EPTNorwegian Politician wants to restrict driving rights of Y…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
johngalt90
United States357 Posts
because there is no highway between the kitchen and the bedroom LOLOLOL | ||
|
LocusCoeruleus
Norway32 Posts
On November 17 2011 08:53 Mannified wrote: Norway's "young" ppl got owned a second time! Did you just make, and I use the word extremely loosely, a joke about the murdering of 69 innocent children that happened this summer? Using the word "owned" to describe what happened this summer is in extremely bad taste and makes me sick to my stomache. If I misunderstood, I apologize. More on topic, these kind of suggestions have come forth every now and then the last few years, but nothing will ever happen as the majority of the politicians understand that this is retarded. While the intention is good, not only would it be extremely unfair, but probably also ineffective. The practical implications are huge. Boys between 18-22 probably makes up around 90% of the army's drivers. Most of the military bases are situated in the far north where it is dark all day, during the winter, and the need to drive personel around is pretty big. While I have no doubt the military would be exempt from this rule, it would be very hypocritical to deny boys to drive with passangers while in civilian clothing, but make them drive with passangers in extremely harsh conditions and in demanding situations (not always easy to get enough sleep, for example, during field exercises). | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On November 17 2011 15:45 macil222 wrote: I wonder how many people here who think men should be regulated and pay more for insurance because they cost more also believe that women should have to pay more for health insurance due to the fact that they cost more? What do you mean by 'cost more'? | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On November 17 2011 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote: 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. yup, i think that would be pretty reasonable for them (and i wasn't talking about males only) to drive shitty cars until they have the experience, also it is pretty educational so you learn that some cars just can't accelerate as fast, no matter how much you try to push (this is SO common on german speedways, though not limited to young drivers). the "freedom" argument is also totally bullshit here. you still get anywhere even with a shitty car and it is for the "greater good" if people don't drive cars that don't suit their "skill". and good for you that you're one of those priviledged people with wealthy parents, most young people that just made their drivers license don't have the money to buy a big car anyway, it is their parents. and most people with big cars in that age, don't know how to drive and think they are the kings of the road. btw: the blatant sexism in this thread is digusting. even if the norwegian proposal is sexist too many people in this thread are going way over the top with their retarded comments. | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
Looking at that 3rd point about a breathalyzer test, I originally laughed it off as ridiculous. But the more I ponder it, the more I realize it doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea. I mean, there was a time when seat belts weren't required in cars and the thought of it being mandatory was probably ridiculous to some people. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On November 17 2011 16:47 itkovian wrote: As I 19 year old male, I am a pretty damn responsible driver. But at the same time a lot of my friends are reckless fiends so I can understand some of the limitations. Especially when another teenager is in the car it kind of presents peer pressure to drive fast. like, when I am driving the speed limit, or 5 over, my friends give me shit. It doesn't bug me that much, because I prefer to drive chill. Come to think of it though, I don't really know if drivers mellow at as they grow older. They in fact might grow even more reckless with arrogance, they just become better at avoiding accidents. Looking at that 3rd point about a breathalyzer test, I originally laughed it off as ridiculous. But the more I ponder it, the more I realize it doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea. I mean, there was a time when seat belts weren't required in cars and the thought of it being mandatory was probably ridiculous to some people. breath analyzers are totally useless because, well they just measure BREATH, meaning they can be abused easily. it just gives a wrong feeling of security and makes no sense at all. | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote: This. I think that you are taking it out of line OP and being much too defensive. It's not that women are trying to overthrow men or something, she is legitimately trying to reduce the amounts of collisions in your country and for that you should be for it. If those restrictions were imposed upon men in Norway then I can guarantee you that the collision rate would plummet as those are the very people that cause the most collisions in the world. The blatant sexism is hilarious. You know for a fact if this was some law trying to restrict women the backlash would be so great it would be on every major news outlet in the world, however this story will most like NOT make any national headlines outside of norway. Living in a world with double standards just tells people they can be hypocrites all day and not even care about it, which is exactly why most people are. Enjoy your generalized mind. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
| ||
|
PunkyBrewster
22 Posts
On November 17 2011 17:03 Fenrax wrote: If data shows that young males driving are a big threat to other people's lives then it is a good idea to restrict young males driving. I pity everyone in this thread who does not have the mental capacity to understand such simple logic. So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding. | ||
|
g.Sagan
36 Posts
On November 17 2011 17:03 Fenrax wrote: If data shows that young males driving are a big threat to other people's lives then it is a good idea to restrict young males driving. I pity everyone in this thread who does not have the mental capacity to understand such simple logic. The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue. If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun). If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 17 2011 20:11 g.Sagan wrote: The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue. If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun). If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves. It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice. On November 17 2011 18:45 PunkyBrewster wrote: So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding. I do not think that the threat of Muslim extremists highjacking airplanes is anywhere near high enough to warrant such measures. Or other measures that are already in practice. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On November 17 2011 21:14 Fenrax wrote: It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice. I do not think that the threat of Muslim extremists highjacking airplanes is anywhere near high enough to warrant such measures. Or other measures that are already in practice. speaking in generals is never good. I did not behave like an overconfident idiot and i was able to control my drinking (and my behaviour) with very few exceptions (and i never drove afterwards) during that age. If you are too stupid to drive at night and unable to control yourself why should we, that are able to do this, suffer? giving young people in general (male and female) only access to slower cars would IMHO be much more helpful overall and it IS a social factor that plays a major role in this. edit: to the quoted islamic terrorist argument. it is not true that the majority of terrorist attacks during the last 20 years where made by muslims. this is pure propaganda and not worth responding to because it's no argument at all. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On November 17 2011 16:40 fleeze wrote: yup, i think that would be pretty reasonable for them (and i wasn't talking about males only) to drive shitty cars until they have the experience, also it is pretty educational so you learn that some cars just can't accelerate as fast, no matter how much you try to push (this is SO common on german speedways, though not limited to young drivers). the "freedom" argument is also totally bullshit here. you still get anywhere even with a shitty car and it is for the "greater good" if people don't drive cars that don't suit their "skill". and good for you that you're one of those priviledged people with wealthy parents, most young people that just made their drivers license don't have the money to buy a big car anyway, it is their parents. and most people with big cars in that age, don't know how to drive and think they are the kings of the road. btw: the blatant sexism in this thread is digusting. even if the norwegian proposal is sexist too many people in this thread are going way over the top with their retarded comments. You are entlited to beleive whatever u want, but you (or politicans) are not to impose your will others. However, your argument is still retarded. My freedom is to drive anywhere I want on anything I can afford. If I want to drive a expensive car, and brag about it it's my fucking right. Hopefully u won't complaint when some politicans pass a law that says young people should learn that life isn't easy and everything requires hard work, so you have to do 3 years of force labor in some government office. No, I do not have wealthy parents nor an expensive car. Also expensive =/= strong engine. I used to drive my brother's 1990 ford ranger (3k market prize) which is cheap, yet fucking powerful. A really cool car aswell, If I may say. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 17 2011 21:30 fleeze wrote: speaking in generals is never good. I did not behave like an overconfident idiot and i was able to control my drinking (and my behaviour) with very few exceptions (and i never drove afterwards) during that age. If you are too stupid to drive at night and unable to control yourself why should we, that are able to do this, suffer? giving young people in general (male and female) only access to slower cars would IMHO be much more helpful overall and it IS a social factor that plays a major role in this. So we agree that is okay to put restraints on young drivers. Those should be put on these drivers because they are far more likely to cause accidents than older drivers. Which rules are better is not very relevant, the thread is about equality. And I do not see a reason to restraint women as well if they have no increased risk of causing dangerous accidents. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On November 17 2011 21:39 GoTuNk! wrote: You are entlited to beleive whatever u want, but you (or politicans) are not to impose your will others. However, your argument is still retarded. My freedom is to drive anywhere I want on anything I can afford. If I want to drive a expensive car, and brag about it it's my fucking right. Hopefully u won't complaint when some politicans pass a law that says young people should learn that life isn't easy and everything requires hard work, so you have to do 3 years of force labor in some government office. No, I do not have wealthy parents nor an expensive car. Also expensive =/= strong engine. I used to drive my brother's 1990 ford ranger (3k market prize) which is cheap, yet fucking powerful. A really cool car aswell, If I may say. i see, my argument is "retarded", just lol. in every society there are things that are prohibited because they hurt majority of the people. this is the basis of every civilization... and you just called it an "retarded" argument... your "freedom" to drive anywhere you want on anything you can afford limits the freedom of all the people affected and threatened by your selfish approach. also my argument even let's the people the freedom to drive whereeveer and whenever they want, compared to the norwegian woman. they just have to gain experience with slow cars and can later still buy whatever car they want. this is no big limitation of freedom at all and therefore safety gain for all people for a very small cost. On November 17 2011 21:53 Fenrax wrote: So we agree that is okay to put restraints on young drivers. Those should be put on these drivers because they are far more likely to cause accidents than older drivers. Which rules are better is not very relevant, the thread is about equality. And I do not see a reason to restraint women as well if they have no increased risk of causing dangerous accidents. i agree that it's ok to put restraints on young drivers. but it must be resonable restraints, not ones that prevent the young people from driving at all (f.e. at night). and also, not related to your argument, restraints that make no sense at all (general speed lock, breath analyzers). | ||
|
karlmengsk
Canada230 Posts
| ||
|
g.Sagan
36 Posts
It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice. Social expectations, gender stereotyping and a lack of education are no doubt in my mind what causes this type of reckless behavior. I find it really hard to believe that the majority of young males today are slaves to a medically diagnosable hormonal imbalance, insurmountable irrespective of their upbringing, education and mental faculties. Young adults won't be overconfident if they are shown that they are not indestructible, at the moment though with no formal instruction, it's usually only a fatality of someone within their immediate social group that gets the message home. Driving needs to be presented as what it really is; a privilege granted by society to those responsible enough to handle it, not as a right for anybody looking to go for a spin. Promotion of critical thinking, and the running of driving or road safety courses during later school years should help to get the message across. Along with a healthy dose of parenting. No one is drunk or jacked up on Testosterone 24/7 and unable to make a level-headed decision beforehand about their driving habits. If people have trouble controlling their actions while intoxicated or have a legitimate hormonal imbalance and don't trust themselves not to get behind the wheel of a car while in such a state, then either don't drink so much or leave your car at home and catch a taxi/cab. It all comes back to their decision making skills beforehand. I personally was never a 'Hoon' or irresponsible when behind the wheel (or any other time for that matter) during my early twenty's, and I doubt I'm anything special. It's a harder road to travel relative to the process of 'non-thinking' and doing what you like regardless of the consequences, but really all it takes is a conscious effort not be a dickhead. The problem of course is that a lot of people who are dickheads don't realize it. They simply don't know any better, and that is where education comes in. I hear what you are saying about the obsession for equality and what not, but I just can't get behind an idea for blanket laws of age and gender groups that discriminates against those with good intentions, not when there are alternatives. | ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
Instead of the proposed measures, I would much prefer things like: - better young driver education / higher standards for driver licensing tests - higher penalties for repeat offenders related to road accidents - tougher laws against driving under the influence of alcohol | ||
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
I mean that the statistics show that men are more likely to be involved in accidents, that means more damages to property and people's bodies. So when it comes to insurance for example they are asked to pay more because they, as a group, cost more to insure...but they only cost more to insure because they cause more damages. Women cost more than men in health care. They are more likely to see their doctors and other specialists more frequently throughout the year. They also incur other costs which men don't, ie pregnancy and child birth. Because of this, in some places women get charged higher premiums for health insurance. | ||
| ||
