OT: What Has The World Come To - Page 6

narf poit chez BOOM · #51 April 5th, 2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

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??

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 · #52 April 5th, 2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

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 ?

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.

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 · #53 April 5th, 2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

quote:
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??

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.

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 · #54 April 5th, 2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

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.

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

) yet there are enough police to justifiably harrass people.

PvK

PvK · #55 April 5th, 2004, 10:26 PM

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 · #56 April 5th, 2004, 11:03 PM

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 · #57 April 5th, 2004, 11:11 PM

Quote:

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.

You mean you think they should get the munchies?

DavidG · #58 April 5th, 2004, 11:15 PM

Quote:

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,

... 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.

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 · #59 April 5th, 2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

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??

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.

Quote:

Accidents are caused by something unexpected happening.

Well, falling into a second-Lasting sleep causes something unexpected - at least for the driver after he reopens his eyes.

Quote:

When this happens the guy going the speed limit is much more likely to avoid the incident. that's just simple physics.

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 · #60 April 5th, 2004, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:
When this happens the guy going the speed limit is much more likely to avoid the incident. that's just simple physics.

That it happens at all is more likely under certain circumstances than under others. Drivers are not roboters, so driving is not physics only.

How can you even argue this?

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.