NTSB recommends ban on use of cell phones or texting while driving

#226
#226
2ironVol said:
So you feel it's ok to get hammered and then get behind the wheel of a car and drive it on a public road, endangering everyone else that might be unlucky enough to cross paths with you? With all due respect, that is crazy :crazy:
Click to expand...

No, I do not feel it is okay; I feel that one should not be punished for doing it though.
 
#227
#227
nbakerld said:
In what way does it lend creedence? You have data that shows that law has made the roads safer?

Government does a lot of absurd things. The fact that they do something does not give it validity.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. Education and a little common sense tell me it's much safer to drive while rested than to drive void of sleep for 24 hours. The people making a federal mandate didn't just say one day, "lets make this law", to control society. There is undoubtedly significant data proving that driving inordinate periods of time without sleep in extremely dangerous.

I don't know what to tell you if you think it doesn't make a difference as far as safety is concerned.
 
#228
#228
2ironVol said:
Never said it did. Education and a little common sense tell me it's much safer to drive while rested than to drive void of sleep for 24 hours. The people making a federal mandate didn't just say one day, "lets make this law", to control society. There is undoubtedly significant data proving that driving inordinate periods of time without sleep in extremely dangerous.

I don't know what to tell you if you think it doesn't make a difference as far as safety is concerned.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see it. If it "undoubtedly" exists, it should be easy to find. Put up. I don't doubt that driving 2000 straight hours is dangerous, but I want data that reflects the law (if law is no driving 20 consecutive hours, I want to see data that reflects that).
 
Last edited:
#229
#229
2ironVol said:
Never said it did. Education and a little common sense tell me it's much safer to drive while rested than to drive void of sleep for 24 hours. The people making a federal mandate didn't just say one day, "lets make this law", to control society. There is undoubtedly significant data proving that driving inordinate periods of time without sleep in extremely dangerous.

I don't know what to tell you if you think it doesn't make a difference as far as safety is concerned.
Click to expand...

Look, it's okay; you simply feel that we should sacrifice freedom for security/safety. NBA does not feel the same way; neither do I; neither do many individuals (to include most of the persons who founded our government).
 
#231
#231
#232
#232
2ironVol said:
Try google.

So you think it is just as safe to drive 150 miles up the road when you haven't slept in 24 hours as it is when you have had at least 5 hours of sleep in the past 24 hours?

Education and common sense answer this question
Click to expand...

But I want data. Common sense isn't so common these days.
 
#235
#235
nbakerld said:
But I want data. Common sense isn't so common these days.
Click to expand...

Damn. You responded so quickly my edit didn't get back to you in time. I already deleted that part of my post because I was certain as to how you would respond.

I've never seen the dark side of the moon, but I know it exists because of education and common sense.
 
#236
#236
2ironVol said:
Damn. You responded so quickly my edit didn't get back to you in time. I already deleted that part of my post because I was certain as to how you would respond.

I've never seen the dark side of the moon, but I know it exists because of education and common sense.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about the dark side of the moon, we are talking about public policy. The first thing you'll learn in a public policy course in economics is the law of unintended consequences. "Common" sense doesn't exist when it comes to policy-making. Government policy very rarely achieves even just a majority of its objectives.
 
#237
#237
nbakerld said:
We would all be safer if we weren't allowed to leave our homes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's not reasonable. Reason should be a factor in any decision such as this. It's unreasonable to establish mandates requiring people to stay in their homes in a free society. It isn't unreasonable though, to have mandates banning activities in public areas that could impose grave danger to other citizens.
 
#238
#238
nbakerld said:
We're not talking about the dark side of the moon, we are talking about public policy. The first thing you'll learn in a public policy course in economics is the law of unintended consequences. "Common" sense doesn't exist when it comes to policy-making. Government policy very rarely achieves even just a majority of its objectives.
Click to expand...

I had plenty of economics classes and understand the law of unintended consequences as well as you.
 
#240
#240
2ironVol said:
Damn. You responded so quickly my edit didn't get back to you in time. I already deleted that part of my post because I was certain as to how you would respond.

I've never seen the dark side of the moon, but I know it exists because of education and common sense.
Click to expand...

There is no dark-side of the moon.

Also, you only believe that the other side of the moon exists; this belief is ultimately based only upon human testimony.
 
#241
#241
2ironVol said:
Yeah, but that's not reasonable. Reason should be a factor in any decision such as this. It's unreasonable to establish mandates requiring people to stay in their homes in a free society. It isn't unreasonable though, to have mandates banning activities in public areas that could impose grave danger to other citizens.
Click to expand...

It is unreasonable and inconsistent to esteem the merits of a free society and then ban the individuals from activities that do not directly result in grave danger to other individuals.

Either you live in a society that is not free (there are no gradations of freedom) yet physically safe and secure, or you live in a free society.
 
#242
#242
VolsNSkinsFan said:
all of them, because they arent being killed by people on the phone and driving.

How many lives have to be lost to people talking on their phones before laws start to get passed? How many lives are you willing to lose to protect your freedom to talk on the phone?

If we could cut the number of deaths from 30K per year to 25K per year, is that worth it?
Click to expand...

While we're at it, why not just ban motor vehicles altogether? They are after all the real root of this problem. If nobody was allowed to drive, we would be able to completely eliminate all the fatailities as well as the use of your precious tax dollar responding to all these incidents.

As for the seatbelt laws, somebody touched briefly on this earlier but it never really got discussed. I find a HUGE disconnect in the logic that says all drivers of automobiles must wear a seatbelt while we will still allow motorcycles on the road. How can people not be allowed the freedom to choose to assume the risk of driving or riding in a car without a seatbelt, yet we do allow people the freedom to choose to assume all the risk associated with riding a 200 mph death rocket on the road?
 
#243
#243
therealUT said:
Why should drinking and driving be legislated against? I am all for charging someone with manslaughter or assault with a deadly and punishing them accordingly if they kill or wound someone while driving drunk; I do not agree that someone should be punished prior to that, though.
Click to expand...

I think you primarily run into two issues with this. The first is somebody getting killed is a little late to start giving somebody a hard time about drunk driving. I think the argument here is that prevention is much, much preferable to punishment.

For best results this should be tied to the observation that, assuming one is on a public road, you actually don't have a personal "right of way" for any action deemed hazardous to others. One could argue driving impaired isn't that far removed from, say, deciding you don't feel like acknowledging Stop signs tonight. Get plastered, run lights, throw the comical idea of "yielding" out the window, what's the difference? As long as it's a public domain it can at least be argued that it's entirely fair (correct even) to take steps (enforce certain rules) to protect the public at large against those who might jeapardize others through unsafe action.

I'm not a fan of infringing on any freedom but when I get in a vehicle and go drive it's not MY road any more than anyone else's.

Anyway, that's just what I think the other side of your observation might be.
 
#244
#244
bleedorange0037 said:
While we're at it, why not just ban motor vehicles altogether? They are after all the real root of this problem. If nobody was allowed to drive, we would be able to completely eliminate all the fatailities as well as the use of your precious tax dollar responding to all these incidents.

As for the seatbelt laws, somebody touched briefly on this earlier but it never really got discussed. I find a HUGE disconnect in the logic that says all drivers of automobiles must wear a seatbelt while we will still allow motorcycles on the road. How can people not be allowed the freedom to choose to assume the risk of driving or riding in a car without a seatbelt, yet we do allow people the freedom to choose to assume all the risk associated with riding a 200 mph death rocket on the road?
Click to expand...

Yea man lets just collapse our economy. Nobody should be able to drive. So I am assuming you are cool with drunk driving? You are cool with a trucker driving a 50,000 pounds vehicle 50 straight hours.

Live free or die, right?

Also motorcycle issue has been discussed
 
Last edited:
#245
#245
Reading these arguments definitely points to the fact that this is a political thread on a college football site...
 
#246
#246
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Yea man lets just collapse our economy. Nobody should be able to drive. So I am assuming you are cool with drunk driving? You are cool with a trucker driving a 50,000 pounds vehicle 50 straight hours.

Live free or die, right?
Click to expand...

No. Both of those actions put other motorists safety in jeopardy. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't do that. In fact, it may keep other motorists more safe, since, as has been discussed earlier in this thread, not wearing a seatbelt could cause some drivers to be more careful on the road in a effort to avoid an accident.
 
#247
#247
hndog609 said:
I think you primarily run into two issues with this. The first is somebody getting killed is a little late to start giving somebody a hard time about drunk driving. I think the argument here is that prevention is much, much preferable to punishment.

For best results this should be tied to the observation that, assuming one is on a public road, you actually don't have a personal "right of way" for any action deemed hazardous to others. One could argue driving impaired isn't that far removed from, say, deciding you don't feel like acknowledging Stop signs tonight. Get plastered, run lights, throw the comical idea of "yielding" out the window, what's the difference? As long as it's a public domain it can at least be argued that it's entirely fair (correct even) to take steps (enforce certain rules) to protect the public at large against those who might jeapardize others through unsafe action.

I'm not a fan of infringing on any freedom but when I get in a vehicle and go drive it's not MY road any more than anyone else's.

Anyway, that's just what I think the other side of your observation might be.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the other side of the observation. I do not drink and drive; I do not talk on a cell phone when driving; I pay attention to and heed signs because I do not want to get into a car wreck. However, I do not think one should be punished for the simple act of drinking and driving; talking on their cell phone; disregarding signs. Once they cause an accident, then they should be prosecuted; there is an actual victim and, therefore, an actual crime. Prior to that, they are being punished because their actions are more likely to lead to an actual crime.

If the principle is that individuals can be punished simply for engaging in behavior that has a higher likelihood of causing damage, then what is the threshold? how is it measured? Like others have suggested, one has a higher likelihood of causing an accident simply by driving; why not outlaw driving?

Preemptive law enforcement is an absurd notion and a grave infringement upon personal freedom.
 
#248
#248
bleedorange0037 said:
No. Both of those actions put other motorists safety in jeopardy. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't do that. In fact, it may keep other motorists more safe, since, as has been discussed earlier in this thread, not wearing a seatbelt could cause some drivers to be more careful on the road in a effort to avoid an accident.
Click to expand...

Sorry but Your wayy to late to the party
 
#250
#250
therealUT said:
I am aware of the other side of the observation. I do not drink and drive; I do not talk on a cell phone when driving; I pay attention to and heed signs because I do not want to get into a car wreck. However, I do not think one should be punished for the simple act of drinking and driving; talking on their cell phone; disregarding signs. Once they cause an accident, then they should be prosecuted; there is an actual victim and, therefore, an actual crime. Prior to that, they are being punished because their actions are more likely to lead to an actual crime.

If the principle is that individuals can be punished simply for engaging in behavior that has a higher likelihood of causing damage, then what is the threshold? how is it measured? Like others have suggested, one has a higher likelihood of causing an accident simply by driving; why not outlaw driving?

Preemptive law enforcement is an absurd notion and a grave infringement upon personal freedom.
Click to expand...

So it is one's personal right to endanger those around them?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top