|
I like the alcohol and speed lock ideas (should apply to everyone) but the rest is silly.
In most of northern Norway it's impossible to get anywhere without a car, and it's dark 23 hours a day there at this time of the year, effectively prohibiting males age 18-24 from getting anywhere except for the 1 bright hour.
A major cause of the traffic peril in Norway is that the roads are the worst in Europe and many of the countryside highways have no split between the directions (this got me close to a potentially fatal accident once, when a car from the opposite direction drifted onto our lane at 100 km/h). Of course you will never see the politicos spending a dime to fix the roads.
|
On November 15 2011 18:24 Elegy wrote:
hell I'd be down with alcohol locks (breathalyzer I'm assuming) on all cars as standard features, but yeah this is pretty ridiculous and over the top.
crazy people are crazy people and politicians are no exception!
I'm sure it would be really easy to hack that. I'd hack it and I don't even drink.
Edit: But I do drive really fast so if there was a speedlock I would probably go insane.
|
I'd be interested to know if there is a demographic correlation amongst victims. If young males mainly kill young males...well, I'd have more reason to get behind this!
|
On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I really really post a facepalm but i got banned last time so Im going to try an explain this reasonably with comparisons.
Comparison 1 more black males then white males are imprisoned in the united states per capita. Does this mean we should imprison them all?
That is basically a similar comparison outrageous no?
Woman drive just as stupidly an in most cases are quite less capable of driving then men. I know again almost a blanket statement and while this is purely from personal experience of up into only the hundreds of people who have driven me never have I been more scared when driving with women. Most simply do not understand the laws of the road as well, are less capable of quick proper reaction to a given scenario and are often more distracted. Again I stress this is personal experience. Most of the guys I know all know how to drive the laws and regulation but just choose to disobey them. Speed limiters as well as the whole alcohol thing seem reasonable as that is a legitimate concern for EVERYONE not just men. About the collision rate plummeting well if you have if you have half the drivers on the road I'd hope as much for a drop in accidents.
IN CONCLUSION
The real problem as far as im concerned is senior drivers. In canada you dont have to be retested until you're well into your senior years somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80 . More men will just drive illegally anyways and then its just a cash grab and putting away innocent men (unless drinking)
TLDR
Lady is crazy and drastic reduction in driver population should statistically reduce collisions. Blanket statements are bad.
|
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.
Maybe you'd like to provide a credible source for your outrageous claim?
|
On November 16 2011 07:56 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +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. Maybe you'd like to provide a credible source for your outrageous claim?
There was a thread about it on TL a few years ago. Guy had to pay higher premium than whatever woman he was affiliated with, so he called them and complained. They changed his policy to lower rate. I assume every insurance company has better rates for females. If you want to argue with statistics that they use, you don't stand a chance. That's actually how they make a living and nobody can calculate that shit better than them.
|
God this reminds me of a book I once saw sitting in my local library...
It was a self-help book on being less abusive towards your partner/spouse. Thing was it was entirely centered on men being abusive to women. Hello? Women are never abusive ever? Who came up with that?
Gender specific laws like this are just dumb. Imagine the outrage if all the same rules applied to only females.
|
What a blatant and silly way for feminists to promote misandry. What exactly did your male drivers do in Norway to piss some people off?
|
Alcohol lock and speed lock - cool cool.
No passengers though?! What the fuck is the point in being a young man with a car if you can't use it to take girls places? That's the only way some guys get girlfriends.
|
This "Not driving while dark" thing is ridiculously stupid in a nordic country. This means that people are allowed to drive 24/7 during summer and not at all in the winter (at least once you are far enough in the north). Have fun getting to work when you live out in the country during winter...
|
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.
Because there are women who are batshit crazy on the road and manage to somehow drive with a BAC of 0.29. It just so happens there might not be many of them around. These policies might be agreeable... if they were applied in general.
|
If they implent those 3 points for male only,
it is very likely that the problems will simply shift from the one gender to the other.
The need for transportation hasn't changed, nor has the alternatives to ways of transport.
I also do not understand the 2nd point. From my experience I prefer driving at night because of the more visible cars/bikes.
Also an interesting thought: By basicly restricting driving for men or limiting it drasticly, when are they supposed to gain the
much-favoured 'driving experience', that will make the young males 'responsible' drivers?
TL; DR: With that kind of mesures, you should best oblige every <40 yr old to have an experienced chauffeur. Will also counter the social costs of the agement of the population that way.
|
I'm sorry if you're butthurt (I know most young males here believe their driving sk1llz are on par with Niki Lauda's) but that's just how it is. Chicks text and make-up and act retarded in the car, but even then they simply do not cause nearly as many fatal accidents men do. Ironic isn't it? I mean, everyone knows "women can't drive..." Just look it up for yourself the stats are publicly available. They certainly make traffic a lot shittier in general but shitty traffic and deadly traffic aren't one and the same. Being a decent driver with a stroke of road rage or a bad driver who at least tries to drive safe are two different things. People mostly get wrecked in high-speed accidents and women don't get a boner by putting the pedal to the metal. Or maybe that's just Europe... I don't know. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure Snooki could mow down a class of boy scouts on any given night 
The rest is a matter of personal convictions. I for one believe people are mostly retarded and need to be heavily regulated when it comes to potentially life-threatening situations (as opposed to overblown issues like hookers or blazed pedestrians), and seeing as traffic accidents are a very real and deeply tragic aspect of everyday life I certainly don't mind harsh measures.
|
Well according to what some have said its not only males but both genders (good)
AND its not only 18-24 but for the first 6 years after you get a license (also good.. since limited driving licenses are here in some states, 16-18 your license is limited, but that just means people don't get their license until and those new 18 yo get in more crashes)
It might be good to have more of a multi-level situation
1. driving permit (passed some classes can drive with another full driver in the front passenger seat)
2. limited license (can drive alone in some circumstances.. but can still drive with another full driver in the front passenger)
3. full license (requires a much more thorough test.. possibly including record of driving experience)
|
Alcohol locks should be standard on every car. Speed-locks should be mandatory on anyone who receives a speeding ticket, regardless of age.
That being said, I am hugely in favor of licensing restrictions for people under the age of 25 (and tiered licenses based on number of years paying for insurance on your car as a proxy for how much you've driven). It's far too easy to get a license as it is, and driving tests are a joke.
The gender discrimination is just weird. Just goes to show feminism isn't about equal rights, but we already knew that.
|
i'm more interested to see in the results of this because obviously its seems absurd to me given that im in the demographic mentioned above. And i know for a fact that there are people much worse at driving than me. However, if the results yield positive results than let this person have her victory but i doubt such a thing could happen. History has shown that laws targeting a certain group of people especially if the demographic is old enough will never yield a positive result.
|
On November 16 2011 08:33 Kickboxer wrote:I'm sorry if you're butthurt (I know most young males here believe their driving sk1llz are on par with Niki Lauda's) but that's just how it is. Chicks text and make-up and act retarded in the car, but even then they simply do not cause nearly as many fatal accidents men do. Ironic isn't it? I mean, everyone knows "women can't drive..." Just look it up for yourself the stats are publicly available. They certainly make traffic a lot shittier in general but shitty traffic and deadly traffic aren't one and the same. Being a decent driver with a stroke of road rage or a bad driver who at least tries to drive safe are two different things. People mostly get wrecked in high-speed accidents and women don't get a boner by putting the pedal to the metal. Or maybe that's just Europe... I don't know. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure Snooki could mow down a class of boy scouts on any given night The rest is a matter of personal convictions. I for one believe people are mostly retarded and need to be heavily regulated when it comes to potentially life-threatening situations (as opposed to overblown issues like hookers or blazed pedestrians), and seeing as traffic accidents are a very real and deeply tragic aspect of everyday life I certainly don't mind harsh measures.
Women have actually more accidents per distance driven, just another of those little facts no one lets get in the way of their preconceptions about men being aggressive drivers pumped on testosterone and adrenaline. Apart from your joke about the connection between speed and male sexuality*, I also find it offensive that people assume men are unable to comprehend the implications of reckless driving. Comparing uncharacteristic behaviours from good and bad drivers does not faithfully represent reality either.
*: Vibrations have more to do with something else
|
this is flat out discrimination. that I necessarily disagree with it in general, although i would make it only 18-24 not sex dependent as it. Would make the roads a lot safer imo. now just get the 75+ drivers off the road and were good to go.
(btw I dont think any of this will actually happen, at least in the US)
|
On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:but in general lets look at the faults of this "plan"... gender and age discrimination, if you are an asshole in traffic at 23... you will probably still be one at 26.. and ofc the feminist movement have fought for "equal rights" for many years.. and now a woman want to make a law that prohibits men from doing something a woman can... irony anyone? 
I swear discrimination must be the word of the 21th century.
The feminists thinks that 50% of the CEO's should be women, but what they don't realize is that by categorizing ppl as male and female, they are actually the ones who are discriminating, because they think that a category forms a closed entity. If a woman gets cheated of an opportunity it's ok if you "return the favor" to a man. These ppl see the sexes as us and them. That's the problem. They don't see ppl as individuals, regardless of their sex, they see ppl as categories.
Besides, if we want equality, then what about religious equality? What about hair/eye color equality? What about mental health equality? What about age equality? What about sexual preference equality?....and so on. We need to stop categorizing ppl if we want true equality.
That's what's wrong with this idea. Someone is using categorized statistics to "prove" that men at a certain age are reckless drivers. Basically, that person is using categories to discriminate a certain group of ppl, which is the exact same thing as saying muslims are suicide bombers. The statistics speaks for itself, but statistics is just statistics. What defines a man between 18-25 anyway? I've met a lot of men between 18 and 25, and I know many of them who are very good and careful drivers. Should they be punished just because "their category" have a higher rate of reckless drivers? This is the problem with categorization and equality. Who decides the categories? Depending on what categories you're using, the end result will always be different, and that's why it's dangerous. We need to stop this categorization and so called equality and look at ppl as individuals. Judge everybody by their personal record.
|
This sounds like a strange law. Why is it ONLY males. Why are there no females included. In fact this entire law is fubar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
