EPTDriving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day?
Norwegian Politician wants to restrict driving rights of Y…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CCitrus
Canada164 Posts
Driving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day? | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On November 17 2011 03:47 CCitrus wrote: If this law were passed in Canada I would be fired as I would be unable to do my job. Driving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day? its just a silly suggestion by an idiot politician. ;3 On November 17 2011 02:51 pesshaulol wrote: http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/11/16/nyheter/bil/bil_og_trafikk/trafikksikkerhet/19030625/ for you norwegians that didnt see it Martin Schanke <3. | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
On November 17 2011 03:47 CCitrus wrote: If this law were passed in Canada I would be fired as I would be unable to do my job. Driving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day? It would get even worse. Some of Norway is inside the Artic Circle; it's night all day at certain points in winter. In remote areas, it would be hell. What bugs me is the forbidding of passengers. Where I live we have the option of driving with parent supervision two years prior to getting our licence. How the hell is one supposed to improve correctly if driving alone all the time? We also have a probation period three years after getting our licence where serious offenses can have it taken away more easily. Six years is just brutal. Alcotests and Speed limiters, I'm not so worked up about. My little car can't really do speeding anyway.  | ||
|
Moa
United States790 Posts
This law is ridiculous. Why should good drivers be punished for being the same gender as bad drivers? | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
I'm all for safer roads, but infringing on the rights of a specific demographic based on the speculation that it will reduce collisions is stupid. Alcohol-locks sound good on paper, but most of the time it is up to the owner of the vehicle to get it installed and cover the costs. Unless they start coming stock on vehicles (which I doubt) it's completely unfair to require the entire population (of 18-24 yr old males) to pay for one if there is no inclination they will attempt to drive drunk. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
| ||
|
Rebornlife
Canada224 Posts
On November 16 2011 14:06 discodancer wrote: Anecdotes are nice and all, but most of the time what you think is not very important. Here's some actual evidence: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126 All that study says is that men get in worse accidents and get more tickets.... Basically reinforcing what I said. | ||
|
nath
United States1788 Posts
On November 15 2011 18:56 ZergOwaR wrote: well in this case it is discrimination.. if you target anything (in this case a nation wide law) against a certain segment of the population, its technically discrimination... its also a statistical fact that many of the girls in my class at school when i turned 18 drove like monkeys on speed... and there are not THAT many avarage "asshole kids".... most are avarage kids that actually dont drive like idiots.... they still need experience and training to get properly used to driving (having a license does not mean you're a good driver.. it makes you a driver... time to get good) but they are not idiots... the following has nothing to do with whether or not i agree with your point: -that logic is quite stupid (bolded) -avErage | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
| ||
|
irongar
Germany21 Posts
On November 17 2011 02:19 dementrio wrote: Did you protest when they made safety belts mandatory? That's where it all started going downhill. Car insurance? speed radars? A gigantic loss of freedom! Today they enforce drunk driving laws, tomorrow.... tomorrow... there will be, uh, less drivers around. I guess, uh, that's completely unacceptable. Because after all, if one chooses to drive while drunk, it should be his right to do so. Safety belts are an entirely different topic, to my knowledge there are no cars yet whose engine will not start if you dont weat your seatbelt. But you do realize there already ARE laws against drunk driving? Why does everything have to be controlled? Just increase the penaltys for drunk driving / speeding, so that the majority doesn't have to be cut in their freedom just because a few people are retards. Same reason why cameras on public places, or the likes are bad. I don't know how good you guys are informed about those topics but here in germany organizations like Gestapo and Stasi have shown us that the state should never control its citizens. Besides that any system like a breathalyzer could always be cheated, like EVERY system can be cheated. A number of methods have already been listed in this thread (drinking after starting engine, faking breath, ...). Speaking from my personal expierence: In my circle of friends it has never been a problem to find one guy who isn't going to drink for the evening and can drive for the other. That would be impossible if it's forbidden to drive in the dark or at night. | ||
|
David451
United States491 Posts
| ||
|
Cocacooh
Norway1510 Posts
edit: There should be a law against politicans makeing stupid suggestions, wasting time on suggestions like this is just silly. | ||
|
irongar
Germany21 Posts
On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote: I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source] b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. | ||
|
Mannified
Sweden27 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote: Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source] b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. a hard speed limit makes no sense in my opinion and an "intelligent" system can be abused or just malfunction. just limit driver's with less than i'd say 3-5 years experience in driving to cars with less than 60 PS (81 kwh). examples that come to mind are fiat punto or vw lupo. the acceleration is much slower and the people can learn to drive and on german speedways those cars still make up to 140-160 kmh. they just get there much slower. this would limit the wealthy parents to buy there kids a first car with way too much power. and that's also the reason the government doesn't do it. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8190 Posts
On November 16 2011 20:45 nebffa wrote: My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics. How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data? This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not. Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion: ![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/v75mi1.jpg) These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same. Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE. Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off??? Yet those statistics of yours fails to show why this is. You can't just make up laws based on statistics without doing research into the reason they are like that in the first place. For instance: I know a couple where both the woman and the man has a car. The woman's work place is further away then the man, but its through a city. This way I'm sure by now she's racked up more miles than the guy. However, when they drive long distance, the man always drives. Which scenario is more likely to cause a fatal crash? The long distance or through city driving? This is only one specific case. But nearly every couple I know, the man drives when it comes to long distance driving. Personal experience, I know. But things like this doesn't show up in your statistic. Thus its unusable to make laws from. If we start down this road, before you know it its "religion is now banned because statistically, they're the biggest reason for war". | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
On November 16 2011 20:45 nebffa wrote: My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics. How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data? This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not. Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion: These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same. Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE. Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off??? I could pull up similar stats showing blacks have a higher rate of violent crime than other races. So it should be totally okay to implement a blacks-only curfew, right? I mean, it's based on data! | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote: a hard speed limit makes no sense in my opinion and an "intelligent" system can be abused or just malfunction. just limit driver's with less than i'd say 3-5 years experience in driving to cars with less than 60 PS (81 kwh). examples that come to mind are fiat punto or vw lupo. the acceleration is much slower and the people can learn to drive and on german speedways those cars still make up to 140-160 kmh. they just get there much slower. this would limit the wealthy parents to buy there kids a first car with way too much power. and that's also the reason the government doesn't do it. Now 18-23 males have to drive shitty cars because politicians think its best for them? REALLY? What is wrong with you, people should be allowed to buy whatever car they want and be held highly accountable for their actions. I don't want to blow a fucking machine to test my alcohol level every time I drive, I don't want to drive a shitty car if I can afford a better one, and I don't want a car with a speed cap because emergencies, however rare, DO HAPPEN. I assume norweigans feel the same. Governments are taking our rights inch by inch under the arguments of our "self interest" and the "common good". We should oppose this decisively. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On November 15 2011 18:46 Kickboxer wrote: Women don't drive recklessly. It's a statistical fact. While they do create chaos in traffic by being indecisive and slow, they practically never "race" like your average asshole kid (who most of the time can't even drive) and are also radically less prone to driving drunk. Not sure why everything is considered discrimination these days. Uh it IS discrimination. Even if you consider it justified it's still discrimination, much like INSURANCE is. Yes it's based on statistical fact but it's also a statistical fact that black males commit more crime than white males. Doesn't mean you can search them whenever you want because of that. I never like general regulations. I still play a shit ton for my insurance at the age of twenty four regardless of the fact that I have only had one accident since I started driving, zero tickets, two defensive driving courses, and FOUR PROFESSIONAL driving courses. Even with all of that my insurance company wanted to charge me 370 dollars a month for insurance on my Genesis because and I quote "It's a turbo and you're a high risk driver." Oh did I mention I'm married? That's completely horseshit and it really isn't fair. I'm being punished for shit other people and that's never okay. My Wife pays half as much as I do with two accidents, three tickets, and no driving courses. Based on simple fucking math, she's a worse driver than I yet pays next to nothing for insurance because she's "lower risk" than I. I hate laws like this and I hate when people try to justify it as statistical science when it's just discrimination justified through numbers. P.S. I switched insurance companies and still pay 160. That's still ridiculous. | ||
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
It is obviously true that young men are more likely to blatantly engage in reckless driving and that does result in accidents but I would say they also tend to be more skilled drivers overall. Women tend to be slow and indecisive and more likely to overreact to situations that occur such as a tiny animal running out in the front of a car. And from my experience I see a lot more young women engaging in distracted driving, not just stuff like texting which everyone does sadly, but fixing their hair, making duck faces into the mirror, fixing makeup etc. Just today I was in the car with my son's mother and she damn near swerved off the road because some stupid bird couldn't decide which direction it wanted to go to get out of the way..if there had been cars parked on the side of the road....I don't even want to think about it but I've never met a male that would have responded that way, I know a handful of women who do the same thing if a mouse was crossing the road. Those things I said are from my experience, they may or may not be true in the larger scheme of things. I stand by my belief that in general men are more skilled drivers though. A skilled driver who is being reckless is a big danger on the road, it is true. But my point is there are other factors which aren't as easily quantified that contribute to unsafe road conditions. The way I see it is reckless driving behavior should be punished, not an entire gender. If more men are ticketed, and/or lose their licenses due to punishment because they break the rules then that is fine. And remember, statistics show limited information. They show true facts about the world but they don't say all of the facts. I know statistics show that women are less likely to drive drunk but I don't believe it for a second. Most cops are male and are probably more likely to let women go outright, or agree to follow them. Oh and if a man and a woman get drunk together at a bar and intend to get home together, can you really only blame the one who gets stuck driving (who would usually be the male)? I am asking this because if 2 people are in a car drunk only the driver is going to end up on those statistics, the passenger might get put into protective custody for the night but no driving offenses. It sounds obvious because "she isn't driving" but I would say for most drunk driving men you will a drunk non-driving woman who is complicit. | ||
| ||
