What's Scarier? [Archive] - The Hypertribe

Wise Womcat

02-09-2001, 04:50 PM

If any of you have ever lived (heh...) then you have undoubtedly heard some elder make a comment to this effect: "Damn teenage kids running up and down the road gonna kill somebody." And sure, there have been a few younger people that if I ever saw again I would probably tie a rope from my bumber to their neck and drive slowly through a spanish neighborhood while all the little kids throw rocks at them (hey, that's what spanish kids do in the movies).

But, the more I drive and notice the drivers around me, the more and more I fear the older ones. I find that I will often times pull to the side of the road and wait for 2 minutes if I EVER encounter a female driver, of age greater than 80, with both hands on the wheel. Number one, they can't see. Number two, they don't check their blind spots when changing lanes. Number three, they always have the bigger car. And number four, in the event they have a passenger, it is not uncommon for them to forget which is driving and who is talking.

That is why I feel the government should pass a law that would make it illegal for anyone over the age of...oh...say 70, drive. Or, better yet, make all seniors over the age of 60 pass a driving test every 2 years. This test wouldn't be like the normal tests given to young adults...rather...they would get points taken off for driving any less than 4 miles/hour under the speed limit. And if the laws and driving tests can't get these old people off of the streets, maybe we should start public service announcements like the tobacco and beer companies do. Ya know, like "Friends don't let gramps drive...period."

We have got to do something!

------------------
You're entitled to your own opinion....even though it's WRONG!

Bishop

02-09-2001, 05:37 PM

I think the tests should be every year after retirement.

Dog Breath

02-09-2001, 06:00 PM

I think the DMV should be disbanded. Drivers licenses are big government. There are enough laws to cover driving offences. You should drive at your own risk. If you cause an accident due to your carelessness or incompetence you should be put in jail. That would be up to a jury to decide if you acted wrongly. Driving should be taught to children by their parents and minors shouldn't drive without written permission from their parent. There is nothing wrong with sending a 70 year old to jail. Voluntary impairment like drunk driving should carry a heavier sentence if it is a factor in an accident but driving while drinking as long as it doesn't interfere with other drivers should be legal.
And no I don't do that, I wore a helmet on my motorcycle and seatbelts before it was required. If you don't want to be safe no one has the right to force you to protect yourself.

------------------
Woof.
If it's so sick, why are you laughing?
*insert ugly picture*

Lightbulb

02-09-2001, 06:07 PM

The greatest safety measure that anyone could build into all cars would be a big, sharp metal spike sticking out of the centre of the steering wheel.

This would promote smooth, courteous driving from all road users.

Mudflap

02-09-2001, 06:52 PM

Legislation against American seniors? It will never happen. Seniors band together politically and vote only for politicians that will work for them. They are a very powerful demographic because they are organized and they ALL exercise their right to vote. Younger generations should aspire to be more like America's seniors. No, I'm not talking about drinking more prune juice. I'm talking about being aware and involved in affairs of this nation. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
If you build it, they will come.

Mr. Snrub

02-10-2001, 02:42 AM

I think the problem is the gov't is so obsessed with the problem of speeding and the revenue associated with speeding tickets that they don't realize the true dangers on the road: people who drive SLOW. People who drive 10kph below the limit are much more dangerous than those who drive 10kph above it, for the simple reason that the slow drivers frustrate everyone else and cause them to take risks. But, of course, it's a lot easier to pick someone up for speeding than for driving slow: and it's not like this is a public safety issue, now is it? No need to jeopardize the huge revenue from fines by actually taking an intelligent view on road safety.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://empathy-online.com/images/ezlg.jpg" border=0>

morgana

02-10-2001, 03:30 AM

hrm. i too believe that there should be stricter driving tests on senior citizens. as you age, your reactions slow, your eyes and hearing weaken, and your attention span slackens.

but mudflap has the right of it- those senior citizens are also the people that control our country. so i don't think that legislation for this measure is being passed anytime soon.

as far as the other posts in this thread go:

dog breath: "I think the DMV should be disbanded. Drivers licenses are big government. There are enough laws to cover driving offences. You should drive at your own risk. "

the only problem with that is: you're not driving at YOUR own risk, you're driving at MY own risk. i feel that i drive quite well, and am not worried about my actions on the road. what i fear is everyone else making stupid mistakes that i may have to pay for. i support the idea of having a test to determine whether you're safe enough to operate a machine that has the potential to kill.

dog breath: "Voluntary impairment like drunk driving should carry a heavier sentence if it is a factor in an accident but driving while drinking as long as it doesn't interfere with other drivers should be legal."

statistics have shown again and again that alcohol heavily impairs your judgement, reaction time, and vision. all of these factors contribute to the higher probability of an accident while drinking. again, it comes down to YOU taking a risk with ME.

mr. snrub: " People who drive 10kph below the limit are much more dangerous than those who drive 10kph above it, for the simple reason that the slow drivers frustrate everyone else and cause them to take risks. "

how is it that the slower driver is more dangerous? less speed= more reaction time in the event of a crisis. as far as the slower speed "causing people to take risks", how is that the fault of the other driver? you CHOOSE to take the risk yourself, therefore, you're responsible for whatever happens. the speed limit isn't the speed you should start at, it's the speed you should stop at. you're supposed to drive under the speed limit.

my suggestion is: leave ten minutes earlier every day, and you won't have a reason to fly down the road.



------------------
adapt, or be eaten by the beast...

Horgasm

02-10-2001, 03:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by morgana:


mr. snrub: " People who drive 10kph below the limit are much more dangerous than those who drive 10kph above it, for the simple reason that the slow drivers frustrate everyone else and cause them to take risks. "

how is it that the slower driver is more dangerous? less speed= more reaction time in the event of a crisis. as far as the slower speed "causing people to take risks", how is that the fault of the other driver? you CHOOSE to take the risk yourself, therefore, you're responsible for whatever happens. the speed limit isn't the speed you should start at, it's the speed you should stop at. you're supposed to drive under the speed limit.

my suggestion is: leave ten minutes earlier every day, and you won't have a reason to fly down the road.



[/quote]

In a perfect world We all would leave ten minutes early BUT this is reality and MOST people leave at the last possibile moment.

THe slower speeds may not hold that driver at fault, however it may cause a condition we all know as ROAD RAGE. I don't know about you but I have the patience of a spider monkey in heat. If I'm stuck behind "Grandma" or anyone cruisin at 30mph in a 50mph zone I start to turn red! Unfortunately so do other people. Anger brings with it rash and impulsive decisions which, most of the time, are the wrong ones. I'm not justifying running someone off the road just because they're driving like a sloth in the left lane (?? ?). However if elderly people are INABLE to drive I feel they should not be.. .

------------------
About time to DRINK SOME
BURKINA FASO.. . <IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/hulk_horgan/smile24.gif" border=0>

Horgasm

02-10-2001, 04:10 AM

I've had the urge, the reason, and even the whiffle-ball bat. Unfortunately common sense & morals overcame the best of me.

DAMN YOU COMMON SENSE & MORALS!! !

------------------
About time to DRINK SOME
BURKINA FASO.. . <IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/hulk_horgan/smile24.gif" border=0>

FallenAngel

02-10-2001, 04:17 AM

*remembers to be very very very nice to RW*

EDIT: *..and stay away from him while driving*
------------------
And one time at band camp...

<IMG SRC="http://www.cox-internet.com/jennifer/fallen.jpg" border=0>

[This message has been edited by FallenAngel (edited 02-09-2001).]

Mr. Snrub

02-10-2001, 07:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by morgana:


mr. snrub: " People who drive 10kph below the limit are much more dangerous than those who drive 10kph above it, for the simple reason that the slow drivers frustrate everyone else and cause them to take risks. "

how is it that the slower driver is more dangerous? less speed= more reaction time in the event of a crisis. as far as the slower speed "causing people to take risks", how is that the fault of the other driver? you CHOOSE to take the risk yourself, therefore, you're responsible for whatever happens. the speed limit isn't the speed you should start at, it's the speed you should stop at. you're supposed to drive under the speed limit.

my suggestion is: leave ten minutes earlier every day, and you won't have a reason to fly down the road.



[/quote]

The simple fact is people don't see a speed limit as a limit, but as the speed you are supposed to drive at. People tend to want to travel as fast as they can. Life isn't as laid back as you seem to think it is. A lot of us work to a pretty tight schedule, and we sometimes have to get somewhere in a specified time. So if some myopic old woman is pootling along at 40 preventing a whole heap of people behind her from getting to where they need to go on time, nerves tend to get frayed. Because people tend to get fucking annoyed when their lives are screwed up due to someone else's incompetence.

If you're standing still, you have the most reaction time of all. But you'd never get where you were going. In any case,injuries caused differ little between 40 and 50kph. Either way, you are fucked. Going slower just tends to increase the possibility of quadraplegia instead of compartively blissfull death. And the braking distance does not change much either.... speed is no match for simply having good brakes.

Lovely suggestion. If there's one trend that's been happening over the last century, it's the increasing amount of spare time people have.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://empathy-online.com/images/ezlg.jpg" border=0>

morgana

02-10-2001, 03:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Snrub:

The simple fact is people don't see a speed limit as a limit, but as the speed you are supposed to drive at. People tend to want to travel as fast as they can. Life isn't as laid back as you seem to think it is. A lot of us work to a pretty tight schedule, and we sometimes have to get somewhere in a specified time.

laid back? i don't mean to sound like i'm blowing my own horn, but i have a high position in my company. i work 45-70 hours a week, and have to fly out of state up to 15 times a year for them. i do understand the need to be at a certain place at a certain time. that's why i leave with extra time to spare, in case of traffic problems. it's called planning ahead.

and just because everyone feels like stretching the speed limit law to fit their needs does not make the few who decide to follow it to the letter wrong.



So if some myopic old woman is pootling along at 40 preventing a whole heap of people behind her from getting to where they need to go on time, nerves tend to get frayed. Because people tend to get fucking annoyed when their lives are screwed up due to someone else's incompetence.

again, i totally agree that senior citizens are dangerous due to their lesser skills. but see my above post for their speed.

If you're standing still, you have the most reaction time of all. But you'd never get where you were going. In any case,injuries caused differ little between 40 and 50kph. Either way, you are fucked. Going slower just tends to increase the possibility of quadraplegia instead of compartively blissfull death. And the braking distance does not change much either.... speed is no match for simply having good brakes.

uh...i beg to differ. there's a huge difference in ten miles. depending on how fast you're going, ten miles can give you one to three extra seconds of reaction time. that doesn't seem like much? try driving down the road at 50 miles an hour and count down three seconds. how far did you move? twenty feet? thirty? speed DOES matter when it comes to reaction time.

Lovely suggestion. If there's one trend that's been happening over the last century, it's the increasing amount of spare time people have.

[/quote]

 oh, did i fail to mention i'm also a full time mother? i'm not trying to start a debate over who has the fuller lifestyle. i'm just trying to point out to you that there are people who have a very busy schedule that still manage to get where they're going on time everyday. when i go to work, i have to drive to the babysitter's, drop off the little one, turn around and drive for 30 minutes to get to my job. in the three years i've worked there, i've been late five times. three of those times were because i was stupid and slept in, not becuase i had problems in traffic.

arrange your personal driving schedule to meet your time requirements. plan ahead for traffic problems. "road rage" is no one's problem but yours. take responsibility for your actions.

------------------
adapt, or be eaten by the beast...

Princess_Chelle

02-10-2001, 03:50 PM

i got in a wreck last week with an old man.
he was shaking allot and seemed so confused. i felt sorry for him. it was his fault, and he got the ticket. i think he shouldnt be driving anymore, and when i called his insurance company i told them that. i dont know if it did any good, but the wreck could have been so much worse!
he did a u turn in the middle of the street, and rammed right into me. and continued to turn into me long after he hit me. he was either retarded, or very very senile.

------------------
pull my finger

Mr. Snrub

02-11-2001, 03:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by morgana:
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Snrub:
[B]
laid back? i don't mean to sound like i'm blowing my own horn, but i have a high position in my company. i work 45-70 hours a week, and have to fly out of state up to 15 times a year for them. i do understand the need to be at a certain place at a certain time. that's why i leave with extra time to spare, in case of traffic problems. it's called planning ahead.

and just because everyone feels like stretching the speed limit law to fit their needs does not make the few who decide to follow it to the letter wrong.



The question is, do you ENJOY having to leave 10 minutes earlier? Would you not rather spend the time doing something more productive? Would you rather spend 20 mins driving to work every day or 40? The issue at hand is that YOUR time is being wasted because of the incompetence of others. This is unfair.

And if everyone disobeys a law, does that make it wrong? Quite possibly.

uh...i beg to differ. there's a huge difference in ten miles. depending on how fast you're going, ten miles can give you one to three extra seconds of reaction time. that doesn't seem like much? try driving down the road at 50 miles an hour and count down three seconds. how far did you move? twenty feet? thirty? speed DOES matter when it comes to reaction time.

I'm talking KPH, american swine. In any case, slowing traffic is not the best method for reducing accidents... better roads are. For example, there was a section of Australia's hume highway which was one lane each way road twisting its way along a variety of cliff faces - this was widely known as a "black spot", in which over 50 people lost their lives over the past decade. However, 2 years ago the government built a bypass to this section, creating 3 lane dual carriageway - the speed limit is the same, but no-one has died in the 3 years since it opened. The simple fact is reducing speed is no match for simply creating a less dangerous environment. It is much more effective to build a pedestrian overpass than it is to reduce the speed limit in the area. Pedestrians are at risk when they are on the road no matter the speed limit, but they are perfectly safe when they are kept OFF the roads.

 oh, did i fail to mention i'm also a full time mother? i'm not trying to start a debate over who has the fuller lifestyle. i'm just trying to point out to you that there are people who have a very busy schedule that still manage to get where they're going on time everyday. when i go to work, i have to drive to the babysitter's, drop off the little one, turn around and drive for 30 minutes to get to my job. in the three years i've worked there, i've been late five times. three of those times were because i was stupid and slept in, not becuase i had problems in traffic.

arrange your personal driving schedule to meet your time requirements. plan ahead for traffic problems. "road rage" is no one's problem but yours. take responsibility for your actions.

Well, huzzah. That's what doesn't compute... you talk about how you are working yourself to death, yet you seem quite happy to sacrifice time you wouldn't really need to if it wasn't for the incompetence of others... of course you have never been late for work due to traffic, because you have preemptively surrendered by leaving early. What's at issue is not WHETHER you can get where you need to go on time, it's how much of your leisure time is being chewed up by others driving slowly.
I do take responsibility for my actions and i never get angry on the road. I just don't like having to take responsibility for the actions of others.

[/quote]

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://empathy-online.com/images/ezlg.jpg" border=0>

morgana

02-11-2001, 05:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Snrub:
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by morgana:
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Snrub:
[B] The question is, do you ENJOY having to leave 10 minutes earlier? Would you not rather spend the time doing something more productive?

one could also say "would you not rather not have to fight traffic at all to get to work? would you not rather quit and stay home?" 

Would you rather spend 20 mins driving to work every day or 40? The issue at hand is that YOUR time is being wasted because of the incompetence of others. This is unfair.

and you are stating that because someone follows the law, they're incompetent. i think that's a bit of a stretch.

And if everyone disobeys a law, does that make it wrong? Quite possibly.

sure. but until it's amended, it's still the law. breaking the law to suit YOUR lifestyle does not make you right.

I'm talking KPH, american swine.

first off, let me commend your fine debating skills. you're getting stupid with me because YOU declined to mention what measurements you used? how ignorant of you.

In any case, slowing traffic is not the best method for reducing accidents... better roads are.

and that may be a very good point. however, it doesn't change this debate. 

For example, there was a section of Australia's hume highway which was one lane each way road twisting its way along a variety of cliff faces - this was widely known as a "black spot", in which over 50 people lost their lives over the past decade. However, 2 years ago the government built a bypass to this section, creating 3 lane dual carriageway - the speed limit is the same, but no-one has died in the 3 years since it opened.

that's great that your country actually cared enough to take action.

The simple fact is reducing speed is no match for simply creating a less dangerous environment.

while your above statement has merit, the simple fact is what i already posted: increased reaction time can reduce accidents. how do you increase your reaction time? drive slower.


It is much more effective to build a pedestrian overpass than it is to reduce the speed limit in the area. Pedestrians are at risk when they are on the road no matter the speed limit, but they are perfectly safe when they are kept OFF the roads.

true. but that doesn't solve the accidents involving CARS.

Well, huzzah. That's what doesn't compute... you talk about how you are working yourself to death, yet you seem quite happy to sacrifice time you wouldn't really need to if it wasn't for the incompetence of others...

again, you relate speed to incompetence. i drive the speed limit; does that mean i'm incompetent?

of course you have never been late for work due to traffic, because you have preemptively surrendered by leaving early. What's at issue is not WHETHER you can get where you need to go on time, it's how much of your leisure time is being chewed up by others driving slowly.

i think i'll sum this one up at the end.

I do take responsibility for my actions and i never get angry on the road. I just don't like having to take responsibility for the actions of others.

[/quote]

i'm sorry, but your arguments border on the ludicrous. you take this so personally. how DARE other drivers take their time! what are they thinking, actually doing the speed limit! don't they realize that YOU have to do something? you have to realize that you're a part of that problem too. if you speed, and cut around people who are driving slowly, you're probably cutting off other drivers, making them just as frustrated as you get with the slower ones.

it sound to me like you enjoy leaving for work late, and expect people to just stay the hell out of your way. sorry, but it's their right to use the road as well. leave earlier. losing ten minutes won't kill you. in fact, arriving to work a minute or so early will probably cut your stress level. you'll have time to grab some coffee, talk to a few people, and get settled in before having to actually start working. 

[/quote]

------------------
adapt, or be eaten by the beast...

3MTA3

02-11-2001, 07:08 AM

Morgana is either the voice of reason incarnate or damn good at playing devils advocate...either way, Im taking her side on this one...as she has so eloquently defended the "govt. line" on this issue, I wont reiterate her argument for her, Ill just add that most laws are made by sane people with a pretty firm grip on the matter and overall, they tend to do a good job with issues of public safety...govt. by committee and all that...and no, I dont include gun laws in the above statement...

------------------
[insert lame quote/comment here]

Mr. Snrub

02-11-2001, 09:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by morgana:

one could also say "would you not rather not have to fight traffic at all to get to work? would you not rather quit and stay home?" 

One could also say "My hovercraft is full of eels." What is your point? That you should either accept maximum inconvenience or give up entirely? That reducing inconvenience is not to be considered?

and you are stating that because someone follows the law, they're incompetent. i think that's a bit of a stretch.

What, so all law-abiding citizens are by definition competent? I think THAT'S a bit of a stretch.

sure. but until it's amended, it's still the law. breaking the law to suit YOUR lifestyle does not make you right.

The fact that the law is the law does not make it right either.

first off, let me commend your fine debating skills. you're getting stupid with me because YOU declined to mention what measurements you used? how ignorant of you.

Thank you, your appreciation is noted and welcomed. In fact, if you look back, i did use "kph" as my measure a couple of times. And even if i hadn't, it wouldn't have been ignorance, it would have been incompetence. In any case, I use "American Swine" because that's what i do. Nothing personal. Even if you do come across as a bit of a bitch. No offence, but you do.

and that may be a very good point. however, it doesn't change this debate. 

Errr.... so what IS the debate exactly? I thought we were discussing road safety and speeding laws....

that's great that your country actually cared enough to take action.

Huzzah!

while your above statement has merit, the simple fact is what i already posted: increased reaction time can reduce accidents. how do you increase your reaction time? drive slower.


The question is: is the increase in safety worth the inconvenience? It is safest to just stay at home... but then nobody would get anywhere. is the government leaning too much on the side of caution, of course being utterly uninfluenced by the huge revenues it gains from speeding fines? (Half a billion dollars a year in my state)

true. but that doesn't solve the accidents involving CARS.

No, dual carriageways, wider and better constructed roads as well as better-trained and more competent drivers reduce accidents involving cars. Much more than speed limits do. See my earlier example regarding a black spot on one of Australia's highways.

again, you relate speed to incompetence. i drive the speed limit; does that mean i'm incompetent?

No.

i'm sorry, but your arguments border on the ludicrous. you take this so personally. how DARE other drivers take their time! what are they thinking, actually doing the speed limit! don't they realize that YOU have to do something? you have to realize that you're a part of that problem too. if you speed, and cut around people who are driving slowly, you're probably cutting off other drivers, making them just as frustrated as you get with the slower ones.

it sound to me like you enjoy leaving for work late, and expect people to just stay the hell out of your way. sorry, but it's their right to use the road as well. leave earlier. losing ten minutes won't kill you. in fact, arriving to work a minute or so early will probably cut your stress level. you'll have time to grab some coffee, talk to a few people, and get settled in before having to actually start working. 

Sorry girly, you seem to have become lost somewhere along the way. My argument was that those who drive BELOW the limit are more of a menace than those who drive above. I drive at the speed limit, with a few exceptions.

I don't drive to work. No, the incompetence of the rail authority is what causes me to leave for work half an hour early. Do i appreciate this? Do i believe it is CityRail's god-given right to behave as it wants and to hell with everyone else? No. Maybe it's just me.

I don't cut people off while overtaking, btw. Generally speaking, i don't cut people off, unless they're being pushy, in which case i make cutting them off a matter of honor.

[/B][/quote]

[/B][/quote]

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://empathy-online.com/images/ezlg.jpg" border=0>

Mr. Snrub

02-11-2001, 09:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by 3MTA3:
and no, I dont include gun laws in the above statement...

[/quote]

Explain to me why curbing the freedoms of firearms owners is so different to curbing the freedoms of motorists, would you?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://empathy-online.com/images/ezlg.jpg" border=0>

SisterTaffy

02-11-2001, 12:54 PM

Old people need to stay off of the roads and in their nursing homes. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING worse than seeing some old man at a traffic light picking his nose.

After 70 they need to be put down or locked away.

And I say this with a Christian Spirit.

Sister Taffy

------------------
The Foremost Authority On All Things Biblical (http://www.sistertaffy.com) .

3MTA3

02-12-2001, 04:31 AM

I mean the polotics of gun legislation and speed limit designation are worlds apart...both may fall under the broad umbrella of "public safety" but one is driven by hidden aganeda while the other is motivated by a true concern for the well being of the public in transit...and yes, the exception to this is speed traps...

------------------
[insert lame quote/comment here]

Koliedrus

02-12-2001, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Bishop:
I think the tests should be every year after retirement.[/quote]

Yup.

Mudflap

02-12-2001, 01:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Bishop:
I think the tests should be every year after retirement.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Koliedrus:

Yup.

[/quote]

What about the geezers that continue to work well into old age? Barbers are the best example I can think of.

What about the lucky stiffs that retire early? I wish I could retire at 35.

Food for thought.

------------------
Don't fuck with me.
<IMG SRC="http://cnas.ucr.edu/~bio/faculty/warthog.GIF" border=0>