This can be answered by anyone who wishes to answer it. But it is mainly directed at those that heavily opposed me in the helmet law thread I posted.
This has to do with people who drink alcohol & drive a motor vehicle at the same time. Let me make it a little more clearer for you. It has to do with people that are physically drinking a can of beer or other type of alcoholic beverage & it is obvious they are doing so while driving of which after witnessing it you have no doubt as to what that person is doing.
Keep in mind if you see this person doing this they are probably next to you in traffic, you might even be on your bike at the time. They could even be crossing an intersection in front of you, or making a left turn toward you.
Do you think if someone calls the police because they witness this very illegal behavior from another person, is the person who calls the authorities being a "safety nanny"? Or infringing on the rights of others? Or taking away another persons freedom? Or better yet putting themselves in the person's, who is illegally drinking alcohol & driving a car, business? Please answer honestly if you would.
Now let me tell you what I have done & will continue to do when I have witnessed this behavior from someone else. I call the police on my cell phone, give a description of the vehicle & the person drinking. If I can I follow the car with the police on the line until a cop shows up to pull the person over. I inform where me & the person drinking & driving are at.
Bottom line, at least in my opinion, is if you drink & drive you put my life & safety at risk plus the lives & safety of my family & everyone else on the road. And I will do everything in my power to prevent it.
Ok now those that oppose this kind of thing go ahead & speak up. I hope to GOD no one thinks calling the police on someone for drinking & driving is a bad idea. But with some of the people in this crowd I actually would not be surprised if you did feel that way. So let's here it.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Drunk drivers are dangerous to others. Non-helmet-wearing cyclists and motorcycle riders are perhaps putting themselves at risk, but are not likely to be a danger to anyone else.
Some rider takes a header and busts his skull open, it's his misfortune. Some drunk guy hops a curb and plows a bunch of people waiting at a bus stop, it's the bystanders' misfortune.
If you take it upon yourself to rat off a helmet-less cyclist, you're getting one person in trouble for "failing to protect himself." If you rat off a drunk driver, you're removing an imminent threat from the street (for the immediate time, at any rate). In the first case, it is a frivolous imposition on one person who could potentially be endangering himself, in the second, it can be construed more as a matter of broader public safety.
For the record, I'm a helmet wearer, and I figure it's one more buffer between my meaty carcass and the hard, hard asphalt, but I really don't give a rip if somebody else thinks helmets are useless or uncomfortable or unforgiveable dorky or whatever. My head, my choice, ya know?
N_C
One of the main points to this thread is regarding those that see others doing things that they consider an infringment on their freedoms. Remeber there those that firmly believe in absolute freedoms.
So if I call the police on someone drinking & driving is'nt that an infringment on their free right to drink & drive? Yet it is still considered a good idea to do what it takes to get the drunk driver off the street?
So which is the right course of action? Take the side of those who believe in absolute freedom & do nothing? Or get the drunk driver off the street & damn that persons freedoms because he or she is a danger to everyone else & possibly be accused of wrongfully infringing on someone elses freedoms?
Absolute freedom is exactly that, absolute. The freedom to do what ever you want when ever you want with out worrying about &/or paying the consequences for your actions. I believe someone told me you can't have it both ways, but in differant terms, you either have absolute freedom or you don't. If those that believe in absolute freedom do agree that it is a good idea to get & keep drunk drivers off the street then maybe their absolute freedoms are not as absolute as they thought them to be.
Is it possible that those that believe in absolute freedom maybe straddle the fence on some of the freedom issues? Meaning some are absolute & other freedoms are not, like the issue of a drunk driver & what needs to be done by citizens to get & keep them off the road. Would any of those forum members here who believe in absolute freedom care to admit to the fact that some freedoms are absolute & others are not, because they can not be for the greater good? Keep in mind you run the risk of being called & considered a hippocrite if you admit to this.
Roody
I have an absolute freedom not to be endangered by someone who is driving drunk. Freedoms often conflict. We have laws, courts, water cooler discussions and even internet forums to help us, as a democratic society that values individual liberty, to resolve conflicts between absolute freedoms. This is a dynamic or organic process that changes some over time.
Daily Commute
One of the main points to this thread is regarding those that see others doing things that they consider an infringment on their freedoms. Remeber there those that firmly believe in absolute freedoms. . . .
This is a straw man. Maybe someone inartfully used that phrase, but no one really believes in "absolute freedom." That would mean the freedom to steal, murder, etc. Stopping people from operating a car dangerously (to others) is a far cry from forcing people to use a "safety" device (a helmet) that has never been proven to actually save lives.
That said, I wear a helmet. Since the data is unclear, I chose to err on the cautious side. Also, even though I can't prove the helmet has saved me from a serious head injury, I know it's decreased the pain of a few wipeouts.
Aahzz
As I said in the other thread, the right to swing one's fist ends at the other guy's nose. Helmetless biking harms (potentially) only the helmetless biker. Drunk driving has a strong potential to harm others. Helmet laws (and seatbelt laws, etc) exist only to protect people from their own actions. Drunk driving laws protect the public from a real danger. It's apples and oranges. What I said in the other thread was that our constitutional rights are absolute, which may have been misunderstood. I did also, at the time, add the disclaimer about rights going away when they begin to infringe on others.
Alekhine
One of the main points to this thread is regarding those that see others doing things that they consider an infringment on their freedoms. Remeber there those that firmly believe in absolute freedoms.
So if I call the police on someone drinking & driving is'nt that an infringment on their free right to drink & drive? Yet it is still considered a good idea to do what it takes to get the drunk driver off the street?
So which is the right course of action? Take the side of those who believe in absolute freedom & do nothing? Or get the drunk driver off the street & damn that persons freedoms because he or she is a danger to everyone else & possibly be accused of wrongfully infringing on someone elses freedoms?
Absolute freedom is exactly that, absolute. The freedom to do what ever you want when ever you want with out worrying about &/or paying the consequences for your actions. I believe someone told me you can't have it both ways, but in differant terms, you either have absolute freedom or you don't. If those that believe in absolute freedom do agree that it is a good idea to get & keep drunk drivers off the street then maybe their absolute freedoms are not as absolute as they thought them to be.
Is it possible that those that believe in absolute freedom maybe straddle the fence on some of the freedom issues? Meaning some are absolute & other freedoms are not, like the issue of a drunk driver & what needs to be done by citizens to get & keep them off the road. Would any of those forum members here who believe in absolute freedom care to admit to the fact that some freedoms are absolute & others are not, because they can not be for the greater good? Keep in mind you run the risk of being called & considered a hippocrite if you admit to this.
It's very simple: "Do what thou wilt, as long as it harms nobody else."
Drunken driving harms others.
Not wearing a helmet only harms me.
You seem to think everybody wants anarchy, but the above little sentence is at the crux of all of our arguments. Not one of us is calling for an abolition of laws. Not one.
supcom
There is no honest question here. Just trolling around.
mmerner
Not wearing a helmet only harms me.
okay, I'll admit I'm the ultimate hippocrite. I usually wear a helmet, and don't think there should be a law requiring. But not wearing a helmet does affect others. Your family for one, what would happen to your family if you died or got injuried? I'm sure life would not go on as normal for them. Also insurance rates for everyone would be affected to take care of you. It's not only you :eek:
Kyle90
I think anyone who cares what others are doing has issues.
InfamousG
If a drunk driver would only endager himself in doing so, I wouldn't give 2 craps about it. The fact of the matter is, in most alcohol related incidents, the drunk driver walks away with the least amount of injuries. I would, and have, report suspicious or obvious drinking and driving. It is up to the police to determine what to do after calling them. I'm not going to put myself at risk or try to run him off the road, because for all I know it could be a bottle of ICB Root Beer and not Bud Light.
As for the helmet laws/ordinances: I'm going to wear one and require that my (future) children wear one. To me, a few ounces of stuff on my head is not worth the risk of a head injury that was preventable. Some say, well why don't you drive a car with a helmet on then? I have front and side airbags. I drive a car that recieved the top safety ratings and I pay attention to what other drivers are doing. An accident where a helmet would improve my chance of survival is less likely than one where a helmet would lessen my chances (due to the intertia of the helmet).
If someone feels that they don't need a helmet, so be it. Maybe they'll never need it in their whole lives.
If I were to be in a bike crash, I'd rather say "I'm glad I wore my helmet" than "I wish I would have" or not be able to say anything at all.
Alekhine
okay, I'll admit I'm the ultimate hippocrite. I usually wear a helmet, and don't think there should be a law requiring. But not wearing a helmet does affect others. Your family for one, what would happen to your family if you died or got injuried? I'm sure life would not go on as normal for them. Also insurance rates for everyone would be affected to take care of you. It's not only you :eek:
Fair enough, but... Death is something none of us escape. We will all 'harm our families' with it at some point. The family argument could be used for everything from a McDonald's diet to drinking to joining the military to driving down to help a soup kitchen and getting into a fatal accident on the way by chance. Nobody sets out to intentionally make their families suffer through their own [unpredictable] death. Trauma has the possibility to exist in almost every single action we make, not just the helmet one. One could think of a litany of things both helpful to society and not that would contribute to random death, and still my basic premise stands. Certainly, we're not going to outlaw being a fireman, even though the job is risky and frequently involves death (and by extension, family grief). I don't see anyone outlawing driving, which causes 40,000 deaths a year, most unintentional (I hope).
As for insurance rates, I cede the point, but I gave my opinion on this in the helmet law thread and I stand by it. Correlation and causality aren't the same thing. Insurance companies operate always on the assumption that they are. Essentially, I think that insurance companies are parasites who impose arbitrary rules like these in order to turn a profit. It is they who should be judged in the case of helmet-related rates going up, not the cyclist - especially since helmet safety data, both pro- and con-, has been manipulated to argue both ways and is so far inconclusive. Insurance companies could arbitrarily decide to make the use of black cycling shorts increase rates on a whim, based on the idea that they're not bright enough to make a driver notice - would that make it the fault of cyclists everywhere for wearing them? Should towns impose "no black shorts" laws because of insurance company rules? Heck, they could just up and decide that bicycling in general should be enough to raise rates. When insurance rates dictate people's personal ethics and activities, I think that sets a very dangerous and controlling precedent.
konageezer
It's just that when you pick up the half-sack at the cold beer & wine store, and you're SO thirsty, and it's a long drive—like more than twenty blocks—to get home, it's hard to wait. I just like to crack one of those frosty beers open and drink it while I'm heading home. Crank up some tunes and just cruise, you know. If it's the same route you drive all the time, it's like you can do it on auto-pilot, so it's probably not all that dangerous. It's not like I get drunk on one beer or anything. I always get home okay, though I did park on the lawn once, haha.
jamesdenver
i've called the police on obvious drunk drivers many times. i also call the highway patrol on a guy who had a canoe strapped onto the trailer that was shifting around and not very secure.
it's not the act i care about. it's the result of what could happen from it.
DogBoy
Change your example to seeing the driver not wearing a seatbelt but otherwise obeying the law. Now ask the question again and you have something comparable.
BTW, I'm in favor of both seat-belt laws (due to increased costs in event of a crash that everyone bears, via insurance or increased medical costs to cover non-payers) and helmet laws (same reason).
Hill Climber
Not all states have open container laws. Some places it is legal to drive down the road drinking a beer the same is it is a Coke as long as the driver is not impaired. Some places, it's illegal for there to be a busted six pack in the car even if you are just transporting it.
If you see someone weaving around or driving recklessly, by all means call the cops. If you call the cops to inform on someone just because you saw them put a can to their lips is sad. Granted, one generally leads to the other, but one beer doesn't make you drunk (in most cases). That being said, I have never driven down the road with an open beer. But, I'm sure not going to inform on someone either.
Do you call the cops if you know you're neighbor is hosting a home poker game?
sbhikes
A helmet, high-vis clothing and all the safety-gear possible is not so much a guarantee that you'll be saved from injury. It sends a message to the cop who arrives, the witnesses that see and possibly the judge and/or jury at the trial that there's no way in hell the driver didn't see you and no way in hell you are a negligent scofflaw cyclist.
The presence of alcohol in your blood, even if it is below the minimum for intoxication, indicates you are a negligent driver and yes you were at fault, should you have an accident.
mr_tom
Do you think if someone calls the police because they witness this very illegal behavior from another person, is the person who calls the authorities being a "safety nanny"? Or infringing on the rights of others?
I would call the filth faster than you could say "roadside beating." But not because I have any concern for the health of the driver. As far as I'm concerned, drunk drivers can all pile themselves into walls and die slow painful deaths. It's the poor sods who don't see them coming that need protecting.
That's different to a bike helmet. If someone chooses not to wear a bike helmet, that's their choice and they're not going to kill anyone else as a result of it.
Generally speaking, society passes laws that protect its members from each other, not from themselvess. One is free to harm oneself in any manner one sees fit.
xerocoma
You are protecting my life, your life and the lives of anyone else this driver may encounter. You are even protecting him from himself... I think you are doing everyone a service when you report this behavior.
scarry
My thoughts exactly. And I'll add that many law enforcment agencys encourage people to report suspected drunk drivers.
A helmetless bicylist, well, get real. :rolleyes:
I'll bite.
Drunk drivers are dangerous to others. Non-helmet-wearing cyclists and motorcycle riders are perhaps putting themselves at risk, but are not likely to be a danger to anyone else.
Some rider takes a header and busts his skull open, it's his misfortune. Some drunk guy hops a curb and plows a bunch of people waiting at a bus stop, it's the bystanders' misfortune.
If you take it upon yourself to rat off a helmet-less cyclist, you're getting one person in trouble for "failing to protect himself." If you rat off a drunk driver, you're removing an imminent threat from the street (for the immediate time, at any rate). In the first case, it is a frivolous imposition on one person who could potentially be endangering himself, in the second, it can be construed more as a matter of broader public safety.
For the record, I'm a helmet wearer, and I figure it's one more buffer between my meaty carcass and the hard, hard asphalt, but I really don't give a rip if somebody else thinks helmets are useless or uncomfortable or unforgiveable dorky or whatever. My head, my choice, ya know?
I-Like-To-Bike
Do you call the cops if you know you're neighbor is hosting a home poker game?
Better keep your phone available to call in smokers who have children in the car, or at home, or anywhere else for that matter.
And don't forget to harass any pregnant woman, or woman who might be pregnant, who has a glass of wine or a cigarette within your purview.
And don't forget to call in the irresponsible parents of those neighborhood kids who are playing rough or climbing trees or anything else that pegs your busybody meter.
And last, but not least, don't neglect to call in all those suspicious people lurking about wherever you go whom you suspect might be up to some no good or who might be contemplating some dangerous activity.
konageezer
Better keep your phone available to call in smokers who have children in the car, or at home, or anywhere else for that matter.
And don't forget to harass any pregnant woman, or woman who might be pregnant, who has a glass of wine or a cigarette within your purview.
And don't forget to call in the irresponsible parents of those neighborhood kids who are playing rough or climbing trees or anything else that pegs your busybody meter.
And last, but not least, don't neglect to call in all those suspicious people lurking about wherever you go whom you suspect might be up to some no good or who might be contemplating some dangerous activity.
I disagree. While I am extremely wary of trees, I think that some of these recommendations go too far.
InfamousG
...So if I call the police on someone drinking & driving is'nt that an infringment on their free right to drink & drive? Yet it is still considered a good idea to do what it takes to get the drunk driver off the street? ...
Absolute freedom is exactly that, absolute. ...
First of all, someone does not have the "right" to drink and drive. It is illegal. Calling the police is calling to report an illegal activity (or the possibility of one).
There is no such thing as "Absolute Freedom." If there were, there would be no need for law enforcement officers. Why call the police if they're going to respond with "Well, he's free to ransack your house and rape your wife... got a gun? You're free to kill him, too."
In cities where a bike helmet is mandatory, sure you could call the cops on everyone you see riding without a helmet. Chances are though, cops will get fed up with stopping bikes for not wearing their helmets because there is no revenue to gain from it. Issuing a ticket does nothing if the offender has no ID on them to follow up with.
Those that believe in absoulte freedom as a potential reality are delusional. It won't happen. It'll be a sad day when it does.
InfamousG
Better keep your phone available to call in smokers who have children in the car, or at home, or anywhere else for that matter.
And don't forget to harass any pregnant woman, or woman who might be pregnant, who has a glass of wine or a cigarette within your purview.
And don't forget to call in the irresponsible parents of those neighborhood kids who are playing rough or climbing trees or anything else that pegs your busybody meter.
And last, but not least, don't neglect to call in all those suspicious people lurking about wherever you go whom you suspect might be up to some no good or who might be contemplating some dangerous activity.
While I understand that your message is in sarcasm, none of those activities are illegal. Dangerous, yes, illegal, no. If my neighbor was a major-league a-hole and I knew he was up to some illegal activity (such as drugs, in-house gambling, giving kids beer, etc.) I'd anonymously report him. Selective reporting of lawlessness is ok.
Are you going to go turn yourself in for all of those speeding tickets you should have gotten?
I-Like-To-Bike
While I understand that your message is in sarcasm, none of those activities are illegal. Dangerous, yes, illegal, no. If my neighbor was a major-league a-hole and I knew he was up to some illegal activity (such as drugs, in-house gambling, giving kids beer, etc.) I'd anonymously report him. Selective reporting of lawlessness is ok.
Are you going to go turn yourself in for all of those speeding tickets you should have gotten?
No. Nor am I going to phone in every speeding motorist I see either despite the alleged danger.
I'd save/prioritize my phoning-in/squeeling for drivers whose driving behavior actually demonstrates recklessness disregard of my safety; and a can of beer in the hand is NOT that behavior. If the thought of motorists with alcohol on their breath sends chills up your spine, I would suggest that you never think about the departing customers of every single road house/tavern in the country, especially at closing time. You would wear out your dialing finger.
tippy
... Do you think if someone calls the police because they witness this very illegal behavior from another person, is the person who calls the authorities being a "safety nanny"? Or infringing on the rights of others? Or taking away another persons freedom? Or better yet putting themselves in the person's, who is illegally drinking alcohol & driving a car, business? Please answer honestly if you would.
I haven't tried it but I think some cell phone users can dial *FHP (Florida Highway Patrol) if they see some one operating their vehicle that is unsafe. Of course, it's against the law to operate a cell phone while driving. I always wondered about that. Example: You (a driver) sees another driver using a cell phone while driving. You pick up your cell and call *FHP to report it. In the mean time, a third driver sees you using a cell phone while driving. So, they pick up their cell phone to dial *FHP, to report you ....
Isn't technology wonderful?
My comment would be this ... since when has drinking alcohol while operating a vehicle been a right? How can you infringe on a right that doesn't exist. Since when has operating a vehicle been a right? We, as the public, have a right to make use of public facilities (roadways) but operating a motor vehicle on that public facility is a priviledge, not a right. So even though openingly gulping beer from a can while driving may be legal ( which is to say there is no law prohibiting it) in some cases, it does not make it a right.
d.tipton
tippy
... call in all those suspicious people lurking about wherever you go ...
...none of those activities are illegal... Some communities have loitering laws which would make it illegal for people to "lurk about".
d.tipton
Boston Commuter
If it's the same route you drive all the time, it's like you can do it on auto-pilot, so it's probably not all that dangerous. It's not like I get drunk on one beer or anything. I always get home okay, though I did park on the lawn once, haha.
(assuming the above was real and not sarcastic ...) I am sure that it feels safe to you to drive a familiar route while drinking. But most accidents happen close to home, and your ability to find your house is not a measure of your sobriety. It's not fair or legal for you to put others at risk, even if you feel that "it's probably not all that dangerous".
What matters is not whether you feel safe, it's whether you are breaking the law. (Sorry for the scolding if you weren't serious about drinking beer in your car.)
richardmasoner
But not wearing a helmet does affect others.
The risk of head injury for a cyclist is about the same as that of the motorist. The risk of death and serious disability is higher for the motorist. The societal costs imposed by motorists is orders of magnitude higher than that of cyclists.
What do you call a motorist who drives without a helmet? An organ donor.
richardmasoner
Big pile of straw and set it on fire.
N_C, the fundamental issue is that you believe cycling to be a dangerous activity. It is no more dangerous (as defined my risk of serious injury and death per hour of activity) than driving.
Perception of safety is affected by many things beyond the real risk level, including the level of control we have over our own motion and those of the people around us. People are terrified of flying in spite of the proven safety record because somebody else is at the controls. People are afraid of riding in traffic because of the hundreds of automobiles -- which we as cyclists have no control over -- whiz by us every hour.
In spite of 42,000 automobile deaths in the U.S. every year, almost NOBODY thinks that he's going to die while driving to work because, hey, he's driving and he's in control.
Let me re-iterate: Cycling is no more likely to result in serious head injury than driving. Helmets are for dangerous activities. Cycling is not a dangerous activity.
I pointed you before to the cycling safety quiz. I invite you once again to:
(assuming the above was real and not sarcastic ...)
Yeah, sorry. this kind of thing is funny to me. I like to think I was being "facetious," as opposed ot "sarcastic," but… yeah. I was just so incredulous that the OP was floating the "right to drink and drive" issue, that I figured someone in the pro camp had better chime in. Just between us, I have serious doubts as to these being "honest questions," as he asserts. I think what we have here is a case of baiting.
Trevor98
How to answer....
I'll address the initial question first. Do you call the cops on a drinking driver? If it illegal in your jurisdiction than morally, almost every philosophy would call calling the cops a moral action. Additionally, when you asserted a position of believing in the right of "absolute freedom" you called up Hobbsean philosophy which posits that individuals live in a state of chaos until given order by the rise of a government.
I would agree that people have a right of "absolute freedom" but that they give up refrain from asserting some of those rights in order to gain a measure of peace and security. States arise in response to threats and an individual understanding that shared defense is easier than individual defense. Individuals retain their absolute right to freedom but refrain from exercising it as payment of protection in society. The catch with this thinking is that society must interfere with freedoms as minimally as possible in order to refrain from creating a state that is less desirable than the natural chaos. Thomas Jefferson so ably stated, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." But you knew that nearly everyone would agree with your drinking driver hypothetical and so this question must be a set up. And you so slyly admit that your intent is to use the arguments for calling in drinking drivers to justify helmet laws.
Now, your comparison of drunk driving reporting to helmet laws is what is called a logical fallacy, or rather at least two. As pointed out already, it is a "straw man" argument (a switch of topics to allow a better attack in which the logic of the second argument has little bearing on the original argument). It is also a weak attempt at a "false analogy" argument. Similar in nature to the straw-man but with specific differences, in this case you are attempting to equate engaging in a legal action with a report of an illegal action and an act of public endangerment with the use of a questionable safety device. Your hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with your helmet law position. Is this the best arguments for helmet laws you can come up with?
Your "hypocrite argument" is insulting to the intelligence of humankind and assumes too much about the motivations of helmet law opposers. At this point it is becoming really hard not to engage in ad hominem arguments but I will try. Hypocrite arguments are Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacies. That is, fallacies of proposing that two beliefs or assertions are inconsistent and thus one is wrong (always the one that helps the fallacy user by the way). Additionally, in this argument you have assumed that all helmet law opposers share a common logic and thus as a group can be shown as hypocritical if members withing that position hold seemingly inconsistent rationales for agreeing that helmet laws should be opposed.
For your ongoing arguments, if you continue push helmet laws, or your incorrigible need to change a law then please hone your debating skills. Proving that opposing assertions are wrong does not prove that yours are then correct. Simply arguing that helmet law opposers are wrong does not prove anything about the rightfulness of helmet laws. If you are simply seeking further information it would be better to assume a less combative tone in your posts.
Nicodemus
How to answer....
...Now, your comparison of drunk driving reporting to helmet laws is what is called a logical fallacy, or rather at least two. As pointed out already, it is a "straw man" argument (a switch of topics to allow a better attack in which the logic of the second argument has little bearing on the original argument). It is also a weak attempt at a "false analogy" argument. Similar in nature to the straw-man but with specific differences, in this case you are attempting to equate engaging in a legal action with a report of an illegal action and an act of public endangerment with the use of a questionable safety device. Your hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with your helmet law position. Is this the best arguments for helmet laws you can come up with?
Your "hypocrite argument" is insulting to the intelligence of humankind and assumes too much about the motivations of helmet law opposers. At this point it is becoming really hard not to engage in ad hominem arguments but I will try. Hypocrite arguments are Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacies. That is, fallacies of proposing that two beliefs or assertions are inconsistent and thus one is wrong (always the one that helps the fallacy user by the way). Additionally, in this argument you have assumed that all helmet law opposers share a common logic and thus as a group can be shown as hypocritical if members withing that position hold seemingly inconsistent rationales for agreeing that helmet laws should be opposed.
For your ongoing arguments, if you continue push helmet laws, or your incorrigible need to change a law then please hone your debating skills. Proving that opposing assertions are wrong does not prove that yours are then correct. Simply arguing that helmet law opposers are wrong does not prove anything about the rightfulness of helmet laws. If you are simply seeking further information it would be better to assume a less combative tone in your posts.
How dare you bring logical reasoning into this debate!
Well said. :beer:
LV2TNDM
The LEAST you should do is call the cops and have the offender arrested. Drunk driving - espcially drinking alcohol while driving - should not be tolerated.
I'm of the opinion that repeat drunk drivers don't get enough punishment. Citizens should take it upon themselves as their responsibility to dole out punishment on the side of the road.
Any drunk individual involved in an accident of moving violation should be beaten on the spot. If you ever come across a drunk involved in an accident, start pounding on him! If this happened regularly, in addition to the monetary fines and jail time, perhaps it would discourage driving under the influence. Perhaps "Joe twelve-pack" would think, "Gee, instead of taking the pickup out for a joyride after my fifteenth beer and being beaten within an inch of my life by an angry mob, maybe I'll stay in tonight and pass out on the toilet!"
Now let's open those collective cans of whoop-ass!
Trevor98
I know, it's a little presumptuous of me but I can't resist. Unemployment after a cross country move requires that I practice witting and argumentative skills somewhere- why not here? Besides, my girlfriend is sick of being the opposition.
Boston Commuter
Just between us, I have serious doubts as to these being "honest questions," as he asserts. I think what we have here is a case of baiting.
I'm afraid it looks a bit that way to me too. As a matter of fact I'm seeing a fair amount of baiting (of one kind or another) on these forums lately. Unfortunate.
I-Like-To-Bike
The LEAST you should do is call the cops and have the offender arrested. Drunk driving - espcially drinking alcohol while driving - should not be tolerated.
I'm of the opinion that repeat drunk drivers don't get enough punishment. Citizens should take it upon themselves as their responsibility to dole out punishment on the side of the road.
Now let's open those collective cans of whoop-ass!
Hey Tough guy, why not start beating the poop out of every driver you see smoking? It could be some illegal herb and no punishment would be enough for those unacceptable, irresponsible, reckless individuals who MIGHT be endangering you.
And if they weren't partaking of killer weed or aren't stoned? So what? Your heart was in the right place and next time the beaten individual won't even think of looking guilty-like in your all knowing presence.
filtersweep
Drinking while driving doesn't necessarily mean the driver is intoxicated. Do they really pose a danger? Or is it just a "status offense"- where they are drinking at the wrong place and time (doing something otherwise legal in an illegal manner). I'd argue a driver on the brink of intoxication poses a greater risk than someone sipping one beer while driving down the street.
randya
In addition to having a problem with your proposed helmet law, I also don't see a problem with drinking while you're driving, either, as long as you're not actually drunk. The drunk drivers that are the most dangerous are the ones who are two or three times over the limit; zero tolerance is BS, and each and every day lots and lots of people have a couple of drinks and drive safely to their destinations without incident. For that matter, I don't have a problem with having a couple of beers or a toke and going for a bike ride, either. Helmet laws are like zero tolerance laws, they can't be enforced and won't work.
I-Like-To-Bike
Zero tolerance is BS, and each and every day lots and lots of people have a couple of drinks and drive safely to their destinations without incident. For that matter, I don't have a problem with having a couple of beers or a toke and going for a bike ride, either. Helmet laws are like zero tolerance laws, they can't be enforced and won't work.
EXACTLY!
Neither bicycling advocacy, nor bicycling safety is advanced by zero tolerance pontificating from puritans with a holier-than-thou attitude about the sinning all about them.
Trevor98
Zero tolerance is a nice PC word that is thrown around most often without definition. Zero tolerance of murder is a good thing. Zero tolerance of personal pet peeves is not. Blanket statements are most often not dependable.
There is, however, absolutely nothing wrong with someone calling police if they see someone breaking the law. There is also nothing wrong with choosing to mind your own business when seeing seemingly minor infractions (especially if you judge yourself not a competent enough expert on the severity of the crime to actually accuse someone of a crime).
There is a significant difference in degree of law breaking between endangering the public (driving drunk) and simply breaking a legal prohibition (drinking while driving while remaining essentially sober). We can only assume (most likely falsely) that responsible adults can use their own judgment and do what is right while trusting cops to keep the general law breaking to a minimum.
I-Like-To-Bike
Zero tolerance is a nice PC word that is thrown around most often without definition.
Zero tolerance of drinking can be defined by me as attitude leading to a hissy fit over the sight of a beer can in someone's hand and assuming the individual is intoxicated and should be reported to the police (anonymously of course) if not beaten by morality vigilantes.
Treespeed
Zero tolerance of drinking can be defined by me as attitude leading to a hissy fit over the sight of a beer can in someone's hand and assuming the individual is intoxicated and should be reported to the police (anonymously of course) if not beaten by morality vigilantes.
For a poster who is so bothered by "straw man" arguements, you seem to have trouble noticing when you post them yourself. While I believe the OP's statments are a bit trollish and his link between helmet use and drinking and driving are very tenuous the above is just ridiculous. How many drivers do you suppose have been pulled over, "for one beer in their hand?" Or do you think over 17,000 alcohol related fatalities a year are not worthy of getting upset about. Obviously not enough of the folks who drink and drive stop at just one, nor are enough of them getting pulled over. I think a better solution would be a zero-tolerance policy with on-site beatings, maybe a few Rodney King style beatdowns might be a better deterrent. Or we could just force them to ride a bike helmetless and let them drink all they want.
richardmasoner
Helmet laws are like zero tolerance laws, they can't be enforced and won't work.
Speaking of strawmans... :rolleyes:
randya
The OP was the one who offered up this particular strawman in the first place.
Hill Climber
What do you do if you know a guy at work who has a friend with a friend that makes a run to the Bahamas every month for Cuban cigars or a guy at work tells you he has a friend at the dog track that will cash out your big tickets without reporting it to the IRS? Do you roll on them, too? Do you call the cops if you see a couple of guys paying off a bet in the bar at the golf course - just before they get in their cars and drive home?
If someone down the road is running a meth lab out of their house or someone is driving down the road weaving all over the place, of course you do what you can to get them off the street.
But anyone who would call the cops because his neighbor was hosting a weekly card game or called social services because he saw the neighbor's kid sneak a beer out behind the barn is just a tool.
N_C
OK. Tell you what for those of you who have no problem drinking & driving, legally intoxicated or not, just try to drive down my street while drinking a can of beer or smoking a joint. I'll have your asses thrown in jail so fast you won't know what happened until it is to late. Iowa has a ZERO TOLERANCE law on drinking & driving. I have personally seen, thankfully not been involved in, the results of a drunk driving accident. So I also have a ZERO TOLERANCE of drinking & driving, & mine is absolute, regardless of whether or not the state law is. So just try it, you won't get very far if I see you do it. You call these laws B.S. Would you change your attitude if a family member was maimed for life or killed by someone who is just drinking a beer while driving? Even if the person was not legally intoxicated?
As far as I'm concerned the laws are not tough enough. I think that after only one offense the person should never ever regain the privlige of driving or even legally owning or liscensing a vehicle ever again. They can stick with public transportation.
If you think part of my attitude on this is personally motivated, you're right it is. I have good reason for it too.
N_C
What do you do if you know a guy at work who has a friend with a friend that makes a run to the Bahamas every month for Cuban cigars or a guy at work tells you he has a friend at the dog track that will cash out your big tickets without reporting it to the IRS? Do you roll on them, too? Do you call the cops if you see a couple of guys paying off a bet in the bar at the golf course - just before they get in their cars and drive home?
No of course not. I really don't care if people engange in this kind of so-called illegal activity. But I can tell you I would make the choice not to engage in it myself.
If someone down the road is running a meth lab out of their house or someone is driving down the road weaving all over the place, of course you do what you can to get them off the street.
I absolutley would call the authorities on a meth lab & a dangerous driver.
But anyone who would call the cops because his neighbor was hosting a weekly card game or called social services because he saw the neighbor's kid sneak a beer out behind the barn is just a tool.
I would not the police on the kid but I might tell his parents. Because of the problems with teenage drinking. And I actually might join the card game. If I am not mistaken you can legally gamble in your home up to a certain amount. I think in most areas the highest bet can be only up to $500.00 or something like that. Not to sure.
I have higher tolerances for certain things & zero tolerance for others. If no one here likes that well to bad, it is who I am. And I'm not afraid to express it.
I-Like-To-Bike
For a poster who is so bothered by "straw man" arguements, you seem to have trouble noticing when you post them yourself. While I believe the OP's statments are a bit trollish and his link between helmet use and drinking and driving are very tenuous the above is just ridiculous. How many drivers do you suppose have been pulled over, "for one beer in their hand?" Or do you think over 17,000 alcohol related fatalities a year are not worthy of getting upset about. Obviously not enough of the folks who drink and drive stop at just one, nor are enough of them getting pulled over. I think a better solution would be a zero-tolerance policy with on-site beatings, maybe a few Rodney King style beatdowns might be a better deterrent. Or we could just force them to ride a bike helmetless and let them drink all they want.
You, like the original OP apparantly are all for judging a driver guilty of drunk driving and administering instant justice (or at least squealing your accusations to the police) based on your assumptions rather than the facts at hand. AND I assume you two are not strawmen. I am not advocating drinking and driving, I am attempting to discourage the association of bicyling advocacy with moral perfectionists tut tutting/gossiping/squeling about others who don't comply with their straight-laced puritan regimen.
Trevor98
N_C, quit lying and quit believing that no one will do a simple web search to find out the truth. Iowa has a .08 limit on BAC. That is a tolerance, that is the law. Your contempt of the democratic process of lawmaking like your contempt of thread readers is amazing. I am sorry for whatever thorn is under your ***** but your attitude is annoying and pointless.
"So I also have a ZERO TOLERANCE of drinking & driving, & mine is absolute, regardless of whether or not the state law is."
What does this statement mean. It sounds like a threat of violence if the legal system does not bend to your will. It is the same drivel that zealots use in their quests. Please calm down and think before someone gets hurt (namely yourself as some big guy who you catch drinking near-beer and driving decides to put you down when your "zero tolerance" attitude confronts him).
Laws, regardless of your views, are set up to protect society first and foremost. You seem to feel that your views should override the democratic system and that is scary. You seem to have zero respect for your fellow human beings and their ability to think. You dismiss anything that does not agree with your established beliefs yet you seek confrontation- a dangerous combination. I am attacking you because that is all you offer. Your emotions rule your posts and your emotions are scary.