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

#251
#251
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?

Also motorcycle issue has been discussed
Click to expand...

You mentioned motorcycles with regards to them having seatbelts on them. What I'm saying is, if we deem the risk of riding in a car without a seatbelt so dangerous that we must outlaw it, then by that same logic, motorcyles should flat out not be allowed on the road. How is it right to infringe on some people's right to choose what's risks they will and won't assume on the road while the FAR, FAR, FAR riskier choice of riding a motorcyle on those same roads remains legal?
 
#252
#252
slh1089 said:
So it is one's personal right to endanger those around them?
Click to expand...

It is one person's right to do whatever they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of another. Granted, I consider property as an extension of the Self, so property rights are lumped into personal rights.
 
#254
#254
therealUT said:
It is one person's right to do whatever they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of another. Granted, I consider property as an extension of the Self, so property rights are lumped into personal rights.
Click to expand...

Using Locke to form this?
 
#256
#256
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...

Maybe I missed it...statistics supporting this?
 
#258
#258
volmanbill said:
Maybe I missed it...statistics supporting this?
Click to expand...

I doubt there are statistics that could support that statement; however, personally, I refused to wear a cup when playing third base because I felt like subconsciously my body would react quicker without having the cup as as security blanket.

(I paid for that decision pretty dearly, once though...then, I started wearing a cup).
 
#260
#260
slh1089 said:
So you believe that intentionally endangering another's pursuit of rights and property is condonable?
Click to expand...

I believe it is morally wrong; I do not believe that morals should be legislated: neither do Locke, Kant, or Hegel.

"Woe to the legislator who tries through force to establish a polity directed toward ethical ends!" - Kant, Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason
 
#261
#261
volmanbill said:
Maybe I missed it...statistics supporting this?
Click to expand...

No statistics. It was just a theory put forth in a study that basically hypothesized that drivers with the security blanket of a seatbelt might be prone to take more risks behind the wheel. I can't imagine there was any way to validate it. Just a possibility.
 
#262
#262
bleedorange0037 said:
You mentioned motorcycles with regards to them having seatbelts on them. What I'm saying is, if we deem the risk of riding in a car without a seatbelt so dangerous that we must outlaw it, then by that same logic, motorcyles should flat out not be allowed on the road. How is it right to infringe on some people's right to choose what's risks they will and won't assume on the road while the FAR, FAR, FAR riskier choice of riding a motorcyle on those same roads remains legal?
Click to expand...

Because some people are smart enough to know the difference between a safety feature and an outright ban of a mode of transportation
 
Last edited:
#263
#263
therealUT said:
I believe it is morally wrong; I do not believe that morals should be legislated: neither do Locke, Kant, or Hegel.

"Woe to the legislator who tries through force to establish a polity directed toward ethical ends!" - Kant, Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason
Click to expand...

So punishing attempted murder should no be a matter of law?
 
#264
#264
bleedorange0037 said:
No statistics. It was just a theory put forth in a study that basically hypothesized that drivers with the security blanket of a seatbelt might be prone to take more risks behind the wheel. I can't imagine there was any way to validate it. Just a possibility.
Click to expand...

A lot of things remain possible. Does not mean that they carry weight in an argument.
 
#265
#265
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because some people are smart enough to know the difference between a safety feature and outright ban of a mode of transportation
Click to expand...

I'm actually on both sides of this thread. Seatbelt usage would not seem to effect the safety of others while "distracted" driving obviously does. If I kill myself then so be it. If I'm a danger to others then I'm of the opinion that it should be "regulated".
 
#266
#266
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?
Click to expand...

Depending on the conditions I could argue it could be safer.

In fact I just drove 90 miles after sitting in the ER And being up all night. I think if I had gotten 5 hours they wouldn't have been good sleep and I would have been less alert.
 
#267
#267
2ironVol said:
Seatbelts kill? Rare

I can tell you that it is exponentially more likely that you will die in a major auto accident if you aren't wearing your seatbelt than if you are wearing it. Sure, there is the isolated cases here and there of seatbelts killing, but the opposite is much more likely.

My best friend was killed in an auto accident 27 years ago as a result of him not wearing his seatbelt. Had he been wearing it, he would not have been ejected out through the front window onto the pavement where the blow to the head was fatal.
Click to expand...

And my sister was killed riding her motorcycle going less than the speed limit. I'm sorry for your friend, but my point was a lot of people get a sense of invinciblity assuming the safety features can handle their mistakes so they take more risks and cause more accidents.
 
#268
#268
YorkVol said:
And my sister was killed riding her motorcycle going less than the speed limit. I'm sorry for your friend, but my point was a lot of people get a sense of invinciblity assuming the safety features can handle their mistakes so they take more risks and cause more accidents.
Click to expand...


People will drive more recklessly because they will ponder the fact that they are not texting and so therefore can be reckless?

[X] Confirmed. Poster is not very bright.
 
#270
#270
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...

I have a good bit of sympathy for a lot of what you express here and I'd have a TON of sympathy if we were talking about actions in a more private context. (Don't want to start a separate thread here but as long as the "nobody's hurt/free will by all" criteria is met I don't think the govt should have much say at all in people's private lives) Driving is not a private undertaking however. It is in fact probably the single most "public" undertaking in which the majority of the populace engages. Hundreds of thousands of people darting about in mechanized missiles that, even under the most benign circumstances, gets people maimed and killed every day. It really isn't, in the minds of most, some great onus to expect sobriety when interacting in a lethal environment with others on public property.

As for what constitutes a "crime" endangerment is itself a crime. People's opinions vary but many consider driving while impaired an act of reckless endangerment (and remember, cars have long since been considered deadly weapons in many cases) and thus a pretty serious crime.


(And the outlawing driving thing really doesn't hold up well as it's rather part of how we function as a society. Saying "Well why doesn't everybody just stop doing X?" would get really silly really fast, don't you think?)
 
#271
#271
hndog609 said:
I have a good bit of sympathy for a lot of what you express here and I'd have a TON of sympathy if we were talking about actions in a more private context. (Don't want to start a separate thread here but as long as the "nobody's hurt/free will by all" criteria is met I don't think the govt should have much say at all in people's private lives) Driving is not a private undertaking however. It is in fact probably the single most "public" undertaking in which the majority of the populace engages. Hundreds of thousands of people darting about in mechanized missiles that, even under the most benign circumstances, gets people maimed and killed every day. It really isn't, in the minds of most, some great onus to expect sobriety when interacting in a lethal environment with others on public property.

As for what constitutes a "crime" endangerment is itself a crime. People's opinions vary but many consider driving while impaired an act of reckless endangerment (and remember, cars have long since been considered deadly weapons in many cases) and thus a pretty serious crime.


(And the outlawing driving thing really doesn't hold up well as it's rather part of how we function as a society. Saying "Well why doesn't everybody just stop doing X?" would get really silly really fast, don't you think?)
Click to expand...

I do not see endangerment as a crime; I do not see intentionally endangering someone else as a moral act, either.

I am not condoning said actions; I am stating that they should not be legislated against.
 
#272
#272
therealUT said:
I do not see endangerment as a crime; I do not see intentionally endangering someone else as a moral act, either.

I am not condoning said actions; I am stating that they should not be legislated against.
Click to expand...

I can understand this. Depending on exactly what we were talking about at any given time I may have some pretty strong reservations...but I can understand your view.

:hi:
 
#273
#273
hndog609 said:
I can understand this. Depending on exactly what we were talking about at any given time I may have some pretty strong reservations...but I can understand your view.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Now I am going to step out into the chilly Boston evening and have a smoke.
 
#275
#275
therealUT said:
I believe it is morally wrong; I do not believe that morals should be legislated: neither do OE, Locke, Kant, or Hegel.

"Woe to the legislator who tries through force to establish a polity directed toward ethical ends!" - Kant, Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason
Click to expand...

Fyp :)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top