate revenue

and falls balls back on screwing motorists. In other news, speed limits will be lowered and more lanes to designated HOV-only. Police officer's union says cops don't have enough excuses to pull people over and extort cash from them.Al new traffic laws also include automatic exemption for SUV drivers.

[jayfish]

10. Ding, Ding ,Ding.

We have a winna.

Jay

[calico1]

8. I have been behind cars that have had

snow or ice fly off. Its dangerous! I am surprised this kind of legislation hasn't been presented before.

[Robb]

12. It's not totally new

... and it comes up from time to time. Most states put on the legislative brakes when some trooper points out it's already illegal to drive without being able to see out th' winder. :)

[jayfish]

13. Strangely Enough, You Didn't Crash.

You must be a better driver than everyone else on the road.

Jay

[ET Awful]

17. I've been hit by chunks of ice off other cars that were large enough

to cause body damage that I then had to pay to repair.

I've been riding with a friend whose windshield was cracked by a sheet of ice flying off a trailer.

It's definitely dangerous, and I've seen accidents caused as a result.

[calico1]

25. Huh? I don't understand that.

I am not claiming to be a better driver than anyone else. But having a chunk of ice or a sheet of snow fly off the car in front of you can be very dangerous. I don't know why my saying that got interpreted as me thinking I am a better driver than anyone else. :shrug:

[jayfish]

50. It's Sarcasm.

The point being that if you haven't been in an accident after experiencing this first, hand what makes you think it's such a danger to everyone else on the road.

[lizerdbits]

161. Well I've never experienced a drunk driving accident first hand

so that means it's not a danger to everyone else?

I've had chunks of ice fly from cars in front of me and hit the road- another 10 feet and that could be my windshield and my head. What is the big deal getting the snow and ice off the top of your car? If Maryland doesn't already fine people for driving like that I hope they start. Jail is a bit excessive though.

[BlueJazz]

14. Yep..Have you ever been behind a Tractor-Trailer and had....

..these HUGE chucks of ice come flying off the Trailer?...Christ!!

[ET Awful]

22. Yup, like I said above, a friend of mine's windshield was cracked

by a big sheet of ice flying off a trailer.

Those things don't exactly allow for run-off of melted snow, and being parked for a few days while it's snowing, melting, snowing again, etc. results in sheets of ice an inch or more thick.

Dangerous stuff.

[jayfish]

53. And You Don't Think The Trucking Industry Will Lobby...

themselves an exemption for this?

Jay

[Claymore]

49. Here's a question...

...will this law apply to tractor trailers? When I was living in DC, I can't tell how many times I got behind a semi on the Beltway and huge sheets of ice would be flying off of the top of the trailer, smacking cars and causing people to react violently.

[coyote]

9. There is a law in Germany for this too.....however

the fine is not nearly as stiff.

[maine_raptor]

11. Every snow storm I see some idiot

that has only cleared a small spot on the front windshield in front of the drivers seat. No side windows cleared, no rear window cleared, and 6 or more inches of snow on the roof, trunk and hood.

Depending on the water content, snow can be heavy and thus reduce gas milage, nevermind the safety concerns for the diver and others on the road.

If this is what it takes to wake some of these fools up, so be it.

[ET Awful]

15. Works for me, the penalties should be double for tractor/trailer rigs

who shed big ass sheets of ice at highway speeds.

[Jersey Devil]

18. Baloney - That's been the law in NJ for several years

Mass would not be the first to have such a law.

Try driving down the nj turnpike the day after a snow storm with huge chunks of ice peeling off the tops of SUVs and 18 wheeler if you think the law is stupid. Sometimes the chunks go right through winshields and at the very least temporarily blinds drivers. It's a good law.

[apnu]

221. NY too. (n/t)

[Armstead]

20. It's Nanny State Crap...It's why people become conservatives

I live in Masachusetts. It's already common sense not to drive without being able to see, or with a car buried in snow.

Cops already can stop you if you're driving with no ability to see, or if you're creating a traffic hazard. Most people already assume that if you head down the road with an icy windshield, or with the car buried in snow, that a cop would stop you.

But making it a new law? Does this mean that if you can't get every inch of snow off, or have some section of ice left on the windshield we get a ticket -- or worse -- now? It's impossible to get every inch of snow or ice off a car.


It sounds like another way to make money.

[ET Awful]

24. Once again, they are NOT talking about your visibility, they are

talking about the hazards to other drivers caused by the ice and crap flying off the roof of your car or truck.

The windows aren't the issue, it's the parts nobody every bothers to clean.

From the original post: "The bill, considered Tuesday by the Joint Committee on Transportation, seeks to reduce the danger to other drivers from chunks of snow and ice that fly off car roofs or hoods. Motorists who don't clear their vehicles face a $500 fine or a prison term of up to six months."

[txindy]

30. Exactly right

I don't know why this is so difficult for some folks to understand. :shrug:

[Armstead]

31. No need for a new law

Cops can already stop you if you're driving with so much ice or snow piled up that you're creating a hazard.

[ET Awful]

36. Sure, I guess they could cite you for driving so as to endanger

and fine you a thousand dollars or so and suspend your license. . . .

Somehow the $500 maximum seems a bit better to me.

[Armstead]

55. They can stop you and give you a warning

THere's already enough laws on the books to deal with this.

[ET Awful]

65. If that was the case, there wouldn't still be accidents caused by this.

I wouldn't be seeing 4 foot long sheets of ice flying of trailers in the winter.

Obviously there aren't enough.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. Once again, the word is "vision" not "visibility"

Visibility means "can you be seen by other drivers".

Vision means "can you see other drivers".

It's about vision and the idiots who think a small patch cleared in front of the driver's seat is sufficient.

[ET Awful]

43. Did you read the original post at all? It has NOTHING to do with seeing

or being seen. It is 100% about posing a risk to other drivers via chunks of ice and crap flying off the top of your car and hitting someone else.

To quote the original post yet again: "The bill, considered Tuesday by the Joint Committee on Transportation, seeks to reduce the danger to other drivers from chunks of snow and ice that fly off car roofs or hoods. Motorists who don't clear their vehicles face a $500 fine or a prison term of up to six months.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. Yes I read the original, but you still went off on "visibility" tangent.

It will still help improve vision, not visibility. And my point was that vision is more important than flying chunks. Did you read my posts at all?

The word is "vision" not, as you write it, "visibility".

[ET Awful]

68. You might want to get yourself a dictionary

vis·i·bil·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "visibility" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vz-bl-t)
n. pl. vis·i·bil·i·ties

1. The fact, state, or degree of being visible.
2. The greatest distance under given weather conditions to which it is possible to see without instrumental assistance.
3.
1. The capability of being easily observed: an executive with high visibility.
2. The capability of providing a clear, unobstructed view: a windshield with good visibility.

If you're going to try to correct someone's English, please make sure you know what you're correcting.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. You wrote "visibility of the driver"

Your English still needs work.

In your own dictionary example, it is the windshield that enables visibility through it, not of it. Drivers have vision which is the active agent they use to see with. The vision of the driver is the ability to see through things. The visibility of the driver is the ability of other people to see the driver. This is why we use language like "visibility disguised by camouflage".

It is not the "visibility of the windshield" when we say it has good visibility, it is the "visibilty through the windshield". The windshield is a passive agent. You are using visibility in the sense of active agent.

The distance issue your dictionary quote mentions is also an issue of "through" atmospheric haze and other conditions.

Keep posting. You are spinning your wheels and icing yourself in place not getting any traction. It is not just about raw English but about coupling English with logic. Logic helps those who have it distinguish between passive agents and active agents.

{Edited to correct bold formatting.}

[ET Awful]

88. BULL.

First, you might want to read up on the proper use of quotation marks, since you are not quoting me.

Secondly, the driver's visibility is and always has been the ability of the driver to see where he is going and what he is doing.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Visibility applies both to your ability to see out of your vehicle and your ability to be seen by others.

Perhaps another year or two of studying the language will clarify this for you.

You might want to contact an English instructor.

Doubt me?

Here, take a look at the thousands of articles available using the word in exactly the context I used it in http://www.google.com/search?q=driver+visibility&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[Bernardo de La Paz]

91. Quoting your post #19 title when say you wrote "visibility of the driver"

The quote marks I use inside the post I wrote are to distinguish text. I didn't say inside I was quoting you, so no need to spin strawman arguments.

People who resort to writing "BULL" as their title really are running out of logical arguments and falling back on emotion.

You still have failed to address the issue of passive versus active agents and I think you will continue to misunderstand the logic and the English usage.

[ET Awful]

94. You've still failed to dispel decades of use of the word "visibility"

in exactly the context I used.

Once again, I suggest you read any of the thousands (nay millions) of examples provided to you.

BTW, you're still misquoting me. I never said "driver visibility."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

102. Read. I never said you said "driver visibility".

I'm not misquoting you. I never said you said "driver visibility", so please stop setting up strawmen. In your title for #19 you wrote "visibility of the driver", meaning "vision" because you were using it in the active sense, and visibility is not the active sense.

[ET Awful]

104. Nice job of editing your post after the fact.

The fact that you're willing to do that proves the illegitimacy of your argument.

I'll tell you once again to refer to the millions of examples (literally) provided via the Google link, and then I'll happily add you to my ignore list.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

117. False accusation. Check the time stamps. Underhanded debating.

You can't win by logic, so you resort to underhanded debating.

As indicated, I edited the bold of the post in the same minute I posted it, and I did not move any text, add any text, delete any text, or change any quotation marks. Check the time stamp on the post and the edit and you will see they are in the same minute. That is the only edit of all the posts I made.

By comparison, you have edited five of your posts, as much as 7 minutes after the fact, and adding text. A bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of editing.

[DS1]

189. Well, THAT was a productive exchange

:eyes:

[ET Awful]

196. That's why I stopped responding . . . seemed like a waste of time

It's not like there are a million samples supporting me or anything . . . oh . . . wait . . .there are. :evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

58. couldnt agree more. a bunch of professional people with garages

that doesnt have ice on their car are telling a bunch of poor people what is going to be done for them, in fine $ and penalty to keep their happy ass safe, as the poor are working live 15 hour days trying to keep all people happy. well bully for yawl. i am not so arrogant as to believe this is just another little thing the people provided and taken care of is not going to be effected and those just trying to make it through have just another hoop to jump thru

i can go on and on and on about the responsibility the world has to me to be safe so i dont get injured. but not going to be my ass out there scraping and strugglin to get to work at 6 a.m.in the dark and freezing and three kids to get somewhere.

just pathetic

and living in snow area, it is not the drivers with vision difficulty that cause me problems. it is the huge ass suburbans that think the can drive reg speed. the ones that cant see, are going plenty slow. they wont hurt me. it is the huge monsters that sit in the garage and comes out in the snow all clean and rearing to go

again. stupid stupid robot.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Sorry, but being poor doesn't entitle you to be a hazard.

[seabeyond]

70. i am suggesting it is another made up hazard, and i am tired of

people being threatened with punishment for made up issues. life is ahrd enough. i dont need a bunch of lies to be dictating my life.

btw, as i said. wont be an issue for me. so many wont be an issue for me. i have about everything to take care of me, to make sure this wont cause me a problem

so many of these stupid laws do nothing to me. but......eventually one will come. i would appreciate support from the stupid, protecting me against me, in lies

i do this for others. i stand one, fighting these stupid made up fear fear, will protect us from all things mentality

[ET Awful]

74. Made up hazard? Read post 27 or, for that matter read this

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNjcmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTYzNDQ1NTgmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5

[seabeyond]

why the f* are you so scared of life. that you think you

need law in every facility of life so you dont get hurt. why dont you have confidence in yourself that you can keep yourself safe.

pathetic. life isn't nearly this scary that we have to pass the stupid laws to control all of man, in every way possible.

[ET Awful]

92. It has nothing to do with being scared of life.

Nice personal attack though.

Sorry, but when you're driving down the highway in the snow and the roads are slick, you don't exactly have the ability to quickly avoide that 4 foot wide slab of ice that just flew off the truck in front of you.

Good job. . . you've proven that you're more interested in personal convenience than you are in taking measures to avoid injury and accident.

[seabeyond]

107. since i have a garage. and i dont have to drive on icy roads

because i dont work outside of home and i have a husband that will drive boys to school on snow days, doesnt really effect me at all. legit question you ask as you challenge me on my suggesting it is misplaced fear. i still hold to that.

this law has nothing to do with me and wont effect my life. it is a bullshit law

and you hang back, when driving on icy road and you drive slow, when on an icy road. whether the person in front has ice on it or not.

there you go. my responsibility in it. how not to have shit happen to you. again, i am confident that i have some controls in my life, even with stupid, inconsiderate or lazy people

i am not totaly helpless human. i can better figure out how to keep me safe than govt. or you for that matter

[ET Awful]

113. Okay, here's something you should be able to relate to . . .

You're driving in the rain, roads are slick, stopping time is reduced, and swerving could result in skidding out of control. . . .

A construction truck in front of you doesn't have their load tied down and a sheet of plywood flys off directly at your vehicle . . . now remember, you can't stop quickly because of road conditions, you can't swerve quickly because of road conditions, and unfortunately, that sheet of plywood doesn't particularly care.

Do you think that the driver of that truck should be required by law to prevent things from flying off their vehicle which would cause you harm?

[seabeyond]

118. i am aware that shit happens. i know the hazards of the slippery

road, especially when rain first begins and the gas on top surface hasnt been washed yet. i know i need a greater distance from vehicle in front of me period. regardless if there is a pile of wood. but...... if i see a ladder, dog, wood, or anything else, take that into consideration of how much more distance i need from the vehicle. and i make my adjustments to be safe

IF i still dont feel comfortable because i see the woods shifting or something else the driver may not be aware of, i take the steps to get out of a hazardous situation

personal responsibility

if the trucker got someone. he would get in trouble. but i am also aware, that shit happens. accidents happen. even to good people;. not being perfect myself

i dont think a stoning is in order

[ET Awful]

122. As displayed in the example below, how exactly would the

trucker get in trouble? He didn't know the ice flew off the truck, the person hit was too busy trying not to die, and was unable to get the license plate number off the truck . . . so how exactly would the trucker be held accountable?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound (hell several pounds) of cure. Better to prevent the conditions which create the hazard than to let the accident happen, let someone be injured or killed, then figure out how to find the person responsible.

[seabeyond]

140. ya ya ya hence so many fuckin laws not a chance

in hell i can follow them all. again i have the money to pay for my non perfection, will just be the poor that will suffer, as always, as we blame them for being poor in the first place. nifty how we get to pick the ones we want the porr to suffer with, and the ones we think are unfair. bit of hypocrisy

pass a law cause of this ONE incident.

what a way to run the world, our lives.

[ET Awful]

145. One incident? I've personally witnessed at least 2, you've

seen examples of others in this thread, I've linked you to news articles regarding others.

Sorry, but requiring someone to avoid causing harm to others is not making anyone suffer. It's preventing someone from suffering . . . who suffers more, the person who has to spend a minute sweeping snow and ice of their car, or the person who ends up having to pay for $1,000 worth of work on their vehicle because of someone else's unwillingness to spend that same amount of time?

If you want to talk about a poor person suffering, let's do that. A poor person will normally have the bare minimum insurance, this means liability only, not collision, not comprehensive. This means if they are hit by flying ice and the vehicle the ice came from is unidentifiable, they are left holding the bag themselves. If their car is damaged extensively, they are not insured for that damage, they're only insured if they hit someone else, and then only for the damage to the other persons car.

So you have a poor person, whose car is now undrivable due to someone elses negligence. The person at fault can not be found, they don't even know they caused the accident. The victim in this case can't get to work now because their car is useless. They can't pay for repairs because they're hardly making ends meet as it is. . . .

Is any of this sinking in?

[ET Awful]

72. And on that day when a chunk of ice fliess off the roof of your car

because you didn't take the extra minute to clean it, it flies into someones windshield causing them to swerve and lose control because of the road conditions, which in turn results in another car hitting them and causing a huge accident, guess who will be at fault . . . even though you were too busy to take that minute to clean off your car.

What's pathetic is people who think that an extra minute in the morning is more valuable than the safety and lives of those they share the road with.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ET Awful]

101. So tell me, how long have you lived in a climate without snow and ice?

You obviously have no clue about any of it.

It takes me 1 minute to scrape the snow and ice off the top of my car. Usually less.

Hell, to get the snow and ice off the TOP of my car usuall requires nothing more than more me to pull the sleeve of my coat down over my hand and sweep it off using my coat sleeve. One sweep on the passenger side, one on the drivers side.

Oh, and calling me a liar is a personal attack, you might want to check the DU rules.

[seabeyond]

110. i have lived in snow areas for two and half decades. n/t

[seabeyond]

112. but then since i have money, i always have new cars

that everything works on. so yes,.......now a days, i can start car, let it sit and heat up, making scrape off really really easy. (but then in garage i dont have the need) i also have the time, since i am not rushing off to a job. again i say,...... all things in my life, makes this law insignificant to me. it wont be to a lot of people. the poor. wtf though.......

[seabeyond]

114. btw, i have the new cars, and garages cause..... i dont want to

scrape f* snow and ice off car at 6a.m.

[MaineDem]

119. I'm very pleased you can afford new cars but that's irrelevant

This has nothing to do with cars on which "everything works." It's about snow and crap on ROOFS etc...where I've never seen a defroster work yet.

Some people don't drive fast so speed limit laws don't apply to them either, if I use your logic.

What if you've been out shopping - spending that money you have. You're parked in an outdoor lot for hours and there's one hell of a snowstorm. This will then apply to you because you've got snow on your hood and roof.


I don't understnad your points here but thanks for contributing.

[seabeyond]

143. nothing in back of pick ups, no dogs in back of truck, no open

windows, no vehicle pulling trailors. with things on trailors. lets pass the laws on all hazards that can cause an accident to the person behind. dont get to be selective

gonna make us safe, dont be a hypocrit, make us safe

[seabeyond]

146. i have never spent hours in a mall, period, certainly not to spend my

money. hence have it for the new car and garage and any ticket i may get. oh and taxes and food for family and heating as it goes up,..... yada yada

[MaineDem]

152. Since you said you don't work outside the home...

I would have said - what if you're parked in a lot at work all day. I don't do the mall thing either.

I've seen as many occasions of snow on roofs at the end of the workday as in the morning.

But that's okay. I live where there's snow so I may have a different take on this than you do.

[MadHound]

23. I think that this is a good piece of legislation

I'm tired of having to deal with idiots who scrape out a peephole only on their front and back windshield, and then drive around like they're all alone on the road. And flying snow/ice chunks is a hazard. A couple of times I've almost crashed due to snow/ice flying off a car and hitting the windshield, blinding me temporarily in heavy, dangerous traffic. Years ago a friend of mine had their windshield shattered by a chunk of flying ice. Hopefully this gets the attention of the idiots out there, and they start cleaning off their car.

[ET Awful]

26. BINGO! n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

109. Might you have been too close?

The two-second rule also applies to your speed when you are on a good road and during good weather conditions. If the road and/or weather conditions are not good, increase your distance to a four or five-second count.
IL DMV


For a good "space cushion," use the two-second rule: Choose an object near or above the road ahead, such as a sign, tree or over-pass. As the vehicle ahead passes it, count aloud, slowly, "one thousand one, one thousand two." If you reach the same object before you finish counting, you are following too closely. Slow down and let the other vehicle get further ahead. In bad weather and when following large trucks, including tractor-trailers, increase the count to three at least or four seconds for extra space.
NYS DMV

[MadHound]

121. Oh, gee thanks, just what I need, a driving lesson

Excuse me friend, but before you put your foot in your mouth even further, let me tell you that I've never had an accident that was my fault, only in two that weren't my fault, haven't had a ticket for over a decade, only have had three tickets in my life(and one was on my bicycle), and have the lowest insurance rates around, get money back from insurance company every year as a bonus for not having a wreck or ticket. I am qualified and pocess a CDL, qualified to drive emergency vehicles, and now have a motorcycle license qualification.

I think that I can drive, OK, no need for the lecture.

And yes, just to answer your question, I was well over five seconds in back of the vehicles in question.

And just for your information, at higher speeds the two second rule will get you killed. Instead of using time as a measure, use space, specifically add a car length to the space cushion between you and the car in front of you for every 10mph that you are traveling at, ie, at fifty, stay five car lengths back(aprox 100 ft), at sixty, six car lengths back, etc. etc.

[LincolnMcGrath]

125. You are telling me that you were "well over" 5 seconds back,

and this object stayed airborne and landed on your grill?

Hogwash!

[MadHound]

148. Let's see here friend,

Built up snow, thawed, frozen, thawed, frozen, partially thawed, sitting on top of an eighteen wheeler or big ass RV going down the road at aprox. seventy-seventy five miles an hour, gets broken loose by the wind stream, flies up in the air long enough for me to come under it. You do the fucking physics.

You are getting quite tiresome friend, you really are. First you presume to lecture me on driving, and then you proceed to tell me that a couple of events that happened to me are hogwash, basically calling me out as a liar, when you weren't even there to witness the events. If you object to what I'm saying, fine, everybody has the right to disagree and to opine as they please. But please, give up the tired old lectures, and stop calling me a liar. It is fucking rude, and doesn't bolster your position well at all.

Oh, by the by, the ice chunks didn't land on my grill, they landed on my windshield both times. Try reading for comprehension next time, OK.

[LincolnMcGrath]

159. I am so sorry my two replys to you have pushed you over the edge.

[ET Awful]

127. Here's a little lesson in physics for you . . . to whit:

A sheet of ice flying off of a tractor trailer can remain aloft for variable amounts of time depending on wind velocity, vehicle speed, and weight of the sheet of ice.

Following too closely is quite irrelevant when the object is a flat sheet of ice carried by the wind.

[LincolnMcGrath]

132. Thank You Professor

:eyes:

[theHandpuppet]

27. I was almost killed by a huge sheet of ice...

... that came flying off the back of a flatbed truck (18 wheeler). The ice, as a sheet, became airborne and smashed into the front of my truck, destroying the grille, damaging the radiator and front bumper. A few inches higher and it would have come right through the windshield and I would have been a goner. The truck didn't stop and I ended up paying for the damage. I was lucky to get away with my life.

If you're too lazy to clean the ice off your friggin' vehicle, STAY OFF THE DAMN ROAD.

'Nuff said.

[jayfish]

59. There Is No Way A Sheet Of Ice...

would come crashing through your front safety glass. The trucking companies insurance should have paid for your damage.

Jay

[ET Awful]

63. How so? The truck didn't know the sheet of ice hit him

He wasn't exactly in a position to get the license no. of the truck.

How exactly would the trucking companies insurance have paid for it?

As to no way a sheet of ice would come through the safety glass, that's not exactly accurate either.

[theHandpuppet]

79. Exactly so.

The trucker probably never knew what happened and didn't even slow down. I was too busy trying to save my life to catch the license # of the truck and it was nighttime. I was lucky to get home with the front of my truck smashed in, but there was a lot of debris from my destroyed grille that littered the highway after that encounter -- which in turn created an additional hazard for the motorists behind me.

[jayfish]

120. The Ice That Would Blow Off A Car Or Truck Is...

(generally speaking)not hard or dense enough to penetrate a windshield. As for "no way", that probably was inaccurate. It boils down to this; is this really a big enough problem to pass a new law for. A law with draconian fines that will most likely exempt the hazards (big rigs) that everyone is citing in this thread? I don't think so.
Jay

[ET Awful]

142. So you're now an authority on the density of ice on cars and trucks?

Interesting.

[jayfish]

199. No More Than You I Guess.

Since you didn't offer any info to the contrary, I'm gonna stand by my statement. :*

Jay

[ET Awful]

201. Since I've SEEN windshields cracked or shattered by flying ice,

I'll have to once again just say you are wrong (or sadly misinformed, on eof the two).

See, what happens is this . . . (especially in the case of tractor/trailers, but I've seen it happen on SUV's as well) . . .

Snow falls. Sun partially melts snow, re-freezes that night, sun partially melts ice, which then re-freezes at night. Through this process water is able to melt into areas that were formerly occupied by air, then re-freeze, forming solid sheets of ice. The only thing holding said ice to vehicle is the suction caused by two very smooth surfaces mating (much like what holds a microscope slide together). Road vibrations and wind then break this suction, causing the previously formed thick (and dense) sheet of ice to dislodge. If you're lucky, it slides off into the road, if not, it flies off into the cars behind.

Sorry, but to pretend that this ice isn't dense is just a sign of inexperience.

[jayfish]

205. Cracked is Not Penetrated.

"I'll have to once again just say you are wrong (or sadly misinformed, on eof the two)."

Bah, I may be both on this one. However, until I see some math on how big a piece of ice would have to be to penetrate a windshield, how much a suitable piece of ice would decelerate once it left the offending vehicle (at the legal speed limit) and how close the potential victims vehicle would need to be the offending vehicle in order to be hit by said ice, I'm gonna say this is a non-issue. ...sadness and all.

Jay

[ET Awful]

209. As I said before . . .

A slab of frozen snow 6 feet by 5 feet by 2 inches weighs approximately 310 pounds.

That's not an unusual size sheet of ice to come flying off a semi.

That's not even talking about ice . . . that's just snow . . . 310 pounds while you're travelling at highway speeds . . . think about that.

[jayfish]

210. A 6X5X2 Sheet Of Snow...

is going to remain intact once it takes flight at highway speeds? I just don't buy it. That being said; I'm not going to convice you and your not going to convince me. Truce?

BTW: Did you ever think a thread about traffic law would reach 200+ posts in so little time?

[ET Awful]

212. Truce . . .

but I'm still right :evilgrin:

Every once in a while, you run across a thread that you'd think would be fairly innocuous which actually ends up lasting all day or even into the next day :).

[theHandpuppet]

76. Well, since it smashed in the front of my truck...

... and sounded like a bomb going off, I assume a sheet of ice the size of a queen-sized mattress just might do a bit of damage to my windshield, don't you think?

If you have proof to the contrary, post it. But that doesn't appear to be your point.

[ET Awful]

85. To add a little perspective

A slab of frozen snow 6 feet by 5 feet by 2 inches weighs approximately 310 pounds.

That's not an unusual size sheet of ice to come flying off a semi.

[theHandpuppet]

115. Yep, that sounds like the size of the sheet that came flying at me

Seeing a sheet of ice that big become airborne and aim right for your windshield, knife-edge first, is a "Well, this is it" moment. I braced for the impact but it literally sounded as if a bomb went off when that ice sheet impacted and damaged my truck. Anyone who says it could not have gone throught my windshield is living in a dream world.

[ComerPerro]

28. $500 is a little steep. I'd be happy with $50 or so

Just enough to be an inconvenience.

Enough to annoy people.

Because, honestly, not clearing snow off your car is hazardous. Not to you, of course, but it creates visibility problems for people behind you.

[Jersey Devil]

33. That is the maximum fine, not the minimum

Judges would not impose the maximum fine on a first offense except in the most unusual cases, like ice still being on a truck roof 2 days after a storm.

[ComerPerro]

42. Yeah true. Didn't read the details

[ET Awful]

34. Would you be happy with $50 or so if someone had failed to

clean the ice off their car and a chunk flew off, hit your car and caused $1,000 worth of damage?

[ComerPerro]

40. Yeah, because with the law in place, I assume they would be responsible

The law would state that it is illegal to drive with snow and ice on your car that would pose a danger to other motorists, and I therefore must assume that anyone who breaks the law will be responsible for damage.

And, even if not, as it stands right now people have shit fly off their cars and aren't responsible for damage. So what would really be the difference?

[ET Awful]

46. Because it is PREVENTATIVE, this statute would allow someone

to be stopped before they cause damage, not after.

I'm going to have to assume that you've either never driven in hard winter weather, or that if you have, you're one of the few whose never been effected by a 40 pound chunk of ice flying at you at highway speeds.

[ComerPerro]

98. That's exactly my point

Here's what I'm saying (and, yes, I have driven in hard winter weather, in Chicago, and that's why I think this is such a good idea):

The law and fine will serve as a deterrant, and will allow cops to stop people before they become a danger, yes. And I honestly think that the inconvenience of being stopped, issued a traffic ticket, having to go to court, and paying $50 will encourage a lot of people to clean their car responsibly.

Much of my point had to do with the difference between 50 and 500 dollars. If someone has ice that causes 1000 dollars or more in damage to my car, I don't care what they are fined, if its fifty or five hundred. I just want my car fixed.

Hell, fifty dollars would be an improvement over the current policy, which offers no fine at all and gives the person causing the trouble a pretty good chance of getting away. Even if you get their license plate and can report it, good luck actually getting anything done about it.

The reason I am saying that $500 is steep is because there will always be cops who thrive on stopping people for bullshit reasons.

[ET Awful]

103. $500 is the MAXIMUM fine. Not the minimum, not the fixed fine, but

the MAXIMUM.

This means that it's the court's discretion.

[ComerPerro]

129. Yeah, I realize that. LOL

Never really thought the conversation would go that far.

I should have been more specific.

Looks like we're pretty much on the same page

:hi:

[ET Awful]

153. I think so :)

:hi:

[maine_raptor]

54. Here in Maine,

trucks, those hauling gravel, rocks, wood chips, etc MUST have a covering over the load. Any damage caused by rocks, gravel, wood chips or whatever flying off the load must be paid for by the operator/owner of the truck.

The State and Local cops enforce this rule quite strictly.

This law was passed a number of years ago after a husband was killed while driving his car with his wife and kids in ti and a large rock came off a state truck, came through the windshield and killed him in front of his family.

If you are behind a truck and a rock comes off and cracks the windshield, you can stop the truck, get his insurance info, and them have the glass company send the bill to him. (I know, I had my windshield replaced about 5 years ago when it happened to me).

[ET Awful]

69. Yes, but that doesn't cover ice that's laying in a sheet on an enclosed

trailer. See, the load is covered, but it's what's on top of the cover that poses the threat.

[marions ghost]

95. good analogy

a large chunk of ice or snow is a similar projectile...

Now this is an example of an UNjustified ordinance:
http://www.wral.com/news/4966871/detail.html

[ET Awful]

97. It's similar, but wouldn't be covered under the same statute which

only covers the load the vehicle is carrying. If the ice forms on top of the cover of that load, the law wouldn't seem to apply.

[marions ghost]

124. sure I understand

that it needs a specific law that would work as a deterrent. I'm all in favor of that.

[ET Awful]

137. Hehehe, I wasn't pointing any fingers :). . . Maine and Vermont

are two states that could benefit greatly from a law like this . . . with some of the narrower roads and such . . . I mean, it's hard enough to evade flying ice like that on a 4 lane highway, but on some of the narrower roads you guys have up there, it's a choice between getting hit by the ice, swerving into a mountain, or driving into the river :) :) :)

[FlaGranny]

37. I remember when I lived in "ice country"

one day coming out from work and there was a 1-inch sheet of ice over the entire car. There was no way I could have gotten it off. I had to chip the ice on my windshield with my keys and it took me foreever to get enough ice off the windows so that I could see to drive. The only way I could even drive out of the parking lot was to let air out of my rear tires to get some traction. If I got fined on top of that - well, I wouldn't have been happy.


Edit: Some people in this thread seem to think you can sweep ice off a car. You can't sweep ice off your car - it is not possible. Snow, yes, of course you can. Ice is frozen solid to your car. It needs to be chipped off piece by piece.

[Jersey Devil]

44. We both know that is not what this law is all about

It is about truck drivers who won't get up on the roof and drive from Maine to Virginia with thick coats of ice on the roof that might be there for days before suddenly breaking loose, or SUV drivers who are too damned lazy or cheap to get a broom with a telescoping pole to clean their roofs after a storm and ride around with huge mounds of snow on top of their SUVs.

[FlaGranny]

56. I hope so. But who knows

what an individual cop will do. For most people, sweeping the snow off the car comes right after cleaning the sidewalk. We always had a long handled brush in the car and an ice chipper.

[calico1]

131. You can get ice off your car if you are prepared.

My Winter "kit" includes two ice scrapers--one small, one large, a brush for the snow and a bottle of de-icer fluid. Ice is more difficult to remove than snow if its that thick stuff. This happened to me a few times last Winter. But if you have the needed equipment you can remove it. I have done it on many occasions.

[MadHound]

61. Oh please friend, just because you weren't prepared for this

Doesn't mean that you should get a free pass. Scraping ice off with your keys? I hope you had just moved to ice country at the time, otherwise you were foolishly unprepared, without an ice scraper or a can of de-icer. And if you bang on your hood, roof, trunk and fenders, you can get the majority of ice off of your vehicle.

Just because you were woefully unprepared for ice doesn't mean that this is a bad piece of legislation. Next time, throw and ice scraper and can of de-icer under your seat and you will be fine. Yes, it will require some effort on your part, but then again you never know, the life you save through such preparedness could very well be your own.

[ET Awful]

77. Lots of things work in a pinch for getting rid of ice as well

CD cases, Cassette cases (when they were still popular), credit cards (make sure you use the card you buy with least often, I broke one once), but in a pinch, there's almost always something around that will work.

[XOKCowboy]

215. You've never been caught in an ice storm have you?

In Oklahoma the exact thing she described happens quite often. Starts off warm then the clouds come in, the wind comes up and the temps start to plummet. It begins to rain and when the temp goes past freezing all that rain freezes to objects. We're talking about 1/4"-1" thick ice on everything. No credit card or CD case will get this off. The only way to remove it is a warm garage.

[FlaGranny]

133. I had all the supplies that were available

at the time. This was thick and very hard ice - close to an inch of it. It rained and froze and became very cold while I was at work. I had an ice scraper (only plastic), but the ice was so thick and hard, I had to use my keys to get it started. Banging the hood down as hard as I could would NOT have removed this ice.

I got inside my car and ran the defroster, which eventually got the front window ice loose enough to remove with my ice scraper. I used my keys, I used my ice scraper, I used my defroster, I let some air out of my tires. I even carried a shovel and bucket of sand in the trunk. I spent an hour in the parking lot, in high heels, bare legs. I guess I could have just stayed in the parking lot for the night.

Anyway, by the time I got home, the ice was still just as hard and thick even over the hood. It was cold.

Please, be realistic.

Edit: This was in the early 1960s. There might be better equipment available now, but I haven't lived where there is ice and snow for almost 30 years.

[ET Awful]

158. High heels and bare legs in ice and snow?????

Yipes. :scared:

[calico1]

182. I am freezing just thinking about that one.

Not only that but if I had high heels with ice on the roads I'd be on my butt in no time. I can't walk in them without tripping in dry weather, never mind icy roads. Definitely not practical Winter attire. :crazy:

[FlaGranny]

185. Yes. Went to work in temperatures

of 40-50 degrees in the morning. During the day the temperatures plummeted. Didn't have much time to listen to the radio or watch TV in those days. Had to get kids ready for school, get ready for work, etc. Just got ready and went. I did learn a lesson or two that day.

[maine_raptor]

62. De-icer and a scrapper work just fine for getting ice off a car.

[Jersey Devil]

39. Here's the NJ law for comparison

39:4-77.1. Snow, ice dislodged from moving vehicle causing injury, property damage; penalties

1. When snow or ice is dislodged from a moving vehicle and strikes another vehicle or pedestrian causing injury or property damage, the following penalties shall apply:

The operator of a non-commercial motor vehicle shall be subject to a fine of not less than $200 or more than $1,000 for each offense.

The operator, owner, lessee, bailee or any one of the aforesaid of a commercial motor vehicle shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 or more than $1,500 for each offense.

No motor vehicle points or automobile insurance eligibility points pursuant to section 26 of P.L.1990, c.8 (C.17:33B-14) shall be assessed for this offense.

L.1997,c.124,s.1.

[ET Awful]

48. The Jersey law doesn't seem to go as far, it imposes fines only

if the ice flies off and causes damage or injury.

The Mass. proposal would allow for fines to be imposed before the damage can occur. A little stricter, but it could prevent a LOT of accidents as a deterrent.

[Orsino]

45. Not a bad idea, but...

...it just happens to amount to a tax on people who can't afford garages.

[Jersey Devil]

52. Can they afford a $6 brush on a pole at K-Mart?

For Chrissakes, I have about 6 of them in the garage and always keep one in each car during the winter and although I have a garage I don't use it. I just get up a few minutes early, warm up the car and clean it.

[ET Awful]

57. How so?

It takes all of 30-45 seconds to get snow off the roof of a vehicle. That's not a tax. It's a preventative measure.

I've been through many winters in Massachusetts without a garage . . . you know what I did when I got up in the morning and left for work? I scraped the snow off my car.

You know what I did when I left work at night? I scraped the snow off my car.

This added a whole minute to a minute and a half of time to the time already required to scrape the snow off my windshield and from in front of my headlights.

If you want to call it a tax on those too incosiderate to spend the extra 30 seconds to avoid danger to other motorists, I'll agree with you.

[meganmonkey]

67. I'm with you, ET Awful. I live in Michigan and we know snow and ice

and it IS dangerous.

I find it interesting that people from warm southern climes are the ones who have a problem with this

:shrug:

[Orsino]

84. I don't have a problem with it.

I will support such legislation.

I'm only decrying yet another example of matters that never concern the wealthiest Americans.

[ET Awful]

90. This law has nothing whatsoever to do with whether someone is

wealthy or not.

It has to do with whether someone is courteous enough to make the minimal effort it takes to avoid risks to other drivers.

If you park in any type of covered parking, it doesn't apply. (hint: Not only the wealthy have access to covered parking, I've lived in shithole apartments that had covered parking and I've lived in luxury apartments that did not).

[Orsino]

144. It has to do with both.

The wealthier Americans can better afford covered parking, and are therefore less likely to be cited, is an unfortunate side effect.

I just can't think of a way around legislating in this manner. People must be held accountable for unsafe driving.

[ET Awful]

151. I know wealthy folks that don't have garages, and I know poor folks

that do. . . . your wealth has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you can take that extra minute out of your day to make sure you don't pose a hazard to someone else.

I just don't see this as a wealth related issue in any way, shape or form.

[Orsino]

157. Your wealth can make a difference...

...as to whether or not you have to take that extra minute or ten.

I don't see any possible way to dispute that point, minor though it is.

[ET Awful]

163. I fail to see how.

If you have a person who is poor (and qualifies for low income housing) and a person who is not poor, you can, in many cases, have them both living in the same apartment complex (due to government incentives offered for providing the low income housing). Now you have one person who lives below the poverty line, and one who lives well above it, both living in the same building, parking in the same parking spaces, etc. . . . How exactly does wealth play into whether they need to scrape ice off their car? Do poor peoples cars get colder at night?

[Orsino]

168. Statistically.

You're trying to argue that wealth is not an absolute indicator of whether or not one is likely to be inconvenienced by the law in question. It's not, and I never claimed otherwise.

Generally, though, people who can afford covered parking won't have to worry. That's all I'm claiming, and I doubt you would wish to dispute that.

[Pithlet]

169. They do.

People with garages park outside all the time. We do leave the house, occasionally.

[calico1]

184. That would only apply if it only snows when your car

is in the garage. It often snows when you are out and about or when you are at work. Unless you also park in a garage during working hours and everywhere else you go you can't avoid getting snow on your car.

[Orsino]

187. Statistically, people, statistically.

Dear god. I give up.

[Pithlet]

195. Okay

Even if it were statistically relevant, it only takes a few minutes to clean off your car, and ice scrapers are inexpensive. If ice scrapers cost 20 bucks and it took half an hour, I'd be with you. Economically speaking, no one really has an excuse not to take the little time and effort to clean off their car. And, having a garage never completely removes the burden if you live in a colder climate. People with garages have to scrape ice occasionally in Michigan. Take it from one who's from there.

I'm well aware that the burden is on the poor in our society, and I'm against any laws that unnecessarily make that burden greater. This isn't one of those laws.

[durablend]

190. OMG that's RIDICULOUS

Get up 10 minutes earlier, scrape car off. Seems simple enough.

[meganmonkey]

100. No worries

I wasn't referring to you - I hadn't even checked your profile until you replied. I did check a couple others, though, out of curiousity ;)

[MaineDem]

75. I follow the same procedures

I start my car and put on the defrosters. I get out and clear off the snow from the hood, roof, and trunk. Then I clear the windows, which might by this time have been cleared by the defrosters. Then I drive.

Takes not a lot of extra time.

The trucks are a major problem, especially around here. But inconsiderate drivers who only clear off the windows of their cars are also a problem.

Boils down to common courtesy I would think. I'm not sure they deserve to go to jail for 6 months, though.

[ET Awful]

78. The jail time is a bet excessive . . . although some days I've spent

in Vermont or Maine (especially on narrower roads up to ski areas), I've seen ice fly off and really, really wished they'd get the freakin driver off the road and keep him off.

[durablend]

81. I'd think if an accident could be blamed on their negligence

They definitely should get jail time (ditto for anyone who causes a serious accident and was proven to be yapping away on a cell phone at the time)

[ET Awful]

106. Well, if the accident actually occurred, I'd agree with you

But as a preventative, I'd be hard pressed to strongly support jailtime. I mean . . . we aren't talking DUI here.

[Orsino]

80. Unfortunately, it amounts to a tax...

...that won't ever be levied against people who can afford garages.

And you're right about the time it takes to brush off snow, but the time to remove ice is a lot longer.

I definitely agree, though, that drivers must be held accountable if they operate their vehicles in an unsafe manner. I too am frightened by the number of drivers I see navigating through peepholes.

[MaineDem]

86. It has nothing to do with garages

What about someone parked in a lot during the day and then drives home to her garage? Say it snowed all day long. Having a garage means nothing then.

I can't agree that it's a tax on those without garages. Hell, I've left my car outside the garage more often than not.

[Orsino]

141. Oh, good grief. n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

186. thanks for pointing this out

Yes, usually it's easy to clean ice and snow off your car. But whether it's easy or hard, this is one more thing that poor people have to worry about and rich people with garages don't. I'm glad DU is a place where people appreciate what it's like to be poor.

[Pithlet]

193. A lot of laws are hard on the poor

and needlessly so. This isn't one of them. Scraping off the car after a storm isn't a burden for anyone. It takes 10, 15 minutes, tops, and ice scrapers are cheap.

[ET Awful]

198. Once again it has nothing to do with rich or poor. . . it has to do with

common sense and common courtesy.

In the time I've lived in Massachusetts, I've had a garage sometimes and had to park outside sometimes. . . I ain't rich, that's for damned sure, but guess what . . . I never have ice flying off the top of my car.

[midnight armadillo]

71. I'm tired of these fixed fines for traffic violatiosn

Let's make 'em a percentage of annual income, like they do with speeding tickets in parts of Germany. There rich people can't shrug off traffic fines...maybe it'd slow down the BMW drivers.

[ET Awful]

73. Fixed fine? I don't see any fixed fine, I see a MAXIMUM fine. n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. Silly Law n/t

[DS1]

93. Good

It's inconsiderate as hell

[ET Awful]

111. Notice how the majority of folks that have to deal with the imbeciles

who leave the ice on their cars support this law, but those who don't ahve to deal with it attack it?

[calico1]

135. Yes, I have noticed that.

I am not poor and my car has never been in a garage. In the Winter on most days I run out about 10 minutes before its time to leave if there is snow or ice on my car. I heat it up and then when I go out later I spray with de-icer, scrape and brush as needed. Its a routine. It has nothing to do with being poor or not. Its is both safe and considerate of other drivers. I don't see why some people have such a problem with it.

[MaineDem]

136. I've lived with snow all my life

I echo your statement completely.

[Pithlet]

167. It's their gawd given right to drive

with ice and snow flying everywhere creating a hazard for everyone else! :sarcasm:

[msrbly]

99. Already a similar law in Michigan . . .

Operating automobile with windshield so covered with frost that driver cannot see where he is on highway is "negligence per se". Paquette v. Consumers Power Co. 25 N.W.2d 599, 316 Mich. 501 (1947).

[ET Awful]

138. This isn't about the windshield so much as it is about ice and crud

on the roof that can fly off and hit someone else.

[SmokingJacket]

105. Excellent.

We get people around here driving in what looks like a freaking IGLOO with a little hole dug out to look through. Flying ice and snow is bad, but so is NO visibility whatsoever.

[ET Awful]

108. You better watch out . . . I give it 30 seconds until a poster above

attacks you for using the word visibility properly (or, as he defines it improperly).

[SmokingJacket]

116. Oy vey. Doncha love pedants?

Anyway, it's actually harder to SEE a snow-covered car in the middle of winter, too... so visibility IS a problem when people don't clean off their car.

Sheesh. You'd think society wasn't crumbling around their ears, the way some people have the free time to freak out about other people's use of language.

[ET Awful]

126. Especially when the usage was correct and substantiated both by

dictionary entries and several million articles available via a simple Google search :)

[dad]

139. Another step towards the police state

Must suck to live up north. .. getting fined for driving to work..
When was the last time a law was passed granting US citizens MORE freedom?

[ET Awful]

149. They're not fining anyone for driving to work, they're fining someone

for posing a risk to others.

So tell me, where you come from, do they fine people for driving around with unsecured loads on their vehicles? It amounts to the same thing.

Sorry, but you've obviously never seen a 4 foot wide sheet of ice fly off a vehicle on the highway.

[calico1]

150. Interesting take.

I have been clearing snow and ice from my car ever since I have lived here. Do it for my safety and for the safety and consideration of others. Never thought of myself as being repressed for doing so. :eyes:

[ET Awful]

154. LMAO . . . Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[Pithlet]

171. The ice scraper of oppression

No!!!!!!!

[ET Awful]

173. Well it IS a RED ice scraper . . .

Couldn't you get us a nice unopporessive BLUE ice scraper instead? :evilgrin:

[Pithlet]

177. A little less threatening

[calico1]

175. I'll bet if you look at who invented the ice

scraper you will find it was a Republican. And don't even get me started on snow brushes and de-icer fluid! :silly:

[ET Awful]

178. Nonsense, they serve a practical purpose and are affordable, there's NO

way a Republican invented them :)

[calico1]

181. LOL, true.

If a Republican had invented it, it wouldn't work and it would cost $500. :silly:

[ET Awful]

183. And it would run on petroleum products. :) n/t

[calico1]

174. Oops. I should have said "oppressed."

But I think you know what I meant.:crazy:

[ET Awful]

180. I know , it's just every time I see that word, I flash on Monty Python

:evilgrin:

[calico1]

216. Ok, I get it now.

I could not see the picture at work. They have the site blocked for some reason. ;)

[Pithlet]

170. Police state.

Because cleaning off your car after a snow or ice storm is SUCH a big deal!

I love the libertarian histrionics in this thread, I must say. Some will defend to the death their right to endanger others, rather than pick up a damn ice scraper. Hilarious.

[ET Awful]

172. I especially like the ones who say it's the fault of the person who

gets hit with the crap off someone else's car for . . . well, I guess for daring to drive on the same road.

[Bill McBlueState]

188. oh come on!

A law granting people more freedom? That's so 1930's. :eyes:

[Pithlet]

194. The freedom to be a danger to others!

A very precious freedom, indeed. It's bad enough we already have to stop at red lights. More laws ensuring the safety of others? Preposterous.

[calico1]

200. I agree. What is with that?

Traffic lights, stop signs, yield signs. I also hate that I should have to turn on my night lights on when its dark or that I am expected to use turn signal lights. It infringes on my freedom. If people can't figure out where I am going or if they can't see my car at night, then they should just stay off the road!

[Pithlet]

202. The law requiring headlights at night is just more nanny state BS

Along with making people obey traffic signs. Insisting on crap like that is why the Dems lose elections.

[ET Awful]

203. Yeah, that whole discharging firearms into the air on the 4th of July

and that DUI law . . . get rid of those too, yet more nanny state BS.

[Pithlet]

206. Laws. Ugh.

I want to be free. I also want to be free to whine and cry and demand punishment if someone has the audacity to cause me harm. But, I don't want to have to be burdened with worrying about anyone else but myself. Laws suck. It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[calico1]

207. Exactly.

Another one that bothers me--the four way stop where you are supposed to take turns or alternate. Screw that. I say, everybody just go. You have reflexes and you have brakes. What do people think they are for? I say if you can't get through without getting tangled up with another car then you should take a bus. Why should everyone else have to pay because some people aren't quick enough? Too many stupid, useless laws.

[ET Awful]

211. I think at those intersections you should have to alternate . . .

boy . . . girl . . . boy . . . girl . . . :evilgrin:

That's so much more efficient than any of the current rules :)

[mccoyn]

214. They need a cop with a tow truck.

Those intersections need a cop with a tow truck to impound the vehicles of anyone who waves off the right of way.

[MaineDem]

147. I never expected this much response

I'm floored! :)

[ET Awful]

155. Hehehehe, every once in a while, you just make one of those posts that

you think is going to be innocuous and get a few quasi-interested responses . . . then it catches on fire :)

[genieroze]

156. NJ already has a similar law.

[ET Awful]

166. Jersey Girl posted it above . . . the major difference between that law

and this one is that one is only applicable after an accident has already happened, this one is designed to prevent it from happening by acting as a deterrent.

Don't get me wrong, Jersey's is better than many other states, but in the case where you can't identify the vehicle that caused the accident (see post 27 for example), Jersey's law wouldn't help that much.

[Moosepoop]

176. You know what's also a hazard?

The big chunks that form UNDER the car, behind the tires. A lot of people don't remove the snow and ice that packs up around the wheel wells while they're driving, they let it gain in size for days... then at some point these things break loose and fall on the road somewhere.
It's like encountering a small boulder when it comes bouncing at you from the car ahead.

[ET Awful]

179. True . . . I've hit a few of those in my time.

Of course, removing ice from under the car is a hell of a lot tougher than getting ice off the top of the car.

[Buns_of_Fire]

213. When I spent a winter in Omaha, we called them "snow turds"

Well, actually, I think I was the only one who called them that. I do remember vividly that most of the native drivers there gave me a wide berth whenever it snowed. (I had Georgia plates on my car. They knew what they were doing, especially after seeing me slide across three lanes of traffic after the first snowstorm of the year!)

[XOKCowboy]

217. Good name

LOL We love your kind in Denver!! You're fun to watch driving in your first snow storm! :)

[ET Awful]

219. I always called them the same thing I call big chunks of snow and ice

when I'm snowboarding . . . death cookies :)

[The Straight Story]

191. It is pretty F***ING sad we need more and more laws for crap

Honestly, do we need yet another law?? Do they have to spell out every single possible offence someone can commit and make it into a law?

[ET Awful]

197. If it endangers other people, then yes. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

192. Irresponsible people who endanger lives should be fined.

If they aren't responsible enough to maintain their cars so as to not to put others at risk of death or injury they shouldn't be driving.

[GirlinContempt]

208. Not stiff

I know we have laws like that here. Jail time is incredibly rare, you get fines and fines and fines before any kind of jail time, but I don't think it's that stiff. I've seen accidents happen when large amounts of snow blow off the roof of someones car onto someone else's windshield. It's already slippery and bad driving, then to have no visiblity is really dangerous.

[patdem]

220. Bill in VA forces hurricane victims to clear tree limbs off their cars!

So as not to become an obsticle to other drivers. OOPS...wrong forum!

[B Calm]

222. Speaking as a truck driver, how in the hell am I suppose to get

snow and ice off the top of semi trailers?

[MindPilot]

223. That was my question, after that thing has been rolling down the highway

for 10 hours, how are you even supposed to know what's up there, let alone get that mattress-sized chunk of ice off?

Here in snow & ice free southern california, there are a lot of big dump truck type vehicle on the road. Even though CA law requires a load to be secure and covered, every one of these dirt trucks has a big sign on it: "Stay Back! Not Responsible for Damage!"

Does the law make a distinction between ice and rocks?