Idiots + cars = LOL

[stiggie]

"Living in a society means sacrificing a little freedom for a safer world." - Stiggie

 

[SirEdward]

"you can't learn anything from a lesson if you don't survive it".

"What other people already know might be gold"

 

[Redliner]

"you can't learn anything from a lesson if you don't survive it".

"What other people already know might be gold"

"But the overall population might learn from it and fitness of the population will improve, or something"

 

[SirEdward]

"But the overall population might learn from it and fitness of the population will improve, or something"

Of course:


"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

 

[stiggie]

"Just wondering if italics make Comic Sans seem wiser."

 

[Cowboy]

?Mitochondria is the Powerhouse of the Cell?

 

[SirEdward]

"Just wondering if italics make Comic Sans seem wiser."

No, it doesn't :lol:

 

[prizrak]

No one forces you to use a car neither.

Umm dude, outside of very few places in the US yes they are...

- - - Updated - - -

If there is any.

Public life is just a fancier club, a club so big you can't get out of. But you could emigrate to some anarchy-driven country and do the heck you want. You just like to live in the US, and maybe many other such "clubs" won't accept you and let you into their premises, but there's no real difference in the way they make rules. This is of course an abstraction, and the practical consequences of the two sets of rules are not equal in any way, but the basic is that; a rule's a rule. They are no different, only their field of application is.

That's a fair point but there is still the fact that laws tend to affect everyone while private club memberships only affect the club members. There is also the practical difference of leaving a club vs leaving a country
You can't get to understand certain things if no one teaches you, as trial and error requires you to be lucky to avoid major injuries or death. And even after being taught, many people still won't understand.[/QUOTE]
But that's a different point though, I remember seeing a video of a rig that some PD somewhere set up that shows what a 5mph crash looks like, it was literally a seat with a seatbelt that would move on rails into a metal stop that shows how violent even a low speed collision like that is.

We are not talking specific case here but the general idea of fining someone for not wearing a seatbelt, because their possible death could have a negative effect on society. By that logic unhealthy food, alcohol, tobacco, video games, tv shows, movies and office work all need to be outlawed as they all can have negative health consequences, which may put a drain on society especially in countries with single payer healthcare.

 

[LeVeL]

Public life is just a fancier club...

That's quite a frightening blurring of the line between public and private.

In that sense, smart private clubs set safety rules, and I specifically chose the gun range thing to talk to people who actually knows what shooting is (I was thinking more to Lev, I don't know about you) to show that safety rules may well be a good thing...

Private club rules are not the same as laws. Why is that such a strange concept?

The first time you take a gun in your hand, you don't understand anything about it, not even some of the most basics of gun safety. You can't get to understand certain things if no one teaches you, as trial and error requires you to be lucky to avoid major injuries or death. And even after being taught, many people still won't understand.

You are correct. However, there still shouldn't be a law about it. In fact, in most states you can go buy a gun without any sort of instruction on how to use it and guess what, most people still manage to be safe with their new guns, just like most people would still use seatbelts even if not required by law.

You, Lev, I, and everyone around here who ever tried to shoot any gun -know- how sound safety rules are for those things; this is another reason why I chose -that- particular example, to show that you need some basic rules sometimes, not because of people taking away your freedom, but because it's smart, pure and simple.

Again, there are no laws requiring me to handle guns safely. I can be punished for my actions if my lack of safety leads to damage (e.g. I'm unsafe and accidentally shoot someone) but there are no legal repercussions for simply not being safe - no victim, no crime. So yes, safety rules are important... but safety laws are not.

And if someone yells: "I have the right of trying to kill myself in the most idiotic ways possible", the only answer can be "F**k you, you brainless idiot, we're just trying to save your worthless life"

Nope, not my job to save them. I might try and talk them out of it but in the end its their decision.

"Who do they think they are, them smartass "experts" telling people how to live their lives! There ain't nothing they can teach -me-!"

Nope, you're still confused about this... An "expert" teaching you something is not the same as a law requiring that you do something.

 

[narf]

We are not talking specific case here but the general idea of fining someone for not wearing a seatbelt, because their possible death could have a negative effect on society. By that logic unhealthy food, alcohol, tobacco, video games, tv shows, movies and office work all need to be outlawed as they all can have negative health consequences, which may put a drain on society especially in countries with single payer healthcare.

We have some of those, most noticeably on tobacco. In a tax-shaped way, there is a hefty fine on every cigarette you buy... up to 90% of the price you pay for those is taxes.

So yes, safety rules are important... but safety laws are not.

...and yet, you're fine with legally forcing everyone to buy seat belts? :?

 

[Redliner]

"Just wondering if italics make Comic Sans seem wiser."

A bit, but not enough.

 

[prizrak]

We have some of those, most noticeably on tobacco. In a tax-shaped way, there is a hefty fine on every cigarette you buy... up to 90% of the price you pay for those is taxes.

We have those here as well depending on state but taxation on goods I'm fine with, it doesn't create repercussions for the user.

- - - Updated - - -

...and yet, you're fine with legally forcing everyone to buy seat belts? :?

Again the difference is with personal choice vs product safety. A vehicle with no seatbelts is inherently unsafe to the user, just like a power strip with no circuit breaker is inherently unsafe.

 

[GRtak]

The power strip only has them so it doesn't trip the circuit breaker.

 

[SirEdward]

That's a fair point but there is still the fact that laws tend to affect everyone while private club memberships only affect the club members. There is also the practical difference of leaving a club vs leaving a country

Don't get me wrong, I know the difference between a law being enforced in an entire continent-like state, and a rule applied by the private owner of a private club, but this doesn't change the fact that they are the exact same thing: what does change (and it does indeed) is how deep it can go and affect you, how vast its influence is and what punishment comes if you don't respect it; in the end, what really changes is the power of the authority which created it. Give it enough power, and it will be strong enough to change your life; otherwise, it might even be ignored, in the right conditions. It's really a matter of power. But the basic fact, the idea that someone tells you what you cannot do, is exactly the same.

For this reason, I used a simpler domain, where things are clearer and less subject to strong emotions, because yes, you can always leave a private gun range if you disagree with the rules. But those rules (should) have been created to make you safe. Just like standard legislation.

We are not talking specific case here but the general idea of fining someone for not wearing a seatbelt, because their possible death could have a negative effect on society. By that logic unhealthy food, alcohol, tobacco, video games, tv shows, movies and office work all need to be outlawed as they all can have negative health consequences, which may put a drain on society especially in countries with single payer healthcare.

All of them have one thing in common: they take much time to kill you (on average), and most of them have other positive effects. No seatbelts does not have any positive effect at all. When it has, you are allowed not to wear them (it happened to me; I had the chance to drive without seatbelts for a while, because it was safer that way).

In general, limitations are made on things that have less positive effects than negative. The thing is finding the right balance. Overregulation is neurotic, underregulation for the sake of it is arrogant.

You are correct. However, there still shouldn't be a law about it. In fact, in most states you can go buy a gun without any sort of instruction on how to use it and guess what, most people still manage to be safe with their new guns, just like most people would still use seatbelts even if not required by law.

The world is not populated mostly by idiots; laws made the right way should affect only the idiots, as smart people already understand -why- the banned behaviour is not smart. But the more complex things get, the more people will have problems in understand it, so they will have problem in choosing wisely.

Again, there are no laws requiring me to handle guns safely. I can be punished for my actions if my lack of safety leads to damage (e.g. I'm unsafe and accidentally shoot someone) but there are no legal repercussions for simply not being safe - no victim, no crime. So yes, safety rules are important... but safety laws are not.

We all live in a society, and society loses something everytime someone hurts themselves stupidly. As I said, good (prohibition) laws should only affect idiots.

 

[narf]

We have those here as well depending on state but taxation on goods I'm fine with, it doesn't create repercussions for the user.

Neither does a fine/tax on not wearing your seat belt. The collection might be less streamlined, sure... but there are no further consequences.

You do get a point over here if you don't properly secure your kids in your car though, and rightly so.

Again the difference is with personal choice vs product safety. A vehicle with no seatbelts is inherently unsafe to the user

Driving without a seat belt even if one is fitted is inherently unsafe to the user as well. You want one to be okay on principle (individual responsibility, choice, freedom, whatever), but don't want the other despite the same principle applying :?

 

[prizrak]

The power strip only has them so it doesn't trip the circuit breaker.

Actually it's for surge protection but the point is the same, your house has multiple circuit breakers for same reason of safety to user, but you can still replace it with a piece of metal if you want to meet Chuck Darwin.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither does a fine/tax on not wearing your seat belt. The collection might be less streamlined, sure... but there are no further consequences.

I'm too lazy to check all states but anything that's a law can theoretically be made to carry points or increase your premiums. Not to mention the time penalty and possibility of a cop using it as an excuse to make your life quite unhappy. A consumption tax causes nothing but a price increase on a good/service.

Driving without a seat belt even if one is fitted is inherently unsafe to the user as well. You want one to be okay on principle (individual responsibility, choice, freedom, whatever), but don't want the other despite the same principle applying :?

Do you honestly not see a difference between design and usage? A knife without a handle (as in all blade) is inherently unsafe to the user, one with a handle has an appropriate safety device (handle) but can still be picked up by the blade. Regulation makes sure the device is safe to use, user decides whether they want to use said device in a safe manner. Hell lets make everything optional then, headlights? Nope not everyone uses them! Indicators? Can safely be removed from all BMWs! Etc...

EDIT: There is also the fact that regulating what goes into cars is regulation of a business (car makers), seat belt laws are regulation of behavior. The former should have a much lower standard of infringement vs reward, after all if you don't like regulations on your business you get out of business, if you don't like regulations on your person you don't have much of a choice.

 

[narf]

Do you honestly not see a difference between design and usage?

Sure, I'm only arguing on the principle of personal responsibility - "the man can't tell me what to do!".
If you're free to choose whether to use a seat belt, you're also free to buy a car without a seat belt or remove the existing seat belt from your car.

As for regulation of business vs regulation of behaviour, you're not free to build a car without seat belts (no business involved), and you're not free to buy a new car without seat belts (behaviour regulation), and you're not free to remove the seat belt from your car (behaviour regulation) - in all cases, append "and then use it on the road without threat of penalties".
You're fine with all those limits on personal responsibility, but can't accept the tiny infringement of personal responsibility that asks you to put on your seat belt :?

As for knifes without handles, you literally can buy something that is "all blade" without a handle.

 

[prizrak]

Sure, I'm only arguing on the principle of personal responsibility - "the man can't tell me what to do!".
If you're free to choose whether to use a seat belt, you're also free to buy a car without a seat belt or remove the existing seat belt from your car.

As for regulation of business vs regulation of behaviour, you're not free to build a car without seat belts (no business involved), and you're not free to buy a new car without seat belts (behaviour regulation), and you're not free to remove the seat belt from your car (behaviour regulation) - in all cases, append "and then use it on the road without threat of penalties".

Actually when it comes to a car *I* as an individual build the rules differ quite a bit, for example I don't have to crash test it. I can't seem to find any specifics on whether you are required to install seatbelts in a kit/self built car or that it is illegal to remove the seat belts but as it is illegal to drive without them in any car built after a specific date (which escapes me at the moment) it's a moot point. Mind you all of this only applies to vehicles operated upon public roadways, I can drive around in anything I want on private property.

You're fine with all those limits on personal responsibility, but can't accept the tiny infringement of personal responsibility that asks you to put on your seat belt :?

Who says I am? I very specifically am OK with regulating a business that creates products to make sure that the products are safe to operate (within reason). I am not OK with laws telling me I can't modify my cars a certain way. If the infringement is so tiny then why does it need to be there at all?

As for knifes without handles, you literally can buy something that is "all blade" without a handle.

That's a razor, not a knife and is not meant to be used without a holder. That's like saying that brake pads don't need calipers because you can buy brake pads...

 

[narf]

If the infringement is so tiny then why does it need to be there at all?

The infringement is tiny, the benefit is yuuuge.

 

[prizrak]

The infringement is tiny, the benefit is yuuuge.

Death by a thousand cuts my friend