|
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.
Since discrimination is the application of certain stereotypes based on easily observable characteristics like sex, age, or ethnicity I'd say this would indeed be considered discrimination.
|
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.
Woman are getting pregnant. Therefore they are worse employees. Women shouldn't get good jobs.
It's not discrimination, it's logic.
See the problem?
|
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.
LOL wut?
I have seen otherwise. I can also say that guys tend to be more responsible(and i have been around jersey shore type fags). But again this is all subjective views right?
To be fair i think both genders are guilty
edit: good to see people with some sense
this has to be the second or third most ignorant thing i have read in TL
|
i have a feeling this wont pass
|
On November 15 2011 19:10 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 19:00 hypercube wrote:On November 15 2011 18:56 achristes wrote:
Don't exactly know what alcohol-lock and speed-lock are, but I kindof get the idea.
Seems like a stupid idea that wouldn't change anything Why do you think that? I mean about alcohol and speed-locks specifically. Alcohol and speed-lock could be good or bad, I wouldn't really know that. But if seriously, not allowed to drive in the dark ? IMO that's just stupid. I can't drive yet, but when I'm done with two years of theoretical training to be able to drive then I'm suddenly not allowed to either have passengers, drive in the dark, this only counts for guys(boys/young men/whatever you want to call it) AND still pay a shitload of money for insurance. So I guess something would change, but not for the better. I think it would piss people off and wouldn't help that much, people would find a way to drive when its dark and stuff anyway so why bother ?
I agree that the dark part and the discrimination bit is stupid. I think every rational person does after a few minutes of thinking. I just think that the locks are clearly a good idea and wonder why there isn't more support for them. I'm sure there would be a way to deal with private roads or other technical issues that might come up.
|
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.
(speaking mostly from personal experience)
Mens reckless driving usually comes from peer preassure and overconfidence in your own driving skill. Some guys are quite skilled and can handle powersliding like it's nothing, and you can really feel that when you're sitting in the passenger seat, just as well as you feel if the guy can't handle it at all and just attempts to do it to look cool...
Womens reckless driving is usually due to distractions. Had a girl driving her friends, and one of them in the backseat had some juicy gossip and the driver said "NO WAY!" let go off the steering wheel, and turned around, and crashed into the ditch... Also the ammount of women that talk on phone or text vastly outnumbers men. Not to mention putting on makeup while driving.
And something else I've noticed is that women have a far easier time talking their way out of a accidental fender bender or something similar. Hell, another woman I know was fiddling with her car stereo and when she looked up she was in the wrong lane heading for a frontal collision with another car, so she quickly steers away and ends up in the ditch. After some crying at the police station it was written down as avoiding hitting a deer (she did lie about avoiding a rabbit first, but started crying and then told the truth).
And the whole not driving while dark outside, in some parts of norway, that preatty much means you can't drive during winter at all, meaning you won't get any experience driving on slippery conditions.
|
That's such a dumb, discriminating proposition. XD
The third idea is pretty nice actually, but it should most definitely go for both genders. 
|
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
I also find it funny how females scream and rant about discimination, but suggesting something like this is perfectly viable.
|
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.
I've been in a truck where a woman driver drag raced a Riceburner (Honda civic) in a big ass hemi, she does it rather often as well, and I've another friend who gets into road races all the time on the highways. But still this being gender discriminatory is stupid.
|
On November 15 2011 18:39 Egyptian_Head wrote:Show nested quote +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? Only illegal on public roads I believe. You can drunk drive all you like if you are on private property as far as I am aware. Might be a country by country thing. You can speed on race tracks which you pay t do a lap on and it is perfectly legal. In general I agree those should be there but there are situations where you can do that stuff and it is completely legal, which means there would need to be a way to turn them off easily which would defeat the entire point.
in japan the speed limiter turns on and off based on ur gps location.
|
On November 15 2011 19:49 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 18:39 Egyptian_Head wrote: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? Only illegal on public roads I believe. You can drunk drive all you like if you are on private property as far as I am aware. Might be a country by country thing. You can speed on race tracks which you pay t do a lap on and it is perfectly legal. In general I agree those should be there but there are situations where you can do that stuff and it is completely legal, which means there would need to be a way to turn them off easily which would defeat the entire point. in japan the speed limiter turns on and off based on ur gps location.
They've shown cars like this on Top Gear that have a speed limiter and when your gps senses that you're at a race track it turns off.
|
How sad. At first I assumed it was just a media-attention reality-show woman who needs to make money. Then it turns out to be a real politician in a big party.
Wants to make a name for herself I guess. I doubt she realizes just how many people will think it's a horrible idea and that she is making the whole party look bad.
|
I cant believe you can get away with shit like this as a politician.
If a politician proposed a law banning black people from buying knives/bats/guns there would be a massive outcry?
So how is it OK for a woman politician to specifically target men?
|
Discrimination is treating individuals by the average traits of the group they are a part of instead of by their own traits. It doesn't matter if it's true that young men in general are significantly more reckless than other drivers (I think it's true), it's still not morally right to treat an individual young man as a reckless driver until he himself has given you reason to do so, based only on his own actions.
It's the same as racism. While it may be true that prison populations have a higher percentage of blacks than the general population, it's still indefensible to treat every individual black person as more crime-prone than non-blacks. Showing correlation between race and crime is not the same as showing a causal link, but even if there was a causal link, the moral argument would stay the same.
So sure, there may well be a causal link between high testosterone levels in young males (for example) and reckless driving. It's still discrimination if you make a law that affects each individual young man based on the group's traits.
What's more interesting is what happens if you show about one specific man he can't help himself be more reckless than others. Is it wrong to limit his driving freedom because he's more likely to cause an accident, although it's not his choice to be like this, it's just who he is? How much more reckless does he have to be before it becomes moral to prohibit him from driving? Is it ever moral to do so, even before he causes any accident?
|
On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong.
Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion.
|
On November 15 2011 19:57 Doctorasul wrote:
Discrimination is treating individuals by the average traits of the group they are a part of instead of by their own traits. It doesn't matter if it's true that young men in general are significantly more reckless than other drivers (I think it's true), it's still not morally right to treat an individual young man as a reckless driver until he himself has given you reason to do so, based only on his own actions.
It's the same as racism. While it may be true that prison populations have a higher percentage of blacks than the general population, it's still indefensible to treat every individual black person as more crime-prone than non-blacks. Showing correlation between race and crime is not the same as showing a causal link, but even if there was a causal link, the moral argument would stay the same.
So sure, there may well be a causal link between high testosterone levels in young males (for example) and reckless driving. It's still discrimination if you make a law that affects each individual young man based on the group's traits.
What's more interesting is what happens if you show about one specific man he can't help himself be more reckless than others. Is it wrong to limit his driving freedom because he's more likely to cause an accident, although it's not his choice to be like this, it's just who he is? How much more reckless does he have to be before it becomes moral to prohibit him from driving? Is it ever moral to do so, even before he causes any accident?
No, it's not wrong to limit his driving freedom regardless if it's not his choice to be that way. Hurting other people is still hurting other people even if you don't mean to, and if his chances of hurting other drivers are more elevated than others then yes it is moral to prohibit him from driving. I would even argue that it would be immoral to not do so as you're risking countless of other lives.
On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:
Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that/
Assuming it would use a normal breathalyzer that would be impossible. Breathalyzers calculate the amount of alcohol in your blood based on the amount of alcohol contained in your breath. When you drink alcohol it goes through your bloodstream and thus into your lungs, where it becomes infused with the water and co2 molecules. Normally when you breath outwards you expel co2 and h2o molecules, however after drinking alcohol your breath also contains ones of alcohol. Unless you can somehow manage to keep alcohol from getting to your lungs, or keep the alcohol molecules from leaving your mouth, cheating the breathalyzer is impossible.
|
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.
You're arguing that a proposition that discriminates blatantly against a specific gender shouldn't be considered discrimination. I actually have no clue what your train of thought was to come up with that.
|
On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong. Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion.
aye the technology does exist, its based on the "blow in this" thing the police have.. there's also self-test devices and such...
so all in all a self test device that must show green for the car to start..
Indeed there's ways around any lock... but then its also easy to increase the penalty for getting caught while drunk driving massivly
though i'm also guessing that they wont be more accurate than the police devices.. and there are rare situations where you get a red reading even though you're sober...
myths contain eating orange, mouthwash, aftershave.. stuff like that
|
On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong. Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion. aye the technology does exist, its based on the "blow in this" thing the police have.. there's also self-test devices and such... so all in all a self test device that must show green for the car to start.. Indeed there's ways around any lock... but then its also easy to increase the penalty for getting caught while drunk driving massivly though i'm also guessing that they wont be more accurate than the police devices.. and there are rare situations where you get a red reading even though you're sober... myths contain eating orange, mouthwash, aftershave.. stuff like that
I know that theses things exist, the question is do they have the necessary accuracy? You would need to have a basically 0% rate both on false positives and false negatives. Even failure rates in the promille range would not be acceptable. Seeing as even the police ones are often not sufficient as proof, i don't see how something that is build in your car, where noone forces you to breath into it in the right way could have the necessary reliability.
A one promille chance of false would mean that every day a few ten or hundred thousand people can't start their car, don't get to their job, and so on. For no apparent reason, and through no fault of their own. A promille on false negatives means that you get some people driving drunk who can legitimately claim it is not even their own fault, since they trusted the technology.
|
On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong. Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion. aye the technology does exist, its based on the "blow in this" thing the police have.. there's also self-test devices and such... so all in all a self test device that must show green for the car to start.. Indeed there's ways around any lock... but then its also easy to increase the penalty for getting caught while drunk driving massivly though i'm also guessing that they wont be more accurate than the police devices.. and there are rare situations where you get a red reading even though you're sober... myths contain eating orange, mouthwash, aftershave.. stuff like that
Sorry to be re-posting this but I posted above you explaining the breathalyzer. Please read that post. There is no way around it unless you manage to change something with the actual devices; as far as I know, it's impossible to control your blood stream. Eating things like oranges, mouthwash or aftershave won't work because those are scents and even if they manage to overpower the scent of alcohol, the alcohol molecules are still coming out of your mouth and still going into the breathalyzer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
