For your consideration, a layout from today's Chicago Sun-Times:
http://postpose.com/burden/suntimes01.jpg
On the left, page 8:
A full-page story (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/298283,CST-NWS-crash15.article) about 20-year old college student Tommy Young Choi, who apparently peeled out from a traffic light at high speed in his Mazda RX-8 while driving home from dinner, lost control, hit a steel road divider, and was killed along with his two friends. The back seat passenger reportedly died of smoke inhalation, trapped in the resulting fire. The car had to be transported to the medical examiner's office so that the bodies could be extracted for autopsy.
On the right, page 9:
A full page advertisement, entitled "GMoverdrive", in which the awesome, testosterone-thumping power of Pontiac's "GXP Performance Series" is described to us in excruciating detail. Headers proclaim, "Turbocharged" and "Hit the Throttle" (!) and "Faster than the... Porsche Boxter." These cars are for the "true driver" who needs to accelerate faster than those schmucks who drive a long list of competitor's offerings. Including Mazda's.
The more I look at this spread, the less I'm able to get my head around it.
Page 8, the story of three bright kids killed by the very culture of power and speed sold to us on Page 9.
Page 8, where families and friends struggle to understand a meaningless loss; Page 9, which doesn't even bother with a disclaimer: like, say, "Inexperienced young men should not attempt to actually drive cars like this on the road anywhere near the stated limits, because you and your friends might die."
Page 8, a crumpled, scorched Mazda that lost control; Page 9, Pontiac's shiny yellow alternative to that Mazda, for just $27,115 MSRP.
Everyone in Chicago is probably well-accustomed to the Sun-Times being shady, stupid or insensitive, but personally, I cannot help but see this as an astonishingly disgusting example of some combination of those things.
Cycling content:
A couple of weeks ago I hit a patch of ice while riding too fast during my commute home, lost traction, and went down pretty hard. I scraped up my elbow a little -- it hurt like hell, and bled, and scabbed up, but is now entirely healed.
My bike did not burst into flames.
The Sun-Times did not publish an article about my incident, in any context, including a context that would be so distasteful that I'd end up posting about it here.
Az B
03-16-07, 04:45 AM
My bike did not burst into flames.
It must not be made of carbon fiber. :D
It does seems a little unfortunate to have that ad opposite the story. Car culture is so ingrained on 'Mericans that most of us can't see the forest for the trees. I'm sure Mr and Mrs Three Car Garage would never have made that connection.
But it's nothing new. On average, almost 43,000 people die each year in this country alone because of cars. The vast majority of those incidents could have been easily avoided. Most of these crashes get no news coverage at all.
Az
Brian
03-16-07, 05:44 AM
Page 8, the story of three bright kids killed by the very culture of power and speed sold to us on Page 9.
Page 9, which doesn't even bother with a disclaimer: like, say, "Inexperienced young men should not attempt to actually drive cars like this on the road anywhere near the stated limits, because you and your friends might die."
Re: Page 8 - Were the two in the back really bright? Because there was no indication the driver was.
Re: Page 9 - Are you new to this planet?
mrpsmr
03-16-07, 10:09 AM
"43,000 people die each year in this country alone because of cars."
Really now!. In 50 years, I have never had the experience of my car opening its doors, turning itself on, backing itself down the driveway and driving itself to work. I have always had to do these things. I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors and friends have had this experience themselves either.
The point is traffic accidents are caused by PEOPLE, not the cars. People need to use their heads. They need to maintain their cars properly. They need to act appropriately. When they don't, accidents happen. The same, incidentally, applies to cyclists. Slow down if the condition of the roads is compromised.
I have sympathy for the families of the young men involved, because they are feeling emotional pain right now. The fault however, lies with the kids in the car and not Mazda. Also, this kid did more than just "peel" out. To have that kind of destruction, the driver had to be going well over the speed limit. He could have done that in a Volvo.
Michael
Bikepacker67
03-16-07, 11:24 AM
The fault however, lies with the kids in the car and not Mazda.
Zoom Zoom (https://www.zoomzoomlive.com/)
Bikepacker67
03-16-07, 11:27 AM
How is it that car manufacturers are allowed to advertise their products being used in irresponsible manners?
Could beer producers run ads showing college kids funneling?
baiskeli
03-16-07, 12:18 PM
How is it that car manufacturers are allowed to advertise their products being used in irresponsible manners?
Could beer producers run ads showing college kids funneling?
<sarcasm>
Obviously, like 99.999% of people, you never read the disclaimers in fine print at the bottom of cars ads on tv 'performed by professional drivers on a closed course'</sarcasm>
You are right, it makes no sense to advertise a cars top speed of 155MPH. I think the beer ad analogy you make is totally fitting'
Bikepacker67
03-16-07, 01:38 PM
<sarcasm>
Obviously, like 99.999% of people, you never read the disclaimers in fine print at the bottom of cars ads on tv 'performed by professional drivers on a closed course'</sarcasm>
http://www.hcsw.org/beer/coasters/Budweiser.jpg
http://blogs.bootsnall.com/RobertCPaetz/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Day%20133%20-%204.JPG
"Performed by a Professional alcoholic in a closed bar"
baiskeli
03-16-07, 02:05 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Some guy wrote about the psychology of car buyers. It was called "High and Mighty" and dealt with SUV's but I think there is a lot of sub-conscious psychological stuff going on with car advertising, or any type of advertising for that matter.
Bikepacker67
03-16-07, 02:09 PM
Some guy wrote about the psychology of car buyers. It was called "High and Mighty" and dealt with SUV's but I think there is a lot of sub-conscious psychological stuff going on with car advertising, or any type of advertising for that matter.
Of course there is. All advertising is about promising more than the product can hope to deliver.
The question is, when does that "propaganda" become criminal?
I say that if your product can be used in an irresponsible manner, it is irresponsible (and LIABLE) to advertise that product being used in an irresponsible manner.
How about Smith and Wesson using Terminator 'clips' (pun intended) to sell their latest .45?
DogBoy
03-16-07, 02:37 PM
...The point is traffic accidents are caused by PEOPLE, not the cars. People need to use their heads. They need to maintain their cars properly. They need to act appropriately. When they don't, accidents happen. ...
The point is GSWs are caused by PEOPLE, not the guns. People need to use their heads. They need to maintain their firearms properly. They need to act appropriately. When they don't, accidents happen.
Sorry, couldn't help it, it was just too close to the guns don't kill people type comments.
N_C
03-16-07, 02:58 PM
I think some of you are missing the point of this thread. The Op is not saying the kids are not responsible for the accident. The driver is responsible for driving recklessly thus losing control, etc. He was probably showing off for his friends & they all paid with their lives, tragic.
The point of the OP is he is saying it is very tactless for the paper to publish the article about the accident then a full page ad for car sales on the next page. Wheter by accident or on purpose I agree it was very tactless for the paper to do this. They should have been paying more attention. From what the OP says the paper does crap like this all to often.
zeytoun
03-16-07, 03:09 PM
The point of the OP is he is saying it is very tactless for the paper to publish the article about the accident then a full page ad for car sales on the next page.
Agreed. Some of us are commenting that it is also distasteful for auto companies to continue to advertise in a way that exhibits their car like some kind of testosterone-fueled rocket ship.
Granted, people are responsible for their own actions, but most advertising has the goal of sublimating free will.
Bikepacker67
03-16-07, 03:12 PM
The point of the OP is he is saying it is very tactless for the paper to publish the article about the accident then a full page ad for car sales on the next page.
Really?
I thought the OP was commenting on the tactlessness of publishing an ad for a motor vehicle that insinuated that such product is designed to be used in an irresponsible way.
It's not that a car ad is in bad taste, it's that the car ad proposes "Zoom Zoom".
Az B
03-16-07, 04:31 PM
"43,000 people die each year in this country alone because of cars."
Really now!. In 50 years, I have never had the experience of my car opening its doors, turning itself on, backing itself down the driveway and driving itself to work. I have always had to do these things. I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors and friends have had this experience themselves either.
Okay, you like precise semantics. How about "because of car crashes".
I know you understand my point and just enjoy being a smartass.
Az
baiskeli
03-16-07, 07:46 PM
Of course there is. All advertising is about promising more than the product can hope to deliver.
The question is, when does that "propaganda" become criminal?
I say that if your product can be used in an irresponsible manner, it is irresponsible (and LIABLE) to advertise that product being used in an irresponsible manner.
How about Smith and Wesson using Terminator 'clips' (pun intended) to sell their latest .45?
I agree.
I think that auto advertisement (at least a lot of them) fall into the irresponsible category (like advertising SUV's as safe when they roll over more than your dog and pretty much ensure that the poor schmuck in the car you hit has a much higher chance of dying).some times someone crosses the line by so much that it becomes obvious (Hummer's recent 'reclaim your manhood' ad debacle).
So my vote would be that car companies, especially makers of SUV's that serve no other purpose than stroking the ego (Hummer, H2, H3) etc are liable.
Brian
03-16-07, 08:28 PM
Agreed. Some of us are commenting that it is also distasteful for auto companies to continue to advertise in a way that exhibits their car like some kind of testosterone-fueled rocket ship.
Granted, people are responsible for their own actions, but most advertising has the goal of sublimating free will.
Some cars are testosterone-fueled rocket ships.
slvoid
03-16-07, 08:51 PM
It's ironic, most of the ads I see on tv for these things seem more reponsible than the suv ads. Most of the sportbike commercials show people either on a professional track (like you can really tell its on a track) or someone on the road riding at normal speeds responsibly, except for a few of em. Most tv ads either show suv's doing stuff that would make em burst into flames in real life or sports cars flying through the city at 150mph being chased by a trash monster.
http://www.waasamc.fi/sisalto/galleria/mp2004/images/Yamaha%20R1%20s.jpg
genec
03-16-07, 09:23 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what good 0-60 in 5.5 seconds is, in typical traffic...
It's ironic, most of the ads I see on tv for these things seem more reponsible than the suv ads. Most of the sportbike commercials show people either on a professional track (like you can really tell its on a track) or someone on the road riding at normal speeds responsibly, except for a few of em.
That's because motorcycles are usually 100% 4rl fast. They don't need to convince anyone of this, just show the public the product. Cars otoh, not so much... So they need to show us how, whatever... they are.
catatonic
03-16-07, 09:51 PM
Cars are plenty fast. Even a 105mph top speed 4-cylinder 1993 Mustang can be fast in trained hands.
It's just too many untrained fools now are getting their hands on 300+ horsepower monsters, and thanks to the high price and general difficulty in finding suitable tracks to "play" on, they take it to the streets. This usually ends in a cloud of fiberglass, steel and whatever they just hit.
The ads are just that, ads. I do think it's pretty stupid to show off a sports car racing around the city though. Really, the primary customer can probably figure out it's fast on their own.
I really wish companies like Ford didn't cave in to consumer pressure with their high end cars....now you can get a Mustang Cobra R without a racing license. For the longest time, one was mandatory....no license, no purchase. That generally kept those rather fast cars in qualified hands (a VERY good thing). I also wish many companies enforced rules like that for their high-end sports cars.
It's not very expensive to get those classes (compared to these cars)....but if you can pass them all, it shows you can at least handle a sports car halfway decently. (the other side of it, is that license can be lost very easily for street infractions...so people will tend to drive nicely to keep their race licenses).
For SUVs.....all bets are off....those things are top heavy and should be driven carefully.
Brian
03-16-07, 09:52 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what good 0-60 in 5.5 seconds is, in typical traffic...
Not everyone lives in SoCal. Utah's I15 is a smooth ribbon of asphalt, free of traffic and enforcement most of the time. We flew to CA 2 weeks ago, and it took 30 minutes to make the 45 mile drive home from the airport. That's with my 103HP toaster.
N_C
03-16-07, 10:43 PM
Really?
I thought the OP was commenting on the tactlessness of publishing an ad for a motor vehicle that insinuated that such product is designed to be used in an irresponsible way.
It's not that a car ad is in bad taste, it's that the car ad proposes "Zoom Zoom".
I don't agree with that. It is not up to the paper what the ad looks like. It is up to the graphic design people, they probably work for or are contracted by the car manufacturer or a dealership. The paper then decides where to put the ad. Who knows why they picked the spot they did for the article & the ad. Maybe this was the frist page of the ad section of the paper & the article was the last story in that part of the paper.
lyeinyoureye
03-16-07, 10:53 PM
Cars are plenty fast...
That's an interesting idea of fast. The way I've looked at it, it's much more likely, and easier, to find a cheap, or even free bike that'll run 11-12s qms. There are plenty of stock bikes with ~.75-1:4 power to weight ratios. Cars? Not so much... I'd love to find a free 250hp 2000lb compact, but I doubt I will. Otoh, I have found free Honda NightHawks. I don't think I could even find a free, or even cheap (and not needing thousands of dollars worth of parts) 12s car...
genec
03-16-07, 11:05 PM
Not everyone lives in SoCal. Utah's I15 is a smooth ribbon of asphalt, free of traffic and enforcement most of the time. We flew to CA 2 weeks ago, and it took 30 minutes to make the 45 mile drive home from the airport. That's with my 103HP toaster.
Most people live in cities... which is why they tend to be crowded. I would be willing to bet more sports cars are sold in cities then out in the middle of Utah.
Doesn't make sense, but then a lot about a lot of cars doesn't make much sense.
Pickup trucks are fine for the farm, but how many city motorists really need a jacked up 3/4 diesel pickup anyway? And Hummers... the local malls are full of them... guess we're getting ready to invade Mexico.
G60
03-16-07, 11:07 PM
Zoom Zoom (https://www.zoomzoomlive.com/)
those events do not endorse irresponsible driving. those events are held on closed tracks where drivers can responsibly test the limits of themselves and their cars.
responsible drivers don't race on the streets...responsible drivers road race, autocross, drag race etc at closed tracks and sanctioned events.
many of you guys fail to understand that some people enjoy driving, much the same way some people enjoy cycling. it's more than just a way to get from point A to point B, it's a hobby and a lifestyle, just like cycling.
"zoom zoom" in no way condones street racing or any other irresponsible behavior. it's the idea that driving a vehicle can, and should be fun. and driving a vehicle within legal limits CAN be fun.
chemcycle
03-16-07, 11:58 PM
Page 8, the story of three bright kids killed by the very culture of power and speed sold to us on Page 9.
(eye roll) You know, if you're constantly looking for something get upset about, you will always find it.
The more I look at this spread, the less I'm able to get my head around it.
Yes, who would have thought that ad space purchased months in advance could actually be published next to an unrelated news story. Crazy stuff!!
Too bad Mazda didn't buy the space. Just think of how those deaths could have really made your point on the message boards!!
But whatever gets your advocacy juices flowing...........me, I'm more concerned about the lost life of a fellow Boilermaker.
catatonic
03-17-07, 08:41 AM
That's an interesting idea of fast. The way I've looked at it, it's much more likely, and easier, to find a cheap, or even free bike that'll run 11-12s qms. There are plenty of stock bikes with ~.75-1:4 power to weight ratios. Cars? Not so much... I'd love to find a free 250hp 2000lb compact, but I doubt I will. Otoh, I have found free Honda NightHawks. I don't think I could even find a free, or even cheap (and not needing thousands of dollars worth of parts) 12s car...
Fast isn't a top speed, it's an average speed....and that puny engined mustang can attack corners in a way that leaves it's GT counterpart in the dust. I used to race one on the track, and it was more than fun to mess with the 5.0 guys with it. I didn't win very often against them, but I did get some doubletakes afterwards when I opened the hood and they realized they had a stock 4-banger hanging off their back bumper for the entire race.
That's the point....any car that can handle can be "fast". We don't need 400hp monsters on the road. 240hp is more than enough for any weekend racer, and the 140-150hp that most cars put out now is plenty.
I'm not dogging high HP cars....hell, I dream of owning an Ultima GT-R TT someday (3 sec 0-60)...but the difference here is I have been instruscted in how to handle a sports car at speed, and know enough to know that it should only be driven fast on a track. I just wish that they would focus on better handling, and safer cars instead of the top speed/HP game.
sgtsmile
03-17-07, 09:14 AM
those events do not endorse irresponsible driving. those events are held on closed tracks where drivers can responsibly test the limits of themselves and their cars.
responsible drivers don't race on the streets...responsible drivers road race, autocross, drag race etc at closed tracks and sanctioned events.
many of you guys fail to understand that some people enjoy driving, much the same way some people enjoy cycling. it's more than just a way to get from point A to point B, it's a hobby and a lifestyle, just like cycling.
"zoom zoom" in no way condones street racing or any other irresponsible behavior. it's the idea that driving a vehicle can, and should be fun. and driving a vehicle within legal limits CAN be fun.
You hit the nail on the head with this one. I make no apologies for liking driving as much as cycling. Driving, and driving well, is a lot of fun and can be done legally. Around here, we have a lot of dead straight roads (used the word dead for a reason, they are boring to ride on or drive on) and, because it is so easy to go too fast, I use the cruise control on them. This is called being responsible! However, there are also patches of road with some nice twisty bits on it with good sight lines that you can have a lot of fun on without speeding, crossing the center of the road, or doing anything illegal (good sight lines = can see into driveways, see other road users, etc etc etc).
As much as I love the high horsepower cars (personal fav: subaru wrx sti) I would never own one. I cannot justify the gas use, and am honest enough with myself to know that the temptation to use the power inappropriately might get the better of me. The fuel argument is why I also dont buy suv or minivan vehicles. This is why I like small/family cars that have some zip and handle well - I drive a 5 year old civic sedan..... and hope to get a base engine mini some day - good mileage, and excellent handling. Who really cares about fast accelleration or top speed? Some do, but you cannot use it, so why bother? Good handling CAN be used legally, and actually improves a car's active safety.
For those who like driving and want a challenge on open roads, ever consider time/distant car rallying? It is a lot of fun, done at legal speeds, and gets its challenge from trying to stay on route and from moving down roads - when they can be found - usually reserved for jeeps ;p
How does this mix with biking? When I can - sometimes where I am working at makes this impossible - I ride to work. I ride for fun - on road and off - and just love doing it.
Enjoying one's car and one's bike is not always mutually exclusive.
*edit some spelling misadventures ;p*
Brian
03-17-07, 09:14 AM
Most people live in cities... which is why they tend to be crowded. I would be willing to bet more sports cars are sold in cities then out in the middle of Utah.
Doesn't make sense, but then a lot about a lot of cars doesn't make much sense.
Pickup trucks are fine for the farm, but how many city motorists really need a jacked up 3/4 diesel pickup anyway? And Hummers... the local malls are full of them... guess we're getting ready to invade Mexico.
So you've never been to Utah?
genec
03-17-07, 09:30 AM
So you've never been to Utah?
Actually I have. I was in southern Utah last summer. Rode my bike through towns such as Kanab and through parts of Zion National park. I have never been to Salt Lake City... but I guarantee that the population of Utah is no where near that of southern Calfornia or the Northeastern seaboard where the largest population centers exist in the US.
Perhaps in SLC folks do drive hummers and other vehicles best suited for military or farm use... and perhaps there is bumper to bumper traffic... all the more reason to ask why 0-60 in 5.5 seconds is needed...
A car can reach freeway speeds and travel long distances easily without having the acceleration of a race vehicle... so I still wonder why the need for such vehicles... they simply waste our limited natural resources for cheap thrills. And in the wrong hands are quite deadly.
sgtsmile
03-17-07, 09:41 AM
A car can reach freeway speeds and travel long distances easily without having the acceleration of a race vehicle... so I still wonder why the need for such vehicles... they simply waste our limited natural resources for cheap thrills. And in the wrong hands are quite deadly.
Exactly. They are fun, but are they worth the fun?
Brian
03-17-07, 11:11 AM
Actually I have. I was in southern Utah last summer. Rode my bike through towns such as Kanab and through parts of Zion National park. I have never been to Salt Lake City... but I guarantee that the population of Utah is no where near that of southern Calfornia or the Northeastern seaboard where the largest population centers exist in the US.
Perhaps in SLC folks do drive hummers and other vehicles best suited for military or farm use... and perhaps there is bumper to bumper traffic... all the more reason to ask why 0-60 in 5.5 seconds is needed...
A car can reach freeway speeds and travel long distances easily without having the acceleration of a race vehicle... so I still wonder why the need for such vehicles... they simply waste our limited natural resources for cheap thrills. And in the wrong hands are quite deadly.
So your impression of Utah is based on a trip to the southern part of the state? That would be like thinking all of California is wide open farmland after visiting Salinas.
People in California buy cars for the image, not so much the performance. Having lived there for more than 20 years, I know that people get too tied up in the image they project, and it shows in their choice of transportation.
Here in Utah, I still see the odd Ferrari, Maserati, or Corvette. But we get snow for up to 5 months out of the year, so it's not practical to drive something like that every day. 4WD or AWD is a far better choice. You can't even buy a 2WD at the Ford dealer - they don't stock them. People seem to make somewhat more prudent choices here. That said, we still have plenty of great canyon driving, and better freeways. And with half the state in church on Sunday, it's a great place to have something with a little muscle for your Sunday drive.
genec
03-17-07, 09:51 PM
So your impression of Utah is based on a trip to the southern part of the state? That would be like thinking all of California is wide open farmland after visiting Salinas.
People in California buy cars for the image, not so much the performance. Having lived there for more than 20 years, I know that people get too tied up in the image they project, and it shows in their choice of transportation.
Here in Utah, I still see the odd Ferrari, Maserati, or Corvette. But we get snow for up to 5 months out of the year, so it's not practical to drive something like that every day. 4WD or AWD is a far better choice. You can't even buy a 2WD at the Ford dealer - they don't stock them. People seem to make somewhat more prudent choices here. That said, we still have plenty of great canyon driving, and better freeways. And with half the state in church on Sunday, it's a great place to have something with a little muscle for your Sunday drive.
And so this all justifies having a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds??? Or southern Californians driving Hummers to malls??? Sorry, I just don't see the connection.
Pete_Fagerlin1
03-17-07, 09:59 PM
And so this all justifies having a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds???
Why does anyone need to justify having a vehicle that goes 0-60 in 5.5 seconds (however slow that may be)?
People in California buy cars for the image, not so much the performance.
That cracks me up as well. While I think that is possibly true for some folks, I know, and drive with, plenty of folks that buy "performance" cars because they're fun toys, kind of like expensive bikes are fun toys.
Brian
03-17-07, 10:14 PM
And so this all justifies having a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds??? Or southern Californians driving Hummers to malls??? Sorry, I just don't see the connection.
You seem to have the stance that there is no need for someone that lives in the city to have a sports car. Or a 4WD. I'm just pointing out that they are after the image, they may not intend on using all that power. Same with the 4WD. That's how they justify it. You can have your opinions, but I don't think you can judge someone just because they drive a certain vehicle. I used my Landcruiser for trips to Home Depot and off-roading. I paid my use fee, and stayed on the trails. I used my 1968 Camaro for Sunday drives and illegal drag racing. But I didn't have passengers, and I didn't do it in residential areas. It comes down to personal responsibility, just like every other choice we make.
Brian
03-17-07, 10:15 PM
That cracks me up as well. While I think that is possibly true for some folks, I know, and drive with, plenty of folks that buy "performance" cars because they're fun toys, kind of like expensive bikes are fun toys.
Think of all the money you could have saved if you didn't go after the "Image" car that you drive now, and instead got a "Real" race car, like Crash Vector's Subie. ;)
Bruce Rosar
03-17-07, 10:17 PM
It comes down to personal responsibility, just like every other choice we make.+1
chemcycle
03-18-07, 10:38 PM
And so this all justifies having a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds??? Or southern Californians driving Hummers to malls??? Sorry, I just don't see the connection.
In the United States, we are allowed to make most of our decisions without any justification. Do you need that doughnut...of course not. Does your wife really need a diamond ring....for what? Do you have to recycle....of course you don't have to. Can you justify it? No....but you don't need to. It's called choice.
Do you really see the US as a better place with laws forbidding people from driving certain cars to malls? It's not going to happen.
Now, laws determining the maximum acceleration of cars might be plausible if it can be shown that those types of cars cause accidents in a disproportionate number. However, plenty of accidents (most?) happen with normal everyday non-sports jalopies.
Choice......
Treespeed
03-19-07, 10:56 AM
And so this all justifies having a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds??? Or southern Californians driving Hummers to malls??? Sorry, I just don't see the connection.
Gene, why do people have to justify the vehicle they choose to drive?
Bikepacker67
03-19-07, 12:34 PM
Gene, why do people have to justify the vehicle they choose to drive?
If the consequences of their decisions ended with them, it wouldn't be an issue.
But between the wastefulness, the pollution and the physical dangers that their "personal choices" create for the rest of us, I'd say damn right they have to justify.
genec
03-19-07, 01:00 PM
If the consequences of their decisions ended with them, it wouldn't be an issue.
But between the wastefulness, the pollution and the physical dangers that their "personal choices" create for the rest of us, I'd say damn right they have to justify.
Exactly.
In the other examples folks offered, it is hardly likely for a donut to kill anyone but the user themselves. But in the case of a powerful motorvehicle, it is very likely (hence the reason for high insurance rates on such vehicles) for the user to cause grief to others.
bikebuddha
03-19-07, 06:49 PM
"43,000 people die each year in this country alone because of cars."
Really now!. In 50 years, I have never had the experience of my car opening its doors, turning itself on, backing itself down the driveway and driving itself to work. I have always had to do these things. I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors and friends have had this experience themselves either.
Michael
I did once but luckily my friends and I managed to trap the car in a car crusher.
Roughstuff
03-19-07, 07:20 PM
A full-page story about 20-year old college student Tommy Young Choi, who apparently peeled out from a traffic light at high speed in his Mazda RX-8 while driving home from dinner, lost control, hit a steel road divider, and was killed along with his two friends. The back seat passenger reportedly died of smoke inhalation, trapped in the resulting fire. The car had to be transported to the medical examiner's office so that the bodies could be extracted for autopsy.
Sorry dudes, in a world where thousands of people die needlessly from illness, neglect, abuse and war, I have absolutely no sympathy for this drag racing LOSER at all. Thank god he killed himself before he killed anybody else; and as for his buddies in the car, they ahve eternity to learn to choose their friends more carefully.
roughstuff
randya
03-19-07, 07:24 PM
How is it that car manufacturers are allowed to advertise their products being used in irresponsible manners?
Haven't you ever seen the disclaimer in fine print on those TV ads: "Professional Driver on Closed Course"?
:eek:
randya
03-19-07, 07:30 PM
...and it's awful nice to see all the apologists for cars, car companies and irresponsible advertising chiming in here in the name of 'freedom of speech" :rolleyes:
IMO, if cars were such good products, they would sell themselves and there would be no need for the incessant advertising; furthermore, since cars are in fact both deadly and harmful to our health in a multitude of other ways, it would probably be the right thing to do to ban all automotive advertising on TV and in other media, same as we did to cigarette advertising way back when.
Bruce Rosar
03-19-07, 11:08 PM
I did once but luckily my friends and I managed to trap the car in a car crusher.Hum, that sounds like a film I saw once. The Carminator? :D
burden
03-20-07, 12:33 AM
Do you really see the US as a better place with laws forbidding people from driving certain cars to malls? It's not going to happen.
I'm not sure that anyone has proposed any legislation here.
I can think of a wide variety of behavior which is both legal and sufficiently obnoxious that most folks avoid doing it in public spaces.
It's a cultural issue. And as long as you continue to see passenger automobiles as signifiers of some kind of Don't Tread on Me patriotic autonomy -- ignoring the blind spot, as it were -- I guess we're probably stuck with that issue.
genec
03-20-07, 12:09 PM
Do you have any statistics that show that powerful motor vehicles are very likely to cause grief to others, or is this just a feeling based upon your apparent dislikes of automobiles of that type?
I would be interested in seeing those statistics.
p.s. My insurance rate is relatively low considering that I drive what some consider to be a powerful motor vehicle.
Your insurance rate is probably due to age or area... within any certain age range and area, the insurance companies have determined (those are your "statistics") that certain powerful vehicles tend to be involved in more accidents or accidents of a more expensive nature.
Feldman
03-20-07, 12:41 PM
I'd like to see a bicycle company advertise using a testosterone-tinted hook--"What kind of a man needs a motor on his bike?" "Be your own motor," etc. I once suggested to Seattle custom bike builder Bill Davidson that he use the line "Real men ride Davidsons, not Harleys." The bike and alt-trans world has to learn to communicate in a rednecked-enough way to break through to the minds of young men.