Trucker Preferential Treatment

fredag den 11. februar 2022 kl. 02.30.49 UTC+1 skrev snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com:

if you think running over people or blowing up truckers is ok, you must not be very good with common sense either

For a practical matter, there's a shortage of truckers but not of protesters.

But how much good are truckers if they block roads instead of hauling goods over them?

Remarkably it looks like every state legislature had the good sense to notice that the potential civil liability between driving a vehicle into a person by accident vs. intentionally was already adequately covered by other laws.

Your reading of my post would seem to show a lack of comprehension. Where did I say anything about it being ok with *me* to "blow up" truckers' rigs??? I'm asking about the law.

"Under the law’s provisions, those driving on a road or highway while a protest is occurring are granted civil immunity protections if they drive their vehicles into the crowd, causing harm to those taking part in the demonstration. This is similar to an Oklahoma law that was recently passed by the state legislature, which also provides protections for drivers who use their vehicles to harm groups exercising their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly."

So there are states where it seems to be ok in at least a civil sense to run over protesters.

"Under the law’s provisions, those driving on a road or highway while a protest is occurring are granted civil immunity protections if they drive their vehicles into the crowd, causing harm to those taking part in the demonstration. This is similar to an Oklahoma law that was recently passed by the state legislature, which also provides protections for drivers who use their vehicles to harm groups exercising their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly."

Or perhaps this web site is misinterpreting the laws in those two states? I'm willing to bet those laws are not Constitutional and would be struck down in an appropriate case.

So maybe it is not "ok" to blow up truckers' rigs, but clearly it would be "ok" to run them over once outside their vehicles. That's the law in Florida!

There's a shortage of truckers in part because the job doesn't pay nearly as much or is nearly as secure as it once was.

Average age of a long-haul truck driver in the US is something like 53 why are the kids these days not getting into the field, because they figure the pay for newbies is TOO GOOD and they all hate money and protesting pays better? ????

Yeah maybe but I don't think that's the reason.

the passage from the Oklahoma law: "

1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot, as defined in Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death; and
2. The motor vehicle operator exercised due care at the time of the death or injury. " I can't find the Florida law but I suspect it is similar

Truckers would probably have better stories to tell during a poker game than ordinary protestors. There are pulling contests for semis similar to tractor pulls. Remember C.W. McCall and "Convoy"?

Seems a bit drastic. It should be simple enough to arrest the truckers and drive the trucks away. If this is not happening, it must be a political decision.

Sylvia.

Another minor practical matter is that truckers keep us alive.

Never assume. You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"... Didn't you ever see the Odd Couple?

Any law that includes a test regarding a state of mind is pretty much an open door.

Of course! Truckers are second only to farmers in terms of gaining public sympathy. A government official would only take direction action against them if they did not plan on running for reelection.

They would not drive the trucks away though. They would be towed and impounded.

Not when they are blocking highways. John Larkin's grasp of practical reality isn't all that firm.

When blocking roads, truckers (and others) kill people.

I very much doubt that is the case.

Sylvia.

The truckers should just stay home and let the urban elites freeze and starve in the dark.

Let them eat masks.

Some of the trucker might stay home, but there will be enough scab truckers to keep the food flowing.

Marie Antoinette was a little more realistic.

John Larkin hasn't noticed that modern society is remarkably complicated, and all sorts of people could withdraw their labour and let the urban elites freeze and starve in the dark. The trade union movement depends on it. The people who pay all these essential people don't like trade unions, for fairly obvious reasons, and they are rather more influential in American than in more egalitarian countries (which is most of the rest of the advanced industrial world).

The negotiations in the US are a trifle less well organised in consequence.

You have not kept up with your news. DeSantis made a bit of a splash some months ago when this bill was signed into law. It prevents civil liability in such a case. Criminal prosecution is always contingent on the willingness of prosecutors to pursue a given event. Consider the Arbery case where prosecution was deferred until the video leaked out.

The law preventing civil liability in Florida has opened the door to extremely violent actions without consequence.

And pay their bills how - via America's excellent social welfare programs for people who don't wanna work?

Om nom nom