|
jeremy clarkson would disagree.
i'm all for expensive and thorough requirements for drivers license with a system like the autobahn.
responsible people will be responsible drivers. before setting rules on how to drive, set guildelines on how to be a good human being capable of respecting the road. (if people learned to drive respectfully and smartly, shit load of traffic will go away. traffic for no reason pisses me off - such as tailgater braking hard, switching lanes and not matching speed, small stuff like this causes traffic but people have no fucking idea)
what she proposes is over the top and will "protect" the few by sacrificing everyone else.
and i can't believe so many are supporting "locks", i thought the general TL people were against cops searching your car for no reason and strong advocates of protecting your own rights and privacy.
then again, i'm the weird one as i think driving slow n the fast lane should be enforced as much as speeding.
|
On November 16 2011 05:19 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote: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. 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. Such a bad way to argue - you could apply the same to rape... "Most rapes are committed by men, therefore this law that punishes ALL men should be acceptable"...... Its just not a good idea -_-
funny that you bring up rape. I saw a youtube video of Oslo police saying that all sexual assaults ending in rape were committed by "non-western" men. So they could discriminate even further by targeting foreign males.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 16 2011 05:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 05:19 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote: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. 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. Such a bad way to argue - you could apply the same to rape... "Most rapes are committed by men, therefore this law that punishes ALL men should be acceptable"...... Its just not a good idea -_- funny that you bring up rape. I saw a youtube video of Oslo police saying that all sexual assaults ending in rape were committed by "non-western" men. So they could discriminate even further by targeting foreign males.
Men cause more accidents then women, we should tax them for it. It's not a sexist remark it's a statistical fact. If we prevent them form driving we will see a large decrease in traffic accidents
Girls do worse in math, therefore we prevent girls from entering high level math courses. It's not a a sexist remark, it's a statistical fact. If we prevent girls from taking math classes we will see a spike in math classes every where.
What's the difference between the two comments? One is a extremely offensive remark, and could lose a politician his career. The other is a brilliant idea and is being voted on as we speak. Why is that?
|
On November 15 2011 20:41 zakmaa wrote:
Not once did I say it wasn't discrimination. I know that it's discrimination and it's discrimination that I agree with because it will save lives.
By that logic no one should be allowed to drive at all other than for purposes that will expressly increase life expectancy. Which basically means agriculture, medical and government only. You want to visit mom? Too bad you might kill someone. But hey, you're clearly a fan of fascism, so keep on supporting your disgusting position.
|
I can understand the driving after dark thing, and the no passengers as a way to break people in. I know I drove pretty normally when I was 16 except when my buddies were with me. But it should be blanket for both sexes not just men as a way to slowly bring people around with solid driving fundamentals for the first year or so. That's fine.
Alcohol locks don't work all you need to do is find one sober person around you and you're good to go, it also adds a whole new level of legality to it and makes dui's harder to prove in court. Short of making somebody breathe into the thing every 15 minutes you'll never get them to work. Let alone the hygiene and accuracy issues, if I just used mouthwash in a hurry to get to work I'll be late by 10 or 15 minutes because I'll blow over even though I'm clearly sober. Totally worthless devices.
Speed locks are even worse, yeah you shouldn't be going 150 on a road however if you need to pass somebody in the oncoming traffic lane (legal in parts of Canada) then you need to go a bit faster than the speed limit to do it, not to mention the speed limits are all over the place. One part of the states I was driving in had a cap of 85mph which is in the area of 140 and the traffic was pushing 150, if my car had a cap of 120 because that's the highest posted limit in Canada I would have been killed. So lets say my speed limit is 150, well then my car can still go 150 in a school zone and kill somebody there so what did it accomplish? Most accidents involving speed at least within the city where it's dangerous to others are not in the 120+ category but simply speeding compared to the current speed limit. Think before you demand this garbage.
I'm okay with forced driving school, I'm okay with limited rules on times/passenger numbers for the first year and I want as much education about traffic safety as possible but you can't come up with an arbitrary set of rules that only apply to one sex and essential cripple their ability to drive at all, as well as whoever uses the same car as them, just because they're involved in more accidents than others. Education is the answer, control is not.
|
Quite frankly, even if it's a statistical fact, I don't think you should be able to make laws around it. If black people commit far more robberies at night time should we prohibit them from shopping past a certain time at night? Silly if you ask me.
|
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.
They're less prone to driving drunk because the male is the one driving when they go out..... :/
As for this rule, if it was intended on females, we would be out on the streets calling out for discrimination.. where's the fairness?
|
We have that here in Michigan, but we also get a license at 16. So from 16 you can't have anyone else, from 17 you can have 1 person, and at 18 your free. I hate this law here because you have 5 kids that drive separately to the mall to meet instead of 5 carpooling.
It's just the government way of taking away more freedoms and controlling your lives, that way you depend on them.
Welcome to 1984
|
On November 16 2011 06:45 SySLeif wrote:
We have that here in Michigan, but we also get a license at 16. So from 16 you can't have anyone else, from 17 you can have 1 person, and at 18 your free. I hate this law here because you have 5 kids that drive separately to the mall to meet instead of 5 carpooling.
It's just the government way of taking away more freedoms and controlling your lives, that way you depend on them.
Welcome to 1984
Yes, but is it for males only, or just underage? I'm not sure how you say its taking away freedoms/controlling your lives when driving itself is a priviledge, not a right.
|
can people stop talking about how the statistics this and that? First of all because you should also look at the base numbers, i.e. how many 18-24 year old males drive how many hours a week compared to females and not only look at accidents and who was involved. Second, statistics isn't an excuse for blanket rules that apply to everyone of a certain demographic, or are we prepared to allow employers to not even invite black people to job interviews because statistically they will be more likely to have been involved in crime or use drugs?
|
I see no reason to limit it only to men. If it is a safety measure that is deemed necessarily then it can only help females as well. These checks are against illegal driving and things that distract younger drivers. There simply is no reason bar sexism to only impose it on men as it can only help females as well. Even if people argue females have a smaller percentage of these type of fatal crashes, saving one life isn't worth it? Or is a female life worth less?
As for the actual changes. I think the costs and implication of those kind of rules will be quite profound and is not something I would wish on younger drivers or their families personally. Just think for a minute. If the car needs all the crap put in it for them to drive it, the family car is now not able to be used (well there is no way in hell that crap would be in my car). Thus they need to buy a second hand car, register it and then pay the "conversion" money. Seems like a great thing for the government from a taxing stand point.
|
United States41936 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:45 SySLeif wrote:
We have that here in Michigan, but we also get a license at 16. So from 16 you can't have anyone else, from 17 you can have 1 person, and at 18 your free. I hate this law here because you have 5 kids that drive separately to the mall to meet instead of 5 carpooling.
It's just the government way of taking away more freedoms and controlling your lives, that way you depend on them.
Welcome to 1984
Have you even read 1984? Surely you couldn't possibly be arguing that having to drive separately to the mall is equal to totalitarianism so you must be trying to suggest it's a step on the way. How exactly does driving separately to the mall from 16 to 18 slot into the master plan of the government to take total control over information and turn everyone into mindless drones?
|
On a similarly demeaning and nefarious note, I would like to recommend women be banned from driving while menstruating, due to the statistically significant increase in erratic and dangerous behaviour in those times. Cars should be equipped with various hormone sensors to prevent them from driving in such unpredictable state.
Switching to a more serious note. I hate how pure evil discrimination against males commonly described as "collateral damage", based on whatever statistics they can pull out of their ass, is socially acceptable and glossed over, but when the same fucking tactic is used against females or minorities, it's an instant scandal, it's objectification, it's reducing persons to statistics, it's evil, it's inhuman, with everyone calling for (apart from heads) another state-sponsored woman's / minority studies department to deal with this discriminative and patriarchal and misogynist and racist etc new threat.
These little double standards regarding cars and conscriptions are just the tip of the iceberg. The aforementioned one about rape, is a much more serious one. New legislation and operating standards violating even the most basic rights and liberties like due process or the presumption of innocence in false rape accusations, pop up almost every week, justified by completely bogus statistics, like the mentioned "most rapes are committed by men" one. Well duh, it's no small wonder it is not 100% when you define rape exclusively as male-on-female.
tl;dr: Fuck your alarmist statistics, get it away from legislation, politics and society in general.
|
On November 16 2011 06:47 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:45 SySLeif wrote:
We have that here in Michigan, but we also get a license at 16. So from 16 you can't have anyone else, from 17 you can have 1 person, and at 18 your free. I hate this law here because you have 5 kids that drive separately to the mall to meet instead of 5 carpooling.
It's just the government way of taking away more freedoms and controlling your lives, that way you depend on them.
Welcome to 1984 Yes, but is it for males only, or just underage? I'm not sure how you say its taking away freedoms/controlling your lives when driving itself is a priviledge, not a right.
as a person who loves cars and driving, i find that to be so, so sad 
|
Well I'm 22 and I'm a pretty good driver, so this would piss me off, but put yourselves in those people's shoes. As a politician, you have to people to not die!
For so many people, driving is basically the most dangerous thing you do in your life. Statistically, young male drivers (especially 16 and 17 year olds over here) are highly dangerous. About 18 months ago, a friend of a friend (he's 17) actually drove into a telephone pole or something, killing his 3 of his friends and getting fairly minor injuries himself... It was his first day with a driving license.
That doesn't mean anything, I know, but still, I can understand why old people would think like that.
|
lolololol reading the op was soo funny, I understand the topic may not be but come on... This is good stuff.
|
I'd like to see what would happen if someone attempted to bar women from working because they get pregnant and public office because they go through menopause.
P.S. If there's one, legitimate thing that the TV show Scrubs taught me was that statistics mean nothing to the individual. You do or you don't, you are or you are not. You decide that, thus statistics don't mean anything to you.
|
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.
Women are the more of the reason for the no-text-and-drive laws, its a statistical fact. But we can't just make those laws only apply to women, as that would be discriminatory.
|
This is a part of almost every automobile insurance policy. Female drivers get better rates. If you want to call discrimination, start from healthcare premiums too. They are not discriminating, they are crunching numbers based on statistic. I know it's hypocritical, but being placed in unfavorable conditions because of race is a different issue altogether.
|
Worst idea ever. The law should be for everyone, not just young guys. The dark and passenger restrictions are just stupid ideas in general. And as for the 1/5 of collisions statistic... well, there are a lot of young guys in the world. It's kind of like(although not as bad) saying half of all collisions come from males. I think this woman managed to single-handedly shut down her career in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
