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

#177
#177
VolsNSkinsFan said:
So why do we have laws banning drunk driving, and speeding. Why do I have to go get a drivers license? These all infringe on my rights and at one point were mocked. The data shows less people are dying. 7,000 less people are dying every year from car accidents.

If you could prevent 2 9-11s from happening every year by just passing a simple law saying you cant talk on a cell phone while driving, how could you be against it.
Click to expand...

wtf
 
#178
#178
therealUT said:
In your refusal to simply give up your argument of "convenience" and "resources" you are making yourself look extremely idiotic. Individuals who are DOA are not life-flighted; they are not given the same level of care (if any medical care) that someone with a brain-hemorrhage is provided; they are not given IVs; they are not worked on in the ER; etc., etc.

The decrease in fatalities, therefore, tells us absolutely nothing about the resources used and/or the other injuries sustained.
Click to expand...

dude, you are the one who thinks when someone calls 911 to report a serious accident, they send a hearse
 
#179
#179
volsnskinsfan said:
so why do we have laws banning drunk driving, and speeding. Why do i have to go get a drivers license? These all infringe on my rights and at one point were mocked. The data shows less people are dying. 7,000 less people are dying every year from car accidents.

if you could prevent 2 9-11s from happening every year by just passing a simple law saying you cant talk on a cell phone while driving, how could you be against it.
Click to expand...

Because a "simple law" won't accomplish that!
 
#182
#182
nbakerld said:
911: What's your emergency?

Caller: We've got a horrible 10 car pile-up.

911: Was anybody not wearing a seatbelt? We want to know exactly how many units to send out.
Click to expand...

One of the first things the responding police ask is if you had your seatbelt on. That is if you are able to speak
 
#184
#184
therealUT said:
While I agree with what you are trying to get at; you do not get it by an illogical statement such as the one above. Feel free to learn how to use syllogisms and logic, though. There are plenty of resources out there to help.

By logic, this argument makes sense:

If A has the right to do whatever A pleases as long as he does not infringe upon B's right to do as B pleases, then A can drink bourbon while driving as doing so does not infringe upon B's right to do as B pleases.

The moment that A actually infringes upon B, which would be the accident/car wreck/collision, is the moment in which A has violated the rights of B and has thus committed a crime.
Click to expand...

This is funny seeing as how this is one of my fields of study, and thank you for bringing me to my point. You were comparing a law-breaking situation with a non law-breaking situation. Therefore, your argument is just as illogical as taking a a great basketball player's stats and arguing that he would be a great baseball player.
 
#185
#185
2ironVol said:
No, I live in the real world. This isn't your little bubble.

Do you wear your seatbelt?
Click to expand...

I wear my seatbelt every time I drive.

You don't live in the real world, because you obviously have never heard of unintended consequences when you make a statement like: "Just establishing the law itself will enhance safety".
 
#186
#186
nbakerld said:
It's not even a decrease in fatalities, it's a decrease in fatalities per accident. Many economists argue the laws result in more accidents.
Click to expand...

What? 7,000 less people are dying every year. Do you think 7,000 extra dead people per year is an acceptable balance between being able to talk on your phone or not?
 
#187
#187
OrangeEmpire said:
Of course, by choice
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking to you, but it is a law. You would have to be the dumbest SOB in the world if you don't believe many people wear them because it is the law.

You're so FOS it's sometimes difficult to ascertain whether or not you actually give a rat's azz about the topic at hand and choose to argue as a means of enjoyment. Right???:yes:
 
#189
#189
nbakerld said:
I wear my seatbelt every time I drive.

You don't live in the real world, because you obviously have never heard of unintended consequences when you make a statement like: "Just establishing the law itself will enhance safety".
Click to expand...

Whatever you say :birgits_giggle:
 
#190
#190
2ironVol said:
I wasn't talking to you, but it is a law. You would have to be the dumbest SOB in the world if you don't believe many people wear them because it is the law.

You're so FOS it's sometimes difficult to ascertain whether or not you actually give a rat's azz about the topic at hand and choose to argue as a means of enjoyment. Right???:yes:
Click to expand...

Mercy, anger management resources are available to you.
 
#195
#195
slh1089 said:
This is funny seeing as how this is one of my fields of study, and thank you for bringing me to my point. You were comparing a law-breaking situation with a non law-breaking situation. Therefore, your argument is just as illogical as taking a a great basketball player's stats and arguing that he would be a great baseball player.
Click to expand...

Where did I bring the law into my argument? Or, are you trying to build a straw man simply to save face?
 
#200
#200
nbakerld said:
How many of the 7000 will the law save?
Click to expand...

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?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top