EPTNorwegian Politician wants to restrict driving rights of Y…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7942 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. I have statistical facts that says religion is the root to all evil. I also have statistic fact that says black people are more prone to rob stores. Should I suggest that religion is banned and refuse black people entrance to grocery stores? According to some statistics, having a knife in the kitchen is the number one reason for people cutting themselves on knives. I think we ought to ban knives while we're at it. Can we please start thinking a bit smartly about this? There is absolutely no way this law can pass for ethical, resourceful, practical or even useful reasons. edit: by that I mean: The goverment wont be able to afford to put alcho and speedlocks in every car; there are emergency situations where you would need to be able to drive fast, or even after you've had half a beer; It would still be easy to bypass for 99% of the same males this is suppose to be effective against; Not drive in the dark in a country that doesn't have sunlight for 23 hours a day? comon!; and last but not least its discriminating as fuck. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7942 Posts
On November 17 2011 23:19 OpticalShot wrote: This is a big abuse of statistics to discriminate a general target group for the mistakes of the few. The majority of young male drivers will suffer (should this ridiculous law be implemented) despite being "average drivers" with sufficiently safe driving practices and clean records. 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 your proposals sounds fine on paper, but: - Its been a while since last I read the numbers, but I remember seeing somewhere that Norway has 40% fail rate on first attempts on the driving license test. Speaking from personal experience, while I did pass the first time around, I never felt it was easy. a few years back I payed 3500 USD for my license (Its much higher now), so its not cheap either. Its something you really have to work for. - This is pulled from my behind, but I'm pretty sure Norway has some of the highest penalties for road offenders. It is possible to go to jail for speeding for longer than murder.. - You lose your license right away here for driving under influence of alchohol. The limit is 0.2 promille. Repeated offenders lose their license for life and their cars. Somehow I don't see these being worse than they already are, when they're clearly not working in the first place. | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 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. If data shows that young female workers are more costly to a firm than other genders/age groups then it is a good idea to restrict ALL young female workers joining firms. I pity everyone in this thread who does not have the mental capacity to understand such simple logic. + Show Spoiler + I dont believe in the above, its just to prove a point | ||
|
irongar
Germany21 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. So if I'm turning 18 and just got my driving license I should only be allowed to drive a car with <60PS? My family owns an VW Touran which has 140PS although it's definitely not an sports car. Owning a 2nd car is pretty expensive here in germany since you have to pay much higher taxes and insurance for your 2nd car. Not everyone has the money for that. This means I would not be able to drive for 3-5 years until I'm old enough and then I have to go on street relearning driving from scratch. What's your point? Restricting driving licenses until 25? Pushing the car economy? | ||
|
Krohm
Canada1857 Posts
Anyway that is just extremely discriminatory. This pretty much sums up my thoughts. On November 17 2011 23:30 Excludos wrote: I have statistical facts that says religion is the root to all evil. I also have statistic fact that says black people are more prone to rob stores. Should I suggest that religion is banned and refuse black people entrance to grocery stores? According to some statistics, having a knife in the kitchen is the number one reason for people cutting themselves on knives. I think we ought to ban knives while we're at it. Can we please start thinking a bit smartly about this? There is absolutely no way this law can pass for ethical, resourceful, practical or even useful reasons. edit: by that I mean: The goverment wont be able to afford to put alcho and speedlocks in every car; there are emergency situations where you would need to be able to drive fast, or even after you've had half a beer; It would still be easy to bypass for 99% of the same males this is suppose to be effective against; Not drive in the dark in a country that doesn't have sunlight for 23 hours a day? comon!; and last but not least its discriminating as fuck. | ||
|
TheBanana
Norway2183 Posts
| ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
On November 17 2011 16:50 fleeze wrote: 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. I guess I didn't really consider that. You could just have a friend blow into it or something. Still though, I think it would be a minor deterrent to some people. But also, a major annoyance to people that never drinks lol | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On November 18 2011 01:08 irongar wrote: So if I'm turning 18 and just got my driving license I should only be allowed to drive a car with <60PS? My family owns an VW Touran which has 140PS although it's definitely not an sports car. Owning a 2nd car is pretty expensive here in germany since you have to pay much higher taxes and insurance for your 2nd car. Not everyone has the money for that. This means I would not be able to drive for 3-5 years until I'm old enough and then I have to go on street relearning driving from scratch. What's your point? Restricting driving licenses until 25? Pushing the car economy? if you want to go party with your friends you shouldn't drive a touran unless your experienced. this is hard to put into numbers but unfortunately some (many in absolute figures, but a small percentage overall) people will suffer, as they are good drivers even at the age of 18. 60 PS is perhaps a bit low but there are cars with 75 PS that are real racing machines with pretty good acceleration already (like peugeot 206 ) so i put the number low. there would be a lot of discussion about this number anyway, especially in germany, since BMW or Mercedes don't even have cars in that range. i made my point pretty short and it's just an idealised view as it will never make it through legislation anyway. there would also be "exceptions" for sure anyway if such a rule existed. like if your driving with parents it is allowed (already exists in germany for the 17 year drivers license) or if you need the car to work, along with others. my point is also not to "restrict" driving but to force young people to drive with slower cars. if you drive with such a car you will notice it is pretty hard to overtake other cars (which is a major point for accidents) and you have to drive with more foresight. thus it is educating for the drivers, while not restricting his movement. and i agree with you that it's not ideal for a family composition such as yours. it would indeed be problematic and expensive. | ||
|
Weedk
United States507 Posts
On November 18 2011 04:09 fleeze wrote: if you want to go party with your friends you shouldn't drive a touran unless your experienced. this is hard to put into numbers but unfortunately some (many in absolute figures, but a small percentage overall) people will suffer, as they are good drivers even at the age of 18. 60 PS is perhaps a bit low but there are cars with 75 PS that are real racing machines with pretty good acceleration already (like peugeot 206 ) so i put the number low. there would be a lot of discussion about this number anyway, especially in germany, since BMW or Mercedes don't even have cars in that range. i made my point pretty short and it's just an idealised view as it will never make it through legislation anyway. there would also be "exceptions" for sure anyway if such a rule existed. like if your driving with parents it is allowed (already exists in germany for the 17 year drivers license) or if you need the car to work, along with others. my point is also not to "restrict" driving but to force young people to drive with slower cars. if you drive with such a car you will notice it is pretty hard to overtake other cars (which is a major point for accidents) and you have to drive with more foresight. thus it is educating for the drivers, while not restricting his movement. and i agree with you that it's not ideal for a family composition such as yours. it would indeed be problematic and expensive. This seems really awkward to me. In the US most cars are over 100PS so I can't imagine 140PS being extremely dangerous. Hell, my car outside is outputting 140PS. Is it me or does this politician seem like an extreme feminist? As much as that demographic contributes to the problem, I don't see the point of punishing everybody in that demographic for it. Edit: Actually, what's the Touran curb weight? I'm really curious now. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
| ||
|
Ryndika
1489 Posts
Nice sexims btw. I wonder what kind of people are driving this law in the first place. Also a car only for single person usage is wrong attitude teaching. That's freaking polluting mastery this law is teaching. It would be insane not to have right for having passengers. Also driving while its NOT dark is IMPOSSIBLE in nordic countries. When you get OUT FROM SCHOOL/WORK it's too dark for driving. So you drive around, alone, around 8am-15pm?? This law doesn't make any practical sense. And only for males? Lol. | ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
On November 17 2011 23:26 NovaTheFeared wrote: Do they really not have equal protection rights in Norway? Even if this passed in the U.S. it would be struck down under the 14th Amendment. How's that affermative action working out for you? At least we don't hand out jobs based solely on nationality or gender. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On November 15 2011 18:32 hypercube wrote: The 3rd point is reasonable and should be mandatory for everyone, not just 18-24 year old males. Why should you be allowed to use your car in a way that's against the law and demonstratably increases your chances of killing someone? i'm for the alcohol lock (impossible to implement, if a passenger isnt drunk just have them do it rofl) but not for speeding. i don't speed on streets ever, but you have to go over the speed limit on the freeway, traffic does not always go at 65mph, it almost never does. during normal hours, traffic on the freeway here in southern california is around 75mph. i personally do go above that, but only when there are no cars in front of me and it's not crowded. when there is traffic i keep a few car lengths behind the person in front of me etc, but if there arent that many cars ill do about 100. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
sevencck
Canada698 Posts
On November 18 2011 08:12 Adeny wrote: How's that affermative action working out for you? At least we don't hand out jobs based solely on nationality or gender. My post isn't completely directed at you, but your rebuttal absolutely behooves me for so many reasons. I refuse to believe that after several hundred years of an unfolding women's liberation movement, the newly minted "liberated woman" is one who proposes legislation that utterly flies in the face of those same currents of liberation. The only way you can sum it up fairly is to say that the politician who has come up with the idea is totally unconscious of her own stupidity. Do men vote in that country? Does she even care? I suppose if men didn't vote for her they'd be considered sexist right? I can provide statistics of all sorts about why men are stronger, and are therefore better equipped for certain jobs. I can provide statistics why men are less likely to take extended leaves of absence from work. I can provide statistics that can provide a logical basis for arguing to keep women out of combat. I'm sure I could find numerous other statistics which I could propose all kinds of sexist policies around. Should we base policy on such statistics? No, men and women are different, differences are to be expected, and one can't restrict one sex in favor of the other without hurting humanity's unfolding process. Generally speaking, what's worse, some car accidents, or a series of completely sexist policies at the national level that set human rights backwards by 200 years? First of all, people are assuming this is the only way to prevent such car accidents. It isn't. Secondly, affirmative action isn't necessarily a bad idea, its only bad when it's improperly handled. It's designed to increase opportunities to those who would otherwise find competing in a "fair" marketplace difficult. How is that a bad thing again? And on that note, Thirdly, affirmative action by any other name is what the women's liberation movement has largely been about for the past century. We have been promoting women in science, politics, industry, leadership, etc. etc. etc. because we've felt like they would find competing in a "fair" marketplace difficult. Again, it's not a bad thing, it only ends up being stupid if it's improperly handled. To argue against affirmative action is senseless if you also see the value in the past hundred years of the women's liberation movement. I can honestly say that it is upsetting to read about the article OP has posted, due to the enormous stupidity contained therein. It is even more alarming that it's coming from a nation like Norway. But the part that keeps me returning to liquor stores is when people argue in favor of such policies, apparently unconscious of the fact that they argue against those same types of policies elsewhere. | ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
On November 18 2011 09:09 sevencck wrote: + Show Spoiler + This rebuttal absolutely behooves me for so many reasons. I refuse to believe that after several hundred years of an unfolding women's liberation movement, the newly minted "liberated woman" is one who proposes legislation that utterly flies in the face of those same currents of liberation. The only way you can sum it up fairly is to say that the politician who has come up with the idea is totally unconscious of her own stupidity. Do men vote in that country? Does she even care? I suppose if men didn't vote for her they'd be considered sexist right? I can provide statistics of all sorts about why men are stronger, and are therefore better equipped for certain jobs. I can provide statistics why men are less likely to take extended leaves of absence from work. I can provide statistics that can provide a logical basis for arguing to keep women out of combat. I'm sure I could find numerous other statistics which I could propose all kinds of sexist policies around. Should we base policy on such statistics? No, men and women are different, differences are to be expected, and one can't restrict one sex in favor of the other without hurting humanity's unfolding process. Generally speaking, what's worse, some car accidents, or a series of completely sexist policies at the national level that set human rights backwards by 200 years? First of all, people are assuming this is the only way to prevent such car accidents. It isn't. Secondly, affirmative action isn't necessarily a bad idea, its only bad when it's improperly handled. It's designed to increase opportunities to those who would otherwise find competing in a "fair" marketplace difficult. How is that a bad thing again? And on that note, Thirdly, affirmative action by any other name is what the women's liberation movement has largely been about for the past century. We have been promoting women in science, politics, industry, leadership, etc. etc. etc. because we've felt like they would find competing in a "fair" marketplace difficult. Again, it's not a bad thing, it only ends up being stupid if it's improperly handled. To argue against affirmative action is senseless if you also see the value in the past hundred years of the women's liberation movement. I can honestly say that it is upsetting to read about the article OP has posted, due to the enormous stupidity contained therein. It is even more alarming that it's coming from a nation like Norway. But the part that keeps me returning to liquor stores is when people argue in favor of such policies, apparently unconscious of the fact that they argue against those same policies elsewhere. Affirmative action in its current implementation is horrible for so many reasons, I don't want to sidetrack the thread so I'm going to avoid going into detail. In an ideal world even competitors would have an equal chance in a fair marketplace, I don't think any rational person could argue otherwise. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada698 Posts
On November 18 2011 09:19 Adeny wrote: Affirmative action in its current implementation is horrible for so many reasons, I don't want to sidetrack the thread so I'm going to avoid going into detail. In an ideal world even competitors would have an equal chance in a fair marketplace, I don't think any rational person could argue otherwise. You realize that you're the one who sidetracked the thread by bringing up affirmative action in the first place right? Also, it's not entirely a sidetrack, because as I mentioned the women's liberation movement has contained elements of affirmative action (by other names). So for you to look at a "liberated" woman proposing sexist legislation, in what surely has to be considered a "liberated" country (by almost any standard), then proceed to ignore the legislation in favor of denouncing affirmative action... well, it just makes my brain hurt. Also, the point of affirmative action is that the marketplace isn't fair. It's inherently tilted to favor (in varying degrees in varying circumstances), one's values, one's upbringing, one's wealth, one's status, one's religion, one's race, one's gender, one's sexual orientation, one's appearance etc. etc. So, affirmative action by any other name is simply an effort to equalize the playing field slightly (which I don't think is such a terrible thing in most cases). If you want to be rational, then you shouldn't denounce affirmative action in its totality, you should be critical of how and when (and to what degree) it is employed. I'm sorry if you've already addressed this, but what is your opinion on the legislation being proposed in OP's article and why? | ||
|
Mandrake
Norway2 Posts
| ||
| ||
