|
On November 16 2011 17:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 16:34 haduken wrote:
I'm totally down for the alcohol lock, too many hoons in my city...
But more effective would be impound and massive fine when caught over speeding by a huge margin or drink driving but i don't see that working legally (People will always appeal and shits).
I think more importantly it's about learning driving. A lot of young or new drivers gets smart and careless after a few years of driving and they think that they can handle speeding, but if they get into a minor accident and learned that they are not invincible then they get more careful later on. I find it funny that everyone agrees on this while completely ignoring the fact that the technology simply does not exist. In my opinion, cars should be banned and an instant teleportation system be put into it's place. There is simply no reason to drive anywhere when you could just step onto a pad and be there instantly. Also this reduces the amount of car crashes to zero for everyone, everywhere.
I think people assume that the technology would have to be reliable before implementation, the simple act of a government wanting to impose this would prboably increase the efforts of companies to perfect the technology, welcome to capitalism. Then again i could be wrong, but im assuming no one wants to stop painters from driving or whatever else could cause a false reading.
|
I think one important experience that at least i have is that men in GENERAL drive more than women, therefore in theori should be better drivers, but should also be more prone to causing accidents.
From the experience that i have, women who drive alot do so without really caring about actually learning more or maintaining skill. They just drive to avoid walking/cycling/public transport.
|
On November 16 2011 16:34 haduken wrote:
I'm totally down for the alcohol lock, too many hoons in my city...
But more effective would be impound and massive fine when caught over speeding by a huge margin or drink driving but i don't see that working legally (People will always appeal and shits).
I think more importantly it's about learning driving. A lot of young or new drivers gets smart and careless after a few years of driving and they think that they can handle speeding, but if they get into a minor accident and learned that they are not invincible then they get more careful later on.
Its already possible to get higher punishment by driving fast than murder in this country. If you get caught drink driving, you lose your license. If it happens again, you could end up losing the license for life + losing the car..
No, this country does not need harder fines for drink driving or speeding 
Your second part of your post makes no sense. While there might be exceptions, most people don't grow worse over the years. Quite the opposite.. Which is what all the statistics are pointing at, hence the OP in this thread 
|
On November 16 2011 17:46 Teoman wrote:
I think one important experience that at least i have is that men in GENERAL drive more than women, therefore in theori should be better drivers, but should also be more prone to causing accidents.
From the experience that i have, women who drive alot do so without really caring about actually learning more or maintaining skill. They just drive to avoid walking/cycling/public transport.
Can we at least try not to be discriminating? Use statistics all you want, but don't add in "women only use their cars as a means to get to A to B, while men try to maintain their skills". The only non-discriminating thing in that post is that men generally drive more than women, which is a fact.
|
... I'm gettting my car license in like 1-2 months, and the problem is that i'm so tired of taking the bus, and my work like 50min drive away from me which is like 2 hours in total with the bus(one way, waiting time, etc).. And it's now dark from when i leave my house in the morning, and when my work is done it's starting to get dark. I also have to pay 2k NOK(400ish dollar) for my bus tickets each month, which would be less in fuel..
|
I dont particulary dislike Jens Stoltenberg, but the people he goes to "bed" with, are just disgusting in their opinions like this woman.
I have a feeling they are sitting on knowledge that we dont know, so that our reaction to this, is beneficial for the party (AP).
|
Isn't it generally agreed that old people are a much bigger hazard than young people when it comes to driving?
I was actually riding with my grandmother just today, and I'm pretty sure that if she'd retake a driving test today she'd fail miserably. As much as I love her it's hard to deny that she's not a particularly safe driver.
|
The norwegian politicians should really try and control their desires for young men of the road. Good title 
That being said i agree with the alchohol lock in princicple (although not only for young men, that would be stupid), but it's too hard to implement. But you're only making people not drive drunk, not "infringing" on any "rights" like some people have said.
Not being allowed to drive while dark and not allowed to have passengers is stupid though, really stupid. Makes no sense.
|
United States24761 Posts
The thread title made no sense so I changed it. Hopefully this is considered accurate.
+ Show Spoiler [old title] +norwegian politician want young men of the road
|
On November 15 2011 18:37 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Well Australia's got some of what you described, we've got insane rules and limits for Provisional drivers (between 17~21 years old approximately)
And still Australian young drivers are one of the worst - "crashwise".
|
I think the age thingy is alright. It's not discriminating if most the accidents happens to 18-24 year olds. Age restrictions aren't discriminating. You aren't allowed to buy alcohol in Sweden until you're 20 for example. Is that a discrimination towards 0-19 year olds? No, it's just an age restriction. The part that does piss me off about this tho is that these rules only applies to males. That's extremely discriminating. And the fact that that the politican suggesting all this is a woman is just embarrasing and hillarious! I don't see any of this getting thru?
|
If it had been young people in general I could somewhat understand it (though they already have to pay a high insurance I believe?), but only males? Go make me a sandwich, woman!
In general, I think alcohol locks are a decent proposal, if the technology is good enough. It also raises some ethical concerns, like emergency cases (though, any drunk driver, even if it is an emergency to save a life, they would risk other drivers' life if they drive under influence).
|
My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics.
How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data?
This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not.
Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion:
![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/v75mi1.jpg)
These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same.
Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes.
Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes.
This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE.
Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety.
Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off???
|
On November 16 2011 20:45 nebffa wrote:My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics. How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data? This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not. Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion: These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same. Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE. Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off???
So fucking what? It's STILL discriminating as hell. WHY gender? African americans do statistically more crime. Should african american males between 16-24 be disallowed to enter stores without an officer? Or is that discriminating?
|
On November 16 2011 20:59 NKsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 20:45 nebffa wrote:My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics. How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data? This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not. Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion: These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same. Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE. Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off??? So fucking what? It's STILL discriminating as hell. WHY gender? African americans do statistically more crime. Should african american males between 16-24 be disallowed to enter stores without an officer? Or is that discriminating?
No - you don't discriminate based on statistics. You create policy that will make a difference to those people, and then end up levelling up the statistics. Otherwise you put up with what's already happening and it won't change.
|
On November 16 2011 21:14 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 20:59 NKsc2 wrote:On November 16 2011 20:45 nebffa wrote:My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics. How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data? This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not. Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion: These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same. Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE. Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off??? So fucking what? It's STILL discriminating as hell. WHY gender? African americans do statistically more crime. Should african american males between 16-24 be disallowed to enter stores without an officer? Or is that discriminating? No - you don't discriminate based on statistics. You create policy that will make a difference to those people, and then end up levelling up the statistics. Otherwise you put up with what's already happening and it won't change.
African americans do statistically more crime. Should african american males between 16-24 be disallowed to enter stores without an officer?
|
On November 16 2011 21:18 NKsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 21:14 nebffa wrote:On November 16 2011 20:59 NKsc2 wrote:On November 16 2011 20:45 nebffa wrote:My full-time job and tertiary studies are all based in statistics. How do you all justify that women are more crash-prone than men? Do you look at the data? This url was on the previous page, using statistics compiled by a company in the U.S. for auto insurers (i.e. companies that rely on the integrity of these statistics to make money). These statistics carry weight when it comes to making policy such as this Norwegian politician is intending. Your anecdotal evidence does not. Let me select one particular statistic from their numbers that is relevant to this discussion: These statistics are from the United States, but around the world the trend is mostly the same. Ages 16-19, males almost DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. Ages 20-29, males DOUBLE females in fatal vehicle crashes. This is the rate per mile driven. If you look at the rate per capita, the ratio would be EVEN WORSE. Based on the data, males are more at risk of road fatalities. They should be regulated for their own safety. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but if you don't base your policy off what is happening in reality what the hell are you basing your policy off??? So fucking what? It's STILL discriminating as hell. WHY gender? African americans do statistically more crime. Should african american males between 16-24 be disallowed to enter stores without an officer? Or is that discriminating? No - you don't discriminate based on statistics. You create policy that will make a difference to those people, and then end up levelling up the statistics. Otherwise you put up with what's already happening and it won't change. African americans do statistically more crime. Should african american males between 16-24 be disallowed to enter stores without an officer?
I'm not talking about bold forceful measures like that that will serve only to prevent short-term issues, and will end up inciting further hatred. I'm talking about educational programs, community groups, etc. - things that have shown they make a difference. What is your suggestion if not this?
|
Norwegia why so lame? No point discussing, this ain't gonna work
|
It's good to know that other countries also have people who missed the last 100 years of social theory.
|
On November 16 2011 21:31 mewo wrote:
It's good to know that other countries also have people who missed the last 100 years of social theory.
I've missed it, what does it say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
