Neglegent vehicular homicide; seriously distracted minds; Matt's Law

[Niles H.]

http://www.prairienet.org/mattslaw/?What_We_Seek_to_Do

Glad to see these changes coming about. Hope to see more support for this kind of thing.

There was a time when drinking while driving was more or less accepted. Due to some activists, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, things have changed quite a bit.

Being seriously distracted while driving is careless and irresponsible. It endangers other lives. Why not make it as unacceptable as DUI? Maybe people would start taking the matter more seriously.

[makeinu]

How about making all driving unacceptable?

Sorry, but hurling a 2000 pound chunk of metal down a paved road at speeds greater
than 30 mph is just plain negligence. DUI's are a scapegoat. There's nothing inherently safer about driving while sober. A drunk individual with good reflexes could have better reflexes than a sober 90 year old. In my opinion, no individual, drunk or sober, old or young, has the necessary reflexes to safely pilot 2000 pounds of metal at speeds greater than 10 mph.

[slvoid]

Yet the vast, vast, vast majority of sober individuals do safely pilot their vehicles at speeds in excess of 10 mph on a daily basis.

How do you explain that?

He can't, cause he's one of those idiots who can't drive faster than 10mph without crashing. :)

[Cyclaholic]

How about making all driving unacceptable?

Sorry, but hurling a 2000 pound chunk of metal down a paved road at speeds greater
than 30 mph is just plain negligence. DUI's are a scapegoat. There's nothing inherently safer about driving while sober. A drunk individual with good reflexes could have better reflexes than a sober 90 year old. In my opinion, no individual, drunk or sober, old or young, has the necessary reflexes to safely pilot 2000 pounds of metal at speeds greater than 10 mph.

We can develop the skills to safely operate relatively fast vehichles with proper training and regular testing, just look at how safe (compared to driving) it is to fly in a commercial airliner that operates between 300 and 1,000 miles an hour. The difference is the far higher standards of competence to which the person at the controls is held, and the safety driven infrastructure, design, maintenance, and operating procedures that society as a whole demands from that mode of transport.

The fundamental problem with driving is that safety is mostly left to chance, a fact demonstrated by the very existence of airbags - the designers fully anticipate that a car will at some point in its life be involved in a crash and design for that instance, cars are designed to crash! (notice that airliners don't carry parachutes for each passenger?) Regardless of how many 'accidents' there are there is no systematic effort to learn from each accident and feed back the lessons learnt into improvement to operational procedures, vehichle and road design, or operator training, like in the aviation industry. Society as a whole does not want that, it would mean that a huge chunk of the driving public wouldn't stand a chance of ever driving again (and there would eventually be virtually no accidents). The whole system is so fundamentally flawed that to fix it would mean literally starting again from scratch, and that just isn't going to happen.

From that problem flows the effects such as the absurdly inadequate penalties handed out by courts to the relatively few that are held accountable for their driving infringements; its simply a reflection of society's attitude towards driving. To effect any significant change you have to change the attitude of society as a whole, i.e. you have to convince the vast majority of the driving population that they are not competent to drive. Good luck with that.

I don't expect anything to change untill there is a fundamental upheval that makes driving as we know it virtually impossible. Once the cheap oil is gone maybe there will be some change, and history will look back on our society and ask "what the hell were they thinking?".

[makeinu]

Why?
Why is it negligence? It's negligence because driving an automobile presents an unacceptibly high risk of having an "accident" and maming or killing another individual. Yet, people drive anyway. That's pretty much the definition of negligence.

What do you know about the effects of alcohol on humans that the medical community does not know ?
It has nothing to do with medicine. Medicine tells us that alcohol slows an individual's reflexes relative to being sober. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the reflexes of a sober individual are adequate to begin with. Jumping in front of a moving train while drunk isn't safe, but doing it while sober isn't any safer.

What information do you base this assertion upon?
You got me there. It's entirely possible that if every single person on the planet were given a reflex test while sober and then given the same test after three drinks, that the worst sober test result would still be better than the best after drink test result. However, since conducting such a test is impracticable we have to consider the likelihood of such an event. I personally think it's more likely that there would be at least one sober test result which would be worse than the best after drink test result. I mean, there is a lot of variety in the human race and I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't a single person on earth with a reflex disability of severity comparable to .08 BAC.

Yet the vast, vast, vast majority of sober individuals do safely pilot their vehicles at speeds in excess of 10 mph on a daily basis.

How do you explain that?
Apparently not vast enough, as automobile collisions are still a leading cause of death in the US.

We can develop the skills to safely operate relatively fast vehichles with proper training and regular testing, just look at how safe (compared to driving) it is to fly in a commercial airliner that operates between 300 and 1,000 miles an hour. The difference is the far higher standards of competence to which the person at the controls is held, and the safety driven infrastructure, design, maintenance, and operating procedures that society as a whole demands from that mode of transport.

The fundamental problem with driving is that safety is mostly left to chance, a fact demonstrated by the very existence of airbags - the designers fully anticipate that a car will at some point in its life be involved in a crash and design for that instance, cars are designed to crash! (notice that airliners don't carry parachutes for each passenger?) Regardless of how many 'accidents' there are there is no systematic effort to learn from each accident and feed back the lessons learnt into improvement to operational procedures, vehichle and road design, or operator training, like in the aviation industry. Society as a whole does not want that, it would mean that a huge chunk of the driving public wouldn't stand a chance of ever driving again (and there would eventually be virtually no accidents). The whole system is so fundamentally flawed that to fix it would mean literally starting again from scratch, and that just isn't going to happen.

From that problem flows the effects such as the absurdly inadequate penalties handed out by courts to the relatively few that are held accountable for their driving infringements; its simply a reflection of society's attitude towards driving. To effect any significant change you have to change the attitude of society as a whole, i.e. you have to convince the vast majority of the driving population that they are not competent to drive. Good luck with that.

I don't expect anything to change untill there is a fundamental upheval that makes driving as we know it virtually impossible. Once the cheap oil is gone maybe there will be some change, and history will look back on our society and ask "what the hell were they thinking?".
Excellent point.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

How about making all driving unacceptable?...
It's negligence because driving an automobile presents an unacceptibly high risk of having an "accident" and maming or killing another individual. Yet, people drive anyway. That's pretty much the definition of negligence.
Yeah Yeah. Zero risk! That's the ticket! Ban all things that modify the inertial or chemical state of objects.
In the spirit of makeinu's risk management program to protect humanity from the Horror:
I recommend making the eating of solid food unacceptable. Even one choking death per year isn't worth the risk .:rolleyes:

And all the unacceptable drownings!:eek: Unacceptable! No more swimming should be allowed; no boating or bathing either.

And there is only one way to eliminate all those unacceptable bicycling injuries and fatalities. Ban 'em! :mad:

[Conveyor Belt]

WTH? A world without cars? How are you going to get part for your bicycle? How am I going to get home from the hospital with two broken legs? How are we going to get kids to school in the morning?

Cars serve thier purpose. Bicycles can be substitued in a lot of cases, but when I want to go buy some used furniture and bring it home, I'm certainly not going to try to strap it on a bike. If I'm going grocery shopping, again, no bike.

There some idiots out there that can't power a 30lbs bike. Sometimes they meet the idiots that can't power a 2000lbs car. This is called natural selection.

[ghettocruiser]

Apparently not vast enough, as automobile collisions are still a leading cause of death in the US.




Driving a car remains a leading daily activity in the U.S.

If people stopped driving and did something else every day, they would still find a way to kill and injure themselves doing it when impaired or impatient.

[Cyclaholic]

WTH? A world without cars? How are you going to get part for your bicycle?
On one of your other bicycles, ofcourse! :D

How am I going to get home from the hospital with two broken legs?
How are you going to drive a car with two broken legs? how do paraplegics get around?

How are we going to get kids to school in the morning?
Mine get dropped off and picked up by bike. Trailercycle and kiddicarrier trailer.

Cars serve thier purpose. Bicycles can be substitued in a lot of cases, but when I want to go buy some used furniture and bring it home, I'm certainly not going to try to strap it on a bike.
But you can if you choose to. Most of my furniture was delivered, some I brought home by bike.

If I'm going grocery shopping, again, no bike.
I do grocery shopping for my family of 5 with my trailer, twice a week. I find it infinitely more enjoyable than driving because I get to enjoy a ride, and don't have to worry about parking.

There some idiots out there that can't power a 30lbs bike. Sometimes they meet the idiots that can't power a 2000lbs car. This is called natural selection.
If they're big enough idiots they will remove themselves from the gene pool without necessarily meeting, but I get your point. What many of us are concerned about is when the idiot in the 2000lb vehichle meets children, pedestrians, other non-idiot road users, etc. they tend to do a heck of a lot more killing than the idiot on the 30lb bike. There's nothing 'natural' (as in 'natural selection') when the idiot is in a 2000lb vehichle.

I don't want to see a world without cars, but I'd love to see a world without incompetent drivers.

[genec]

http://www.prairienet.org/mattslaw/?What_We_Seek_to_Do

Glad to see these changes coming about. Hope to see more support for this kind of thing.

There was a time when drinking while driving was more or less accepted. Due to some activists, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, things have changed quite a bit.

Being seriously distracted while driving is careless and irresponsible. It endangers other lives. Why not make it as unacceptable as DUI? Maybe people would start taking the matter more seriously.

It's a good idea... folks need to focus on the road, not other things, when they are piloting their 3000 lb hundred+ horsepower cages...

[ajay677]

Driving a car remains a leading daily activity in the U.S.

If people stopped driving and did something else every day, they would still find a way to kill and injure themselves doing it when impaired or impatient.

Or even when they're not impaired or impatient.

While doing historical research I discovered two men in my family killed in accidents in a 20 year period. One was run over by a hay rake (horse drawn), one was run over by a wagon (horse drawn). Using horses was a leading daily activity in North America in the 19th and early 20th century. Good thing we did away with those dangerous four legged, killers!

[makeinu]

Yeah Yeah. Zero risk! That's the ticket! Ban all things that modify the inertial or chemical state of objects.
In the spirit of makeinu's risk management program to protect humanity from the Horror:
I recommend making the eating of solid food unacceptable. Even one choking death per year isn't worth the risk .:rolleyes:

Yeah, because we all know there's only one victim of the automobile culture per year. :rolleyes:

Driving a car remains a leading daily activity in the U.S.

If people stopped driving and did something else every day, they would still find a way to kill and injure themselves doing it when impaired or impatient.
Or even when they're not impaired or impatient.

While doing historical research I discovered two men in my family killed in accidents in a 20 year period. One was run over by a hay rake (horse drawn), one was run over by a wagon (horse drawn). Using horses was a leading daily activity in North America in the 19th and early 20th century. Good thing we did away with those dangerous four legged, killers!

Unfortunately, the next victim might not be as approving of the death toll as you two.

Hopefully the powers that be will take your consent into consideration when it comes time for another unlucky sob to have an "accident".

[Niles H.]

In the past, child safety seats were rare. Now they are standard practice. It's good, but it isn't enough.

Our culture seems to look to technological fixes and improvements before it looks to pilot improvements.

Probably a person's safety (including children's safety) in an automobile could be improved more significantly if skills and practices were improved.

[savage24]

http://www.prairienet.org/mattslaw/?What_We_Seek_to_Do

Being seriously distracted while driving is careless and irresponsible. It endangers other lives. Why not make it as unacceptable as DUI? Maybe people would start taking the matter more seriously.

I don't disagree with you, but I think the biggest hurdle is proving distraction. Blood alcohol content limits make prosecuting a DUI relatively easy, although defense lawyers still have plenty of loopholes if the defendent has the cash. I would like to see more tickets issued for inattentive driving than for speeding (I would rather be on a highway with everyone driving 75 MPH and paying attention than one with everyone driving 55 MPH and multi-tasking). Unfortunately, it is much easier to prosecute a speeding ticket because lawyers can't argue over the definition speed limits.

[ghettocruiser]

Yeah, because we all know there's only one victim of the automobile culture per year. :rolleyes:




Unfortunately, the next victim might not be as approving of the death toll as you two.

Hopefully the powers that be will take your consent into consideration when it comes time for another unlucky sob to have an "accident".


Rather than address the point of risk by exposure, you make straw men and (I think) veiled threats. Weak.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Rather than address the point of risk by exposure, you make straw men and (I think) veiled threats. Weak.
I'd say ignorant, if not loony; and counterproductive as well.

[workingbike]

It has nothing to do with medicine. Medicine tells us that alcohol slows an individual's reflexes relative to being sober. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the reflexes of a sober individual are adequate to begin with. Jumping in front of a moving train while drunk isn't safe, but doing it while sober isn't any safer.



Actually, for the first 2 or 3 drinks, your reaction times improve. What gets worse is your judgement. This is what leads irresponsible jerks to pull stupid stunts that kill people.

Generally, I am against more laws of any kind.

[John E]

I don't disagree with you, but I think the biggest hurdle is proving distraction. ... A rightward drift into a bike lane is pretty strong evidence of distraction.

[makeinu]

Actually, for the first 2 or 3 drinks, your reaction times improve. What gets worse is your judgement. This is what leads irresponsible jerks to pull stupid stunts that kill people.

Generally, I am against more laws of any kind.
Perhaps that's why it takes more than 2-3 drinks to get over the legal limit, which was the context of this discussion.

Rather than address the point of risk by exposure, you make straw men and (I think) veiled threats. Weak.
First of all, I didn't make any veiled threats. You're the one that thinks all the deaths from automobile collisions are justified. I just assumed you would think that what's just for everyone else is just for you too. Or should you get special treatement?

Second of all, I didn't make any straw men. Some of you people just have a problem actually expressing your thoughts. Instead you just make facetious comments and assume that everyone will somehow magically arrive to the same half baked conclusions that you have. I thought the fact that risk by exposure supports my point of view was obvious, but if you can't see it then I'll be happy to address any misconceptions you might have.

Yes, people are exposed to automobile driving more than other risks. So what? That's no reason to excuse the death toll presented by the activity. On the contrary, that's the very reason why driving must be held to a higher standard. Justifying the collision epidemic by pointing out the fact that people spend a lot of time driving is akin to saying that cigarette packages shouldn't have cancer warnings because the likelihood of getting cancer is only significant when smoking with some regularity. That kind of thinking is backwards.

The risk of cancer from smoking is a real and tangible threat that warrants the label because most smokers smoke with some regularity. Likewise, the collision epidemic in this country must be addressed because there is so much exposure (not despite their being so much exposure!). I can only imagine what you would say if the US were ever invaded:
Oh, all those bullets being shot at us aren't really a danger to America. It just seems that way because we're being exposed to so many of them. Besides, if the invaders weren't killing us than heart disease would be. :rolleyes:

[ghettocruiser]

From strawmen to deliberate misrepresentations and false statements. You're on a roll.

You now have all the tools to "win" any discussion on BF. Congrats.

[makeinu]

From strawmen to deliberate misrepresentations and false statements. You're on a roll.

You now have all the tools to "win" any discussion on BF. Congrats.
You're inability to effectively represent your position does not mean that I'm throwing out misrepresentations.

If I felt my position wasn't being effectively represented then I would clarify it instead of resorting to name calling, but I guess that isn't a very appealing alternative when one has a position as absurd as yours.

Keep muddying the water if you like, but no matter what anyone says the fact remains that automobile collisions have taken and continue to take far more lives than the worst terrorist or serial killer ever could.

[sgtsmile]

Goodness me.

I had some fun with this site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

From the site:
All causes .........................................
2,398,365
Diseases of heart......................
654,092
Malignant neoplasms............................
550,270
Cerebrovascular diseases ...........................
150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases....................
123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries) ................
108,694
Diabetes mellitus ...............................
72,815
Alzheimer’s disease ................................
65,829
Influenza and pneumonia ..........................
61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis. .
42,762
Septicemia..................................
33,464
Intentional self-harm (suicide)................
31,647
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.................
26,549
Parkinson’s disease .............................
18,018
Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids ......................
16,959
All other causes ......................................
418,810

But seriously, lets look at accidents, and decide what to ban...

Do not walk, you might fall over: Number of deaths: 18,535 - accidental falling.
Do not eat or drink, you might be accidently poisoned: Number of deaths: 19,250 - unintentional poisoning.
Oh yes, do not drive: Number of deaths: 46,933 - car wrecks.

While we are talking sad stats on mayham in the USA:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Year 2005
Population 296,410,404
Murders 16,692
Rapes 93,934
Robberies 417,122
Assaults 862,947


Btw, those stats from that site match ones from the FBI site. I looked.

Thing is, with so much like the above going on, many people feel quite justifiably that there are bigger fish to fry (and there are). Like it or not, cars are not going anyplace (interpret that how you will.) I spent years teaching people how to drive and not die. Humans CAN and DO have the reflexes do drive a car at a high rate of speed and be safe about doing it. What needs to be done, imo, is better education (and I would put a case forward that is should be mandetory) and stricter licensing requirements (has been done in Ontario).

Also, raising the driving age would likely help. Read this: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.11-science-the-teenage-brain/ Can teens make good judgements calls? Hard to say at times. But that article implies that it is not their fault if they don't always. Should they be driving?

Proper road design that incorporates multiple users also helps.

More later, if I can, I have to WALK to get my child from school now...

[I-Like-To-Bike]

More later, if I can, I have to WALK to get my child from school now...
Don't forget your walking helmet and smog mask. You might fall, or breath some impurities; or the sky might fall. Elbow and knee pads too!

[sgtsmile]

Don't forget your walking helmet and smog mask. You might fall, or breath some impurities; or the sky might fall. Elbow and knee pads too!

Dont worry, I have an environmental suit....

[makeinu]

But seriously, lets look at accidents, and decide what to ban...

Do not walk, you might fall over: Number of deaths: 18,535 - accidental falling.
Do not eat or drink, you might be accidently poisoned: Number of deaths: 19,250 - unintentional poisoning.
Oh yes, do not drive: Number of deaths: 46,933 - car wrecks.
Well, going by these numbers the obvious answer should be driving. It accounts for more deaths than falling and poisoning combined and would make the top ten list by itself; and that's not even counting the ways in which driving can be indirectly connected with many of the other leading causes of death (due to pollution, obesity, etc).

Furthermore, accidental falling and poisoning are much more generic categories, which means that there's no clear answer on how to prevent them. Death due to accidental falling might not have anything to do with walking. You could have a fatal fall while sleeping in bed, or showering, or getting out of your car. Likewise, poisoning can happen as a result of merely breathing or brushing your teeth (not just eating and drinking). Unlike car wreaks, there's no simple way to prevent death due to falling and poisoning and even if you could find a way it still wouldn't have the same impact as targeting the menace that is automobiles.

While we are talking sad stats on mayham in the USA:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Year 2005
Population 296,410,404
Murders 16,692
Rapes 93,934
Robberies 417,122
Assaults 862,947


Btw, those stats from that site match ones from the FBI site. I looked.

Thing is, with so much like the above going on, many people feel quite justifiably that there are bigger fish to fry (and there are). Like it or not, cars are not going anyplace (interpret that how you will.) I spent years teaching people how to drive and not die. Humans CAN and DO have the reflexes do drive a car at a high rate of speed and be safe about doing it. What needs to be done, imo, is better education (and I would put a case forward that is should be mandetory) and stricter licensing requirements (has been done in Ontario).
I fail to see how any rational individual could possibly come to the conclusion that there are bigger fish to fry than the automobile menace. Most people are far more concerned about "murder" than the de facto mass negligent vehicular homicide that goes on in this country and yet the stats you've provided show quite clearly that the automobiles the far bigger threat. As hard as they try, the murderers in this country can't kill more people than the automobiles. Doesn't that speak for itself?

It may very well be the case that proper education could bring down the number of automobile deaths to acceptable levels, but there's no way to know for sure without it being implemented. The proof is in the pudding. What we do know for sure is that automobiles are directly responsible for an outrageous number of deaths and something must be done to stop the slaughter. Try better training if you like, but if it doesn't work then there's always the obvious solution.

[ghettocruiser]

You're inability to effectively represent your position does not mean that I'm throwing out misrepresentations.

I must admit it's difficult when you continue to falsely attribute statements to me.

I have no interest in defending things that you claim I said that I did not.

You're arguing mostly with yourself. But whatever floats your boat.


If I felt my position wasn't being effectively represented then I would clarify it instead of resorting to name calling, but I guess that isn't a very appealing alternative when one has a position as absurd as yours.



Now would that be the position I actually took, or the one you assigned to me to make your so-called rebuttals easier?


And what name did I call you exactly? Of course, I guess if you can't find a quote where I called you something, you can just make one, as you did earlier.

[makeinu]

I must admit it's difficult when you continue to falsely attribute statements to me.

I have no interest in defending things that you claim I said that I did not.

You're arguing mostly with yourself. But whatever floats your boat.
What did I claim you said that you did not?

Now would that be the position I actually took, or the one you assigned to me to make your so-called rebuttals easier?
That would be the position you actually took, which as best as I can tell is the same as the position I assigned to you. Once again, if you feel you're being misunderstood then why don't you clarify your position instead of delivering post after post of nothing but accusations?

And what name did I call you exactly? Of course, I guess if you can't find a quote where I called you something, you can just make one, as you did earlier.
You said I was making false statements and misrepresenting your posts. That's one way to call someone a liar.

[sgtsmile]

I fail to see how any rational individual could possibly come to the conclusion that there are bigger fish to fry than the automobile menace.

That is easy, the stat you ignored was heart disease. How much of that is caused by bad eating habbits, poor exercise, and poor lifestyle choices? That cannot be laid at the feet of the car. (Granted, if a car is there then people might use it instead of alternatives, but again, THAT is a choice on their part, not the fault of the car.) Cancers are also one you overlooked: many of them are avoidable if we make some serious changes to our lifestyles (including reducing pollution - more on that in a minute.) I would also be more concerned about the very high numbers of assaults and rapes (the FBI site I looked at lumps many murders which happen without intent as assaults, so the numbers are misleading).

It may very well be the case that proper education could bring down the number of automobile deaths to acceptable levels, but there's no way to know for sure without it being implemented. The proof is in the pudding. What we do know for sure is that automobiles are directly responsible for an outrageous number of deaths and something must be done to stop the slaughter. Try better training if you like, but if it doesn't work then there's always the obvious solution.

So this means we do nothing about education? It does not sound like you support the notion of training as a means of reducing deaths. Clarify please.

It has been done in other countries, and it works. (Look to Europe to see the results. The German system is manditory, expensive, and much much more thorough. They take driving seriously, and lose their licenses much much faster for being an ass. As well, penalties for screwing up are much larger. It is about attitude. They have it largely right, we over here do not.)

However, I have also personal experience that proves that education works. I remember the one student I taught who, when we were learning how to avoid a head on crash on a side road, thanked me for teaching that to her brother. I asked why. She said because he used the technique the week before to avoid a crash, saving his, her mother's, and the oncoming vehicle's driver (and any passengers) lives. It works. People have to be willing to pay for it, and then to use it. But, it works.

and that's not even counting the ways in which driving can be indirectly connected with many of the other leading causes of death (due to pollution, obesity, etc).

That bit actually makes sense. Car pollution is a huge issue, and much can and should be done about it. The population density of North America, particularly in the rural areas where your food comes from, make it difficult to impossible to do without some form of mechanized transport. Food would not move, especially with our current infrastructure. Where I am going with this is that some form of private transport will remain needed. Now, having said that, we can and should do as much as we can to moderate its use which can reduce pollution caused by these vehicles. Here is a partial list.

1. Keep cars longer. A lot of pollution is involved in making a car. Buy a good one, and use it longer.
2. Maintain the damn thing! So many people don't, and often, this results in an increase in pollution.
3. Use better quality gas. Many cars run cleaner with higher octane gas, and go farther on the same quantity of fuel.
4. Plan your route: why take 3 trips when one well planned one will work?
5. Walk or take a bike whenever possible. No direct pollution, and you are countering the "lazy" life.
6. No van, suv, or truck IF all you use it for is a passenger car and you are not hauling 5 people. There is no need to drive a truck if all it is used for is something a Honda Civic could do.
7. If you live in an urban area, use transit.
8. Live near to work and main shopping.

and so on.

But if we are going to go after air pollution, and want to make a huge difference in a huge hurry, explore alternate energy sources and FFS get rid of the coal fired electrical plants!

Your turn...

[workingbike]

What did I claim you said that you did not?

You said I was making false statements and misrepresenting your posts. That's one way to call someone a liar.
In post #21 you quoted this as coming from ghettobiker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, all those bullets being shot at us aren't really a danger to America. It just seems that way because we're being exposed to so many of them. Besides, if the invaders weren't killing us than heart disease would be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I *think* in context, you were trying to give an example of what he *might*
have said in another situation. It *looks* on the other hand, as if you were
trying to imply he actually said that. I think you should clarify.

[makeinu]

That is easy, the stat you ignored was heart disease. How much of that is caused by bad eating habbits, poor exercise, and poor lifestyle choices? That cannot be laid at the feet of the car. (Granted, if a car is there then people might use it instead of alternatives, but again, THAT is a choice on their part, not the fault of the car.) Cancers are also one you overlooked: many of them are avoidable if we make some serious changes to our lifestyles (including reducing pollution - more on that in a minute.) I would also be more concerned about the very high numbers of assaults and rapes (the FBI site I looked at lumps many murders which happen without intent as assaults, so the numbers are misleading).
The thing is that car wreaks are low hanging fruit. Heart disease and cancer are not. To say that threat of auto deaths is neglected because there are bigger fish to fry implies that neglecting it will actually enable us to fry the other fish. Allowing tens of thousands of annual auto deaths doesn't enable us to reduce deaths due to heart disease and cancer at all. On the contrary, as you pointed out automobile usage actually contributes to the number of heart disease and cancer fatalities.

And of course it isn't the fault of the cars themselves. It's the driving of cars and the automobile culture that leads to the problems.

Though you have a point about assaults and rapes. I personally think that fatalities should take priority, but I can understand why others might disagree.

So this means we do nothing about education? It does not sound like you support the notion of training as a means of reducing deaths. Clarify please.

It has been done in other countries, and it works. (Look to Europe to see the results. The German system is manditory, expensive, and much much more thorough. They take driving seriously, and lose their licenses much much faster for being an ass. As well, penalties for screwing up are much larger. It is about attitude. They have it largely right, we over here do not.)

However, I have also personal experience that proves that education works. I remember the one student I taught who, when we were learning how to avoid a head on crash on a side road, thanked me for teaching that to her brother. I asked why. She said because he used the technique the week before to avoid a crash, saving his, her mother's, and the oncoming vehicle's driver (and any passengers) lives. It works. People have to be willing to pay for it, and then to use it. But, it works.

If collisions were the only problem created by automobiles then I would support the notion of training as a means of reducing deaths. However, there's also environmental, health, and political factors which driver education won't solve. Moreover (and more on topic), automobiles, like guns, have the power to kill. Although it's possible that with proper training disaster can be avoided, that doesn't give you the right to run around pointing it at people and putting their lives at risk, no matter how highly trained you are. Perhaps the risk of collision would be acceptable in places like freeways where the danger is mutual, but motorists have no right to endanger the lives of pedestrians. It doesn't matter if the probability of collision for a highly trained motorist is 1% or .000001%, the lives of pedestrians are not for the motorists to gamble.

That bit actually makes sense. Car pollution is a huge issue, and much can and should be done about it. The population density of North America, particularly in the rural areas where your food comes from, make it difficult to impossible to do without some form of mechanized transport. Food would not move, especially with our current infrastructure. Where I am going with this is that some form of private transport will remain needed. Now, having said that, we can and should do as much as we can to moderate its use which can reduce pollution caused by these vehicles. Here is a partial list.

1. Keep cars longer. A lot of pollution is involved in making a car. Buy a good one, and use it longer.
2. Maintain the damn thing! So many people don't, and often, this results in an increase in pollution.
3. Use better quality gas. Many cars run cleaner with higher octane gas, and go farther on the same quantity of fuel.
4. Plan your route: why take 3 trips when one well planned one will work?
5. Walk or take a bike whenever possible. No direct pollution, and you are countering the "lazy" life.
6. No van, suv, or truck IF all you use it for is a passenger car and you are not hauling 5 people. There is no need to drive a truck if all it is used for is something a Honda Civic could do.
7. If you live in an urban area, use transit.
8. Live near to work and main shopping.

and so on.

But if we are going to go after air pollution, and want to make a huge difference in a huge hurry, explore alternate energy sources and FFS get rid of the coal fired electrical plants!
I'm afraid that won't be enough. As you pointed out, food distribution is a huge problem in itself. If we're going to reduce our environmental footprint then we're going to have to cut the slack wherever we can and the easiest way to start is with personal motorized vehicle usage. After all, usage of personal motor vehicles is problematic for other reasons (ie collision fatalities). Why not kill two birds with one stone?

Besides, your solution (more rigorous training and driver standards combined with pollution moderation steps 1 through 8) eliminates most of the advantages of driving anyway. If it actually became a reality I doubt that most people would find driving worthwhile. I know I wouldn't.

In post #21 you quoted this as coming from ghettobiker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, all those bullets being shot at us aren't really a danger to America. It just seems that way because we're being exposed to so many of them. Besides, if the invaders weren't killing us than heart disease would be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I *think* in context, you were trying to give an example of what he *might*
have said in another situation. It *looks* on the other hand, as if you were
trying to imply he actually said that. I think you should clarify.
Isn't the preface "I can only imagine what you would say if the US were ever invaded:" clear enough? If not I apologize. Ghettobiker, obviously, did not say that. It was what I imagined he might say as it seemed to be consistent with his reasoning about automobile deaths.

[sgtsmile]

If collisions were the only problem created by automobiles then I would support the notion of training as a means of reducing deaths. However, there's also environmental, health, and political factors which driver education won't solve. Moreover (and more on topic), automobiles, like guns, have the power to kill. Although it's possible that with proper training disaster can be avoided, that doesn't give you the right to run around pointing it at people and putting their lives at risk, no matter how highly trained you are. Perhaps the risk of collision would be acceptable in places like freeways where the danger is mutual, but motorists have no right to endanger the lives of pedestrians. It doesn't matter if the probability of collision for a highly trained motorist is 1% or .000001%, the lives of pedestrians are not for the motorists to gamble.



Ironically, the bolded bit can also be used for an argument about why bikes should not be pointed at peds ;p More later

[Raiyn]

From strawmen to deliberate misrepresentations and false statements. You're on a roll.

Not quite. makeinu's not on a roll, but on a troll. Not to mention on my ignore list. Hell Pete has a better chance of getting back on my good side than this hack.

[Blue Order]

Why is it negligence? It's negligence because driving an automobile presents an unacceptibly high risk of having an "accident" and maming or killing another individual. Yet, people drive anyway. That's pretty much the definition of negligence.No, that's not the definition of negligence at all. Probably sounds good when you're with your drinking buddies, though.

[ghettocruiser]

The sad thing is that the kind of inflammatory, confrontational, extremism that he has embarrassed himself with (whether he realizes it or not) over the last few days is the kind of thing that erodes the credibility of anyone who might take a more pragmatic approach to alternative transportation types.

Those who would reserve roads and transportation dollars only for cars and drivers must love to have someone like this on the other side of the argument. What better way to scare people away from even modest changes?

Next time I read a motorist letter-to-the-editor speaking of the extremist attitudes of "holier-than-though bikers", this thread may come to mind.

[makeinu]

Not quite. makeinu's not on a roll, but on a troll. Not to mention on my ignore list. Hell Pete has a better chance of getting back on my good side than this hack.
Excuse me? I'm having a discussion with some of the other posters about the topic of this thread. You're the one trolling.

No, that's not the definition of negligence at all. Probably sounds good when you're with your drinking buddies, though.
I guess if your drinking buddies like to hear you read from the dictionary. :rolleyes:

The sad thing is that the kind of inflammatory, confrontational, extremism that he has embarrassed himself with (whether he realizes it or not) over the last few days is the kind of thing that erodes the credibility of anyone who might take a more pragmatic approach to alternative transportation types.

Those who would reserve roads and transportation dollars only for cars and drivers must love to have someone like this on the other side of the argument. What better way to scare people away from even modest changes?

Next time I read a motorist letter-to-the-editor speaking of the extremist attitudes of "holier-than-though bikers", this thread may come to mind.
That may very well be true, but the fact remains that automobile collisions are a significant and preventable cause of death and suffering. It may be counterproductive for me to point it out, but that doesn't make it any less true. Although I'd be very surprised if anyone with any kind of pragmatism would let something as benign as a spirited reminder of the facts prevent them from practicing that pragmatism. :shrug:

[Lot's Knife]

The car culture is the single biggest pox on the globe.

You go, Makeinu.

[Blue Order]

I guess if your drinking buddies like to hear you read from the dictionary. :rolleyes:No need to read from the dictionary, but when you're defining something, your definition shouldn't be blatantly wrong...