Most interesting thought process I've seen in a long time! Good use of hyperbolic logic, though (and I mean that in a complementary manner!:D )
The other analogy I had in mind is protecting the home against burglars and termites. There, again, you have a sentient threat, and an insentient threat. Yet a home owner's responsibility is the same: protect and maintain the security and integrity of the home. What if some genius altered a little dna and created a species of sentient termites who knew the difference between right and wrong, but didn't care (just like burglars)? Would that affect the responsibility you had to protect your home against termites? Of course not.


That's my point, and that's why it's not a stretch.

Whether it's animate (burglars, motorists or termites) or inanimate (boulders, pot holes), whether it's sentient (burglars, motorists, dna-altered termites) or not (standard termites, boulders, pot holes), the main thing they have in common is that they are threats to that which one (the cyclist, the homeowner) is responsible to protect (the cyclist's safety, the home's security and integrity).

There is a lot of complaining about people not taking responsibility in our society, but very little looking in the mirror.

Why should you take responsibility for the drunk driver that crosses three lanes and plows through your rear triangle? Because it's MY ***** splattered all over the pavement.
Last I checked, the responsibility for MY ***** was MINE, and nobody elses.

Edit: that was kind of a "do you still beat your wife?" question. I'm not taking responsibility for the drunk driver or his actions, I'm taking responsibility for my safety ("my *****"). I am responsible to myself and my loved ones for my safety. If someone else wants to share in that responsibilty, that's great, but I sure as hell don't count on it. If a squirrel chews a branch off a tree that falls and whacks me on the head, it's nobody's fault but my own. Faulting a drunk driver for being drunk is like faulting a squirrel for being a squirrel. It's nothing I can change.

Edit 2: It's the drunk's responsibility to not drink and drive. It's my responsibility to stay safe even if he fails to meet his responsibility.

It's not a punt when the game is long over, despite the fact that some confused cheerleader (that would be you) is still out in the middle of the field doing high kicks and shouting "go team!!" while spastically slapping pom poms, when the team lost long ago.



No you wrote vastly different things (to anyone that uses the english language in a normal way). The fact that you had to recast your comments in three different ways (all contradictory) speaks volumes about your inability to communicate your wacky ideas effectively (or at all). Semantic argument and nonsense. No substance.

We've succeeded in distilling your inanity to the nugget previously described. It's no big deal. It's mundane. It's like arguing about whether the Sun rises in the East. I see, so then you take responsibility for your actions in the two accidents you were involved in where you did not avoid driving side-by-side with other drivers? Do you now agree that had your wife been a defensive driver, she would have slowed down and made sure there were no red light runners coming before entering the intersection?

If you want to delve into the concept of "punting" then I would be more than willing to dredge up the numerous questions/concepts that you have ignored in this thread (because an honest answer would illustrate the sheer idiocy of your claims). If I missed any questions, it was not intentional. Let me know.

Most interesting thought process I've seen in a long time! Good use of hyperbolic logic, though (and I mean that in a complementary manner!:D )
Thanks for noticing. I thought it was pretty good myself, but I always wonder if anyone else gets it.

You need to get out of your box, Pete.

Thanks for noticing. I thought it was pretty good myself, but I always wonder if anyone else gets it.
What can I say, I like humor that sneaks up on ya, and I like slapstick, and I like acerbic humor as well. Of you remember, I tried acerbic humor once though in this forum and it, shall we say, fell a bit flat?:eek:

Leave the normal, rational world and live on your planet?

No thanks. I'll stay right here while you continue to wallow in confusion.
You're the one who is so confused you can't understand (from inside your box) what Hurst means when he writes:

From now on -- if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467

Brush it aside if it makes you feel better. I have no problem with that.

The fact of the matter is that you expect to be able to make numerous contradictory posts and blame your audience, because they can't discern your intentions from your multiple contradictory posts and/or butchery of the english language.

It's not semantics, it's your inability to communicate in an accepted, normal manner. Don't you find it the least bit curious that this is a recurring theme, from multiple respondents, when you post your verbose manifestos?



Reading comprehension Mr. Head, reading comprehension. I'm tiring of spoon feeding you. If one is a rational person, and they were to go back and read my posts, they would realize that your question does not reflect my posts.



She was, and continues to be a defensive driver. Your assumptions about the accident, as well as your condescending judgments, notwithstanding.



Why don't we start here Mr. Head:

firing up the waaaaay baaaack machine-------
I got page not found when I clicked on that link. No idea what you're talking about.

It's not semantics, it's your inability to communicate in an accepted, normal manner.

Uh, the ability or inability to communicate in an accepted, normal manner (using language) IS a matter of semantics.


Don't you find it the least bit curious that this is a recurring theme, from multiple respondents, when you post your verbose manifestos?

No, because the theme not so mysteriously seems to recur whenever I'm debating someone who finds himself cornered. If the language use problem were genuine, then those affected would do what they could to find out what I meant, if they truly did not understand, and move on. Intead, folks like you and chipcom tend to keep harping on it, and avoid the underlying issues.


Reading comprehension Mr. Head, reading comprehension. I'm tiring of spoon feeding you. If one is a rational person, and they were to go back and read my posts, they would realize that your question does not reflect my posts.

You wrote: "We've succeeded in distilling your inanity to the nugget previously described. It's no big deal. It's mundane. It's like arguing about whether the Sun rises in the East." The imlication is we really have no disagreement. Pardon me if I misunderstood, but that is not an irrational interpreation of these words. Apparently, it's not what you meant. Fine. Unlike you, I won't insist on interpreting your words any way I see fit. Instead, I ask to confirm that we still have some signficant unresolved issues. If so, what do you believe they are.

She was, and continues to be a defensive driver.
By what definition?

Your assumptions about the accident, as well as your condescending judgments, notwithstanding.
How do you know what assumptions I have made about the accident? I've assumed nothing other than what you wrote.

So you didn't even attempt to click the link when it was first posted? Tsk, tsk. Sloppy work Mr. Head.

BF truncated the link. Here it is, unmolested (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/16/farmers.market.crash/index.html).

Should these people take full responsibility for what happened to them, as you suggest?

What could/should they have done, short of cowering in their house that day, going to a different market, etc.? I remember that.

There probably was nothing they could have done. That fact does not alleviate each them one iota from their own responsibility to themselves and their loved ones for their own safety.

Edit: when you're able to accurately predict how I will answer these questions, then we'll finally start making some progress.

G' night.

Speed is not the sole factor to be consider when evaluating someone's chances of being hit. See the other variables listed above.



True, but speed is the only variable we are discussing.

Hold all other variables constant and tell me that the varying speed of an oncoming vehicle will not effect the chances of a drunken "ninja" cyclist being hit by that oncoming vehicle?

Try going through the scenarios at different speeds starting at terribly slow and moving up to terribly fast and prove to me that the closing speed of the on coming vehicle will not make a difference.

Quit telling me it is a straw man and I have reading comprehension problems and that I am mentally challenged. The attacks do nothing for your argument.

Just picture the situation and fix all the variables except speed, talk through the situation and show me (use crayons if you must) how varying closing speed makes no difference. It's OK, I'll be patient. Walk through it slow. I think everyone wants to see how this works so they know what matters and what doesn't matter.

Nice punt. :rolleyes:

p.s. I wrote the same thing a number of different ways because someone seemed to have a hard time understanding what I meant, but apparently it was a semantic ruse to avoid addressing the real points in this debate, as is shown by his unwillingness to discuss anything else.

The only real point is on your head, HH. Why would I want to 'discuss' anything with someone who makes up things as he goes, butchers the English language beyond recognition, thinks he knows everything, thinks everyone else is an idiot, engages in dishonest rhetoric and makes personal attacks? Hell I can talk to myself and get that. :eek:

Incorrect. Exceeding the speed limit is one of the variables that was brought up by AlmosTrick. (Will the cyclist fare better when the motorist is exceeding the speed limit or not).

How much is the speed limit being exceeded by? That's a variable, and undefined.



Above a certain threshold (depending upon the variables previously listed) additional speed on the part of the motorist will increase the chance of the cyclist being hit.

Below a certain threshold (depending upon the variables previously listed) additional speed on the part of the motorist will not increase the chance of the cyclist being hit.

Making a blanket statement that speed = a greater chance of being hit fails to account for the variables previously discussed.

Example: The speed limit is 30 mph and a given vehicle is driving 35 mph around the corner and is able to stop at a distance of 25 feet from the ninja cyclist. Subsequently, with all another variables being equal, if the same vehicle is driving 40 mph around the corner and is able to stop 15 feet from our ninja cyclist, how has his chances of being hit been increased?

The vehicle is still within it's margin of stopping safety for drunken ninja cyclists, despite being driven faster.


Thanks for breaking out the crayons. My only comment is that the speeds you chose are not likely to bring tickets. Especially at 5MPH over the limit. You never did touch upon "terribly fast."

But you did admit that above a certain threshold, the chances do increase, which is all I really was looking for.

Quoting Hurst as if he is your personal messiah is really down right creepy.Remember, this thread remains your fault and nobody else's.

Hurst is my personal messiah? The assumptions you have to make to remain in your box get more and more bizarre.

That fact does not alleviate each them one iota from their own responsibility to themselves and their loved ones for their own safety.
This, as far as I can tell, means absolutely nothing.

The fact that there was nothing that people could do to avoid being killed by a driver, does not remove their responsibility for their own safety.

That doesn't mean anything! It's not legal responsibility, it's not moral responsibility, it's just an attitude that is "similar to the Placebo" effect.

HH, News Flash: WE ALL BELIEVE IN HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!

And yet, you continue to insist that we are idiots if we don't use your exact wording, wording that you can't even explain the same way twice! We don't use your wording because, rather then clarify things, it clouds the issue. Either it means something we all have already expressed, and is therefore not worth arguing about, or it expresses an idea with the implication that genocide victims should only "blame themselves" for being slaughtered (whatever that means). Which one is it?

There you go with your language problems again. There's a difference between "as if" and "is."

Bobby swims as if he is a fish vs. Bobby is a fish.

I did not make an assumption, I made an observation (you can confirm that these two words have different meanings by referring to a dictionary).

You point at Hurst's works (to be fair to him, your interpretations of his work) often and as if they are some sort of ultimate authority, as rabid Bible thumpers point to the Bible.
The nitpicky semantic obfuscation to avoid addressing the underlying issues where you are cornered continues.

The nitpicky semantic obfuscation to avoid addressing the underlying issues where you are cornered continues.


So what is the underlying issue?...in 15 words or less.

This, as far as I can tell, means absolutely nothing.

The fact that there was nothing that people could do to avoid being killed by a driver, does not remove their responsibility for their own safety.

That doesn't mean anything! It's not legal responsibility, it's not moral responsibility, it's just an attitude that is "similar to the Placebo" effect.

HH, News Flash: WE ALL BELIEVE IN HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!

And yet, you continue to insist that we are idiots if we don't use your exact wording, wording that you can't even explain the same way twice! We don't use your wording because, rather then clarify things, it clouds the issue. Either it means something we all have already expressed, and is therefore not worth arguing about, or it expresses an idea with the implication that genocide victims should only "blame themselves" for being slaughtered (whatever that means). Which one is it?
It means something, it actually means a lot. What you seem to be missing is this: there is a world of difference between generally agreeing that it's good to have "THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT", and actually having that attitude.

I hope Pete doesn't mind if I use Hurst and him and their respective attitudes as examples to illustrate the difference.

In his book, Hurst describes a collision where someone pulled quickly out of a blind alley and cut right in front of him. He crashed. He spends no time blaming her (except to point that she was clearly legally at fault) and instead goes on for a couple of pages explaining what he did wrong that contributed to the crash (going too fast, paying attention to a pretty girl, etc.) that lead to that accident (I think he missed something - riding too far right, but that's beside the point). In contrast, for examples of not having that attitude look at Pete's avoidance in this thread to address ways he and his wife could have avoided the "accidents" in which they were involved as drivers.

For example, PF insists his wife is a defensive driver. In #261 he wrote:

She was, and continues to be a defensive driver.

He says this even though she clearly was not following Road Trip America's Defensive Driving Rule 20 (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule20.htm) (excerpted below in blue) in the incident he described back in #118 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4118768&postcount=118):


3) My wife was in a left turn lane waiting for the signal to change. When she got her signal she was half way through the intersection when a guy (no insurance) blew through the red light and broadsided her.


And clarified in #133:


Of course she checked [for red-light runners]. The headlights of the perp were a good deal behind the line of cars that were stopped at the red light. He hit her when she was 2/3rds of the way through the intersection. Not complicit.


Keep her behavior in mind as you read these excerpts from Rule #20 (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule20.htm):


First, as you approach an intersection on a green light, slow down before entering it and make sure to look left-right-left; look left first, look left twice, because the first danger to you is the traffic approaching from your left. If the intersection is a "blind" one - where you can't see the traffic on the cross street until they (or you) are so close as to be an immediate hazard, slow down even more. Do not enter an intersection you have not visually cleared. Some drivers "cover" the brake by moving their foot for a few seconds from the accelerator to a position just above the brake pedal, which helps eliminate the reaction time needed to begin braking.

The majority of collisions at controlled intersections happen within 4 seconds of a light change. You don't want to be in the intersection during that 4 seconds. However, if you don't immediately go when the light turns green, people behind you get irritable, yes? Try this… The first thing is make sure you stopped in the right spot. Stop far enough behind the stop line that you can see it on the pavement in front of your car - this normally gives you 10-15 feet of space. When the light turns green, take your foot off the brake and let your vehicle start to creep toward the crosswalk (easy to do with an automatic transmission).

Look left-right-left, making sure no one is running the red light
...
When you are waiting to make a left turn, your view of oncoming traffic can be restricted. The temptation can be great to go anyway - even though you may not be able to see all the oncoming traffic lanes. Don't do it, ever! It is never safe to make a blind left turn! Finally, if the left-turn lane is crowded, and it looks like it will take more than one light cycle to be able to make a left turn, consider continuing through and make three right turns instead. If you do this on city streets (not private property) it's legal and often quicker when traffic is congested.

Did she wait 4 seconds after the light turned green before she proceeded? Doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like she even jumped the light: "When she got her signal she was half way through the intersection". But maybe PF is not as good/accurate a writer as he thinks he is. I suspect what he meant was that after she got her signal, she started turning, and was half-way when she got hit. Still, it sure doesn't sound like there was a 4 second delay. More importantly, Pete does not seem interested in discussing whether there was, and whether it could have made a difference.

Did she go even though her view was restricted? Obviously.

Does this sound like a defensive driver to you?

Now, I have no bone to pick with Pete's wife. Nobody is perfect. My issue is with Pete and his lack of interest in even addressing the possibility that if she had been following defensive driving rules she could have avoided this "accident" is of no interest to him (not to mention his lack of interest in doing the same with respect to the two side-by-side driving incidents which resulted in crashes for him). That's my point: by avoiding thinking in this way, Pete is showing that he truly does not have "THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT". He'd rather spend pages addressing nitpicky semantic points in how I express my opinion in writing than explore these real issues.

In the end, that's his choice, of course. I'm only using him as an example, which I believe is typical, of someone who does not actually have "THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT". Almost every post he has made in this thread is an excellent example of how not having that attitude is manifested in a form of denial with regard to taking full responsibility for one's safety. Unless his attitude changes (which I don't have much hope for), you can expect any other posts he makes to serve as even more examples of this.

So what is the underlying issue?...in 15 words or less.

The difference between agreeing the attitude is good and actually having that attitude is huge.

The difference between agreeing the attitude is good and actually having that attitude is huge.
Then stop trying to tell people they don't have the attitude, and go out and have the attitude yourself.

Pointing out your gross misuse of and/or inability to comprehend the english language is hardly nitpicky Mr. Head.
You mean like your inability to write clearly, like when you use words that (presumably unintentionally - please confirm) strongly imply your wife jumped the light when she got hit?

When she got her signal she was half way through the intersection ...

Written English is all we have here, and it is an imperfect communication tool. It's difficult to convey certain concepts in words alone, and easy to make mistakes (see above). The focus should be on a genuine effort to understand what the other person is trying to say, not on his difficulties to do it.

Then stop trying to tell people they don't have the attitude, and go out and have the attitude yourself.
Pardon me for advocating safety (by advocating adopting an attitude that encourages safe behavior) on an advocacy and safety forum. :rolleyes:

Part of advocating that attitude, which is difficult to do in written English, is to convey what it actually means to adopt that attitude. One way to convey that is by way of example. That's what I'm doing here. Note that this all started back in #115, where I tried to convey the attitude by way of example, and then Pete tried to challenge it in #118:



I believe that in all but some very rare collisions, all drivers involved are complicit to some degree.

I think that even for you, that is an outrageous claim.

Sometimes I type too fast, as in this case when I used "when" instead of "after."

That's quite different than Headspeak™ wherein you assign new meanings to words, use three phrases, with three separate meanings, to finally communicate your "thoughts," etc..

HTH Written English is all we have here, and it is an imperfect communication tool. It's difficult to convey certain concepts in words alone, and easy to make mistakes (see above). The focus should be on a genuine effort to understand what the other person is trying to say, not on his difficulties to do it.

Unless of course all you're trying to do is obfuscate and disrupt to steer away from the real issues (see #279).

No, what's apparent is that it's silly to argue with someone who wasn't at the scene and doesn't have the full details. Especially if that person has demonstrated that their world view is incredibly skewed**.

My bad for being silly and hoping that you could be rational.
Classic ad hominem attack. When logic and reason don't support your argument, and you're not willing to concede, all you can do is vilify the opponent. :rolleyes:

Hey guys... is any of this really related to the OP? Or are you folks just going to continue "discussing" general semantics et. al.?

Pardon me for advocating safety (by advocating adopting an attitude that encourages safe behavior) on an advocacy and safety forum. :rolleyes:

According to you there is a huge difference between "BELIEVING IN HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!" and "HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!"

And you are here to do a third, very different thing: ADVOCATING HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!

The nitpicky semantic obfuscation to avoid addressing the underlying issues where you are cornered continues.

HH, I don't think that you have demonstrated that you really have this attitude. For example, if you are in an accident, will you tell the officer that you can blame no one but yourself for the accident? You can say that you are not referring to legal blame, but that you take total responsibility. Will you say that?

Hey guys... is any of this really related to the OP? Or are you folks just going to continue "discussing" general semantics et. al.?


+1

The difference between agreeing the attitude is good and actually having that attitude is huge.


And here I thought this thread was about getting out of speeding tickets.

By the way, in #284 you write:


it's silly to argue with someone who wasn't at the scene and doesn't have the full details.
But before I skewered your argument in #279 after which you had to resort exclusively to semantic obfuscation, ad hominem attacks and this new excuse to punt, just 14 posts earlier in #270 you wrote:

I would suggest that you go back and read the details of those two collisions while leaving your assumptions by the wayside. First you ask me to "read the details", then you claim the problem is that I don't "have the full details"... Excuses, excuses...

The juvenile ad hominem attacks and rather pathetic squirming attempts to get out of addressing #279 are quite entertaining.

Some actress was on Letterman/Leno (?) last night bragging about how she speeds everwhere, especially PCH.

Al

And here I thought this thread was about getting out of speeding tickets.
And choosing to speed in the first place.

But yeah, that was my impression too.

Some actress was on Letterman/Leno (?) last night bragging about how she speeds everwhere, especially PCH.

Al

Letterman or Leno? I saw Hillary Swank (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005476/) on Leno last night talking about speeding up on down PCH in a convertable... and getting out of a potential ticket due to "the mayor" seeing her work behind the counter in a bake shop.

Was that what you saw, or was she working the entire talk show circuit for her new movie?

Hey guys... is any of this really related to the OP? Or are you folks just going to continue "discussing" general semantics et. al.?
Sorry Gene. But it diverged into this side discussion about the attitude required to avoid accidents as much as possible way back on Page 4 or something. It is related to speeding in that part of that attitude is not to go too fast for conditions. Unfortunately, Pete has resorted to semantic obfuscation, ad hominem attacks and other sundry tactics to avoid defending his skewered position, and I've been using up too many posts pointing this out. My position is most recently stated in #279 (which happens to be a reply to Zeytoun), and unless Pete addresses those points substantively, I'll stop engaging per your wishes.

Letterman or Leno? I saw Hillary Swank (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005476/) on Leno last night talking about speeding up on down PCH in a convertable... and getting out of a potential ticket due to "the mayor" seeing her work behind the counter in a bake shop.

Was that what you saw, or was she working the entire talk show circuit for her new movie?
That was it.

and unless Pete addresses those points substantively, I'll stop engaging per your wishes.
Pete if you respond substantively to his "points" I'll kill you. :p

According to you there is a huge difference between "BELIEVING IN HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!" and "HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT!"

And you are here to do a third, very different thing: ADVOCATING HAVING THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT! Right.

Say X = "YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT"

I believe there is a huge difference between agreeing X is true and actually having the attitude that X is true.

I also believe that actually having the attitude that X is true is very useful for being safe (especially while in traffic and riding/driving accordingly).

Therefore, I advocate actually having the attitude that X is true.

Edit: one way that the attitude manifests itself is the approach one takes when looking at collisions that occured. In particular, how much emphasis there is on how the crash could have been avoided by either person involved, not just the one who did something blatantly wrong.

Make sense?

HH, I don't think that you have demonstrated that you really have this attitude. I haven't tried to demonstrate that I have this attitude. Why would it matter whether I did or not? Either my argument that it's a good thing to have that attitude is persuasive, or it isn't. Let's say it is persuasive, would it matter whether I had it? How? Let's say my argument is not persuasive, would it matter whether I had it? How?

So, since I don't why it would matter, I haven't bothered to demonstrate that I have this attitude.

For example, if you are in an accident, will you tell the officer that you can blame no one but yourself for the accident? You can say that you are not referring to legal blame, but that you take total responsibility. Will you say that? What one tells an officer at an accident does not demonstrate whether he actually has the attitude or not.

For example, in Hurst's case I'm sure he didn't tell the cop it was all his fault because he was going too fast and not paying attention. There is a difference between determining who is legally responsible for a crash, and looking at each individual's behavior in terms of contributory factors and potential ways he could have avoided it.

0wn3d!

Say X = "YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT"

I believe there is a huge difference between agreeing X is true and actually having the attitude that X is true.


So, just to make sure I have this straight, you are saying that it is more important to have the disposition, feeling that YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT, then to have confidence in the truth of the idea that YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT? (see standard dictionary definitions below, or cite your own - from a real dictionary, not your head)

If this is not what you believe, shouldn't you look up dictionary definitions before you take up the weighty task of advocating in a topic that involves life and death?

Or is your belief that we should ACTUALLY DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT? Then do you not see the irony of this? It would go like this:

HH: I Think that we should ACTUALLY DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT
ME: I agree
HH: No, no, no, you should not agree, you should actually have the attitude.
ME: Then what are you doing here?
HH: Expressing an idea
ME: Oh. And you believe it literally?
HH: Yes, it's very clear. You're not trying hard enough if you don't understand
ME: Oh. So would you say it to a cop?
HH: That's not the point. It's not legal in nature
ME: So what is it?
HH: It's an attitude.
ME: I agree with that attitude, so long as it is not legal, and just means believing that we should ACTUALLY DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT.
HH: That's not enough, and I don't think you have that attitude.
ME: Why not?
HH: Because you argued with me when I said that despite the fact that you can't take total responsibility for everything, you should take full responsibility.
ME: Well that is kind of illogical. Do you mean that I take full responsibility for all of the variables in my control?
HH: Yes, that's what I've been saying
ME: Well I agree with that, I think that we should DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT. Why are we still here?
HH: Because everyone but me has been obfuscating.
ME: Well, I do feel a little stupified. I take total responsibility for my share in this stupification.
HH: Well, it was all your fault.

be·lieve –verb (used without object) 1.to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

at·ti·tude –noun 1.manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, esp. of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.
ob·fus·cate–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing. 1.to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy. 2.to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information. 3.to darken.

I hired a lawyer to go to court for my speeding violation... so that I could be absent... it cost me $200 and was worth every penny. I still got the licence suspended for 45 days (on account of a first-time violation) and a hefty fine. Then I got into bicycling. Besides that incident my record is clean because the few other moving violations I've gotten I've gone to court myself and offered to do a voluntary driving school and send in the receipt. Don't get me wrong, besides that one lapse in judgement (98 mph in a 70 zone) and one unfortunate (blind corner) failure-to-yield, I'm a very cautious and careful driver with a CDL. And a less cautious and careful bicyclist.

anyway, the point being that ordinary average joes can and do hire lawyers to go to traffic court for them, and it's worth the price in saved time, money, and hassle.

I have never seen anyone use obfuscation and ad hominem so often. Do you get paid by the Obfuscation Ad Hominem Society or something?

I thought we discussed this assumption earlier?

How do you know that Ferrari guy chose to speed?

I don't, but he did choose to buy his way out of the occasional ticket which he apparently gets more than once a year. Others however quite obviously do choose to speed.

Just minutes ago I was quite amused watching several vehicles accelerate rapidly to a well marked (cones, large flashing lights, big orange vehicles, flagman, and earlier signs) construction zone with a flagman... it was amusing as these motorists chose to try to get to 45MPH in the less than 1/4 mile between the traffic light and the construction area. Jack rabbit start, to foot on the brake finish. So fuel efficient... :rolleyes:

So, just to make sure I have this straight, you are saying that it is more important to have the disposition, feeling that YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT, then to have confidence in the truth of the idea that YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT? (see standard dictionary definitions below, or cite your own - from a real dictionary, not your head)

If this is not what you believe, shouldn't you look up dictionary definitions before you take up the weighty task of advocating in a topic that involves life and death?

Or is your belief that we should ACTUALLY DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT? Then do you not see the irony of this? It would go like this: I see the problem. Let's me try to explain like this.X = You should not cheat on your spouse.

Do you think Bill Clinton, in 1995, would agree with X? (I do)
Do you think Bill Clinton, in 1995, actually had the attitude that X is true? (I don't)

Do you see the difference? (I do)
Do you think the difference is significant and affects Bill Clinton's behavior? (I do)
Now this:
Y = YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT

Do you think Pete would agree with Y? (I do)
Do you think Pete actually has the attitude that Y is true? (I don't; see #279)

Do you see the difference? (I do)
Do you think the difference is significant and affects Pete's behavior? (I do)P.S., if confronted with the difference between X being true and actually having the attitude that it's true, do you think Clinton would squirm and obfuscate? Perhaps out of desperation resorting to semantic arguments about the meaning of the word "is"?

If confronted with the difference between Y being true and actually having the attitude that it's true, do you think Pete would squirm and obfuscate? Perhaps out of desperation resorting to semantic arguments about the meanings of words?

Now, this thread has Clinton in it?

I missed that part. Where in the story did it describe Ferrari guy getting ticketed more than once per year?

It didn't. I mis-remembered it... it did mention multiple tickets per year, but that was in reference to multiple drivers. Sorry.

Say, do you happen to have the phone number for a lawyer that handles traffic tickets handy? The guy in the OP did.

Me, I'd have to look in the yellow pages.

But enough of this crossing pens... not all drivers are as "careful" as you with their high HP vehicles...

I see the problem. Let's me try to explain like this.
X = You should not cheat on your spouse.

Do you think Bill Clinton, in 1995, would agree with X? (I do)
Do you think Bill Clinton, in 1995, actually had the attitude that X is true? (I don't)

Do you see the difference? (I do)
Yes, I see the difference. You are telling me that Clinton "agrees that you should not cheat on your spouse" but does not have the "attitude that you should not cheat on your spouse".

I think your confusing an attitude with action.

But that's ok. In spite of your grammatical issues, I think we can all agree that YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT. This is my attitude/outlook/disposition/feeling/belief/etc.

Please keep in mind that this entire argument started when someone question your assertion that "with rare exception" all drivers were "complicit" in an accident.

com·plic·it /kəmˈplɪsɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhm-plis-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity.


Further, I understand that you are having a hard time explaining difference between agreeing and having an attitude.

So I won't be so cruel as to ask you to show me any evidence that having the attitude, vs merely believing it (if there were actually a real non-semantic difference), would make people safer.

Yes, I see the difference. You are telling me that Clinton "agrees that you should not cheat on your spouse" but does not have the "attitude that you should not cheat on your spouse".

I think your confusing an attitude with action. No, I'm not confusing attitude with action.

I'm saying it takes more than to simply agree that X is true in order actually behave consistent with X being true. That difference I refer to as "actually having the attitude that X is true".

The difference is revealed in various situations. One example is Pete's agreement that one should do whatever he can to avoid an accident, but his refusal to consider that maybe there was stuff he and his wife could have done to avoid being in the accidents in which they were involved (see #279).

But that's ok. In spite of your grammatical issues, I think we can all agree that YOU SHOULD DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT REGARDLESS OF FAULT. This is my attitude/outlook/disposition/feeling/belief/etc. I'm glad you agree and believe that it is also actually your attitude. I sincerely hope that it is.

Please keep in mind that this entire argument started when someone question your assertion that "with rare exception" all drivers were "complicit" in an accident. Correct. And, as I explained before, in this context I was using the term "complicit" to mean "engaged in not following the well-known principles and rules of defensive driving." In retrospect, I probably should have used a different word, though I'm not sure what yet (yes, that's a semantic issue). Anyway, later, when Pete provided his examples, I pointed out the specific DD rules that he and his wife were not following (this was revisited in detail for the case of his wife turning left in front of a red-light runner - any example will do - in #279).

Further, I understand that you are having a hard time explaining difference between agreeing and having an attitude.

So I won't be so cruel as to ask you to show me any evidence that having the attitude, vs merely believing it (if there were actually a real non-semantic difference), would make people safer. Again, some concepts are difficult to convey in words. Another way to explain the difference between simple agreement and attitude I'm trying to convey is
"superficial belief that does not actually manifest itself in the 'believers' behavior", versus
"actual deep belief that does actually manifest itself in the 'believers' behavior"When I refer to having "the attitude", I mean (b).

attitude |ˈatiˌt(y)oōd| noun a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior

"superficial belief that does not actually manifest itself in the 'believers' behavior", versus
"actual deep belief that does actually manifest itself in the 'believers' behavior"
:roflmao:
In HH's world:
Belief = superficial belief, "verbally agreeing"
Attitude = actual deep belief

OK, now that we figured out the thread, we should make a list of who is in column A and who is in column B. I think that HH and I should decide.

Deep Believers
Me (I said so verbally)
HH (he said so verbally)

Superficial Believers
Peter (he has been arguing with HH)
Genec (he is against speeding drivers)
Slowandsteady (he is anti-semantics)
Chiipcom (do you need to ask why?)

If you believe I have categorized you incorrectly, you can say something, and I will respond with a verbose, albeit illogical, rebuffing. Other nominations?

:roflmao:
In HH's world:
Belief = superficial belief, "verbally agreeing"
Attitude = actual deep belief

OK, now that we figured out the thread, we should make a list of who is in column A and who is in column B. I think that HH and I should decide.

Deep Believers
Me (I said so verbally)
HH (he said so verbally)

Superficial Believers
Peter (he has been arguing with HH)
Genec (he is against speeding drivers)
Slowandsteady (he is anti-semantics)
Chiipcom (do you need to ask why?)

If you believe I have categorized you incorrectly, you can say something, and I will respond with a verbose, albeit illogical, rebuffing. Other nominations? Actually, that's pretty close. I would not say "belief = superficial belief", however.

My point is that whether one's belief is superficial or deep affects his attitude and how that belief reflects in his behavior. Do you agree or disagree?

Edit: by "that's pretty close" I did not mean that I necessarily agree with the categorization, I was referring to the stuff above it.

Edit 2: also, the difference in superficial vs. deep believers is not determined by what they say about whether they believe deeply or not, but how each one's attitude is manifested in his behavior.

In this case I'm talking about superficial vs. deep belief in the the following idea:
With rare exception, in all crashes, even the one who did nothing blatantly wrong could have avoided the crash had he or she been following well-known vehicular and defensive driving best practices.

I would not say "belief = superficial belief"
Not directly, but in a round-a-bout way, you already did.

You replaced "believe" in my post 308 with "agree" in your post 312.

Then you defined "agree" in your post 318 as superficial belief.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

So either 1) you were creating a straw man or 2) you would say that Belief = superficial belief

Don't make me move you to the other column.

Not directly, but in a round-a-bout way, you already did.

You replaced "believe" in my post 308 with "agree" in your post 312.

Then you defined "agree" in your post 318 as superficial belief.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

So either 1) you were creating a straw man or 2) you would say that Belief = superficial belief

Don't make me move you to the other column.
It was never my intent to, in general, equate "belief" with "superficial belief".
Of course, in a given specific context, the term "belief" may mean "superficial belief".