OT: What Has The World Come To

[Atrocities]

The Following Is A Rant, Be Warned.


{RANT}
What has the world come to when all the news channels have to report is that some guy left his two children in their locked mini-van to watch a movie while he went into Lowells to pick up some stuff?

Why is this news? We have all been left alone in the car while our parents ran into the store for something. Why now is this considered a "News Worthy" story?

Worse yet, why was the man cited and his kids placed into protective custody? He did nothing that has not been done before. It was not hot out, the kids were old enought to roll down the windows if need be, and all they were doing was minding their own business watching scooby doo.

Good god these ultra "protect you from your rights" fanatical lefties really need to step the hell back and seriously consider MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS!

And shame on the Channel 12 (Fox 12) for running the story as if it was major news. OMG how our news has degraded into TABLOID TV.

What do you say to people who report crap like this as news? I simply just cannot figure them out.

Now if he had left the car running or it was a hot day and no AC, then hell ya, bad man, but he didn't, and the children were 7 and 10.

*shakes head*

What has the world come to?
{\RANT}

[ April 02, 2004, 05:21: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Kamog]

Must have been a slow day for news.

[Atrocities]

They do this all the time. Someone was caught smoking the Clark County Court House a few weeks back and they ran that as a leading story.

Tablid Tv.

[DavidG]

WTF you can't leave 7 and 10 year old kids alone for a few mintues? When I was 10 we used to head off into the woods to play after lunch and not come back till dinner.

[tesco samoa]

AT it saves them from the real news...

Such as news about corperations and the enviroment.

When I was in the states i noticed it was a steady news of Poor people with guns, Black Males or Hispanics. Then these white people crimes such as locking the kids in a suv... Oh and beware killer bees or something like that.

I just thought that the media adjenda was to promote fear for the middle class.

I would rather see in the news Corporate Crime and decisions that affects thousands of people over some convenice store being held up.

But hey you cannot take some rich white haired white guy in his 50's and toss him around like a rag dog. ( just keeping in line with the sterotype) No one would watch... which would hurt product sales and hurt the corperation that is presenting the news.

[Sniper]

I should probably make myself scarce then, being one of those left wing types! lol

Seriously though, a slow media day is common here in England espc in the smaller counties (like were I live) and all kinds of social commentary gets put up without a hint of irony.

I dont have kids so I couldnt say wether I'd leave them alone in a car, my dad used ot leave me in the car alone all the time...on the other hand he was one of the worst parents ever, yet it is a fairly common practise... Jail terms and the like shouldnt be political currency.

[Yef]

I don't remember ever being left alone, but then, I come from a very large family, with 7 brothers, 3 sisters and 67 cousins out of my 5 uncles, and I am the youngest, so there was always a lot of older family members around me.

The point is that I don't know if what that guy did was justified or not, but it was definitively something that I will not do the day I have kids.
He should have left his kids with his family.

[Wardad]

In Arizona it is illegal to leave a DOG or Child alone in the car.
Of course, this makes some common sense in a HOT desert.
BUT... I do not know if the law is written in a common sense way.

My brother was visiting and one cool night we decided to run to the store. The dog jumped into the car with us, and since he liked the dog, we brought him along.
We shopped quickly and headed back to the car. Standing by the car were two ladies, and one of then was on the cell phone talking to the police! The other one started to scold us, and said "Do you know it can get above 140f degrees in that car in minutes?"
I rolled my eyes, looked at the sky, and said " I don't see how, it is night time, the sun is not going to heat up the car.
She gave me a blank stare, and started up talking again...
I said "Let me introduce my brother, the High School science teacher, I'm sure he can explain it to you."
The other one told the ploce never mind and hung up the phone.
We exchanged a few curtious words and left.

[Unknown_Enemy]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Where are involved the left fanatics in there ?
Did the news said they were ?

I don't get it.
Has it anything to do with the Patriot law (whatever name) squeezing away some freedom of yours ? I though the Patriot thing was a Bush creation ?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[geoschmo]

I'm pretty sure the Patriot Act doesn't cover leaving your kids in the parking lot of the home improvment store watching Dvd's.

Unless maybe they are watching "Bowling for Columbine" or something. There might be a clause buried in there for that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

Why the heck do we even have Dvd players's in the car?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Twelve hour car rides, that's why..of course a lot of these parents are too lazy to go vist relatives so that's moot.

And we have these laws because some parents are stupid enough to leave their kids in the car long enough that they -die- from heat exhuastion.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by geoschmo:

Why the heck do we even have Dvd players's in the car?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Twelve hour car rides, that's why..</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's what sing-alongs are for. Ok everybody now...

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Kevin Arisa]

Yep. Sounds like a typical dumb news story. I don't get the big deal. 7 and 10? When I was little, my siblings and I would CHOOSE to stay in the the car rather than tag along for an hour in a boring old home improvement store. Of course we were instructed that if someone were to try anything to try anything we were to grab sharp objects and repeatedly beat on the horn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Anyway, dumb news story.

[Roanon]

I don't think that good parenting is constant surveillance 24/7. Aim of good parenting should be to finally enable them to look for themselves. 7 and 10? If they cannot be left alone for 10 minutes, when can parents start to let their children alone? At 18? 20? 30?... Maybe that's why so many stupid adults are running around these days who really should not be left alone.

Turning off the DVD, getting children out of car, discussion and whining ("why can't I stay here and watch? I don't wanno go that stupid store!"), will take more than 10 mins. Unnecessary stress for both, parents and children. I wouldn't leave the key in the car, wouldn't do it if the car is parked in a sloped road, and would lock the car.

Of course it is possible to construct any kind of lurking dangers that can threaten them. But remember, you can die while walking your dog http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
"We used to play in the woods when I was little too. But life was different then." Not really. Standards were different then. Todays parents would start discussing the dangers of falling trees, dangerous rivers, diseased animals, possible broken bones etc.

I doubt there is a "right" way to do it, but making parents to slaves for their children surely isn't. Over-protectivness is widespread these days and seems to result in todays people - not able to care for themselves, unable to take any responsibilities, and crying for laws and government to protect them against anything and everything including their own lazyness and stupidity.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Just so you know Geo, I felt obligated to contact your local police to report your wreckless encouragement of underaged drinking. A few days in a jail cell should cure you of your bad parenting skills.

Oh, and please make sure PBW remains up during your incarceration. Thanks!

[Yef]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tesco samoa]

Geo why would anyone watch that bowling for combine movie... That thing is just brutal....

He should go after cars... since more people die each year in car accidents...

Or swimming pools...

That guy is a nut and his documentaries are brutal one sided piles of ........

Like all those blogs I used to visit. Little did I know they were fronts for Democratic Good vs Republican evil. Once I figured that out they held no value to me.

P.S. I know you were saying that one for me.... It is how I truely feel the news should be. Maybe have a local news cornor where that stuff might be mentioned... I have mentioned it a few times over the years on this forum.


Why does everything become left vs right? Drives me nuts......


P.P.S.

Geo your post eariler. All I have to do is stand up and clap. And remind my self I should not post before I eat breakfast and drink a cup of Joe.

[Wardad]

Definitly Not Politically Correct HUMOR....

REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:49:20 -0800


The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.

Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle.

Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!"

When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."

Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.

If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.

[primitive]

Congrats to Fox for a well executed political propaganda stunt. Seems like they got the response they wanted http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
.
.
.
Good god these ultra "protect you from your rights" fanatical lefties really need to step the hell back and seriously consider MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS!
.
.
.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's an election year http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[geoschmo]

Well, I'm a little confused why every topic becomes a left vs right thing.

I have a 7 and 10 year old. Call me an irrational overprotective parent if you want, but I'll be damned if I'm going to leave them unattended in the car out in the parking lot. What's wrong with taking your kids into the store with you? Afraid they will act up? Well be a freaking parent for once. Teach them a little discipline maybe? For that matter get them interested in your home project. Teach them to build something and be creative. At least use them for slave labor and make them carry stuff. Heck, getting someone else to carry stuff has been a primary motivation to have kids for thousands of years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Why the heck do we even have Dvd players's in the car? That's a rant I'd like to see someone make.
And beyond that, kids do stupid stuff sometimes. You can't be troubled to take them into the store with you, but you are going to leave them unattended in a car where they can damage it, or other cars in the lot?

On the other hand, I agree it's stupid arresting this guy. Last I checked stupudity and poor paranting aren't illegal. This doesn't quite fit my defintion of neglect. But he shouldn't have left them either.

As to why it's news, it's news for the same reason that kids getting kidnapped is news. If this van had been carjacked and his kids molested or killed it would be news. We'd all be clicking our teeth at the sad state of the world today that you can't leave your kids sitting in the car while you run into a store to get some nails.

Or if you are of the "It's stupid they arrested this guy." persuation I would think you would want gross abuse of police authority to be news.

Either way it's news. At least by the standards of local news in a country with an overabundance of 24 hour news networks. It's not exactly earth shattering national news level stuff.

We used to play in the woods when I was little too. But life was different then. But we didn't play in the parking lot. And if we tried to play in Dad's car we got yelled at.

Car's aren't daycare centers, and Dvd's aren't babysitters.

Be a parent.

[ April 02, 2004, 13:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Atrocities]

ROFLMAO - Hey wait a minute! Thats not FUNNY http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Dragonswrd]

I thought it was very funny. It would definately explain alot, wouldn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Krsqk]

I think it comes down to two problems:

1) Parents don't protect their kids from things they should, and
2) Parents protect their kids from things they shouldn't.

Germs/dirt? Evilwickedbad. Break out the hand sanitizer and Lysol.
Sex? Oh, let 'em make their own choices. They need all the available information to decide, even if they are just 5.
Chores? Avoid like the plague. You wouldn't want to warp them by holding them personally responsible for helping at home.
Profanity? Why not? The little buggers are just expressing themselves.
Restricting activities or friends? You can't do that! You have no right to decide what's right or wrong for your child!
Immediate gratification of all desires? Well, they deserve it, don't they? After all, it helps make up for the fact you're never home.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Geo why would anyone watch that bowling for combine movie... That thing is just brutal....

He should go after cars... since more people die each year in car accidents...
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yea I've heard this arguement before and find it annoying, mostly cause some other A-hole on this board once use that comparison to take a cheap shot at me and it is a meaningless comparison.

I mean if your gonna claim cars are as dangerous or more dangerous than guns make sure you collect some stats on how many lives automobiles save. You know like that ambulance or fire engine that comes and saves your life. or the doctor that uses his car to get to work instead of walking and arriving after the patient dies etc etc etc etc etc.

[Phoenix-D]

Or the number of guns used to stop robberies, home invasions, etc..

[tesco samoa]

David G I cannot believe you called me an A-hole.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif "some other A-hole"

I am upset. Well just for that your going to have to go to a ball game this summer for sure.

[tesco samoa]

p.s. i am not upset...

On the Car end... you can also look at how the car has helped design urban sprawl and all the problems associated with that.

P.P.S. I do not like guns either. To me they have no use in our society in the cities.

[Atrocities]

Some people should not have children.

But now we have so many laws on the books that a good parent cannot discipline their child without loosing them and being charged with a crime. No wonder more and more kids are going up with an "I don't Give A S**t" attitude.

I honestly believe that the STATE has no right to interfere with a family unless there is clear-cut evidence of neglect, abuse, or abandonment. Right now they get involved at a drop of the hat and kids know this and use it to their advantage to get what they want.

I think Robin Williams said it best: "Why you little Ba!" "HIt me and I will right a book!"

We have to many laws that do nothing but protect us from doing the right thing when the right thing is the only thing that matters. The tried and true method of spanking has worked for centuries, but only in the Last 20 years has the establishment ruled that that methods of discipline to be illegal.

When I was growing up, if I did something bad, like paint obscenities on a wall or something similar, I would have gotten my arse spanked and spanked hard. Today the parent would go to jail for not supervising the child, the child would go into therapy and society would blame his behavior on violent video games and Rap music.

I can go on and on about this and even point the finger squarely at those responsible for this, however that would accomplish nothing so why bother. There are still some good people out there who do what they can to instill ethics and morals into their children and I pray that God has their backs because society sure as hell doesn't.

[ April 05, 2004, 04:17: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[PvK]

My opinion:

Here in the LAND OF LIBERTY, I think it is utter BS to have laws against:

Leaving your kids in the car.
Not wearing a seatbelt.
Not wearing a bike helmet.

Education is how you get people to behave prudently. Here in the LAND OF THE FREE, laws like these should not exist.

PvK

[Yef]

Yes, I hate that law about the seat belt.

I understand a law when it protects others from me, but a law that supposely protects me from myself its a violation of my freedom. I have never used seatbelts, and I will not use them. Period.

[geoschmo]

Seat belts and helmets don't just save lives, they lessen injuries. People don't always die from their injuries. Sometimes they are seriously injured and incapacitated. The cost of their health care falls, at best, to everyone else in their health plan, and at worst to the all of us through government assistance.

But I would support people being allowed to sign a waiver that says they can drive without a belt/helmet if they agree not to accept the use of of community health care resources that would not have otherwise been used to care for them.

And I'm not talking about a DNR here. I mean even injuries that you would probably have recovered from. If you can't pay your bill out of pocket without my insurance premiums or taxes, I'd rather let natural selection take it's course and give my money to someone with enough sense to buckle up thank you.

No offense. Don't want to step on your freedoms after all.

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Yef:
Yes, I hate that law about the seat belt.

I understand a law when it protects others from me, but a law that supposely protects me from myself its a violation of my freedom. I have never used seatbelts, and I will not use them. Period.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I sure hope in your protest against oppression, you never get ejected through the windshield.

[Atrocities]

Riding a bike, peddle, motor, whatever, without a helmet is just plain dangerous. I know from first hand accounts and many hours of helping people who have been injured. Some did not make it because they opted not to ware a helmet and their heads hit the fallen trees over the trails. To many poeple ride without helmates and they pay the price.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
To many poeple ride without helmates and they pay the price. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But that's the point. They pay the price, but they don't pay the BILL.

I am all for freedom. By all means, live free or die to your hearts content. But if you are going to do the first, do the second one quickly and don't ask me to pay for your intensive care stay.

[tesco samoa]

And I feel manatory laws such as helments , seatbelts and any safety laws are required. People are careless. If fear of a 50 dollar fine forces people to put helmets on when bike riding I am all for it. It is a law that benifits everyone. Your choice is to ride or not ride. And if you ride without a helmet. It is your insurance companies choice to void the policy.

The only one I am against is photo radar. That to me is a cash grab. Especially when it is placed on a highway or a major street.

Why not set it up around schools when there is heavy children traffic flow or on neighbourhood streets where there are parks.

Then the photo radar would actually ding motorists where driving fast is dangerous. And have an officer there to hand out the ticket to the driver.

[PvK]

I always use seatbelts because I was educated about them. However I would be proud to defend Yef's right to not wear one, and not to be harassed and fined by the police if he doesn't.

I don't ride bikes, but I am tempted to get a bike and ride one outside a police station, just so I can scream bloody hell about it.

If we want to be unsafe, that's our own business. We can certainly do it in other ways besides the ones that busybody laws cover, too.

In my case, these laws are not making me any more safe.

They are however making me entertain thoughts about violent uprising against my tyrranical bastard safety-perverted government. Such laws are not appropriate in a supposedly free nation. Maybe people who want to live under such offensive laws should split from the United States and for a "Land of the Forced to be Safe."

PvK

[DavidG]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
p.s. i am not upset...

On the Car end... you can also look at how the car has helped design urban sprawl and all the problems associated with that.

P.P.S. I do not like guns either. To me they have no use in our society in the cities. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">YIKES not you!. some other a-hole. I wasn't refering to you (but some other nameless person on these board who is gone now i think) and i'm sorry if that's the way it read.

[Phoenix-D]

I can agree on the seatbelts, but again not on leaving your kids in the car. I mean most people would be horrified if you locked someone in an oven and cooked them to death with it....but when you do it accidently in a mobile greenhouse they shrug it off?

The law does need to be sensible, obviously. Locking them in at night isn't a threat for example..most of the time, but those cases would be covered under other things.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The only one I am against is photo radar. That to me is a cash grab. Especially when it is placed on a highway or a major street.

Why not set it up around schools when there is heavy children traffic flow or on neighbourhood streets where there are parks.

Then the photo radar would actually ding motorists where driving fast is dangerous. And have an officer there to hand out the ticket to the driver. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why do you feel this is a problem? Set it up in both areas I'd say. So what if it is a cash grab. Better speeding motorists pay for our dept than me with rising taxes. People in Ontario drive too fast. I'd be willing be most serious accidents are caused in some part by excessive speed. Photo radar does slow people down. At least everyone I've talked to about it admits the watch their speed more.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Ever thought about "setting up" photo radar?
Here's my evil plan: Cover your real license plates with fake 666 plates. Get a devil mask and drive fast past the radar site while giving the devil finger salute. News is so slow here, they'll probably probably do a story on the mystery devil speeder.
Some of these laws that are meant to protect us go way too far. The USA is really missing out on some good economy cars from overseas just because of minor things like the placing of turn signals and tail lights. Portland use to have some city buses from Hungary, but they had too much power. They added so many governors to them that it made them break down way too many times. Oh my god, too much horsepower for hilly terrain!

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
I'd be willing be most serious accidents are caused in some part by excessive speed.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course, a speed of zero guarantees no accidents at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . A fact is, though, that least of all accidents happen on motorways, and of those few the most happen on construction sites, where a speed limit makes sense (and is rarely checked, like near schools and on other sites where they make sense - and are followed most of the time even if not radar-checked).
Just pure speed on a suitable highway is not dangerous in itself. In fact, a general speed limit without reason slightly increases accidents, because it lessens your concentration when you are forced to drive way below your skill limit, and causes so called "micro-sleeps" when even slightly tired or fatigued, which then can cause accidents. In these situations driving faster, at a comfortable speed, is in fact safer, because it enhances attention and reactions.
"Too fast" is very much depending on the situation, there are situations when even 40 mph is way too fast. But the US standard 55 mph on highways with little or no traffic are just ridiculous and unmatched, no other country with general speed limits has such a low limit.

[Narrew]

Wardad your a funny guy, first the dog in a car at night with those 2 old crones then that artical, funny stuff. Could you post the link to that article? Thanks

[ April 05, 2004, 18:24: Message edited by: Narrew ]

[Yef]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Seat belts and helmets don't just save lives, they lessen injuries. People don't always die from their injuries. Sometimes they are seriously injured and incapacitated. The cost of their health care falls, at best, to everyone else in their health plan, and at worst to the all of us through government assistance.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I see your point.
It could be a big sum at national level.
Still, I can't wear those dam things. So I'll keep doing what I've been doing, but I'll refrein from making an issue of it or giving it free advertisement.
You have convinced me that its in my best interest that other people wear the seatbelts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Yef]

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
I sure hope in your protest against oppression, you never get ejected through the windshield. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't worry, I'm invincible.
Well, sort of.
I've been through very bad situations and I never got an scratch.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by PvK:
If we want to be unsafe, that's our own business. We can certainly do it in other ways besides the ones that busybody laws cover, too.

In my case, these laws are not making me any more safe.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The law isn't there to make you safe. The law is there to keep you from crippling yourself and thus becoming a burden to society.

If as a soceity we had the nerve to allow you to suffer the consequences of your own poor choices, then we wouldn't need seatbelt laws. People could make rational, considered decisions whether or not to use them. If they didn't and damaged themselves beyond their ability to pay for the doctors bill... well you know what happens when you don't pay your phone bill.

But instead as a soceity we are incapable of making those kinds of tough choices. It makes us feel less then human, and probably rightly so.

So we insist that you have access to emergency medical care even if you can't pay for it. And we all foot the bill, whether it's through higher insurance premiums, higher taxes, or just higher overall medical costs to offset what the hospital ends up writing off. It might be less then optimal care at a county-run hospital, but we don't leave you on the curb or send you home to die.

If we as a soceity are going to be footing the bill for your stint in intensive care, then we as a soceity have the right to ask you to do some little inconvienent things, like wear a seat belt, that might lessen the burden to us all.

[ April 05, 2004, 18:32: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Narrew:
Wardad your a funny guy, first the dog in a car at night with those 2 old crones then that artical, funny stuff. Could you post the link to that article? Thanks <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey, thanks for thee compliment.

The artical "REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN" was emailed to me. I googled it and it has gotten around to a lot of forums. A lot of people want to know where it started.


BTW: The ladies were not crones. They were kinda cute and younger than me, well mid thirties.

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Wardad:
BTW: The ladies were not crones. They were kinda cute and younger than me, well mid thirties. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ok, my bad, but you would think in their thirties they would have something more important to do than worry about dogs in a car at night, hehe, maybe they were real blonds and didn't know it was night?

I will do a search on the article also, I think it was funny and I am consertitive at that.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by DavidG:
I'd be willing be most serious accidents are caused in some part by excessive speed.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course, a speed of zero guarantees no accidents at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . A fact is, though, that least of all accidents happen on motorways, and of those few the most happen on construction sites, where a speed limit makes sense (and is rarely checked, like near schools and on other sites where they make sense - and are followed most of the time even if not radar-checked).
Just pure speed on a suitable highway is not dangerous in itself. In fact, a general speed limit without reason slightly increases accidents, because it lessens your concentration when you are forced to drive way below your skill limit, and causes so called "micro-sleeps" when even slightly tired or fatigued, which then can cause accidents. In these situations driving faster, at a comfortable speed, is in fact safer, because it enhances attention and reactions.
"Too fast" is very much depending on the situation, there are situations when even 40 mph is way too fast. But the US standard 55 mph on highways with little or no traffic are just ridiculous and unmatched, no other country with general speed limits has such a low limit. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well of course I was talking about traffic accidents which pretty much always happen on roads. And also I said speed was "in some part" responsible. Of course not 100% responsible. I don't buy at all that "driving below your skill level" causes lack of concentraction and thus accidents. Sounds like you are saying you should be going like a bat out of hell to keep up the concentration level??

Accidents are caused by something unexpected happening. When this happens the guy going the speed limit is much more likely to avoid the incident. that's just simple physics.

[solops]

"What Has The World Come To"

Oooo! Ooooo! Pick me! I know the answer!

Its in the same sorry state it was 7000 years ago. The names have changed, but people haven't.

[tesco samoa]

PVK Safety is part of the laws. If people wish to use Public roads and Highways then they must follow the Road and Safety act. Or what ever it is called in your area. Their choice is to use the roads and follow the laws or not use the roads.

Safety belts is one of these laws. Other ones are drag chains on Trailers. Child seats in the back. Etc...

They are designed to make the roads safer for those who travel on it. And in the times when there is an accident to lessen the damage to people and vechiles. Fatalities take alot longer to clean up than non fatal accidents. And this time frame also affects everything that needs to travel down that road. And all other roads that are affected by the run off of divirted traffic.


If they are on Personal Private Property. Then that is a different matter and they will follow the Laws of that Property.


DavidG to me that is just another taxation on us. It does not make us any safer. Everyone could be doing 110 in a 100 zone. How does taking a picture of all those vechiles make us safer ?

Does it stop the person passing on the right or doing dangerous lane changes travelling at 100 km.

In the Photo Radar world that person is the safe one.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I don't buy at all that "driving below your skill level" causes lack of concentraction and thus accidents. Sounds like you are saying you should be going like a bat out of hell to keep up the concentration level?? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's true that the faster something happens the faster your reactions are. just measure your reactions on SE. You'll probably use measurements of at least 5 seconds. Now, check them out on say, Half-Life. Descisions are made sometimes in less than a second. And yet, your sense of time has also changed, which you'll notice if you pay enough attention.

I don't know what the efficience graph for speed vs reflexes might be, though.

[ April 05, 2004, 20:24: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:

DavidG to me that is just another taxation on us. It does not make us any safer. Everyone could be doing 110 in a 100 zone. How does taking a picture of all those vechiles make us safer ?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well as of course you know it's not the picture that makes us safer it's giving the guy a ticket so maybe he will slow down in the future.

If it is a taxation it is a taxation on you not me. I have no problem with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif In fact I'd encourage the government to do this. I like government services someone else is paying for.

Photo rader won't stop the guy doing 110 in the 100 zone (BTW this guy doing 110 will be the slowest guy on the road if you happen to be driving in Ontario) But it will stop the guy doing 130 or 140. (which is probably closer to the average speed people drive on the QEW and 400 highways)

IMO photo radar should be brough back and set to hand out tickets to anyone going more than about 10km/h over the speed limit

[DavidG]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> I don't buy at all that "driving below your skill level" causes lack of concentraction and thus accidents. Sounds like you are saying you should be going like a bat out of hell to keep up the concentration level?? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's true that the faster something happens the faster your reactions are. just measure your reactions on SE. You'll probably use measurements of at least 5 seconds. Now, check them out on say, Half-Life. Descisions are made sometimes in less than a second. And yet, your sense of time has also changed, which you'll notice if you pay enough attention.

I don't know what the efficience graph for speed vs reflexes might be, though. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like to see the proof of that. however even if true is the difference significant enough that a guy doing 130km/h when the moose is spoted crossing the road will be able to stop as quick as the guy doing 100km/h?

[PvK]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I can agree on the seatbelts, but again not on leaving your kids in the car. I mean most people would be horrified if you locked someone in an oven and cooked them to death with it....but when you do it accidently in a mobile greenhouse they shrug it off?

The law does need to be sensible, obviously. Locking them in at night isn't a threat for example..most of the time, but those cases would be covered under other things. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My understanding was that this was a 7- and a 9-year old, and no sun was mentioned in the original example IIRC. Any 9-year old (or even 7-year old I would think) should be able to open windows and doors. If the car doesn't let people out then it is severely mis-designed, but I really doubt there are cars that let you imprison people in them to smother to death. Supposedly (and I'd like to see an actual article) the parent was cited for not just leaving their children alone. It's hard for me to imagine a neighborhood where it would be unsafe to leave 9-year-old kids in a grocery parking lot (assuming no deadly sunshine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) yet there are enough police to justifiably harrass people.

PvK

[PvK]

You can get people to wear seatbelt and helmets and not to endanger their children or themselves by educating them, and that's the correct way to do it. If officers see something they think is actually dangerous to themselves but not to others, of course they can go tell people about it. But local governments are using these gimicks as excuses to increase revenue by harassing the people they are supposed to serve. Fundamentally, people have the right to endanger themselves by not wearing protective gear. If parents feel safe enough about an area to leave their kids somewhere, and the police actually disagree, then they can guard the kids and go clue in the parents, but a citation (points for their quota and cash for the city coffers)?

As for the argument that society stands to lose terrible amounts of money because it provides emergency care which would cost more if people aren't punished for not wearing seatbelts and bike helmets... a couple of things. The main thing is that's a perverted money-grubbing point of view in itself, and two wrongs do not make a right. Society's sloppy choices of medical rules and economics do not justify intrusive laws to mitigate their expenses. One much better solution is to deny insurance and/or issue fines for medical expenses for injuries when the person was not using whatever safety equipment.

Even better would be to torpedo the current insurance rackets, but that's a whole other topic.

As for automatic speeding radar and cameras, that's Orwellian BS. Cameras all over everywhere are invasive. Finding people guilty by using an automatic device is also bad justice. Speed limits are also nonsense. Most speed limits are much lower than the actual safe limit for a reasonable vehicle in good conditions, yet the limit is applied as if it were some sort of edict from Hitler that must be obeyed. No. If police are there to serve and protect (rather than to torment and stuff the local coffers), then they should only be ticketing people who are actually doing something dangerous to others. There are plenty of actual dangerous drivers to catch. But there are way too many people being pulled over for doing say 70 in a 55, on a sunny day on a straight wide open highway in a high-performance car. Meanwhile some Winebago in the rain in traffic is held to the same mindless limit. It's simply unjust.

PvK

[rextorres]

I don't know the exact wording, but speed limits are not absolute. At least in CA the law is written that the fastest "safe speed" is allowed. So that Winnebago might get cited and that sports car might not.

Anyway I think that people who don't use helmets or seatbelts should suffer the same consequences as say drug Users. Whatever that may be.

[spoon]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Anyway I think that people who don't use helmets or seatbelts should suffer the same consequences as say drug Users. Whatever that may be. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You mean you think they should get the munchies? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[DavidG]

Originally posted by PvK:
Speed limits are also nonsense. Most speed limits are much lower than the actual safe limit for a reasonable vehicle in good conditions,
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">... with a driver who is alert, has resonable reflexes and no *******s cutting him off/ animals crossing the road/ patches of black ice or any other incident which may force him to take action to avoid an accident. In other words ideal conditions which is rarely the case.

Which of the following scenarios is more likely to result in an accident.

A - Micheal Schumacher is driving along on a nice sunny day at 140km/h in his Toyota Matrix when an old man in a hat crosses over the lane and stalls in his lane.

B - Ralph Schumacher is driving along on a nice sunny day at 100km/h in his Toyota Matrix when an old man in a hat crosses over the lane and stalls in his lane.

If you answer B then you have just justified the existance of speed limits. If you answered A then, well, you'd be wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Would you guys who seem to feel speed limits should be removed really feel safer out on the roads if there was no speed limit??

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
I don't buy at all that "driving below your skill level" causes lack of concentraction and thus accidents. Sounds like you are saying you should be going like a bat out of hell to keep up the concentration level??<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't need to buy it, but my personal experience, and latest studies about that "microsleep" confirm that. Similar studies have confirmed the unability for fast reactions to unexpected situations if under dull routine. Considering speed there is, as always, a wide space between two extremes, and as always the optimums is in the middle here too.
Accidents are caused by something unexpected happening.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, falling into a second-Lasting sleep causes something unexpected - at least for the driver after he reopens his eyes.
When this happens the guy going the speed limit is much more likely to avoid the incident. that's just simple physics. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That it happens at all is more likely under certain circumstances than under others. Drivers are not roboters, so driving is not physics only.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When this happens the guy going the speed limit is much more likely to avoid the incident. that's just simple physics. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That it happens at all is more likely under certain circumstances than under others. Drivers are not roboters, so driving is not physics only. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How can you even argue this? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif ALL other factors being equal the guy drving faster is more likely to be unable to avoid an accident when some incedent occurs and if an accident is unavoidable is likely to have a much more serious accident. Please prove this wrong.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
I like to see the proof of that. however even if true is the difference significant enough that a guy doing 130km/h when the moose is spoted crossing the road will be able to stop as quick as the guy doing 100km/h? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course, a moose standing on a highway is one of the most common incidents that can happen while driving... Near-sleep and slow reactions cause a lot of dangerous situations that just wouldn't arise if the driver had better attention. THAT is the difference.
Some figures, rounded for ease of reading:
Traffic deaths USA 2002: > 40k, pop 290M
Germany, no speed limit, 130km/h ~ 80mph recommended but not really normal, traffic deaths 2002: < 7k, pop 80M.
Same percentages given, USA should have about 15k less deaths. Explain that with your simplistic "speed kills" theory.

[ April 05, 2004, 22:45: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
...
Would you guys who seem to feel speed limits should be removed really feel safer out on the roads if there was no speed limit?? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well I have driven on for example the Autobahn with no speed limit and apparently good drivers, and I felt no danger. Bad driving is the main cause of danger, in my experience, and rarely is the bad driving I see simply a case of someone exceeding a certain speed.

Moreover, I see technical speeding violations all the time, which are not at all dangerous. Often times the general traffic, even cement mixers and city busses, exceeds the speed limit by a fair degree, without causing any actual hazard. If they were all rigidly adhering to the inappropriately low speed limit, I tend to agree it would be more dangerous. Many of the speed limits were set back in the 50's-60's. Have you guys driven the cars from back then? More often than not they were huge lumbering beasts with attrociously blocked vision and awful handling, that feel like piloting a coal barge or something. If the limits were considered safe for those things, or for busses, 18-wheelers and winnebagos, then how can it be right to have cops hiding behind corners with laser speed traps to catch modern performance cars going 10-15 mph over those limits on open roads with no hazardous conditions at all? It's just a way to get money for the local coffers, and for rule-oriented bozos to chide and abuse reasonable citizens.

I don't think that speed limits shouldn't exist where they make sense and are enforced intelligently. People probably shouldn't drive 140 where there is a chance of anyone trying to cross the road. Good drivers though know their limits and don't let their control limits exceed their vision, etc.

There should be laws and police should bust people who are causing a hazard, but the standard is often applied rigidly to limits in cases where they don't have much if anything to do with safety.

PvK

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by DavidG:
I like to see the proof of that. however even if true is the difference significant enough that a guy doing 130km/h when the moose is spoted crossing the road will be able to stop as quick as the guy doing 100km/h? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course, a moose standing on a highway is one of the most common incidents that can happen while driving... [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah the old "make fun of the other guy to proove your point" rebutal. The moose was just an example.

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
... How can you even argue this? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif ALL other factors being equal the guy drving faster is more likely to be unable to avoid an accident when some incedent occurs and if an accident is unavoidable is likely to have a much more serious accident. Please prove this wrong. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In your scenario, I don't think either skilled driver would be driving so fast in a situation where they couldn't see what was ahead of them and give themselves ample room to avoid an accident. In driving school it's called "leave yourself an out". As professional race drivers, if they didn't do this, probably neither one of them would have had any success in the sport.

So I agree only that if you assume a driver is driving wrecklessly, that going faster would be more dangerous. Except that if one of those skilled drivers were going 140 rather than 100, then given their skill, they would be doing so in a situation where they could see the full field ahead of their stopping/dodging distance.

PvK

[DavidG]

Originally posted by PvK:
People probably shouldn't drive 140 where there is a chance of anyone trying to cross the road. Good drivers though know their limits and don't let their control limits exceed their vision, etc.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How fast should they drive in this case and how do you stop them? Of course it's not the good drivers i'm worried about. Around here I think the bad drivers far outnumber the good ones.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Ah the old "make fun of the other guy to proove your point" rebutal. The moose was just an example. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I was just pointing out that it was a very, very bad example. There are situations when the danger of something - or someone - unexpected appearing on the road, and I agree to the fact that speed saves lives then. But there are other situations where the dangers just lie elsewhere. Speed limits do not only don't make sense there, but are also nearly exclusively controlled there where they don't make sense, and you justify it with a situation that is totally rare and unlikely.
And besides, how about the figures I presented? Ah, the old "ignore the facts if they contradict your opinion" rebutal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

[ April 05, 2004, 23:03: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by PvK:
their skill, they would be doing so in a situation where they could see the full field ahead of their stopping/dodging distance.

PvK <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My God do people really drive like this were you live??? If so they are a heck of a lot better than the drivers around here. (PS the point of the driver names in my example was only to remove differences in driver skill from the example)

Personally I think the speed limits around here are a nice approximation of the safe driving speed. I would say anyone going more than about 20km faster than that IS driving recklessly. ie people more often than not zip down the road near were I live at 100-120km/h. This is a non-divided highway with lots of driveways and side street that front on to it. Personaly I think anything that would slow these guys down and make them pay is a good idea.

[Atrocities]

booom

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by DavidG:
Ah the old "make fun of the other guy to proove your point" rebutal. The moose was just an example. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I was just pointing out that it was a very, very bad example. There are situations when the danger of something - or someone - unexpected appearing on the road, and I agree to the fact that speed saves lives then. But there are other situations where the dangers just lie elsewhere. Speed limits do not only don't make sense there, but are also nearly exclusively controlled there where they don't make sense, and you justify it with a situation that is totally rare and unlikely.
And besides, how about the figures I presented? Ah, the old "ignore the facts if they contradict your opinion" rebutal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Accidents are pretty much always caused because something unexpectantly appears in front of you. Oh sure the reason something unexpectantly appears in front of you could be cause the guy in front of you dozed off. but when you find yourself in this situation would you rather your car was going fast or slow?

Statistics can be used to prove anything. There could be numerous reason for the numbers you quote. It could be as simple as Germans are better drivers, have better designed roads, safer cars, better traffic laws etc etc etc. give me a budget and a year to study the issue and I'll get back to you.

[ April 05, 2004, 23:15: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by PvK:
People probably shouldn't drive 140 where there is a chance of anyone trying to cross the road. Good drivers though know their limits and don't let their control limits exceed their vision, etc.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How fast should they drive in this case and how do you stop them? Of course it's not the good drivers i'm worried about. Around here I think the bad drivers far outnumber the good ones. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In the case where there is a road crossing or limited sight distance, you should drive at a speed that allows you to stop before you reach the hazard or unseen area - don't get ahead of your stopping distance.

The bad drivers are definitely the problem, and ya, frequently US drivers aren't so hot, and there are a lot of bozos. I guess if you are failing to teach them to drive well, then rules are something of a substitute, but I still think the good drivers should not be punished for technical violations of outdated speed limits.

In PvK's utopia, while the existing 1950-70 defined speed limits could apply as a baseline, I would allow drivers to take optional qualification tests (without high fees) and related courses which would train them in safe driving above typical limits, and give them clearances to drive in the tested vehicle in good conditions at a certain degree over the speed limit. Drivers who noticed that certain posted limits seemed ludicrous could also point out any such locations for suggested re-review using a nice DOT web site.

Actual definitely hazardous driving would still be cause for arrest with fairly serious consequences and/or mandatory safe driving courses.

PvK

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Oh sure the reason something unexpectantly appears in front of you could be cause the guy in front of you dozed off. but when you find yourself in this situation would you rather your car was going fast or slow?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'd prefer not at all finding myself in that situation. For instance not among drivers nearly dozing off while travelling totally empty highways on cruise control.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by PvK:
In PvK's utopia, while the existing 1950-70 defined speed limits could apply as a baseline, I would allow drivers to take optional qualification tests (without high fees) and related courses which would train them in safe driving above typical limits, and give them clearances to drive in the tested vehicle in good conditions at a certain degree over the speed limit.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Start with regular, mandatory sight, hearing and reaction tests. Surprising how many especially older drivers who are blind as a mole insist that they do not need glasses, and especially not for driving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ April 05, 2004, 23:27: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by PvK:
their skill, they would be doing so in a situation where they could see the full field ahead of their stopping/dodging distance.

PvK <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My God do people really drive like this were you live??? If so they are a heck of a lot better than the drivers around here. (PS the point of the driver names in my example was only to remove differences in driver skill from the example)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some do. Some don't. There are many bad drivers, and some outright dangerous ones. But the way to find the ones who need educating and perhaps punishment is not to measure their speed with a machine and apply it strictly to an out-dated speed limit that takes nothing else into account. The ones doing actually hazardous things are the ones who need talking to, and they are not so hard to detect.

Personally I think the speed limits around here are a nice approximation of the safe driving speed. I would say anyone going more than about 20km faster than that IS driving recklessly. ie people more often than not zip down the road near were I live at 100-120km/h. This is a non-divided highway with lots of driveways and side street that front on to it. Personaly I think anything that would slow these guys down and make them pay is a good idea. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You're probably right about your situation. I've driven in British Columbia and Alberta and I usually didn't think the limits were much lower than appropriate. But I also didn't notice much over-enforcement. I did notice a few maniac drivers, but generally they seemed pretty competant and safe. There are some radar/camera speed trap warnings, which I do think is generally a bad idea unless really necessary, but even there the traffic seemed to be courageously pushing past the limit to what seemed like a safe degree.

My impression is that in Canada the police are usually pretty good about giving you something like 10 kph + 10% of the posted limit leeway to exceed, which is usually pretty reasonable. A UK officer friend also says that's their guideline. There are many places in the USA though where 5 mph over will get you a ticket, even when the limit is inappropriate and the conditions are utterly harmless.

Again though, I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits at all, or that all limits should be increased. I'm mainly saying people shouldn't be cited for just exceeding a limit safely. Get the actually hazardous folks, and leave the letter-of-the-law-breakers alone.

PvK

[Beck]

Comparing traffic deaths as a percentage of a nation's population is flawed and leads one to wrong conclusion. One could probably find some third world country that would make Germany's fatality rate look as bad as the US's being compared to Germany's simply because so few of the population have cars. What is more relevant is the deaths per million miles driven. This puts everything on a more even playing field for statistical comparsion. I don't have the stats handy, but when looked at that way, the US fares much better. One factor in the US death rate is simply that the population puts itself at risk more than the rest of the world by driving more miles (the result of cheap gas and no public transportation).

[PvK]

How about we keep hazardous driving arrests, throw out speeding tickets, and just drive a lot less. Let's build beautiful medieval European style pedestrian oriented cities, and turn the sprawling suburban communities and strip malls back into wilderness!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PvK

[DavidG]

Originally posted by PvK:
My impression is that in Canada the police are usually pretty good about giving you something like 10 kph + 10% of the posted limit leeway to exceed, which is usually pretty reasonable. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yea that's probably about right. The rest of your post I pretty much agree with too.

Just in case it got lost in all the Posts I don't think we should have photo radar set to catch guys doing 105 in a 100 zone. It should be set at some point maybe 10-20 over the posted limit. Pretty much the same tolerances the cops use. And there are many places were setting it up would be an unjust cash grab (a 30km/h limit on a major downtown through road in Vancouver comes to mind. Clearly a case were the speed limit is set not for safty but to raise cash)

[Fyron]

But the US standard 55 mph on highways with little or no traffic are just ridiculous and unmatched, no other country with general speed limits has such a low limit. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It was 55 back in the 70s during that OPEC blockade, but it has been 65 for quite some time now, with 70 or 75 in some rarely traveled areas.

[Atrocities]

Oh but PvK these laws are in place to protect you from your freedoms.

In a society that has to have warning lables on electricle appliances warning people not to use them in the shower or bath should say it all.

A free society is a dumb one, so we need these laws to save us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ April 05, 2004, 12:57: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[tesco samoa]

PVK that would be hard in many parts of NA.

Most of Canada is designed around the car.

I am lucky that I have only a 20 KM communite so I can ride my bike ( I wear a helmet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

But I know of one guy who has a 180 KM communite

[PvK]

Heh. Sure, but that's not exactly suburban sprawl. Living in the countryside is one thing. Replacing the countryside with non-stop pedestrian-hostile automobile-dependant clone housing is another.

I think downtown Vancouver B.C. is very nice, though the huge eastward expanse - Burnaby and (egad) Metrotown http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif are pretty nightmarish.

Mainly I was thinking of what has happened around Seattle (where I grew up, and am currently) in the Last 20 years. The population multiplied, and many forests have been sacrificed to "developments" with attrocious modern clone housing in cul-de-sacs and strip malls - communities for automobiles. Dreadful.

PvK

[Atrocities]

Ok, how to word this.

Why is it that people who simply leave there children in their locked Mini van to watch scooby doo would warrent being arrested, sighted for child neglect and abandonment, have their children taken from them, and their lives virtually destroyed while nothing is said or done about the parenting skill of people like the Ozborne's? (sp)

[ April 06, 2004, 04:44: Message edited by: Atrocities ]