Can we find more ways kill people on the highway......PLEASE!
12-04-2003, 05:33 PM
#26
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NWA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kev,
Do you ever speed? I ask this seriously.
Also, I would like to make clear that I don't have a game console in my car and am not planning to put one in. I also barely use my cell phone in general, much less in the car. I have the navigation, but I only use it when I'm not moving or someone is in the passenger seat to read it to me. When I said I was willing to take the risk and let people make their own decisions I did not mean I was going to put a game console in my car, poor wording. I meant I was willing to let others do it in their own cars.
Yes, I do understand that many people can't make informed or intelligent decisions, but that is what our constitution is based on. We allow people to vote on who will run the country but we shouldn't allow them to decide whether or not they want to have a game console in the car and use it or a cell phone while they are driving? You are right, their decision might get people, including themselves, injured or killed. But their decision on who will lead the country might cause the same thing (war, abortions, and so forth). People have not gotten less intelligent, they've always been this way.
Your stance means also, that if sometime in the near future, technology allows us to have a fully automated car system (one where the cars and routes are controlled completely by computers and people only ride in them), you can't complain about not being able to drive anymore, because human driving would put yourself and others at risk of injury or death.
Do you ever speed? I ask this seriously.
Also, I would like to make clear that I don't have a game console in my car and am not planning to put one in. I also barely use my cell phone in general, much less in the car. I have the navigation, but I only use it when I'm not moving or someone is in the passenger seat to read it to me. When I said I was willing to take the risk and let people make their own decisions I did not mean I was going to put a game console in my car, poor wording. I meant I was willing to let others do it in their own cars.
Yes, I do understand that many people can't make informed or intelligent decisions, but that is what our constitution is based on. We allow people to vote on who will run the country but we shouldn't allow them to decide whether or not they want to have a game console in the car and use it or a cell phone while they are driving? You are right, their decision might get people, including themselves, injured or killed. But their decision on who will lead the country might cause the same thing (war, abortions, and so forth). People have not gotten less intelligent, they've always been this way.
Your stance means also, that if sometime in the near future, technology allows us to have a fully automated car system (one where the cars and routes are controlled completely by computers and people only ride in them), you can't complain about not being able to drive anymore, because human driving would put yourself and others at risk of injury or death.
12-04-2003, 06:08 PM
#27
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluesnowmonkey,
What sort of moron thinks that applying eye makeup while driving is mostly a risk to the driver doing it. You are exactly the sort of limited intellect that needs to be stopped from injuring others through thoughtless action. Ever heard of a "head on" accident? What about the baby that no longer has a mother?
Also, I don't think anyone was ever killed by a spear while the operator was playing a game console - maybe you'd like to do a little research on this though???
You want the freedom to throw baseballs at people and cause brain damage? What sort of mixed up indiviual are you. Responsible people take precautions - but you expect everone else to suffer your stupidity.
Now let me explain things very simply to you as I believe things like this are very hard for you to understand. A car is a big heavy thing that can cause damage if not controlled properly. If it hits people it can kill them. It should not be a personal freedom to drive a car in a way that it can kill innocent people.
Freedom isn't about your right to harm people through the expression of your own stupidity. Kill someone's child in your car while you're watching a dvd and you'll be experiencing the sort of freedom you are endorsing.
As long as people continue to express their stupidity through acts that harm others, laws will continue to be introduced to protect the innocent.
Let's talk about freedom though, the freedom to walk down the street without being raped or robbed, the freedom to cross the road without being killed by someone who doesn't see a traffic light because they're playing a game, the freedom to walk through a park without being hit in the head by a baseball.
What sort of moron thinks that applying eye makeup while driving is mostly a risk to the driver doing it. You are exactly the sort of limited intellect that needs to be stopped from injuring others through thoughtless action. Ever heard of a "head on" accident? What about the baby that no longer has a mother?
Also, I don't think anyone was ever killed by a spear while the operator was playing a game console - maybe you'd like to do a little research on this though???
You want the freedom to throw baseballs at people and cause brain damage? What sort of mixed up indiviual are you. Responsible people take precautions - but you expect everone else to suffer your stupidity.
Now let me explain things very simply to you as I believe things like this are very hard for you to understand. A car is a big heavy thing that can cause damage if not controlled properly. If it hits people it can kill them. It should not be a personal freedom to drive a car in a way that it can kill innocent people.
Freedom isn't about your right to harm people through the expression of your own stupidity. Kill someone's child in your car while you're watching a dvd and you'll be experiencing the sort of freedom you are endorsing.
As long as people continue to express their stupidity through acts that harm others, laws will continue to be introduced to protect the innocent.
Let's talk about freedom though, the freedom to walk down the street without being raped or robbed, the freedom to cross the road without being killed by someone who doesn't see a traffic light because they're playing a game, the freedom to walk through a park without being hit in the head by a baseball.
12-04-2003, 06:26 PM
#28
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skapunk,
There are laws against speeding - you spped, you get fined. Kill someone speeding ... manslaughter and jail.
I'm not focused on you in any way as an individual. I'm glad you are a responsible driver. A lot of people are. The people who are not responsilbe are the problem.
You don't need a phone, dvd, game console or anything else in a car to do something stupid.
In passing, would you really want a person that believes it's their constitutional right to watch a dvd while driving a car to be driving down the street while your child was crossing the road?
A society needs laws, if one law of "don't do anything stupid that could harm others" was introduced, would you accept it? Probably not, but I just don't understand why people believe they should have the right to do things that can harm others, why would they want to or feel the need to?
There are laws against speeding - you spped, you get fined. Kill someone speeding ... manslaughter and jail.
I'm not focused on you in any way as an individual. I'm glad you are a responsible driver. A lot of people are. The people who are not responsilbe are the problem.
You don't need a phone, dvd, game console or anything else in a car to do something stupid.
In passing, would you really want a person that believes it's their constitutional right to watch a dvd while driving a car to be driving down the street while your child was crossing the road?
A society needs laws, if one law of "don't do anything stupid that could harm others" was introduced, would you accept it? Probably not, but I just don't understand why people believe they should have the right to do things that can harm others, why would they want to or feel the need to?
12-04-2003, 06:36 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now come on Kev, we were having an honest debate, no need to call people morons. Let's try to keep it civil, ok?
We're talking about some technology that can be used in both safe and unsafe ways (talking on a cell phone or watching a video screen). Here's your argument:
1. Talking on a cell while driving causes accidents (no doubt about that).
2. Most people are too lazy and/or too impatient to pull over when they get a call on their cell while driving.
3. Therefore, we should ban the presence of any cell phone in the presence of the driver of any car, denying this to all the people that would use them intelligently.
What Mr. bluesnowmonkey (and I as well as Mr. Franklin) are trying to argue is that as a society that attempts to provide everyone with some reasonable amount of freedom. Furthermore, if we outlaw every single thing that could possibly cause deaths, then this would be a severely repressed society with not much freedom besides the right to live. I.E. there can be NO freedom without risk.
We're talking about some technology that can be used in both safe and unsafe ways (talking on a cell phone or watching a video screen). Here's your argument:
1. Talking on a cell while driving causes accidents (no doubt about that).
2. Most people are too lazy and/or too impatient to pull over when they get a call on their cell while driving.
3. Therefore, we should ban the presence of any cell phone in the presence of the driver of any car, denying this to all the people that would use them intelligently.
What Mr. bluesnowmonkey (and I as well as Mr. Franklin) are trying to argue is that as a society that attempts to provide everyone with some reasonable amount of freedom. Furthermore, if we outlaw every single thing that could possibly cause deaths, then this would be a severely repressed society with not much freedom besides the right to live. I.E. there can be NO freedom without risk.
12-04-2003, 06:40 PM
#30
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NWA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kev
Let's talk about freedom though, the freedom to walk down the street without being raped or robbed, the freedom to cross the road without being killed by someone who doesn't see a traffic light because they're playing a game, the freedom to walk through a park without being hit in the head by a baseball. [/B]
Let's talk about freedom though, the freedom to walk down the street without being raped or robbed, the freedom to cross the road without being killed by someone who doesn't see a traffic light because they're playing a game, the freedom to walk through a park without being hit in the head by a baseball. [/B]
Also, you never answered my question and I'm thinking maybe you just missed it, not that you're avoiding it? Do you ever speed? Do you ever break traffic laws, like rolling stops at stop signs or not using your blinker?
I apologize if I sound too sarcastic or condescending, I did not mean it to seem so.
What I mean by the speeding question is, if you're not following the laws we already have, why should we add more? Enforce what we have, as more laws don't necessarily mean less accidents. Also, I mean that if you speed, then you have no place at all to say that others should be prosecuted for not paying attention to driving. You are breaking present laws and a danger yourself. I'm not trying to attack you personally, but I am trying to show the folly in your thinking.
Last edited by Skapunk; 12-04-2003 at 06:59 PM.
12-04-2003, 06:41 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we eliminate every activity that endangers others, there'd be no smoking, no drinking, no cell phones, etc. In fact, once we can program cars to drive to destinations by themselves (without the help of a driver), we can just outlaw driving. How would you like that?
12-04-2003, 09:51 PM
#33
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skapunk
First of all, that's security, not freedom. Freedom is the ability to walk down the street if you so choose to without the government telling you that you can't. Shall we outlaw baseball in the parks so your precious head will not be at risk? We shouldn't walk dogs in the park anymore either because they might bite someone.
First of all, that's security, not freedom. Freedom is the ability to walk down the street if you so choose to without the government telling you that you can't. Shall we outlaw baseball in the parks so your precious head will not be at risk? We shouldn't walk dogs in the park anymore either because they might bite someone.
Dangerous dogs should be on a lead with a muzzle. Recreatational activities should be undertaken in ways that do not risk the safety of others.
Which would you prefer??? Walk your dog on a lead or be beaten to death by the parent after your dog bites a small child on the face? Kill an 80 year old lady by hitting her in the head with a baseball or play a safe distance from others or in a location more suited to the activity?
It's because many people are too stupid and/or too selfish to exercise sufficient common sense that laws need to be introduced to make them aware of the dangers and reduce the risk to the innocent.
BTW, whether I personally drive about at triple the speed limit or rob banks for a living are questions that will not be answered on this forum. I didn't miss your question - I ignored it.
Also, "folly of my thinking" ? Now that's rather insulting isn't it? But what should I expect from a person with your viewpoint? I'm glad your driving around on the other side of the world.
12-04-2003, 09:58 PM
#34
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rabinabo
Now come on Kev, we were having an honest debate, no need to call people morons. Let's try to keep it civil, ok?
Now come on Kev, we were having an honest debate, no need to call people morons. Let's try to keep it civil, ok?
Remember, if everyone was capable of driving a car while watching tv, this would not be an issue.
... or is it a case that I should be allowed to run someone over because I'm watching a dvd in my car, but I'm not permitted to express a strongly felt opinion.
12-04-2003, 10:06 PM
#35
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rabinabo
If we eliminate every activity that endangers others, there'd be no smoking, no drinking, no cell phones, etc. In fact, once we can program cars to drive to destinations by themselves (without the help of a driver), we can just outlaw driving. How would you like that?
If we eliminate every activity that endangers others, there'd be no smoking, no drinking, no cell phones, etc. In fact, once we can program cars to drive to destinations by themselves (without the help of a driver), we can just outlaw driving. How would you like that?
There is no reason you can't experience 100% enjoyment in life - just do it responsibly. It's because people can't or won't be responsilbe that laws need to be introduced.
Would you carry out rifle practice in a crowded park? If you say yes to this I'd be truly amazed.
12-04-2003, 11:24 PM
#36
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the initiator behind this thread, I'll say this, I personally never stated that such things should be illegal, i.e. game consoles, dvd, etc, but if they were I wouldn't be hurt by it.
What has been baffling me while perusing these threads for the the past couple of months is that people aren't looking for advice on how to install game systems into the rear part of the car for the kids, but rather up front in plain view of the driver. Now maybe some of these people thought, if only for a moment, how dangerous it could be and ignored it or maybe they didn't think about it. In either case, this thread was to, hopefully, "open their eyes" to see the possible "future" error of their ways and just not do it.
This thread was not intended to degenerate into alcohol and drugs, security and freedom, though I can see how they came about. But for people not to be so blind about some of the things they do, and that the decisions they make can have consequences for others as well. The world does not revolve around any one individual, though it seems some posters think that.
Just to digress for a moment, one of things I've been trained in as an aircrewman on helicopters is Crew Resource Management. Without boring everyone with the training here, one aspect that is pushed, shoved and stuffed into our brains is:
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
Knowing anything and everything that is going on around you at all times. I have found that this simple principle has carried over to my driving, that at any given time I know where I am on a given road and what other vehicles are around me. I've taught myself to see who specifically is driving and how they are driving and also, and more importantly, what am I doing at any given time and not to have my attention drawn away too long.
This is a human principle and with that there is an inherent problem, maintaining it 100% of the time! Which brings me to mentioning that the reason I got an 8 in October was because I was sideswiped and my truck totaled. I wasn't distracted, the radio was off and my cell phone on vibrate, at the moment of impact I trulely believed that neither of the 2 cars in the far 3rd lane would come all the way over to my side. When I made that turn, 1 truck had come from the third lane and crossed over the line between lanes 1 and 2 as I was straightening my vehicle out in lane 1(left lane, hoping to leave a safety zone between me and them, one lane apart). Regardless I was cited, even though it was aparent he had switched lanes too far. And this happened when I had no other distractions, what if that driver was busy doing something else and just t-boned me?
Nothing is 100%, so why must ppl increase the level of risk that so inherent with driving a car.
What has been baffling me while perusing these threads for the the past couple of months is that people aren't looking for advice on how to install game systems into the rear part of the car for the kids, but rather up front in plain view of the driver. Now maybe some of these people thought, if only for a moment, how dangerous it could be and ignored it or maybe they didn't think about it. In either case, this thread was to, hopefully, "open their eyes" to see the possible "future" error of their ways and just not do it.
This thread was not intended to degenerate into alcohol and drugs, security and freedom, though I can see how they came about. But for people not to be so blind about some of the things they do, and that the decisions they make can have consequences for others as well. The world does not revolve around any one individual, though it seems some posters think that.
Just to digress for a moment, one of things I've been trained in as an aircrewman on helicopters is Crew Resource Management. Without boring everyone with the training here, one aspect that is pushed, shoved and stuffed into our brains is:
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
Knowing anything and everything that is going on around you at all times. I have found that this simple principle has carried over to my driving, that at any given time I know where I am on a given road and what other vehicles are around me. I've taught myself to see who specifically is driving and how they are driving and also, and more importantly, what am I doing at any given time and not to have my attention drawn away too long.
This is a human principle and with that there is an inherent problem, maintaining it 100% of the time! Which brings me to mentioning that the reason I got an 8 in October was because I was sideswiped and my truck totaled. I wasn't distracted, the radio was off and my cell phone on vibrate, at the moment of impact I trulely believed that neither of the 2 cars in the far 3rd lane would come all the way over to my side. When I made that turn, 1 truck had come from the third lane and crossed over the line between lanes 1 and 2 as I was straightening my vehicle out in lane 1(left lane, hoping to leave a safety zone between me and them, one lane apart). Regardless I was cited, even though it was aparent he had switched lanes too far. And this happened when I had no other distractions, what if that driver was busy doing something else and just t-boned me?
Nothing is 100%, so why must ppl increase the level of risk that so inherent with driving a car.
12-05-2003, 12:01 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the points are just not coming across well in this format. I'm not advocating watching a tv in ANY way WHILE DRIVING, and I don't think anybody else was either. Just like I don't advocate driving with one hand while holding the cell in the other.
I'm just saying that a REASONABLE person can DRIVE and not get distracted by NOT WATCHING THE VIDEO. That's all. Just like a reasonable person will pull over when they have to talk on their cell phone.
I just don't see why you would make a law to ban such a thing. If a person is driving WHILE FRICKIN' WATCHING A VIDEO, then they're already committing a crime: reckless endangerment (or some such thing). Then I'm all for locking them up.
I'm just saying that a REASONABLE person can DRIVE and not get distracted by NOT WATCHING THE VIDEO. That's all. Just like a reasonable person will pull over when they have to talk on their cell phone.
I just don't see why you would make a law to ban such a thing. If a person is driving WHILE FRICKIN' WATCHING A VIDEO, then they're already committing a crime: reckless endangerment (or some such thing). Then I'm all for locking them up.
12-05-2003, 12:09 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oosik, I can appreciate the situational awareness comment. When I really get into driving, I look for every bit of info that I can find while driving. Sometimes it's someone on a cell phone, other times I try to anticipate other drivers' actions, or when I'm changing lanes I'll often look over two lanes to make sure someone doesn't change into my next lane while I'm moving over. Anyways, when I'm like that, there's nothing that will distract me from my task of driving.
12-05-2003, 12:11 AM
#39
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rabinabo
I think the points are just not coming across well in this format. I'm not advocating watching a tv in ANY way WHILE DRIVING, and I don't think anybody else was either. Just like I don't advocate driving with one hand while holding the cell in the other.
I'm just saying that a REASONABLE person can DRIVE and not get distracted by NOT WATCHING THE VIDEO. That's all. Just like a reasonable person will pull over when they have to talk on their cell phone.
I just don't see why you would make a law to ban such a thing. If a person is driving WHILE FRICKIN' WATCHING A VIDEO, then they're already committing a crime: reckless endangerment (or some such thing). Then I'm all for locking them up.
I think the points are just not coming across well in this format. I'm not advocating watching a tv in ANY way WHILE DRIVING, and I don't think anybody else was either. Just like I don't advocate driving with one hand while holding the cell in the other.
I'm just saying that a REASONABLE person can DRIVE and not get distracted by NOT WATCHING THE VIDEO. That's all. Just like a reasonable person will pull over when they have to talk on their cell phone.
I just don't see why you would make a law to ban such a thing. If a person is driving WHILE FRICKIN' WATCHING A VIDEO, then they're already committing a crime: reckless endangerment (or some such thing). Then I'm all for locking them up.
My issue is that there are a significant number of people out there that are too stupid to know it's dangerous to watch televison while they're driving. Tell me it's less than 1 in 500 - would that still be ok? ... not by me.
How do you stop the idiots from doing the wrong thing without dividing society? How do you determine if someone is an idiot or has the potential to do stupid things?
12-05-2003, 02:51 AM
#41
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NWA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not advocating that people watch tv or talk on their cell phones while they are driving either, but a law isn't going to help. Kev, you seem to want a law for everything that is potentially dangerous to anyone at any time. We have speed limits, does that keep people from breaking them, no. If you are willing to break them yourself then you cannot be angry at others for doing the same thing or breaking similar driving laws. You don't have to answer officially. I will admit that I have broken the speed limits, but I'm not advocating adding more laws and complaining about my security. If you are willing to put others at risk with your own driving behavior, then you have no business condemning them for doing the same.
Kev,
Also, since you want potentially harmful practices illegalized, then tell me if you would accept a law that says humans are not allowed to drive if we can create an automated car system where computers do the driving and you sit in the back (I ask this because with the technology I've seen in cars right now, I think it is very possible this will happen in the near future). With your positions on everything else, you would have to accept it, because human error in driving could cause injury to others, and that possibility is not acceptable to you. At least that's how I've interpereted your stance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
People get angry when they feel cornered by their words, and you seem to be getting angry. I wonder how old you are?
Let me add that I'm for punishing more on law breakers. I simply think we don't need more laws, just ones that we enforce, and enforce more strictly if they are serious. If someone hits another car because they were watching tv, would you punish them differently if they hit another car because they were listening to music or talking on the cell phone? They should all be punished just as harshly in my opinion.
Kev,
Also, since you want potentially harmful practices illegalized, then tell me if you would accept a law that says humans are not allowed to drive if we can create an automated car system where computers do the driving and you sit in the back (I ask this because with the technology I've seen in cars right now, I think it is very possible this will happen in the near future). With your positions on everything else, you would have to accept it, because human error in driving could cause injury to others, and that possibility is not acceptable to you. At least that's how I've interpereted your stance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
People get angry when they feel cornered by their words, and you seem to be getting angry. I wonder how old you are?
Let me add that I'm for punishing more on law breakers. I simply think we don't need more laws, just ones that we enforce, and enforce more strictly if they are serious. If someone hits another car because they were watching tv, would you punish them differently if they hit another car because they were listening to music or talking on the cell phone? They should all be punished just as harshly in my opinion.
Last edited by Skapunk; 12-05-2003 at 03:00 AM.
12-05-2003, 02:57 AM
#42
Lubricious
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,425
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally posted by rabinabo
Then I wouldn't give them a driver's license. If they're not reasonable enough to think intelligently, they shouldn't be allowed to drive on the streets.
Then I wouldn't give them a driver's license. If they're not reasonable enough to think intelligently, they shouldn't be allowed to drive on the streets.
It should also be much easier to lose that license, and law enforcement should stop taking the easy way out (focusing on speed), and start citing for the far more dangerous offenses of following too closely and dangerous lane changes.
12-05-2003, 10:41 AM
#43
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
law enforcement should stop taking the easy way out (focusing on speed), and start citing for the far more dangerous offenses of following too closely and dangerous lane changes.
Speed may kill, but combine that with what you just mentioned and more than one link in that chain is broken.
12-05-2003, 11:54 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kev
It's an honest debate and I honestly believe that anyone that feels that limiting dangerous acts of stupidy by law takes away their freedom is a moron...
It's an honest debate and I honestly believe that anyone that feels that limiting dangerous acts of stupidy by law takes away their freedom is a moron...
---jps
12-05-2003, 12:52 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is an excellent argument (so long as people can remani civil with one another) we must be aware what freedome means. "the price of freedom is constant vigilance."
to the point of professional drivers being able to use 2-way radios and laptops i.e. police and truckers. it is actually that these people experience accidents at a significantly increased rate due to the distractions created by these devices. it seems to be that people are only capable of so much multitasking and as we add in other distractions like kids or phones that attention diminishes even further.
i agree that when we start letting law makers do all the thinking about what is safe and what we can/cant do then we no longer deserve our freedom. we have lost sight of the goal and traded for ease of life and comfort.
coincidentally though speed does kill technically it was actually the poor thinking of the driver. in the U.S. we say speed kills on the autobahn the leading cause of fatal accidents is actuall tailgaters.
to the point of professional drivers being able to use 2-way radios and laptops i.e. police and truckers. it is actually that these people experience accidents at a significantly increased rate due to the distractions created by these devices. it seems to be that people are only capable of so much multitasking and as we add in other distractions like kids or phones that attention diminishes even further.
i agree that when we start letting law makers do all the thinking about what is safe and what we can/cant do then we no longer deserve our freedom. we have lost sight of the goal and traded for ease of life and comfort.
coincidentally though speed does kill technically it was actually the poor thinking of the driver. in the U.S. we say speed kills on the autobahn the leading cause of fatal accidents is actuall tailgaters.
12-05-2003, 05:42 PM
#46
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Sputnik
Kev, chill out with the name calling. If you can't argue your point civilly, then don't bother.
---jps
Kev, chill out with the name calling. If you can't argue your point civilly, then don't bother.
---jps
Don't confuse the expression of opinion with name calling, also please don't confuse my applied observations as being anything less than civil.
Opinion counts as one on a planet of five billion plus.
I see the attitude expressed towards other people as one of careless disregard and the law as an annoying restriction on activities. Further, I feel this attitude is either criminal or moronic. The opportunity to express things differently exist, but this is how I currently interpret things.
Also, crying "freedom" everytime a law is introduced that intends to restrict people from harming others is foolish. Debating how law is used and the general state of your legal system is a completely different matter.
Explain to me why anybody should have the freedom to harm another living soul through negligent action and I'll concede the point and change my view.
Last edited by Kev; 12-05-2003 at 05:56 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Audio Concepts ATL
New Member Forum
21
09-26-2021 01:59 PM
WingleBeast
Series I Wheels, Tires, Brakes & Suspension
22
05-23-2016 09:22 PM
