 
Support Wrong Planet!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ManErg
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: No Mans Land
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ascan wrote: | | It's a mistake, anyway, to measure the success of a particular measure in deaths alone. You need to consider other factors such as the suffering caused to the thousands who've lost their driving licences for very minor infractions of the speed limit. |
No you don't! The life of one innocent is worth an infinite number of lost driving licences. Driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't enjoy that privilige - a privilege that causes 3,000 deaths a year in the UK (contrasted to 4,000 a couple of decades ago) - within the bounds of the law then you don't deserve it. Nobody loses their licence for 'very minor infractions' anyway. If caught doing 36 or less in a 30 zone, you can do speed awareness training and receive no points. It takes 4 offences, I think, to get the points total for a ban. And as each offence only lasts three years, you have to have 4 offences in 3 years. I have never heard of anyone being banned for these circumstances.
I believe that the UK law isn't strict enough on serious offences. If you want to kill someone, make sure you're behind the wheel of a car at the time as you'll get a year or two sentence even if you were drunk and do a hit and run.
There are too many awful drivers who produce pathetic sob stories of only being 1 mph over the limit - or 1 microgramme over the alcohol limit - or have only had 1 'small' accident "and that was caused by the "driver in front stopping too quickly"  Don't believe any of it. Are those who have been driving for 10 years without being caught simply charmed? Government henchmen? Nope. Just better drivers.
| ascan wrote: | | All because a bunch of self-righteous hand-wringing do-gooders, many who've never driven a car in their lives |
Please provide evidence that people who believe that excessive speed is dangerous have never driven cars. Is it that they're being chauffer driven? Wanting to reduce accidents due to excessive speed does not make one a self-righteous do-gooder. (BTW I've been caught once, so I'm not holier than thou, just that I admit I was in the wrong and am much more careful now, rather than trying to wriggle out saying "the road went surprisingly downhill" or "I was being chased by Martians")
Now it's a fair point that the government may twist stats round to their viewpoint, but the "I can drive as fast as I like, it's the other idiot who's the child killer" extremists also twist stats round to *their* viewpoint, too.
| ascan wrote: | | The only reason the camera vans are there is because Wales is run by a bunch of greedy leftist scumbags who need to maximise revenue to feather their vile marxist nests. |
This has nothing to do with Big Brother, 1984 and hidden Marxist agenda's, whatever the Daily Torygraph says. If human beings could self-regulate their speed when driving, there would be no need for any of it. However, something about driving turns many adults into irresponsible children, unthinking, uncaring then blaming someone else for the results.
I'll just go and collect my paycheck from the Men In Black.......
PS So is Wales the place where the poor are getting richer and the rich are getting poorer??? If so, when can I move in 
_________________
Enjoy the journey - because you won't be reaching your goal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | n4mwd wrote: | | Cell phone bans are always passed by morons looking for scapegoats. The reality is that things like drinking alcohol and eating a burger are much more hazardous to a person's driving ability. They are talking about having traffic light cameras here too, but more likely, its going to result in a lot of cameras being shot out or blown up. |
Are you trying to tell me it's more than safe to yak on a cell-phone while driving? The people who insist on yakking on a cell-phone while behind the wheel are the real morons. Usually, the conversations are not even about anything important.
If you're distracted while driving, be it by a cell-phone or that gun in your hand, you constitute a danger to everyone on the road.
I'm glad I live far away from California. What a frakking mess.  |
the law was passed on the fallacy of correlation equals causation.
i'd like to see the number of people who drive and talk on their phones who do not have an accident and never harm anyone...oh wait, those numbers don't exist.
i'd bet every last cent that the number of fatalities and accidents are anomalous when compared to the number of people who don't get in accidents when driving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 30
Posts: 11411
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Be a gent and accept defeat with some dignity.
Choose the hills you die on, my man! Choose wisely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | Be a gent and accept defeat with some dignity.
Choose the hills you die on, my man! Choose wisely. |
i will never accept a slow decline to fascism quietly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 30
Posts: 11411
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So this is the hill you're dying on? Cell phone ban while driving?
Unsheathe your sword and fall on it, already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3158
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | Be a gent and accept defeat with some dignity.
Choose the hills you die on, my man! Choose wisely. |
i will never accept a slow decline to fascism quietly. |
That's ok ... their plan factored in a certain amount of noise.
What could more fascist than laws that require motorists, airplane pilots or surgeons to give their complete and undivided attention to the task at hand? It's not like a mistake might kill someone... |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monty wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | Be a gent and accept defeat with some dignity.
Choose the hills you die on, my man! Choose wisely. |
i will never accept a slow decline to fascism quietly. |
That's ok ... their plan factored in a certain amount of noise.
What could more fascist than laws that require motorists, airplane pilots or surgeons to give their complete and undivided attention to the task at hand? It's not like a mistake might kill someone... |
airplane pilots don't even have to fly the majority of the time if you're talking commercial airliners. they set their coordinates and let the jet fly itself. that's why you get reports of pilots going to sleep in the cockpit.
surgery is nowhere near the same thing as driving. different set of motor(meaning the mechanics of muscles) skills required and a different level of focus required.
i know you're dim and so absolutism is the only thing you understand but you don't legislate for the lowest common denominator. that's how you turn innocent people into criminals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2259
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ManErg wrote: | | No you don't! The life of one innocent is worth an infinite number of lost driving licences. |
Rubbish. That's just typical of the emotive tripe peddled by feminists and liberals who won't be happy until the only people who can drive are a few fortunate state employees who've received intensive safety indoctrination, and whose movements are tracked via gps receivers shoved up their arseholes.
Absolute safety doesn't exist. People would still be killed on the roads if we all peddled around on bikes.
| ManErg wrote: | | Driving is a privilege not a right... |
I've heard that one before. It must be standard-issue UK-state-school indoctrination. People with that attitude don't deserve to be free. The state shouldn't hand out privileges to me, a free born Englishman. Maybe to some Johnny-come-lately-just-off-the-banana-boat foreigner, but never an Englishman in his own country! Maybe you'd be better off in Zimbabwe?
Last edited by ascan on Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 30
Posts: 11411
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Innocent people have a knack for turning themselves into criminals, with or without cell phones. All you really need for that is an overinflated sense of entitlement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | Innocent people have a knack for turning themselves into criminals, with or without cell phones. All you really need for that is an overinflated sense of entitlement. |
heh, an overinflated sense of entitlement is what brought the law into being. the cali "liberals" in their righteousness voted it in because they hate seeing people in front of them on cell phones.
300 deaths out of 4000 fatalities means that it's roughly 9% of the fatalities...that's not particularly a strong reasoning to legislate this issue.
edit: just checked the math, it's actually 7.5% |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3158
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: |
airplane pilots don't even have to fly the majority of the time if you're talking commercial airliners. they set their coordinates and let the jet fly itself. that's why you get reports of pilots going to sleep in the cockpit. |
True. Fine with me if one sleeps while the other is awake at the controls.
| skafather84 wrote: |
surgery is nowhere near the same thing as driving. different set of motor(meaning the mechanics of muscles) skills required and a different level of focus required.
|
They are different, but a momentary lapse in either case can be bad.
| skafather84 wrote: |
i know you're dim and so absolutism is the only thing you understand but you don't legislate for the lowest common denominator. that's how you turn innocent people into criminals. |
I'm not sure that I am an absolutist ... I do think that some limit should be established, based on scientific measurements of how various doses affect people's reflexes, attention span, etc. It is utopian to think that we can have some standard that accounts for every variation in body chemistry. People that drink to the point that their blood alcohol is over the legal limit should make provisions so they don't have to drive ... designated driver, taxi or bus, sleep in a car, etc.
So are you part of the 95% of objectors that have a drinking problem, or the 5% that disagree on principle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monty wrote: | | So are you part of the 95% of objectors that have a drinking problem, or the 5% that disagree on principle? |
ad hominem attack. and wrong thread: this is cell phones, not drinking.
i disagree on principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3158
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monty wrote: | | So are you part of the 95% of objectors that have a drinking problem, or the 5% that disagree on principle? |
| skafather84 wrote: |
ad hominem attack.
|
No, not an ad hominem attack. I realize that some people are opposed on principle, and gave you that option.
| skafather84 wrote: |
and wrong thread: this is cell phones, not drinking.
|
Oops. They're so similar.
| skafather84 wrote: |
i disagree on principle. |
Ah - So you are a dim person who can only think in absolutist terms and opposes reasonable regulation for the public good that might conceivably not be 100% just. Well, might as well throw out all laws and punishments, then ... passing a law against murder might mean that someone is falsely convicted of murder someday.
(Now THAT statement is an ad hominem - the same one you leveled against me a few posts above.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monty wrote: | | monty wrote: | | So are you part of the 95% of objectors that have a drinking problem, or the 5% that disagree on principle? |
| skafather84 wrote: |
ad hominem attack.
|
No, not an ad hominem attack. I realize that some people are opposed on principle, and gave you that option. |
you were implying that i'm an alcoholic. that's a pretty low blow and nowhere near on topic. not to mention you just pulled numbers out of your ass.
| monty wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: |
and wrong thread: this is cell phones, not drinking.
|
Oops. They're so similar. |
same absolutist attitude. same violation of the individual.
| monty wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: |
i disagree on principle. |
Ah - So you are a dim person who can only think in absolutist terms and opposes reasonable regulation for the public good that might conceivably not be 100% just. Well, might as well throw out all laws and punishments, then ... passing a law against murder might mean that someone is falsely convicted of murder someday.
(Now THAT statement is an ad hominem - the same one you leveled against me a few posts above.) |
this one is best covered in the other thread. i'm gonna copy and past this bit there and respond there to keep things on topic and flowing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | | Innocent people have a knack for turning themselves into criminals, with or without cell phones. All you really need for that is an overinflated sense of entitlement. |
heh, an overinflated sense of entitlement is what brought the law into being. the cali "liberals" in their righteousness voted it in because they hate seeing people in front of them on cell phones.
300 deaths out of 4000 fatalities means that it's roughly 9% of the fatalities...that's not particularly a strong reasoning to legislate this issue.
edit: just checked the math, it's actually 7.5% |
quoting so this doesn't get lost in monty's post fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
