Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:36 AM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Hitler in the 21st century
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 76 of 136 (414184)
08-03-2007 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Legend
07-31-2007 5:51 PM


The Masses need controlling
The first reaction of the so-called community is to ask for speed bumps and lower limits to be installed.

I've glanced over a bunch of your posts and I think I know where you are making your mistake.

You seem to think that responsible people are driving the cars.

This is ABSOLUTELY not the case.

I live on an unlit street with no speed bumps which T's at the end onto another street. My street is not a short cut. There's very little reason to drive down it.

However, every other night there's some dumbass teenager/twenty something gunning his engine down the road.

THAT's what speedbumps are meant to prevent. The dickheads who couldn't give a shit about endangering others.

Same thing with speed limits - the airhead on her cellphone who's digging through her purse while cruising at 30mph is going to do less damage to the rear end of my pickup when she slams into it than she would at 60mph.

Most of humanity is unfit to look at a car, let alone operate one. However, here in the US we're at virtually 1:1 for ownership.

Any stop gap measures are more than welcome


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Legend, posted 07-31-2007 5:51 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Legend, posted 08-05-2007 3:26 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 77 of 136 (414286)
08-03-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Jaderis
08-02-2007 6:36 AM


what we're fighting for
Jaderis writes:

While I agree that having police is better than having cameras, I don't see how watching your speed in the presence
of a police car is any different than having cameras in the matter of watching speedometers. Unless you are implying that it is OK to speed just a little bit without cameras because the police rarely stop someone going 5 miles over the limit.

I'm implying that in most cases going 5 mph over the speed limit is absolutely fine coz it's absolutely safe. A lot of police officers realise that and are willing to forgive such indiscretions. Traffic cameras cannot make such judgements. If I have a police car behind me who I know are out to get their daily quota instead of looking out for signs of dangerous driving, then yes I will be watching my speedometer as much as I would in the presence of traffic cameras. Luckily not all our police has been zombified yet.

Jaderis writes:

The speed limit is the LIMIT. Not a suggestion, but a maximum. Your speed should ideally be a little bit below that
in order to compensate for minor fluctuations in accelerator pressure.


And as long as the speed limit is set to reflect the conditions of the road instead of some politically-correct notion of how fast I should be moving then I'm very happy with that statement.

Jaderis writes:

Important questions would be: How large is the area affected? How do the benefits weigh against the negatives? Are
there good alternatives to driving during the 6 hours when the ban is in effect? Just curious.


In this specific instance I don't know and frankly I don't care. The point here is that they decided to ban cars to get rid of traffic jams! How long before they decide to ban money in order to get rid of inflation?!

As with all crusades / jihads I'd be very surprised if any critical thinking and objective analysis had taken place before they decided to take such measures.

quote:
quote:
make all cars have speed regulators to the max speed limit ,

Legend writes:

again, that's already been considered by government-sponsored commitees.

Jaderis writes:

Why not? That wouldn't affect the areas with 30mph limits because the max speed would be determined by highway limits, no?



The practicalities of it are irrelevant. The fact that such a totalitarian measure is even being considered should be ringing alarm bells in persons who still think they live in a free country!!

Legend writes:

Instead I'm automatically receiving the blame just because I happen to drive a car.

Jaderis writes:

Not necessarily true. If it was really an accident (i.e . you weren't speeding, weren't drunk, weren't talking on the phone, weren't fishing out that CD that dropped between the seats, weren't eating, weren't applying mascara or reading while driving, etc) then it may go in your favor. If you were doing any of those things you should own up to it (most people do not, though).

Modulous has already addressed that. In this country, as long as you drive a car you're always guilty. It's up to the police's discretion to choose not to bring a case against you. That still won't stop any civil action suits coming your way from the parents of that 12 yr old kid, high on glue and cheap cider who ran out in front of your car.

Jaderis writes:

Yes, but the one driving a car has a 2 ton weapon in their control.
.....The person driving the car does have more responsibility because they are the ones driving what amounts to a weapon.

Now, here's a double-edged statement that's widely used by the self-righteous lobby. As long as it means what it says I have no serious problem with it apart from the fact that I think we all (should) have the same responsibility for our actions, regardless of whteher we're wielding a rolling pin or an M16.

However, I often find that people who say this really mean: "The person driving the car does have less rights because they are the ones driving what amounts to a weapon".

I could kill someone by accidentally throwing my 15 pound dumbell weights out of the window. When I train it's my responsibility to ensure the weights are screwed on tightly. I'm using what amounts to a small weapon. Does this mean that I shouldn't be allowed to move my arms over a certain speed, just in case ? Should I be restricted to only train in the cellar where no windows are present?

Am I responsible to ensure my dumbells don't kill someone? Sure I am.
Should I be held accountable if they do? Certainly.
Should my right to use dumbells as I see fit be taken away or severely restricted because of the potential to cause an accident? Absolutely, positively, not!

Jaderis writes:

Driving is not a fundamental right and it comes with many responsibilities.


And I never disputed that.

Legend writes:

After all, it was late at night on a clear, wide road and I was posing no risk to anyone.

Jaderis writes:

Right, except for that car that comes out of nowhere or that stray person that misjudges the distance and tries to dart across the road or that big ass deer that runs into the road or that stranded driver that opens the car door at just the wrong time or any one of several unanticipated accidents waiting to happen all.

Like I said I was posing no risk to anyone. Other road users certainly posed a risk to me.

Jaderis writes:

Why the need to go 7-9mph over the limit? Is that extra 5-10 minutes worth it? I'm not saying that there are things that are not out of your control, but what's the hurry?


There is no hurry, just my right to move from A to B -in a safe, responsible manner- without being watched, impeded or otherwise harassed.

I've been working at the same place for the last 6 years now. When I first started it used to take me 30 mins (on average) to drive there and another 30 mins to drive back. Now, due to the various 'traffic calming' measures in my area and my work's area it takes me 43 mins (on average) each way. That's 26 mins extra every working day. That's 2hrs 10mins every working week. In a 44-working-week year, that's approx 96hrs, i.e. 4 days. So, I spend 4 extra days every year in my car. As much as I like my car I'd rather spend this time with my family and friends.

I have another 26 years until I can retire. Assuming that 'traffic-calming' measures don't get worse (as if..), in my lifetime I'd be spending an extra 104 days in my car. That's 3 1/2 months. And I'm not even taking into account non work-related driving.

Let's think about this for a minute: I'm going to have to spend at least an extra 3 1/2 months of my life, trapped in a little metal cage, because of my theoretical potential to cause an accident. Someone is taking time out of my life, just in case I run someone over, regardless of whose fault that might be.

I hope that makes things clearer.


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Jaderis, posted 08-02-2007 6:36 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by mick, posted 08-03-2007 7:17 PM Legend has responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3151 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 78 of 136 (414313)
08-03-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Legend
08-03-2007 6:16 PM


it's political correctness gone mad!!!
It's political correctness gone mad!!! you aren't even allowed to drive at high speed through small villages, killing kids any more! Do we need another Hitler before we realise that driving through small villages killing kids is a fundamental human right? It's political correctness gone mad, I say! Hitler!!! Hitler!!!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Legend, posted 08-03-2007 6:16 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Omnivorous, posted 08-03-2007 8:27 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Legend, posted 08-05-2007 3:46 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1132 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 79 of 136 (414330)
08-03-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by mick
08-03-2007 7:17 PM


Re: it's political correctness gone mad!!!
In the old days, the peasants were pleased to throw their children under the hooves of our steeds for our pleasure.

Ubi sunt such peasants, my friend, ubi sunt?


Real things always push back.
-William James

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by mick, posted 08-03-2007 7:17 PM mick has not yet responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 80 of 136 (414558)
08-04-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Jaderis
08-02-2007 11:14 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
Jaderis writes:

Well, I wasn't comparing 2005 to 1965. Where in "lowest in 40 years" do you get that I was directly comparing just two years? That phrase also suggests that it was lower than last year and the year before that and so on.

Ok, maybe I phrased that badly. I was alluding to the fact that you/the stats office were presenting this as the lowest figures since 1965, which is technically correct but misleading wrt to this topic as the measures we're talking about only were introduced and proliferated in the last ten years or so, so this is the interval we should be focusing on.

Jaderis writes:

I would attribute the plateau effect to a variety of safety measures (including those installed in cars which you elaborated on) which helped the steady decline over the last 40 years. I don't have any correlating data for each year, but I would hazard a guess that everytime a major innovation in car or traffic safety came out that the rates declined. These would include: school crossing signs, more traffic lights, guardrails/hazard strips, speed bumps/strips, lower speed limits on highways, in residential areas and in school zones, crosswalks and crossing lights, more public transport, drunk driving laws, seatbelt laws etc.

Following on from your reasoning, as there has been a major application of 'traffic-safety' measures in the last decade we'd
expect to see a further sharp drop in the casualty rates. However, we don't see such a thing. The rate is flat-lining instead. These measures just don't produce the desired result.

We have solid, indisputable evidence that car-safety features like ABS, airbags, etc. do reduce the number of casualties. Therefore, we can safely attribute some of the decline in casualty rate to these features. We have nowhere near the quality and quantity of similar evidence for measures like speed bumps, cameras, etc. As you can see from the table below( taken from the Safe Speed site and quoting from there),

quote:
if speed cameras worked and "some other factor" caused the loss of trend it would have to be absolutely enormous to account for the difference between the blue line (possible camera benefit) and the red (actual data)
.

Jaderis writes:

Maybe the effect of the other safety measures was offset by the increase in accidents caused by cameras?


I don't think the increase in casualties caused by cameras is big enough to justify the plateau. The only way to find out would be to completely remove the cameras, Which the government has no intention of doing.

Jaderis writes:

We've hit a plateau in technology and new laws over the last ten years,..


We certainly haven't hit a plateau in technology and new laws in the UK! In the last ten years speed limits have been decreasing at great rates, speed cameras of increasing effectiveness have multiplied ten-fold, as have speed-bumps and road-narrowing initiatives. There is no corresponding plateau in technology and new laws here to explain away the plateau in casualty-reduction rate!

Jaderis writes:

And why are you not complaining about the gov't forcing these safety standards in new cars?


Because having ABS and four airbags in my car doesn't endanger my livelihood, threaten my freedom of movement or takes time away from my life.

BTW I don't think that the govt forces these standards, I think car manufacturers adopt them because it makes them more competitive.

In any case, I'm not complaining for the reasons outlined above.

Jaderis writes:

I mean, it costs you a lot of money as the consumer


not really, cars are cheaper now than they were 10 yrs ago. Even if that was true, I don't mind paying for something that enhances my chance of surviving an accident.

Jaderis writes:

By the way, I meant to ask you where you were being forced to drive 20mph? Is it a highway? A rural road? A residential area? I don't think it's likely that you are being forced to drive at 20mph on a deserted stretch of arrow-straight road out in cow country, am I wrong?

Actually yes, you are:
,
Even, in areas where such a limit might be partly justified, e.g. near a school, is there any need to have this limit outside school hours ? Only to make more money and populate the criminal record database.

What most people outside the UK, particularly USA, fail to fully realize is not only the magnitude of the restrictions but also the absurdity of our laws and regulations. The legal definition of a built-up area in this country is not, as you would expect, an area with houses, but an area with street lighting. Our current laws of 30mph in built-up areas means that you must drive at no more than 30 as long as there are street lamps around, even though there may be no houses, people, or any living things in the area. This leads to some of the control madness we see in this country today.


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Jaderis, posted 08-02-2007 11:14 PM Jaderis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ikabod, posted 08-05-2007 3:48 AM Legend has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 81 of 136 (414591)
08-05-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Legend
08-04-2007 7:20 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
We have solid, indisputable evidence that car-safety features like ABS, airbags, etc. do reduce the number of casualties

Because having ABS and four airbags in my car doesn't endanger my livelihood, threaten my freedom of movement or takes time away from my life.

not really, cars are cheaper now than they were 10 yrs ago. Even if that was true, I don't mind paying for something that enhances my chance of surviving an accident.

well nice to see you making your reasoning so clear ..

... as long as you are safe and not slowed down , or it doesnt cost you ......

i mean you dont even say " we car drivers" just you ....

one of the given reasons for the so called plataeu in car deaths is we have put in place all the " easy" measures , better brakes , better handling , safe road lay out , ABS , airbags , seat belts ... and remember most of those " saved " lives have been car drivers and passengers NOT those hit by cars .

secondly that data is distorted by the fact that many cameras are used to control traffic on car only routes A roads evenm motorways .. where they are about stopping car on car events .. NOT car on person events .. Further some cameras are clearly targeted at areas that are know "speeder" hotspots .. they inforce the Law.. but have a lesser saftey role .
So its unreasonable to lump ALL camreas into the "lowering deaths " type.

now it would be unfair to call into question the " correctness" of The Safe Speeds Graph .. But they are clearly a site with a motive .. lets see contact site .. hmm some chap in scotland ...oooh no he's in london for the " Smash Speed Cameras " meeting .. and who is this site aimed at ... lets look at the adverts it carries

... tried to link but wont let me , use Legend post 80 site link to see...

ads for police radar detectors .. are they legal ?
3 ads for lawyers (?) who will help you avoid fines from speed cameras
ad for Rally and stunt driving
ad for Skid driving
ad for defensive driving
ad for advanced driving

sooo it a petrolheads web site .. read some more and its stance is very clear ...so not a unbiased site ...

so now the whole spped policy is wrong .. i guess you want to be able to drive at 45mph on unlite roads ,, well try that for some time and you will not have a car ...

road lighting , not street lighting , where does the light fall on the road .... save lives .. of CAR DRIVER ...
as to 30mph zones

try thinks about the reasons why
its safer to crash at 30 than 40 ...
the road surface maybe poor ,
the road maybe weak and need less loading
the road way suffer from surface flooding due to water running off the fields lining the road
the road maybe used for horses
the road maybe used by farmers
the road may have become a ratrun
the human beings may need protection from road noise .. higher speed more noise
the wildlife may may need protection from road noise .. higher speed more noise
and so forth...

so in the bill of human rights where does it say that you have a right to drive a car at what ever speed you think reasonable ? ? ??

more maybe you really do need to travel fast ... i know as it so important why not give all you drivers with real need for speed blue flashing lights to put on you car roof .....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Legend, posted 08-04-2007 7:20 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Legend, posted 08-05-2007 3:11 PM ikabod has responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 82 of 136 (414597)
08-05-2007 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by ikabod
08-03-2007 4:17 AM


Re: Controlling the masses
ikabod writes:

if you are unable to drive attentivly while maintain control of, and hence knowledge , of you cars speed then i would say you are unfit to drive ... tell me why this is wrong ....

Like I said, it's easier to tell the difference between 35mph and 40 mph than between 18 and 23, without constantly looking at the speedo. Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Next time you walk down the high street try reciting the Fibonacci series (1,1,2,3,5,8,..). At the end of your walk, count how many people/dogs/rubbish bins you collided with. You can only take attention away from your environment at the expense of safety.

ikabod writes:

whats magic about slow speed .. is it just boring going slow ??,


Why, yes it is. The brain doesn't receive enough stimuli to keep it occupied with the task at hand. When you get bored your mind just drifts. How many times, if you do a boring task, your mind starts thinking about your credit card bill, the tv schedule, or anything else but the task you're meant to be doing ? It's hardly rocket science.

ikabod writes:

odd that towns like say Reading that have banned the car from town centre have found a large incresse in the usage of the shops , cafes , cinema , public buildings in that center .. gosh how did all the people travel to and from it ?? why do they say its now a pleasent place to be ??


Who says that? The council, or the small minority of people who live in the town centre? Show me the universal conscent.

ikabod writes:

What is so important that you must be able to drive at 30 mph with no speed bumps ??? is not one life save worth a few minutes of your time ??

I've covered this to death, See Message 55 for a quick summary.

ikabod writes:

if its so important for you to travel from A to B each day why not just sell the car(just work out how much you will save ) and move to B ..???


...? are you trolling now or are you just being naive? I don't get in the car and drive for 1 1/2 hrs each day for fun you know.

ikabod writes:

cars are not a right , cars are not vital


Wrong! The vast majority of people need a car to do their job. No car, no job. Would you really prefer that?

ikabod writes:

..there are other ways and means ..


Wrong! For most of us outside London there aren't any viable alternatives for getting to work (or anywhere else).

ikabod writes:

a car is a privalage and luxuary item .


DO you live in a bubble? A car is a necessity!

ikabod writes:

.look at the cars we buy .. soft seats , nice colours , music systems , air con , adjustable everything .. better thatn many homes ...

so that's what this is all about? Some sort of car envy?! What happened, did your neighbour buy the latest Saab and you can't afford one?


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ikabod, posted 08-03-2007 4:17 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ikabod, posted 08-05-2007 11:47 AM Legend has not yet responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 83 of 136 (414613)
08-05-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Legend
08-05-2007 5:39 AM


Re: Controlling the masses
so are you saying that its too hard to drive at 23mph ... shouldnt we redesign the car , add new training and testing for drivers to solve this problem .... maybe you have discovered the key to the next step in improving saftey ... cars design to go slower , driver trainer to handle cars ...

Why, yes it is. The brain doesn't receive enough stimuli to keep it occupied with the task at hand. When you get bored your mind just drifts. How many times, if you do a boring task, your mind starts thinking about your credit card bill, the tv schedule, or anything else but the task you're meant to be doing ? It's hardly rocket science.

so you feel drive at slow spped is boring ... why not get a nice full colour A4 sized photo foe a 13 year victim of a head on 30 mph impact and stick to you dashboard .. might that keep you mind on task ... or as ive said lets make cars less safe for the driver bet you dont get bored then .... and err how is it boring when you said, at ther top of your post , you conetration is constantly fliping from speedo to road , to speed camera to road sign , so much so your likely to hit something , or is constant activity boring .

i repeat..if you are unable to drive attentivly while maintain control of, and hence knowledge , of you cars speed then i would say you are unfit to drive ...

you would agree unfit due to drink drugs lack of sleep , on the moblie phone , eating lunch , are all valid resaon s ... so id being bored , heck what sort of stimuli do you need to ensure everyones saftey ??

WRT reading no ones claiming universal concent .. get real ..but the town center now functions as a public place , there are more visitors .. come on even you given the choice prefer to shop , eat , walk around withj out the constsant buss of traffic and the Fun of trying to cross a busy road with a days bags of shopping , the air is cleaner , it does not smell of peterol , its now a people place... and isnt that what town centers should be ....???

err confused you ref to you post 55 say about imprison drivers and PC ....
well i asked is not a few minutes worth a life .. no one said imprisoning drivers to clear the roads , just ask them to drive slower .. , and if being PC is trying to save life and lower injury .. well that seems good PC....

and no people make the car a personal necessity ,i want this job , but i want to live in this area( ie non built up , low traffic ) and i want my car , then moan about the traveling .....peopel refuse to compromise .. it s all i want , i have a right to .. and stuff the rest of the world ..... and guess what they are still unhappy ...

oh and by the way neighbour's have a old MG sports thing , low end of range , a golf newish , a shinny new corsa , one has a jap 4x4 ,another a megane , couple of people carriers , ones a picaso i think , and i have , trashy i know , a BMW 520d.. tis only the saloon model and 14 months old now ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Legend, posted 08-05-2007 5:39 AM Legend has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 84 of 136 (414652)
08-05-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ikabod
08-05-2007 3:48 AM


Re: Controlling the masses
ikabod writes:

one of the given reasons for the so called plataeu in car deaths is we have put in place all the " easy" measures , better brakes , better handling , safe road lay out , ABS , airbags , seat belts ...


Like I said in Message 80, we haven't just stopped at that, have we? Speed limits are getting lower, cameras are getting exponentially more numerous, roads keep getting narrower. So where is the expected continuing drop in death rate ??

ikabod writes:

and remember most of those " saved " lives have been car drivers and passengers NOT those hit by cars .


Which only reinforces my point! The holy mantra of the anti-car brigade is that cameras, bumps, etc. save (pedestrian) lives. As you say, they don't! So, what's the point of having them?

ikabod writes:

secondly that data is distorted by the fact that many cameras are used to control traffic on car only routes A roads evenm motorways .. where they are about stopping car on car events .


What? we're not talking about traffic cameras here, we're talking about speed cameras, you know, the ones that flash and then you get a summons in the post. And the vast majority of them are located in towns and villages. So I don't know what you're talking about.

ikabod writes:

Further some cameras are clearly targeted at areas that are know "speeder" hotspots .. they inforce the Law.. but have a lesser saftey role .


You're contradicting yourself now. If they're targeted at areas that are known "speeder" hotspots, aren't they there exactly to make those "speeders" slow down ? So how can you say that they have "a lesser safety role" ?!

ikabod writes:

now it would be unfair to call into question the " correctness" of The Safe Speeds Graph .. But they are clearly a site with a motive ..

Ofcourse they are. To expose the propaganda and lies fed to us by the "speed kills" lobby. What's your point ?

ikabod writes:

sooo it a petrolheads web site .. read some more and its stance is very clear ...so not a unbiased site ...


No it isn't. Neither is the Department of Transport's web site, nor every single "Safety Camera Partnership" web site in the country. Again, what's your point?

The figures they use are The Dft's own! They don't just make them up. If you think they do feel free to expose them.

ikabod writes:

so in the bill of human rights where does it say that you have a right to drive a car at what ever speed you think reasonable ? ? ??


See, it's comments like that one, and others telling me that I can easily move house closer to work and that I don't need a car (and also the fact that you call drivers "petrolheads") that lead me to believe that :

- You're not very old.
- You don't drive to your work.
- Likely, you don't work.
- Also likely, you don't drive.
- You don't have a mortgage.
- You have no dependents.

Now, if most of the above are correct, as I think they are, why don't you wait a few years till you have a job, a mortgage,a partner and two kids/dogs/goldfish, all dependent on you and then come and tell me that you still support banning cars because it makes town centres pretty and peaceful and that you're happy ditching your car for public transport and who needs cars with all their mod-cons anyway.

Until then...


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ikabod, posted 08-05-2007 3:48 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ikabod, posted 08-06-2007 3:34 AM Legend has responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 85 of 136 (414657)
08-05-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Nuggin
08-03-2007 4:31 AM


Re: The Masses need controlling
Nuggin writes:

You seem to think that responsible people are driving the cars.


Yes, I think that most drivers are responsible people, call me naive but that's what I think.

Nuggin writes:

This is ABSOLUTELY not the case.
I live on an unlit street with no speed bumps which T's at the end onto another street. My street is not a short cut. There's very little reason to drive down it.
However, every other night there's some dumbass teenager/twenty something gunning his engine down the road.
THAT's what speedbumps are meant to prevent. The dickheads who couldn't give a shit about endangering others.

But the dickheads are only going to go and do the same thing on some other, speedbump-free road.

Speedbumps aren't solving the problem, they're just tranferring it somewhere else!

If you want to stop the problem why not have police arrest those teenagers and the judicial throw them in jail for a few years?

Nuggin writes:

Same thing with speed limits - the airhead on her cellphone who's digging through her purse while cruising at 30mph is going to do less damage to the rear end of my pickup when she slams into it than she would at 60mph.

The person on their cellphone is just driving without due care and attention, there is no speed limit that will stop them from causing an accident. If anything a ridiculous speed limit will only make you unnecessarily slam your foot on the break pedal (especially if there's a speed camera next to it) and cause the person behind you to bump into you.

Here's a wild idea: why not harshly punish dangerous and reckless drivers and leave the responsible-driving majority get on with their lives ?!


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Nuggin, posted 08-03-2007 4:31 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 08-05-2007 6:17 PM Legend has responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 86 of 136 (414663)
08-05-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by mick
08-03-2007 7:17 PM


prophecy come true.
Legend in post 62 writes:

All that's missing is posters on walls portraying demonic-looking drivers hiding in the shadows, ready to run over your child. But I'm sure that can't be far off now

mick in post 78 writes:

you aren't even allowed to drive at high speed through small villages, killing kids any more! Do we need another Hitler before we realise that driving through small villages killing kids is a fundamental human right?

LOL! This is uncanny! I said I thought it might happen soon, I just didn't expect it that soon!

On with your poster-drawing Mick, there's a good follower.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by mick, posted 08-03-2007 7:17 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 87 of 136 (414684)
08-05-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Legend
08-05-2007 3:26 PM


Re: The Masses need controlling
why not harshly punish dangerous and reckless drivers

Unfortunately, punishment doesnt deter action from people who dont use forethought


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Legend, posted 08-05-2007 3:26 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Legend, posted 08-06-2007 6:29 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 88 of 136 (414765)
08-06-2007 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Legend
08-05-2007 3:11 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
- You're not very old.
- You don't drive to your work.
- Likely, you don't work.
- Also likely, you don't drive.
- You don't have a mortgage.
- You have no dependents.

well if you call mid 40's not very old , i like too ..)..
ya i only work mon to fri,s c.40 hours a week , 31 days holiday
if you had read my last post .. drive to work c. 30 mins per day ..Because i moved to reduce it ..
arr sweet mortgage only another 19 years and we will be forced to part , how time and money flys .......
dependants .. well not counting house plants,but including pets 7.. mind you the goldfish arnt too demanding .....spooky how did you know about them ......

well i guess your car is the center of your exsistance you have compromised and become its slave ....... so well i hiope you find a 40mph route to work , i guess that will make the world a alright place in your mind ..good luck .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Legend, posted 08-05-2007 3:11 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Legend, posted 08-07-2007 4:10 AM ikabod has responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 89 of 136 (414867)
08-06-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Nuggin
08-05-2007 6:17 PM


Re: The Masses need controlling
quote:
Unfortunately, punishment doesnt deter action from people who dont use forethought

If that punishment includes a few years behind bars it will at least ensure that they physically cannot take the same action in the near future.

Why penalize all of us for a few people's stupidity?


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 08-05-2007 6:17 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 90 of 136 (414944)
08-07-2007 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by ikabod
08-06-2007 3:34 AM


Re: Controlling the masses
ikabod writes:

well if you call mid 40's not very old , i like too ..)..
ya i only work mon to fri,s c.40 hours a week , 31 days holiday
if you had read my last post .. drive to work c. 30 mins per day ..Because i moved to reduce it ..
arr sweet mortgage only another 19 years and we will be forced to part , how time and money flys .......
dependants .. well not counting house plants,but including pets 7.

If that's all true then you should consider yourself very, very lucky. The rest of us can't afford to change houses evey time we change our job. We have partners and kids who need us there in the evening with them, not trapped in our cars for hours on end because of some speed-phobic parish councillor. We worry about paying our mortgage and supporting our families and we don't want to be jobless and homeless so that the self-righteous minority can sleep better at night, knowing that they "...might have saved a life".


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ikabod, posted 08-06-2007 3:34 AM ikabod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ikabod, posted 08-07-2007 4:44 AM Legend has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019