This is nothing more than one-sided arguments trying to make a case against the proposed laws shielding drivers from lawsuits if they hit someone but there is no discussion regarding the rights of drivers for unimpeded access to public thoroughfares when the protesting fools try to block access.
This is nothing more than one-sided arguments trying to make a case against the proposed laws shielding drivers from lawsuits if they hit someone but there is no discussion regarding the rights of drivers for unimpeded access to public thoroughfares when the protesting fools try to block access.
They do not have a right to unimpeded access to public thoroughfare. Where was that “right “ granted in the constitution.
Stupid question trying to turn this into a constitutional issue. Resubmit in 30 days for final disapproval.
No Frumke, Stupid statement by you. When driving a vehicle on a public or private road, the driver never has the right-of-way through or over a pedestrian or other vehicle.
No Frumke, Stupid statement by you. When driving a vehicle on a public or private road, the driver never has the right-of-way through or over a pedestrian or other vehicle.
This is nothing more than one-sided arguments trying to make a case against the proposed laws shielding drivers from lawsuits if they hit someone but there is no discussion regarding the rights of drivers for unimpeded access to public thoroughfares when the protesting fools try to block access.