Thread Tools Display Modes
11-03-09, 12:23 AM   #61
Jesamyn
<This Space for Rent>
 
Jesamyn's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
(does anyone keep their college carp around after graduation?)
Yes. I had a good taxidermist stuff my carp, then I hung it on the wall.
__________________
I'm not an idiot. I'm just harmlessly psychotic.
  Reply With Quote
11-03-09, 02:51 AM   #62
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
To exactly the point that it doesn't infringe on others. If you drive while texting, whether or not you have actually caused an accident this time, you are unnecessarily endangering my life. I seem to remember some quote somewhere about rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I notice life comes first there.
By whose determination is the element of infringement decided? And, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every aspect of life? At what point does the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begin? Where does it end?

As it can be legitimately claimed that adjusting the volume on your car radio can be as much of a distraction as texting while driving (I mean, an accident can occur at any split second of driving time), how would such legislation be enforced? I'd like for you to lay out the complete picture on this new set of rules and legislation you seem to support. Help me understand how these things are determined, enforced, and penalized.

It appears you are taking the position there are no existing laws to protect people on the road. That simply isn't the case.
  Reply With Quote
11-03-09, 05:42 AM   #63
wurmfood
A Flamescale Wyrmkin
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
As it can be legitimately claimed that adjusting the volume on your car radio can be as much of a distraction as texting while driving (I mean, an accident can occur at any split second of driving time), how would such legislation be enforced? I'd like for you to lay out the complete picture on this new set of rules and legislation you seem to support. Help me understand how these things are determined, enforced, and penalized.
Avoiding most of it, but I'd like to point out that for a number of years now many car manufacturers have been putting basic stereo controls (including volume control) on the steering wheel to prevent people from having to remove their hands from the wheel.

To the earlier comments about paying more attention to the phone, from my experience it'd guess a lot of that has to do with the difficulty of hearing someone over the phone as opposed to next to you. Most headsets (and cell phones in general) are low power and only in one ear. Any other noise then distorts how well you can hear the person on the phone requiring you to pay more attention to what they're saying to be able to fully listen. If someone is next to you the sound quality is much better and brought in through both ears, allowing for less concentration to be needed.
  Reply With Quote
11-03-09, 11:06 AM   #64
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by wurmfood View Post
Avoiding most of it, but I'd like to point out that for a number of years now many car manufacturers have been putting basic stereo controls (including volume control) on the steering wheel to prevent people from having to remove their hands from the wheel.
Since the dawn of man, guys have been distracted by pretty girls walking down the street. What happens when a turn of the head to check out her shorts equals plowing into oncoming traffic in the next lane? How is this distraction enforced? I'm not really asking you as it were, I'm just posting more questions for the "law-happy" posters in this thread.

I mean, we want to protect all life, right? And of course we want to remove/prevent all distractions, right? Who decides which distractions are dangerous enough to legislate against? How are they enforced? Think about it. For as many reasons as people are justifying "against" texting, there are as many other equally dangerous (and potentially more so) actions that might cause as many accidents on the road. Are we only concerned about a few? Hmmm.

Last edited by Republic : 11-03-09 at 05:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote
11-03-09, 04:12 PM   #65
Yhor
A Pyroguard Emberseer
 
Yhor's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Since the dawn of man, guys have been distracted by pretty girls walking down the street. What happens when a turn of the head to check out her shorts equals plowing into oncoming traffic in the next lane? How is this distraction enforced? I'm not really asking you as it were, I'm just posting more questions for the "law-happy" posters in this thread.

I mean, we want to protect all life, right? And of course we want to remove/prevent all distractions, right? Who decides which distractions are dangerous enough to legislate against? How are they enforced? Think about it. For as many reasons as people as justifying "against" texting, there are as many other equally dangerous (and potentially more so) actions that might cause as many accidents on the road. Are we only concerned about a few? Hmmm.
I say we pass laws to enforce a dress code for women. Pass a law to stop rubber necking other accidents, new construction in a neighborhood, and high speed chases are distracting to me, so outlaw that too. Also, really awesome looking vehicles should be outlawed, I mean who doesn't do a double-take when they see a (insert your favorite vehicle here)? Billboards... distracting... you name it and it could be argued as distracting to someone, and just where does it stop? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but laws beget more laws, and the cycle never ends. You have to stop the cycle somewhere. Some things sound like a really good idea, but when it spawns ideas that are not so good, and begin to effect you directly; that's when you start to realize it might not have been a great idea to support the original.

I would name examples of laws and treaties that spawned something our gov't (and citizens) regretted afterward, but it's specific to USA and other nationalities might be offended. I'm sure every nationality reading this thread can give an example relative to their nation.
  Reply With Quote
11-03-09, 05:15 PM   #66
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Yhor View Post
I say we pass laws to enforce a dress code for women. Pass a law to stop rubber necking other accidents, new construction in a neighborhood, and high speed chases are distracting to me, so outlaw that too. Also, really awesome looking vehicles should be outlawed, I mean who doesn't do a double-take when they see a (insert your favorite vehicle here)? Billboards... distracting... you name it and it could be argued as distracting to someone, and just where does it stop? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but laws beget more laws, and the cycle never ends. You have to stop the cycle somewhere. Some things sound like a really good idea, but when it spawns ideas that are not so good, and begin to effect you directly; that's when you start to realize it might not have been a great idea to support the original.

I would name examples of laws and treaties that spawned something our gov't (and citizens) regretted afterward, but it's specific to USA and other nationalities might be offended. I'm sure every nationality reading this thread can give an example relative to their nation.
Better be careful there Yhor, some of our legislation-happy liberty donors might need a cigarette after reading that post.

I'm withholding further commentary until some of my most recent questions are answered
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 12:30 PM   #67
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Since the dawn of man, guys have been distracted by pretty girls walking down the street. What happens when a turn of the head to check out her shorts equals plowing into oncoming traffic in the next lane? How is this distraction enforced?
Just because all distractions can't be enforced or avoided, doesn't mean we should allow them all. And what you call checking out pretty girls, I call being aware of pedestrians. If a pretty girl on the side of the road really distracts you enough you plow into oncoming traffic, you need help my friend.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
By whose determination is the element of infringement decided? And, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every aspect of life? At what point does the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begin? Where does it end?

As it can be legitimately claimed that adjusting the volume on your car radio can be as much of a distraction as texting while driving (I mean, an accident can occur at any split second of driving time), how would such legislation be enforced?
Really? I don't even notice when I adjust the volume on the radio, hitting those little buttons on the phone on the other hand...

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
I'd like for you to lay out the complete picture on this new set of rules and legislation you seem to support. Help me understand how these things are determined, enforced, and penalized.

It appears you are taking the position there are no existing laws to protect people on the road. That simply isn't the case.
Pretty simple, cop sees you texting, you get a $200 fine.. not that tough to determine when people are texting. As for existing laws, I do agree with you... it would be great if the cop could see them texting, charge them with distracted driving (which in many states is in theory a ticket-able offense) but sadly, we have a legal system, not a justice system and vague laws like that can't be enforced inside our current system.

Montana used to have no speed limits... instead they had what was called the Reasonable and Prudent law. In other words the only limit was what was safe. And trust me, some days in Montana, 30 miles an hour on a near empty freeway is not safe.

But instead we have speed limits, and it is near impossible to prosecute someone for reckless driving, no matter what the driving conditions are like if they are traveling at the speed limit. Sadly this is the system we live in. I'm all for reform, but until that happens, we have to deal with the system as it works currently, and as it works currently, generic distracted driving laws don't do the job.


Originally Posted by Republic View Post
To exactly what extent are you willing to give up your personal liberty?
Really? Not being able to text while driving is taking away your liberty?

I can't walk down the street naked... Oh noes! My liberty! I also can't walk into a bank wearing a ski-mask and packing a hunting rifle to deposit my paycheck. Help, help I'm being oppressed! (Note: no one will ever die from my performing these actions, well, except maybe me when the bank guard shoots me)

In reality, you're misusing the word Liberty here, so lets have a look at what it actually means. From Websters:
1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?)
a : the power to do as one pleases (clearly not relevant in this case, I think its safe to say we all agree that I should not be allowed to murder, no matter how much it pleases me)
b : freedom from physical restraint (well these laws certainly wouldn't strap you to a table)
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control (ah! here's a usefully one! Well the law certainly wouldn't be arbitrary. Cell phones+driving=dangerous there is plenty of proof of that, neither does it create a despot)
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges (ok, another useful one.. does it affect your social rights? Nah, you can always pull over... Political/Economic? clearly not)
e : the power of choice (You can still choose to drive while texting... but then we'll choose to charge you for it, the choice is still there. Choice ~= choice without consequence)

2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege (I like this one too, liberty is granted. I happily grant you the liberty to chat on the phone. I don't grant you the liberty to risk my life while you do so)
b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits (Note: Limits)


(Beyond this point, not relevant to the discussion, but included for completeness sake)
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as
a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health>
c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

Last edited by Vyper : 11-04-09 at 12:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 04:07 PM   #68
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Vyper...

answer all my questions please...

Specifically, these...

By whose determination is the element of infringement decided? And, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every aspect of life? At what point does the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begin? Where does it end?

Thanks
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 04:23 PM   #69
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
Just because all distractions can't be enforced or avoided, doesn't mean we should allow them all.
Explain.

Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
Really? I don't even notice when I adjust the volume on the radio, hitting those little buttons on the phone on the other hand...
The point isn't about your ability to work your radio. It's more about some other guy's inability. All it takes is a split second to lose control of an automobile. If we're going to let this go because it's only a distraction to "some", how is it that we aren't applying the same standard to texting? I mean, some people might be really adept at it. Ya know?

Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
Really? Not being able to text while driving is taking away your liberty?
Yes. Check the very definitions you linked. Read the first line. Removing freedom is removing liberty.

Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
I also can't walk into a bank wearing a ski-mask and packing a hunting rifle to deposit my paycheck. Help, help I'm being oppressed! (Note: no one will ever die from my performing these actions, well, except maybe me when the bank guard shoots me)
Are you really comparing criminal activity to texting? If it's legal to carry firearms into a bank where you live, that's a personal liberty you have that should be defended as any other rights you may have anywhere else. I'm guessing it's not though. Oppression really has nothing to do with giving up personal liberty. People voluntarily give it up all the time, sometimes not even knowing it.
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 05:24 PM   #70
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
By whose determination is the element of infringement decided? And, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every aspect of life? At what point does the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begin? Where does it end?
Same as with all of your other traffic laws. The Officer in question writes the ticket, and if the offender chooses to fight it, the Judge (or Jury depending on the type of offense) makes the final ruling.

And yes, if any aspect of my life it going to get someone else killed sure, I'll apply it.

As for where your rights begin and end, they begin... well at the beginning, and end when they start to infringe on others rights.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
The point isn't about your ability to work your radio. It's more about some other guy's inability. All it takes is a split second to lose control of an automobile. If we're going to let this go because it's only a distraction to "some", how is it that we aren't applying the same standard to texting? I mean, some people might be really adept at it. Ya know?
No, not that adept. At least not the average population. Some stunt drivers may be talented enough to drive their car with a brick on the throttle and themselves sitting on the hood. That doesn't mean we should let them do it during rush hour.


Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Yes. Check the very definitions you linked. Read the first line. Removing freedom is removing liberty.
The definition you reference (with my original comment):

1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?)

Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Are you really comparing criminal activity to texting? If it's legal to carry firearms into a bank where you live, that's a personal liberty you have that should be defended as any other rights you may have anywhere else. I'm guessing it's not though. Oppression really has nothing to do with giving up personal liberty. People voluntarily give it up all the time, sometimes not even knowing it.
What makes it a criminal activity? The fact that there is a law against it. There is a law against my packing the gun into the bank (and even wearing the ski-mask into the bank), even if I'm just there to deposit my paycheck. If we outlaw texting while driving, it too becomes criminal activity, and distracted driving, unlike my masked attempts at personal finance, kills people. So why are you defending peoples right to risk others lives while driving, but not up in arms about the loss of my ability to manage my finances while hiding my horrible nose job?
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 06:11 PM   #71
Akryn
A Firelord
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 479
I wonder what people in this thread think about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8339680.stm
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 06:49 PM   #72
Yhor
A Pyroguard Emberseer
 
Yhor's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,077
For entertainment..

http://www.dumblaws.com/
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 08:04 PM   #73
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
Same as with all of your other traffic laws. The Officer in question writes the ticket, and if the offender chooses to fight it, the Judge (or Jury depending on the type of offense) makes the final ruling.

And yes, if any aspect of my life it going to get someone else killed sure, I'll apply it.

As for where your rights begin and end, they begin... well at the beginning, and end when they start to infringe on others rights.



No, not that adept. At least not the average population. Some stunt drivers may be talented enough to drive their car with a brick on the throttle and themselves sitting on the hood. That doesn't mean we should let them do it during rush hour.




The definition you reference (with my original comment):

1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?)

Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!


What makes it a criminal activity? The fact that there is a law against it. There is a law against my packing the gun into the bank (and even wearing the ski-mask into the bank), even if I'm just there to deposit my paycheck. If we outlaw texting while driving, it too becomes criminal activity, and distracted driving, unlike my masked attempts at personal finance, kills people. So why are you defending peoples right to risk others lives while driving, but not up in arms about the loss of my ability to manage my finances while hiding my horrible nose job?
You're seriously missing my point. I'm not speaking to enforcement of the inane laws we need to draft in order to cover everything drivers might do as a distraction. I'm speaking to authoring of said laws. By whose authority is it determined that texting is worse than knob adjusting? etc? etc?

Where did I defend anyone's right to risk the lives of others? Distracted driving also doesn't kill people. Where do the distractions begin (as per your impression)? Where do they end? Which distractions are "worse" than others? Who decides that? How is it decided? Many examples of distractions have been described in this thread. Are they all as dangerous? These are the determinations I'm interested in hearing more about.

I'm assuming you're pro-life as well? I mean, it's pretty clear that abortion impedes someone's "right to life". It logically seems to me that anyone in favor of additional driving restrictions who also use the "right to life" position should also be against abortion, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Am I right? These things kill more people than text messaging ever will. Where's the outrage in these cases?

Laws such as the ones relevant to this thread are just like all the others. They cause a major nuisance to the good among us who try to live as best as we can because the idiots need to be told every breath to take. Those of us who have common sense are never put into compromising positions in the first place. I guess my overall question is how stupid do you think people are and how far are you willing to go to tell people how to live?
  Reply With Quote
11-04-09, 08:26 PM   #74
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!
That's largely correct in my view except of course for the ones designed to protect liberty. As far as stealing my television, my handgun will immediately remove all your liberty while protecting my own. Liberty lost is liberty protected in such case. Committing a crime forfeits your right to liberty.

Look, I'll save you some time here. I'm basically in agreement that there may be a need to adapt laws around current technology, ways of life, etc. I've never really been against necessary legal protections that preserve life, etc. What I do object to is the thinking that throwing a bunch of laws at a problem fixes it. That clearly isn't the case. People are still idiots. Some need Mother Government to hold their hand. I don't deny that. What I get sick of is having to pay for other people's stupidity all the time.

My objection(s) in this thread are more towards the process of determining what deserves new laws than the new laws themselves. The immediate response of "we need the government to outlaw this" is a dangerous one in my view. We aren't Europe. This isn't how our system works. The "change we can believe in" mentality has it wrong.
  Reply With Quote
11-05-09, 10:42 AM   #75
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
You're seriously missing my point. I'm not speaking to enforcement of the inane laws we need to draft in order to cover everything drivers might do as a distraction. I'm speaking to authoring of said laws. By whose authority is it determined that texting is worse than knob adjusting? etc? etc?
Maybe I'm still missing what your asking. As with all laws, it's up to the legislative branch to examine what evidence is available, weight it with the opinions of the people, and do their best to make an informed decision. There is plenty of evidence that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous (see the study I linked earlier as an example). I have yet to see any on knob adjusting, or pretty girls on the side of the road.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Where did I defend anyone's right to risk the lives of others? Distracted driving also doesn't kill people. Where do the distractions begin (as per your impression)? Where do they end? Which distractions are "worse" than others? Who decides that? How is it decided? Many examples of distractions have been described in this thread. Are they all as dangerous? These are the determinations I'm interested in hearing more about.
Distracted driving doesn't kill? Then you suggest that the various folks blasting through stoplights while talking on their cell, watching a movie, etc, etc, would virtually all have failed to see the stoplight even if they weren't performing these activities. As to the rest of your questions, see my above answer.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
I'm assuming you're pro-life as well? I mean, it's pretty clear that abortion impedes someone's "right to life".
I see it with no such clarity, but I won't sidetrack the discussion.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
It logically seems to me that anyone in favor of additional driving restrictions who also use the "right to life" position should also be against abortion, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Am I right? These things kill more people than text messaging ever will. Where's the outrage in these cases?
Funny, there are laws designed to protect people (especially children) from the dangers of second hand smoke. Same with drinking (drunk driving laws anyone?), and drug use (I assume we're talking heroin, meth, etc rather than ******). As for what these people do to themselves, I could care less.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Laws such as the ones relevant to this thread are just like all the others. They cause a major nuisance to the good among us who try to live as best as we can because the idiots need to be told every breath to take. Those of us who have common sense are never put into compromising positions in the first place. I guess my overall question is how stupid do you think people are and how far are you willing to go to tell people how to live?
A law against texting while driving would be a major nuisance for you? really?

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
That's largely correct in my view except of course for the ones designed to protect liberty. As far as stealing my television, my handgun will immediately remove all your liberty while protecting my own. Liberty lost is liberty protected in such case. Committing a crime forfeits your right to liberty.
You keep talking about committing a crime yet you cannot commit that crime unless you've already forfeited you're (using your definition) liberty. A crime cannot exist without laws, and laws restrict (what you call) freedom. I think what you're really going here is that I sacrifice my liberty by knowingly doing something that may (or will) harm you.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
Look, I'll save you some time here. I'm basically in agreement that there may be a need to adapt laws around current technology, ways of life, etc. I've never really been against necessary legal protections that preserve life, etc. What I do object to is the thinking that throwing a bunch of laws at a problem fixes it. That clearly isn't the case. People are still idiots. Some need Mother Government to hold their hand. I don't deny that. What I get sick of is having to pay for other people's stupidity all the time.
Then I'm not sure what all the discussion has been about. I never said anything except that I support a ban of cellphone use while driving (in fact I think I kept it down to texting). Whether its through the adjustment of existing laws, or the creation of new laws is, (or even happens at all) is what all those nice congressmen are there to decide.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
My objection(s) in this thread are more towards the process of determining what deserves new laws than the new laws themselves. The immediate response of "we need the government to outlaw this" is a dangerous one in my view.
In this we are in agreement (I think). In an ideal world (ok more ideal) laws could be much more general (I mentioned I liked Montana's old Reasonable and Prudent law), and common sense could see to their enforcement. But, we don't live in an ideal world, and must make do with what we have.

Originally Posted by Republic View Post
We aren't Europe. This isn't how our system works. The "change we can believe in" mentality has it wrong.
Actually, that's exactly how our system works. Maybe not how it should, work, maybe not how it was intended to work, but that is how it works.
  Reply With Quote

WoWInterface » General Discussion » Chit-Chat » Survey: Distracted Driving

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off