|
source
i read this one this morning and it gave me a great laugh to be honest..
quick summary for the ones not bothering for the link (or dont know norwegian):
Some politician (female just to make even more laughable) wants to put a restriction on norwegian males between 18 and 24 that has a driver license (btw 18 is the needed age for drivers license in norway)
1. they cant have passengers
2. not allowed to drive while dark
3. cars must be outfitted with an alcohol-lock and speed-lock..
For me atleast and most of reasonable people this is so far of base its hilarious..
the only reasoning i could find was that 1/5 of accidents involved a young male, and ofc its a right that everyone should feel safe in traffic...
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? 
no passengers... so an 23 year old guy is not allowed to drive his kid sister to school.. but if she's 18 she can drive him.. very unreasonable
not allowed to drive in the dark... though nightvision got worse by the years... and just think about the poor bastards in northern norway.. where in the start of the year have abit over 1 hour during the day with light... 
but hey.. it might be a deliberate attempt to have many insane claims that will kinda overshadow the smaller restrictions in there
alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age
though quite a fun laugh... and also a nice pause from the steriotypical "look at what the crazy americans are up to now" threads.. there are carzy people everywhere 
|
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!
|
This law is nailing all the wrong points. Most of the people my age from my college drive recklessly... It should not target any specific age or gender. In fact the craziest car I've ridden on was a girl who wanted to give a guy a "birthday treat". I was praying the entire trip, it was scary.
|
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?
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
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)
|
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.
|
The gender discrimination is just ridiculous. I do love whenever us white males get to play the "victim of discrimination" card though. I hope Norway has people that are as good at faking outrage as we have in the states. Maybe you can get her to lose her job.
|
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.
|
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.
i'm not sure about drunk driving on private property in norway... not that many private roads anyways :p
but yeah i have to agree to the speeding on race tracks, so you would need a simple way to shut it off.. but maybe also some sort of warning that it is off, also outside the car... maybe some of the lights goes of or something weird like that
might be as simple as having the signaling lights blinking in alternating patterns.. only reason to have the speedlock off in normal traffic would be to speed anyways... and it would open up for emergency driving
|
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.
It is discrimination... even if i agree with the fact that guys are more careless than girls coming to driving.
|
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.
|
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, it probably will not happen but if it does, I'm using my first vote ever (I can vote for the next election :D ) to NOT vote AP ^^
|
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.
well in this case it is discrimination.. if you target anything (in this case a nation wide law) against a certain segment of the population, its technically discrimination...
its also a statistical fact that many of the girls in my class at school when i turned 18 drove like monkeys on speed...
and there are not THAT many avarage "asshole kids".... most are avarage kids that actually dont drive like idiots.... they still need experience and training to get properly used to driving (having a license does not mean you're a good driver.. it makes you a driver... time to get good) but they are not idiots...
|
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.
Yea, most women don't drive recklessly, just like most men. Are you gonna put a blanket restriction on all men just because a handful of them drive recklessly? Segregating people by a characteristic that is correlated to an issue at hand rather than a characteristic that is causal of the issue is 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.
Well, it is discrimination. That's a simple fact. That doesn't make it wrong, however - we discriminate all the time, whether that's not allowing young people to vote or making old people get tests to make sure they're still capable of driving.
Personally, I don't think this is reasonable. I already pay considerably more in (mandatory) insurance for my sex and age. I assume the same is true in Norway. A speed/alcohol check seems reasonable for everyone, no passengers for young people makes some sense but I don't see why it would only be males, and not being allowed to drive in the dark seems ridiculous. In technical ability, males are considerably better than females, it is temperament that is the issue, so why would they be penalised in something that only affects technical ability?
|
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.
|
This is like reverse Saudi Arabic restrictions.
LOL.
|
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.
aye you might be right... if the statistics in the article is correct it would be up to 20% reduction
but still the same.. it might be good intentions.. but its still idiotic,
it would be the same as having statistics that say that "most robberies are caused by immigrants for bortvekkistan" so all people from that place would have to stay indoors after dark
any law should be for everyone... not just a distinct segment of the population
|
On November 15 2011 19:00 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +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 ?
but still the same.. it might be good intentions.. but its still idiotic,
it would be the same as having statistics that say that "most robberies are caused by immigrants for bortvekkistan" so all people from that place would have to stay indoors after dark
Haha, that one made me laugh ^^ (I did get your point)
|
I believe barring all female to drive is a much better way to solve 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.
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.
|
Sweden405 Posts
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.
|
On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age
Why? Why does the government need to infringe on mine and your privacy and check on what everyone is doing. Plus how are you going to do this? There will need to be more government regulations on car makers and car dealers and its going to infringe on your privacy and you may not be able to drive home at a cold winter night and freeze in the car until you are not drunk.
I mean its just crazy talk.
|
Why an alcohol lock? It should be mandatory for every car to have a camera equipped inside, with the feed directed to the closest police department. No one should be allowed to commit any sort of crime in their car. Its only reasonable.
|
On November 15 2011 20:29 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote: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.
I am pretty sure that some smart person would come up with something like blowing humid air through a pump into that thing, or something like that. You have to realize that there is noone checking whether you actually breath into it, unlike in police controls. Also, there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk. I really find it hard to believe that that technology even exists at the moment, seeing as even breath test made by the police often are not enough in court.
|
On November 15 2011 20:33 TheBomb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age Why? Why does the government need to infringe on mine and your privacy and check on what everyone is doing. Plus how are you going to do this? There will need to be more government regulations on car makers and car dealers and its going to infringe on your privacy and you may not be able to drive home at a cold winter night and freeze in the car until you are not drunk. I mean its just crazy talk.
What? Of course you shouldn't be able to drive home on a cold winter night until you are not drunk. That could be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on this website. If it's a cold winter night there's going to be snow as well as ice; top it off with the fact that you're totally inebriated and you have a guaranteed accident. If it's a cold winter night and you know you need to drive home then don't drink alcohol. If that situation were to occur it would be entirely your own fault.
On November 15 2011 20:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:29 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote: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. I am pretty sure that some smart person would come up with something like blowing humid air through a pump into that thing, or something like that. You have to realize that there is noone checking whether you actually breath into it, unlike in police controls. Also, there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk. I really find it hard to believe that that technology even exists at the moment, seeing as even breath test made by the police often are not enough in court.
Of course there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk - but it's not possible to get enough alcohol in your breath for the test to consider you drunk without actually being drunk. And yes, I can tell you that that test does exist, at least in Canada, for that's what Police use every time they pull someone over here if they suspect drinking. That, and I own one.
However you are right with the idea of blowing humid air through a tube of some sort.
|
|
|
On November 15 2011 20:18 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
like just a few lines further down in the same post.. its an automated system... his sober friend could have done the breathtest for him... so the automated breathalyzer is simple to bypass... dumb.. illegal, idiotic... but possible
its not wrong per say to limit people from driving... if you physically is not able to properly control a car (blind for example) mentally unstable though is a grey zone thats damn hard to prove and cant be based on "you have this and that diagnose, therefor you cant drive" since most mental illnesses have a wide range of degreee. It would be way to much ifs and or buts... except for open/shut cases... like so extreme cases of ah/hd that you cant sit still for more than 10 seconds before you go on a rampage
|
On November 15 2011 20:40 Sated 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. Not all men are the same. Shouldn't punish all young men when not all young men are idiots whilst driving. Hence, it is discrimination. You are assuming someone is a bad driver just because they're a certain age/gender. Bullshit idea. Should be shot down. Better education, harder testing and stricter punishments are the way to stop people acting like dicks in cars.
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.
On November 15 2011 20:41 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:18 zakmaa wrote: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. like just a few lines further down in the same post.. its an automated system... his sober friend could have done the breathtest for him... so the automated breathalyzer is simple to bypass... dumb.. illegal, idiotic... but possible its not wrong per say to limit people from driving... if you physically is not able to properly control a car (blind for example) mentally unstable though is a grey zone thats damn hard to prove and cant be based on "you have this and that diagnose, therefor you cant drive" since most mental illnesses have a wide range of degreee. It would be way to much ifs and or buts... except for open/shut cases... like so extreme cases of ah/hd that you cant sit still for more than 10 seconds before you go on a rampage
Possible, but if there were two people, one drunk and one sober and one had to blow the test - why would you make the sober one blow the test then make the drunk one drive? That's so unreasonable. Also - I understand your points, and this law wouldn't make it impossible for men to drive, it would just impose rules. Rules that are there for safety.
|
|
|
lol
User was warned for this post
|
On November 15 2011 20:44 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:41 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 20:40 Sated 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. Not all men are the same. Shouldn't punish all young men when not all young men are idiots whilst driving. Hence, it is discrimination. You are assuming someone is a bad driver just because they're a certain age/gender. Bullshit idea. Should be shot down. Better education, harder testing and stricter punishments are the way to stop people acting like dicks in cars. 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. Muslims aren't allowed on planes anymore. It will save lives! Fat people can't buy McDonald's anymore. It will save lives! Women being able to smoke and drink is now banned. It will prevent smoking and drinking during pregnancy and save lives! Look how silly all those statements are, your reasoning doesn't cut it. Preventing people from doing things based on their gender/race/age/sexual orientation is silly.
I don't agree with all of those statements however. I understand that you're trying to use an analogy to convince me on your terms, but that isn't going to cut it. Terrorist organizations aren't only muslim - that's a ridiculous assumption to make. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to buy McDonalds. I 100% agree with that statement. It will save lives. And no, not all women shouldn't be able to smoke and drink, only the pregnant women shouldn't be able to smoke and drink.
|
Alcohol locks? Wtf is that supposed to be? a breathalyzer build into the car? That wouldn't work for so many reasons. 1. anyone could blow into it, not just the driver 2. you need to bow at a certain strength, otherwise it wouldn't give an accurate reading — AFAIK someone needs to supervise. Even fake mouth-lung tools could be made
3. It would be terribly expensive, as well as take maintenance (increasing cost some more)
Speed locks have always made sense to me though, personally.
Wireless transmitters should send signals to cars what the speed limit is, and hence set the speed lock for the car while in that zone. I'd think the insurance companies would buy right into that, and frankly I don't know why it hasn't been implemented a year or few ago on the newer models of cars (or even retrofit kits). People with the modules equipped could get discounts on their insurance, for instance.
|
On November 15 2011 20:37 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:33 TheBomb wrote:On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age Why? Why does the government need to infringe on mine and your privacy and check on what everyone is doing. Plus how are you going to do this? There will need to be more government regulations on car makers and car dealers and its going to infringe on your privacy and you may not be able to drive home at a cold winter night and freeze in the car until you are not drunk. I mean its just crazy talk. What? Of course you shouldn't be able to drive home on a cold winter night until you are not drunk. That could be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on this website. If it's a cold winter night there's going to be snow as well as ice; top it off with the fact that you're totally inebriated and you have a guaranteed accident. If it's a cold winter night and you know you need to drive home then don't drink alcohol. If that situation were to occur it would be entirely your own fault. Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:36 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 20:29 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote: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. I am pretty sure that some smart person would come up with something like blowing humid air through a pump into that thing, or something like that. You have to realize that there is noone checking whether you actually breath into it, unlike in police controls. Also, there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk. I really find it hard to believe that that technology even exists at the moment, seeing as even breath test made by the police often are not enough in court. Of course there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk - but it's not possible to get enough alcohol in your breath for the test to consider you drunk without actually being drunk. And yes, I can tell you that that test does exist, at least in Canada, for that's what Police use every time they pull someone over here if they suspect drinking. That, and I own one. However you are right with the idea of blowing humid air through a tube of some sort.
I know that these things exist. I have never questioned it. What i am questioning is if they have the necessary accuracy, and can be emplied without supervision. For example, for the police both a 1% chance of false positive or negative while being supervised are absolutely acceptable. It has been a few years since i last had anything to do with that, but if i remember correctly at least here in germany if you get tested positive they actually make you do a blood test, because the breath analyzers alone are not always accepted as proof by courts. However, for this to be emplied mandatorily in cars to make them not start without a green test, you would need an accuracy which is a few orders of magnitude higher, especially on false positives, but also on false negatives, and all of that without any supervision at all.
NO testing device for anything is 100% accurate, but different applications have different demands, and this one would have far higher demands then the self-tests you can do, or the tests the police uses.
|
then another politician should make an law that women cant leave the kitchen? its as good as this one
|
Automatic speed radars? that's such a dumb idea and it would never work. People could counterfeit licence plates, you could drive someone else's car, and putting them in every street in the world would be terribly expensive.
Plus, they are a blatant violation of people's privacy. Why not have a street camera connected to a police station? That's basically the same thing.
|
On November 15 2011 20:58 dementrio wrote:
Automatic speed radars? that's such a dumb idea and it would never work. People could counterfeit licence plates, you could drive someone else's car, and putting them in every street in the world would be terribly expensive.
Plus, they are a blatant violation of people's privacy. Why not have a street camera connected to a police station? That's basically the same thing.
I think the idea is more along the lines of building a device into a car that makes it impossible to accelerate beyond the speed limit. Which is far more practical, and also does not really invade your privacy in any way.
Edit: Also, Police stations have windows. Are you against that, too?
|
Another thing about speed locks, what if i want to take my car on a track day?
What if im driving on the autobahns?
What if im on private property?
Such a terrible idea.
|
On November 15 2011 20:41 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:40 Sated 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. Not all men are the same. Shouldn't punish all young men when not all young men are idiots whilst driving. Hence, it is discrimination. You are assuming someone is a bad driver just because they're a certain age/gender. Bullshit idea. Should be shot down. Better education, harder testing and stricter punishments are the way to stop people acting like dicks in cars. 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.Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:41 ZergOwaR wrote:On November 15 2011 20:18 zakmaa wrote: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. like just a few lines further down in the same post.. its an automated system... his sober friend could have done the breathtest for him... so the automated breathalyzer is simple to bypass... dumb.. illegal, idiotic... but possible its not wrong per say to limit people from driving... if you physically is not able to properly control a car (blind for example) mentally unstable though is a grey zone thats damn hard to prove and cant be based on "you have this and that diagnose, therefor you cant drive" since most mental illnesses have a wide range of degreee. It would be way to much ifs and or buts... except for open/shut cases... like so extreme cases of ah/hd that you cant sit still for more than 10 seconds before you go on a rampage Possible, but if there were two people, one drunk and one sober and one had to blow the test - why would you make the sober one blow the test then make the drunk one drive? That's so unreasonable. Also - I understand your points, and this law wouldn't make it impossible for men to drive, it would just impose rules. Rules that are there for safety.
With logic like this, society can't even exist. Why not discriminate based on every possible factor? Black people and latinos constitute the large majority of the prison population in America. Should all black and latino males be incarcerated from youth? The problem with this logic is that it quickly snowballs out of control. Taking away rights of groups becomes seemingly logical, which is fine and dandy because it will "save more lives". This is wrong when you consider the fact that the possibility of human interaction always runs the risk of endangering human life. Should human interaction be banned? Should society exist at all? Interaction always poses risks as opposed to isolation. Your logic results in some pretty damn scary fascist, and to an extreme, anti-societal, viewpoints.
|
It's ridiculous.
If I had to agree with any part of this it would be "cars must be outfitted with an alcohol-lock and speed-lock."
Drinking and driving is bad mmkay.
|
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.
It's discrimination because you are making a generalisation about a huge group of people and consequently treating them differently based on the actions of a select few within that group... That is textbook definition of discrimination my friend.
That's like saying because black people are more likely to commit a crime (which is a 'statistical fact') then we should impose special restrictions on them, such as police being allowed to search their property without a warrant, or force them all to undergo some sort of crime awareness education, or preventing them all from buying knives/guns.
They have these kinds of restrictions in Australia, where whilst you are on your 'red plates' (a probationary period) you are only allowed to have a maximum of 1 passenger who is between 16-21 and not related to you. Whilst it is a nuisance I can understand it because a. it isn't unreasonable like those mentioned in the OP, and 2. it applies to everyone on red plates, not just males of a certain age.
So sick of morons here all debating about more stupid restrictions to put in place (the not driving between 11pm-6am was suggested here as well), people who drink/drive or speed are breaking the law anyway, what makes people think that by punishing 99% of sensible people by implementing stupid laws they are going to suddenly stop people from breaking the ones already there? They will just take their P-Plates off and keep driving lol.
At least we live up to our title of 'nanny nation'...
Edit: banning driving in general would eliminate the road toll completely, why don't we do that lol...stupid 'reasoning'
|
In the same way terrorist organisations aren't only muslim, people driving like idiots aren't only men. '
|
I know it has been mentioned before, but according to statistics women drive while texting/putting on make-up/generally not paying attention alot more than men.
|
Girls drive just as crazy as guys from what I have seen.
|
I've lost a friend to drunk driving. I hope every car gets an alcohol-lock, but I'm 22. When I was 18/19 I had a logistic-sort of job where I was driving roughly 4-8 hours a day. I'm a great driver, I follow the rules - thing is, this would really suck for those that doesn't drive like assholes.
I'm more into alcohol-lock + suspension of drivers license in 1-5 years - or depending on the speedcrime. Not banning or putting strict rules on everyone from beginning.
Trust me, most of those speed-idiots have been punished before with a fine or something align.
Make that fine a suspension, and they'll learn a lesson. Because I couldn't imagine my life without my car at the moment :3
|
On November 15 2011 21:04 Blacktion wrote:
Another thing about speed locks, what if i want to take my car on a track day?
What if im driving on the autobahns?
What if im on private property?
Such a terrible idea.
as mentioned earlier in the thread.. something about japan having a speedlock system that relies on gps..
would cost abit i guess to make it world wide...
but simpler ways such as.. a norwegian bought car... within the borders of norway (checked by gps) will have a speedlock, for starters perhaps just set a top speedlimit of 100km/h..
expand on it later as one map out the speedlimits of the different areas.
special allowance for smaller areas (race tracks and such) can be made...
emergency button type of thing that shuts down the speedlock, but makes some lights on the car flash (to discourage use while not needed)... stuff like that...
private property is a bit more tricky to get effective, but still possible
|
Wow, you cant really expect a woman to use logic, and this just proves it XD.
|
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.
and if we forbid driving as a whole there will be 0 collisions in the whole world.
what's your point?
|
Pretty much sums up the intelligence of "our" politicians...
Kinda scary if you ask me
|
In Norway it is illegal to drive drunk on private property. You could get arrested for driving a lawn mower if you have alcohol in your system. ................... :D
|
Say what you want about the sentiments behind this - it doesn't matter.
It'd be illegal to discriminate in such a fashion and the implementation of a law that makes it legal would require a change in the Norwegian constitution.
So GG lawmakers, you got your headlines but the "threat" is entirely unsubstantiated.
|
Ya, there's no way this is going through, ever.
What's funny and notable about this though is that it's a supposedly top tier politician who's coming up with this proposition. XD
|
Adding a alcohol lock would be great. If it was done for everyone it would be good and easy to do. Doing it for 18-22 or so, would be harder (cant use every car, parents etc), but only for male is quite stupid and almost impossible to do.
Then again, this is from one of the worst new outlets in the country.
|
On November 15 2011 21:48 saynomore wrote:
Adding a alcohol lock would be great. If it was done for everyone it would be good and easy to do. Doing it for 18-22 or so, would be harder (cant use every car, parents etc), but only for male is quite stupid and almost impossible to do.
Then again, this is from one of the worst new outlets in the country.
Except that i am not yet convinced that the necessary technology even exists.
|
She is a dummbfuck that wanted to go official, like all the politicians in norway.
+ your source is from VG, NOT a reliable source....
|
This isn't completely outrageous. The pre-frontal cortex (which is responsible for safety judgements) doesn't fully develop until 25, and add young male testosterone on top of it = super high death rate.
But yeah, it'd retard the economy. If anything people should be blood tested for alcohol, and those with high consumption rates should be barred [these are the poepl emore like to be the morons who speed]. something like this.
DOn't see why her being female makes it a laugh.
|
okay so what are they going to do about the other 4/5 accidents that aren't caused by young men?
|
On November 15 2011 21:58 arbitrageur wrote:
DOn't see why her being female makes it a laugh.
it makes it more laughable for me atleast since it add the irony of a woman wanting to make a law that prohibits men... where women have been fighting for equal rights for a long time
|
This is hilariously bad.
Yes people under 25 generally suck at driving. Though I would rather say under 21 tbh. You are inexperienced no matter how good you think you are. And more of a danger to other drivers on the road. Hence your higher insurance rates.
But to restrict them? No.
If anybody needs to be taken off the road it's old fucks with dementia.
Oh and stupid bitches with cell phones.
|
On November 15 2011 18:26 Reaper9 wrote:
This law is nailing all the wrong points. Most of the people my age from my college drive recklessly... It should not target any specific age or gender. In fact the craziest car I've ridden on was a girl who wanted to give a guy a "birthday treat". I was praying the entire trip, it was scary.
She did that WHILE she was operating a vehicle? What the fuck?
|
I want OP to want to properly capitalize his thread title.
|
I wonder, how much of the age distribution of dangerous drivers is because people who get in their first accident wise up about road safety, and people who get a certain amount of driving experience just learn to handle their car better, keeping them away from accidents.
Also, two interesting facts;
* On the subject of automated speed radar, they have it implemented in Finland. Recently, the police were calling for more authority to issue fines without going to court, because the speed radar-issued tickets are tying up effectively all prosecutors.
* There was a traffic accident in 2004 where a truck driver lost control of his vehicle and couldn't correct because there was a speed lock. He hit a bus, resulting in 23 deaths and 14 injuries.
|
On November 15 2011 20:41 zakmaa wrote:
Possible, but if there were two people, one drunk and one sober and one had to blow the test - why would you make the sober one blow the test then make the drunk one drive? That's so unreasonable.
Possibility: Cause the sober guy doesn't have a license.
|
The thread title gave me expecations that some party had gone madmax on us and decided to start recruiting road warriors. I was severely dissapointed.
That said, statistics are on Bratli's side. A significant majority of all car-related accidents are caused by young men under 25. At the same time, doing what she's argumenting for would be punishing everyone, including those who actually drive properly. It'd be like shooting a sparrow with a cannon - lots of collateral damage. Plus it'd also harm the transportational needs of anyone who uses their car for commuting to work / school.
Now optimally, we'd be able to completely negate the need for cars for commuting through public transportation such as trains and shuttles, but realistically, Norway's far too spread out and far too lightly populated to make that in any way economically viable (as has been done in Japan, where there's a far smaller private car usage culture). Since the car is so essential to any peripheral settlements, limiting it like this is not really an option.
I do agree that all cars should have breathalyzer-locks though. Of course it can easilly be circumvented by having your sober kid brother blowing the lock for you, but at least it'd be more of a hassle, and thus be somewhat preventive.
|
the 18 - 24 specific thing is bullshit. alc and speed locks are a good idea. almost all the cases when I heard someone my age died it was due to car accidents.
|
On November 15 2011 23:11 plated.rawr wrote:
I do agree that all cars should have breathalyzer-locks though. Of course it can easilly be circumvented by having your sober kid brother blowing the lock for you, but at least it'd be more of a hassle, and thus be somewhat preventive.
I just read up on this a bit, and have come to the conclusion that, while it would be nice to have a technology that prevents drunk people from driving automatically, it simply does not exist so far. Especially breath analyzers have far to many problems to be mandatory in cars. One of them being that they are pretty inaccurate per se since they don't only detect alcohol, but also other substances with some similar chemic characteristic. For example, apparently you have a pretty high chance to get a positive test result after painting a room. They are pretty reliant on being used in the right way, and apparently you can manipulate the result by a pretty large margin when using the right or wrong breathing techniques.
|
There seems to be several deviances in the article from the original interview.
Most notably it's never mentioned that the restrictions would apply to males only. There is also no mention of how long the restrictions would last, only that they would apply immediatly after the driving license is aquired and would be lifted gradually as driving skills improves. From what I understand any restrictions would be based on how long someone had owned their driving license, not their age or their gender.
VG is a typical tabloid and OP completely fell for their screaming headlines and omition of key information.
|
On November 15 2011 23:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 23:11 plated.rawr wrote:
I do agree that all cars should have breathalyzer-locks though. Of course it can easilly be circumvented by having your sober kid brother blowing the lock for you, but at least it'd be more of a hassle, and thus be somewhat preventive. I just read up on this a bit, and have come to the conclusion that, while it would be nice to have a technology that prevents drunk people from driving automatically, it simply does not exist so far. Especially breath analyzers have far to many problems to be mandatory in cars. One of them being that they are pretty inaccurate per se since they don't only detect alcohol, but also other substances with some similar chemic characteristic. For example, apparently you have a pretty high chance to get a positive test result after painting a room. They are pretty reliant on being used in the right way, and apparently you can manipulate the result by a pretty large margin when using the right or wrong breathing techniques.
Yeah in theory it's a good idea but as you say there's to many issues with the technology today for us to remove the human out of the testing procedure.
|
Well, the original interview still contains the ludicrous restrictions that they may not have passengers or drive during nighttime. I predict that these will just increase the accident rate since people will have driven less and not developed good habits for nighttime driving during the probationary period.
|
So I must start drinking AFTER I start my car? That's INSANE.
|
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 is pretty much the most disgusting thing I've read in a long time.
You just explicitly generalized that all men drive more recklessly than all women.
You just explicitly stated that all women drive slow and are indecisive.
You just generalized an average kid (presumed young male driver) to be an asshole who can't drive.
Good job.
PS: You should probably check the word discrimination in the dictionary, would probably answer your last question.
|
i don't think it's THAT stupid. maybe cause i know to many crazy idiots when it comes to driving, and i used to be one myself.
|
|
|
The Scandinavian countries have always led the way in terms of female rights, it's only natural that they eventually give females all the rights and reduce men to subservient positions. Basically making women goddesses and men the followers
|
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 can agree with the alkohol lock ...
but as a german there is no such thing like a general limit on how fast i can drive. There are only speed limits for certain roads or parts of it. (ofc there are speed limits on most roads except parts of the highways)
|
I find it painful that people don't oppose this kind of legislation out of sheer principle. You know, personal freedom and that stuff.
|
On November 16 2011 00:56 Morphling_ 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 is pretty much the most disgusting thing I've read in a long time. You just explicitly generalized that all men drive more recklessly than all women. You just explicitly stated that all women drive slow and are indecisive. You just generalized an average kid (presumed young male driver) to be an asshole who can't drive. Good job. PS: You should probably check the word discrimination in the dictionary, would probably answer your last question.
I'm with you on this...
I have been driving since 17, I have never had an accident. I know many men who could say the same, I know many men who couldn't. I know many women who have had accidents, infact of all the people I know there are two girls who between them have caused more road accidents than the rest of us put together.
1 in 5 accidents are caused by men, but male drivers also outnumber women drivers and male drivers spend more time behind the wheel on average than women do especially at the ages of 18-25. Men like to drive, they drive their gf's and mates around, the only time I ever let my gf drive is when I'm either not sober or too tired, most men who can drive are like me... they like to be the one doing the driving.
Yes young men tend to be more accident prone in a car but many more good and safe young male drivers exist than unsafe ones. You can't punish me for someone else's crimes.
|
On November 15 2011 19:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 19:49 Sfydjklm wrote: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.
I think one of the first vehicles equipped with it was the Nissan GTR which on the street is substantially detuned. On the flip side just because you have the power/top speed doesn't mean you have to use it, there's simply some vehicles younger people should not own and most places have a track (strip or circuit) and open lapping days close enough to go there if you want to use it for what it was built for. I dread the day vehicles like mine and others in its class are cheap enough for a 17/18 year old to purchase used (already close) because there's nothing to stop them from bottoming it out/racing short of common sense. There's also no way to detune it on the fly short of flashing the ECM with a lesser tune which most parents wouldn't have a clue how to do and it's inconvenient to continually reflash the vehicle in the first place  .
Do I think the approach the OP posted is over the top, yes, most definitely. Some good points, but too extreme. As for the male versus female debate, it's not so much a sex thing more-so that overly defensive drivers piss people off and cause more accidents with their indecisive/timid approach behind the wheel. I'm not saying drive like a dipshit, but checking your blindspot 45 times, hammering on the brakes for no reason, etc causes problems on highways and in the city.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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.
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 -_-
|
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 wouldn't....
Those things take FOREVER to start your car. Absolutely forever. I had to borrow my friend's car who had one installed, ridiculous pain in the ass, not to mention that you have to constantly blow into it sporadically at different periods or else your car will auto shut down on you.
|
On November 16 2011 00:56 Morphling_ 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 is pretty much the most disgusting thing I've read in a long time. You just explicitly generalized that all men drive more recklessly than all women. You just explicitly stated that all women drive slow and are indecisive. You just generalized an average kid (presumed young male driver) to be an asshole who can't drive. Good job. PS: You should probably check the word discrimination in the dictionary, would probably answer your last question.
You forgot to mention that slow and indecisive driving can represent a hazard.
|
I once read a study that said an 18 year old man with 1.0 blood alcohol content had reflexes similar to that of an 80 year old. They concluded that 18 year olds should not be allowed to drive after drinking, but failed to conclude that 80 years should not be allowed to drive at all.
|
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 States42674 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.
|
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.
|
Ban 20~ year old males from driving in the dark but not old people?
Ban people from driving in the dark in a country where there's practically NO daylight in mid december?
Breathalyzer I can agree on. Automatic speed-lock would take all the fun out of driving for me (probably a good thing for traffic safety ^^). Anyway, people would probably just hack both systems. Breathalyzers for inconvenience mostly, speed-locks because of many people like speeding once in a while (for different reasons).
Silly fucking law, with some good parts that should be discussed.
|
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 for one totally agree with you: ban women off the roads entirely, and impose those restrictions on men aged 18-24.
|
Im really sorry, but can we change the title to "young men OFF the road" rather than "young men OF the road" because i was expecting something totally different an weird
|
Statistically this makes sense.
Statistically you could make many policies that would make sense but people would label discriminatory, racist, or prejudiced in some other manner.
I can't decide whether using statistics more in policy making it's a good thing or bad thing
I'm sure one could come up with similar policies using the same logic that this same Norwegian politician would disapprove of.
|
Being an 18 year old thats around cars quite a bit, and knowing hundreds of people in this age range that drive, I feel confident in saying a few things:
In general, males are more skilled drivers. ( But also over-confident)
Women get in more accidents, but are generally less serious accidents than the ones males get into. ( Girls I find are generally under-confident, and get into accidents because of lack of attention or not knowing what to do in a situation. Guys I find tend to get in more "stupidity" accidents invloving speed or being a jackass)
I know TONNES of girls that have gotten in at fault accidents, while very few guys.
Obviously this is based on only people I know, but I think it's generally correct. There are obviously many exceptions, and I know lots of good female drivers, as well as bad male drivers.
|
El O EL, they should make it so you cant drive pass the age of 55 when you start becoming and old and blind and useless.
Had my learner license at 15(in newzealand, i think law changed to 16 now) and had my licence / car when i was 16.
people around me of all ages (family, friends) only benefited from me being mobile.
|
On November 16 2011 12:30 Rebornlife wrote:
Being an 18 year old thats around cars quite a bit, and knowing hundreds of people in this age range that drive, I feel confident in saying a few things:
In general, males are more skilled drivers. ( But also over-confident)
Women get in more accidents, but are generally less serious accidents than the ones males get into. ( Girls I find are generally under-confident, and get into accidents because of lack of attention or not knowing what to do in a situation. Guys I find tend to get in more "stupidity" accidents invloving speed or being a jackass)
I know TONNES of girls that have gotten in at fault accidents, while very few guys.
Obviously this is based on only people I know, but I think it's generally correct. There are obviously many exceptions, and I know lots of good female drivers, as well as bad male drivers.
Ah crap. I was about to write this exact post
Let me add some more of my own thoughts:
Fitting alcholocks on cars does sound like a good idea, but its not applicable. This is the same goverment that refuses so much to spend money, that they neglect, on purpose, to salt/plow the roads in the winter (which of course is terribly short sighted considering people crash more on these exact same roads).
The easiest way to do this, would be to fit alcholocks only on new cars. But 1. No 18 year old drive new cars and 2. This would only raise the used market on cars significantly, which again would give less money to the goverment (who takes a stupidly high amount of taxes on every new car imported and sold), and would just end up rising the accident statistics even more as newer cars are generally safer than older.
That said. Personally an alcholock wouldn't be a problem for me. But a speedlock is something I would wire around. I always sit somewhere around 10-20 km/h over the speedlimit when driving long distances by myself in the dark. Not to mention there are quite a few trackdays in Norway, which means there would need to be some way to turn it off, which defeats the purpose of it to begin with.
Also, as some people have touched on. We don't have daylight in Norway. The little there is is seen outside the window during classes or work. This means that no male between 18-24 can drive to or from work..
|
On November 16 2011 12:30 Rebornlife wrote:
Being an 18 year old thats around cars quite a bit, and knowing hundreds of people in this age range that drive, I feel confident in saying a few things:
In general, males are more skilled drivers. ( But also over-confident)
Women get in more accidents, but are generally less serious accidents than the ones males get into. ( Girls I find are generally under-confident, and get into accidents because of lack of attention or not knowing what to do in a situation. Guys I find tend to get in more "stupidity" accidents invloving speed or being a jackass)
I know TONNES of girls that have gotten in at fault accidents, while very few guys.
Obviously this is based on only people I know, but I think it's generally correct. There are obviously many exceptions, and I know lots of good female drivers, as well as bad male drivers.
Anecdotes are nice and all, but most of the time what you think is not very important. Here's some actual evidence:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126
|
Canada920 Posts
As far as i know the last statistics I heard females caused over 50% of accidents and while a demographic of the male percentage is young males (We love to go fast) then by the same logic we should ban females from driving. It's stupid besides the alcohol lock (dunno how this works though.)
|
On November 16 2011 14:20 Sworn wrote:
As far as i know the last statistics I heard females caused over 50% of accidents and while a demographic of the male percentage is young males (We love to go fast) then by the same logic we should ban females from driving. It's stupid besides the alcohol lock (dunno how this works though.)
You read anything besides what you've heard? Somehow people in this thread are way denser than average TL user.
|
alcohol locks are not possible. There is no way to supervise this system for every driver. Its totally worthless if there is no camera and mandatory reporting every once in a while. If its not supervised, then its easily bypassed and serves no purpose.
|
Canada920 Posts
On November 16 2011 14:32 discodancer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 14:20 Sworn wrote:
As far as i know the last statistics I heard females caused over 50% of accidents and while a demographic of the male percentage is young males (We love to go fast) then by the same logic we should ban females from driving. It's stupid besides the alcohol lock (dunno how this works though.) You read anything besides what you've heard? Somehow people in this thread are way denser than average TL user.
Apparently you don't. Women are involved in more crashes than men, it is not some absurd spread like 75-25 its is more like 55-45. Women cause 10% more accidents usually rear ends while men average more highspeed crashes. So yes I do read more than what I have heard. Apparently you haven't though.
|
Well i'm not Norwegian, but I am a young male. And I think the biggest problem with this law would be this simple logic:
It's already illegal to drive drunk right? It's already illegal too speed on public streets right? It's already illegal to street race right? It's already illegal to crash into other people, you see where i am going with this hopefully.
Yet it sounds like kids are still doing it. So all this law is really going to do is put people who are doing something completely reasonable in the wrong(kids who drive responsibly) and they will be arrested for doing something that is not wrong. The kids who are stupid and want to race are going to do it anyways. Does this lady seriously think shes going to install speed-lock systems and "after dark" sensors in everycar in the country?!?? Are officers going to be instructed to pull people over at night if they look like they are under 23 or whatever?!? just sounds ridiculous to me. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The major problem with this is that, you can't enforce these laws, and stupid kids who are already breaking the law aren't going to care if they are breaking 1 more. I wouldn't even be surprised if this caused an INCREASE in the amount of traffic accidents as kids breaking the law would drive recklessly as to not be caught by the police.
The People in this thread arguing that is not discrimination are approaching borderline insanity, maybe they need to check a dictionary. Oh herp derp, men are more likely to have heart attacks then women, maybe we shouldn't let men have hearts, that's the same logic you are arguing. Or people who drink alcohol are more likely to drink and drive!, so no one can drink anymore! People who smoke cigarettes are more likely to do harder drugs than non-smokers so no one can smoke anymore! Asian people are better at math, so all math related jobs must go to an asian person! This is why discrimination is dangerous, and why small things like this being passed into law can be very dangerous to society, because where does it stop.
on a side note, I think we can all agree old people are by far the worst drivers.
obviously the alcohol locks and speed locks are great things and should be standard on all new cars in all countries. But seriously how could you implement something like this, is the government going to fit the bill for installing thousands of dollars of equipment on my 800$ 1996 nissan beater with 200,000 miles on it? are they expecting me to pay thousands of dollars for equipment for my p.o.s car?
|
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.
|
On November 16 2011 15:39 Sworn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 14:32 discodancer wrote:On November 16 2011 14:20 Sworn wrote:
As far as i know the last statistics I heard females caused over 50% of accidents and while a demographic of the male percentage is young males (We love to go fast) then by the same logic we should ban females from driving. It's stupid besides the alcohol lock (dunno how this works though.) You read anything besides what you've heard? Somehow people in this thread are way denser than average TL user. Apparently you don't. Women are involved in more crashes than men, it is not some absurd spread like 75-25 its is more like 55-45. Women cause 10% more accidents usually rear ends while men average more highspeed crashes. So yes I do read more than what I have heard. Apparently you haven't though.
I haven't that's why I'm providing a source. Make more sense plz.
Again, check out the sources, see for yourself who does most damage. Look at this particular age group in question. Realize how stupid you are.
|
On November 16 2011 16:53 discodancer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 15:39 Sworn wrote:On November 16 2011 14:32 discodancer wrote:On November 16 2011 14:20 Sworn wrote:
As far as i know the last statistics I heard females caused over 50% of accidents and while a demographic of the male percentage is young males (We love to go fast) then by the same logic we should ban females from driving. It's stupid besides the alcohol lock (dunno how this works though.) You read anything besides what you've heard? Somehow people in this thread are way denser than average TL user. Apparently you don't. Women are involved in more crashes than men, it is not some absurd spread like 75-25 its is more like 55-45. Women cause 10% more accidents usually rear ends while men average more highspeed crashes. So yes I do read more than what I have heard. Apparently you haven't though. I haven't that's why I'm providing a source. Make more sense plz. Again, check out the sources, see for yourself who does most damage. Look at this particular age group in question. Realize how stupid you are.
You provided a source to 1 article paid for an studied by insurance companies, in one country. Hardly ground breaking 100% solid scientific proof. Stop being a jackass and calling everyone stupid. This is a topic that cannot just be proven by a couple stats of who gets in more accidents.
|
This is probably to do with the massive amount of horse deaths the Nords have had to deal with recently.
|
Haha the title sounds funny~ should be 'off' right?
|
Show nested quote +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.
You two are simply choosing to look at things solely from a gender perspective. You say that "women don't drive recklessly". Well, have you considered that the majority of men don't drive recklessly as well? Instead of simply chopping the public into two groups (male and female) and look at the statistical rate of the two groups and see that men drive more recklessly than women on average, you should chop the public into smaller groups until you find the real demographic which drives the worst (in which case almost the entire demographic drives bad). If you don't do that, you have the vast majority of 50% suffering along with a small minority of 50% of the population (males).
That is, if you absolutely have to have this approach to road safety, which is weird to begin with. If there is a group with higher risk of dangerous road incidents then that group needs education or other means and preventive work, not outright illegality.
|
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.
|
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 States24679 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?
|
Yeah, this is too discriminating. Either gender at any age can drive recklessly.
|
Well, I nearly lost a friend of mine when a drunk driver (He was somthing like 24) hit her in a front collision, so perhaps a alco-lock isnt a terrible idea.
But there are a lot of problems regarding the other measures they want to take, and I dont see them implementing them as they are now. I'd venture a guess that somthing like half of Norway's population live outside of the cities, were public transit is practically non-existant. Trains are expensive, because most people dont use it, and most people dont use trains because they are expensive. And if you do live on the countryside, you kinda need to get home after whatever you've been doing.
I live in a small community, and if I want to get home after a night of drinking, I need to get a lift from a buddy to get home. My parents have been kind enough to give me a lift more than once, but they cant always be there. And before they want to restrict things like this, they need to improve things like busses and trains on the countryside, which would probably be massivly expensive. Norway is quite big compared to how few live here, and there are so many villages hidden in some forest or whatever.
Another thing to consider is that during winter time, there is like 2 hours of sunlight in the northern parts of norway.
And lastly, as a young driver, you need lots of experience to be a good driver. I dont for a second believe that when your judgement center is fully evolved that you will be as good a driver as someone who has driven since they were 18. The roads of Norway for the most part are poor and narrow and lots of turns, crests and the likes, not to mention the ice. The driving education can be improved, sure, but I dont think the element of experience can at all be restricted nor avoided.
|
On November 16 2011 18:56 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 17:46 Teoman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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 only meant my own experience, Never meant to be discriminating
|
On November 16 2011 21:28 theBALLS wrote:Norwegia why so lame? No point discussing, this ain't gonna work
"Norwegia" lol. Norway*
|
Alco lock should be demanded in all vehicles, all other points are a bit ridiculous imo!
|
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta.
|
Women shouldn't be allowed to park or drive backwards then..
|
On November 17 2011 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta.
Elaborating why it would be such a bad idea, would be a nice start. Frankly, the only downside I see is that I can't wash my teeth with Listerine in the morning. And I never do that
|
On November 17 2011 01:27 HerroPreaseTN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta. Elaborating why it would be such a bad idea, would be a nice start. Frankly, the only downside I see is that I can't wash my teeth with Listerine in the morning. And I never do that
My mistake. More state control over the citizens' daily lives is probably always for the best. The ministry of transportation must ensure safer driving for us somehow. They should also install cameras into the vehicles to make sure that people aren't doing anything else dangerous, like texting, putting on make-up, eating. Or perhaps a mechanism to restrain the drivers hands to the wheel to prevent unsafe driving practices, that would be doubleplusgood. Of course, ideally there would be no privately owned vehicles, the ministry of transportation should eventually outlaw them. Mandatory public transportation for all citizens would be even safer, and the increased walking distances would be better for public health too! We are making progress, comrade.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 17 2011 01:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:27 HerroPreaseTN wrote:On November 17 2011 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta. Elaborating why it would be such a bad idea, would be a nice start. Frankly, the only downside I see is that I can't wash my teeth with Listerine in the morning. And I never do that My mistake. More state control over the citizens' daily lives is probably always for the best. The ministry of transportation must ensure safer driving for us somehow. They should also install cameras into the vehicles to make sure that people aren't doing anything else dangerous, like texting, putting on make-up, eating. Or perhaps a mechanism to restrain the drivers hands to the wheel to prevent unsafe driving practices, that would be doubleplusgood. Of course, ideally there would be no privately owned vehicles, the ministry of transportation should eventually outlaw them. Mandatory public transportation for all citizens would be even safer, and the increased walking distances would be better for public health too! We are making progress, comrade.
Sign me up!
|
On November 17 2011 01:43 Moragon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2011 01:27 HerroPreaseTN wrote:On November 17 2011 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta. Elaborating why it would be such a bad idea, would be a nice start. Frankly, the only downside I see is that I can't wash my teeth with Listerine in the morning. And I never do that My mistake. More state control over the citizens' daily lives is probably always for the best. The ministry of transportation must ensure safer driving for us somehow. They should also install cameras into the vehicles to make sure that people aren't doing anything else dangerous, like texting, putting on make-up, eating. Or perhaps a mechanism to restrain the drivers hands to the wheel to prevent unsafe driving practices, that would be doubleplusgood. Of course, ideally there would be no privately owned vehicles, the ministry of transportation should eventually outlaw them. Mandatory public transportation for all citizens would be even safer, and the increased walking distances would be better for public health too! We are making progress, comrade. Sign me up!
You don't have to sign up for anything. All you have to do is not protest when they take another liberty away. Look on the bright side of things. "I don't even use listerine! No loss there."
|
On November 17 2011 01:47 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:43 Moragon wrote:On November 17 2011 01:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2011 01:27 HerroPreaseTN wrote:On November 17 2011 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta. Elaborating why it would be such a bad idea, would be a nice start. Frankly, the only downside I see is that I can't wash my teeth with Listerine in the morning. And I never do that My mistake. More state control over the citizens' daily lives is probably always for the best. The ministry of transportation must ensure safer driving for us somehow. They should also install cameras into the vehicles to make sure that people aren't doing anything else dangerous, like texting, putting on make-up, eating. Or perhaps a mechanism to restrain the drivers hands to the wheel to prevent unsafe driving practices, that would be doubleplusgood. Of course, ideally there would be no privately owned vehicles, the ministry of transportation should eventually outlaw them. Mandatory public transportation for all citizens would be even safer, and the increased walking distances would be better for public health too! We are making progress, comrade. Sign me up! You don't have to sign up for anything. All you have to do is not protest when they take another liberty away. Look on the bright side of things. "I don't even use listerine! No loss there."
Did you protest when they made safety belts mandatory? That's where it all started going downhill. Car insurance? speed radars? A gigantic loss of freedom! Today they enforce drunk driving laws, tomorrow.... tomorrow... there will be, uh, less drivers around. I guess, uh, that's completely unacceptable. Because after all, if one chooses to drive while drunk, it should be his right to do so.
|
I kinda like this thing. I don't like to drive that much and this way (If I would be that age, but I am older) I could say this to girl: "Drive me home + Show Spoiler +".
Good thing is that you can always refuse drunk drivers at evenings/night referring to law. Use it to get girls to invite to your place.
But really does police have that much manpower to obey this law? Stopping almost every car at dark and check their age. If this is passed I guess that party who supported this law would lose a lot of votes from younger audience.
|
lol sick idea. im in favor of a fat tax as well. I also think that pregnant women should have to pay more for gas because the extra weight of the baby reduces the gas mileage of the car.
|
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!
First post, and a great one.
The only problem I'd ever have with that is regarding car-sharing, and how that'd work.
Everything else sounds ridiculous. It's fairly "wtf" to think me and my brother couldn't drive home on holidays with that, because neither of us could drive the other. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And no driving after dark? I already avoid that as much as possible, but sometimes it's necessary. >.>
|
|
|
Wow this is blatant sexism. How about women aren't allowed to operate heavy machinery until they're 24?
|
|
|
how about we just stop giving out driver's licenses to every idiot on the planet?
it doesn't matter if they are male or female, there are just too many drivers on both sides that don't know how to drive properly because they are afraid to drive in the dark or are just not comfortable while driving, yet they still do it... same criteria is true for drunk drivers.
but then we could sell less cars to dumb people and it would hinder their "freedom".
and unfortunately it's the majority of the people so it will never happen.
|
Still discrimination. Hypothetically if I owned a store here in the US and wanted to make a law that said that all black people have to pay extra for purchases to compensate for the fact that black people are more likely to rob stores than any other race (IDK if they actually are, it's just for the example) I would have been burned in effigy and maybe arrested within a week.
Politicians these days are retarded and should focus more on solving real issues than this make-work bullshit.
|
If this law were passed in Canada I would be fired as I would be unable to do my job.
Driving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day?
|
On November 17 2011 03:47 CCitrus wrote:
If this law were passed in Canada I would be fired as I would be unable to do my job.
Driving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day?
its just a silly suggestion by an idiot politician. ;3
Martin Schanke <3.
|
On November 17 2011 03:47 CCitrus wrote:
If this law were passed in Canada I would be fired as I would be unable to do my job.
Driving in the dark is necessary for nearly all drivers, especially in a high-latitude country such as Norway! How the hell is a 23 year old man supposed to hold down a serious job if he can only drive for 8-10 hours a day?
It would get even worse. Some of Norway is inside the Artic Circle; it's night all day at certain points in winter. In remote areas, it would be hell.
What bugs me is the forbidding of passengers. Where I live we have the option of driving with parent supervision two years prior to getting our licence. How the hell is one supposed to improve correctly if driving alone all the time? We also have a probation period three years after getting our licence where serious offenses can have it taken away more easily. Six years is just brutal.
Alcotests and Speed limiters, I'm not so worked up about. My little car can't really do speeding anyway.
|
A perfect example of punishing the majority for the actions of a minority group. Just because there are males between the age of 18-24 who shouldn't be driving doesn't mean you can put out a blanket law that treats everyone as a reckless drunk driving lunatic.
This law is ridiculous.
Why should good drivers be punished for being the same gender as bad drivers?
|
Retarded law. Women are just as capable of driving recklessly (my girlfriend does it all the time, to my chagrin) and any statistics suggesting otherwise are inherently flawed.
I'm all for safer roads, but infringing on the rights of a specific demographic based on the speculation that it will reduce collisions is stupid.
Alcohol-locks sound good on paper, but most of the time it is up to the owner of the vehicle to get it installed and cover the costs. Unless they start coming stock on vehicles (which I doubt) it's completely unfair to require the entire population (of 18-24 yr old males) to pay for one if there is no inclination they will attempt to drive drunk.
|
Yeah the alcohol lock is a pretty good idea. The problem is that this policy is extremely discriminatory. Pretty laughable, like the 9-9-9 tax. Where do politicians get these ideas? O.o
|
On November 16 2011 14:06 discodancer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 12:30 Rebornlife wrote:
Being an 18 year old thats around cars quite a bit, and knowing hundreds of people in this age range that drive, I feel confident in saying a few things:
In general, males are more skilled drivers. ( But also over-confident)
Women get in more accidents, but are generally less serious accidents than the ones males get into. ( Girls I find are generally under-confident, and get into accidents because of lack of attention or not knowing what to do in a situation. Guys I find tend to get in more "stupidity" accidents invloving speed or being a jackass)
I know TONNES of girls that have gotten in at fault accidents, while very few guys.
Obviously this is based on only people I know, but I think it's generally correct. There are obviously many exceptions, and I know lots of good female drivers, as well as bad male drivers.
Anecdotes are nice and all, but most of the time what you think is not very important. Here's some actual evidence: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126
All that study says is that men get in worse accidents and get more tickets....
Basically reinforcing what I said.
|
On November 15 2011 18:56 ZergOwaR 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. well in this case it is discrimination.. if you target anything (in this case a nation wide law) against a certain segment of the population, its technically discrimination...its also a statistical fact that many of the girls in my class at school when i turned 18 drove like monkeys on speed... and there are not THAT many avarage "asshole kids".... most are avarage kids that actually dont drive like idiots.... they still need experience and training to get properly used to driving (having a license does not mean you're a good driver.. it makes you a driver... time to get good) but they are not idiots...
the following has nothing to do with whether or not i agree with your point:
-that logic is quite stupid (bolded)
-avErage
|
Modern feminism: Where women can do everything just as well as men can and you're a bigot for ever suggesting otherwise, but women are just plain better than men at some things and that's not bigoted at all.
|
On November 17 2011 02:19 dementrio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 01:47 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2011 01:43 Moragon wrote:On November 17 2011 01:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2011 01:27 HerroPreaseTN wrote:On November 17 2011 01:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can't believe people are actually saying that mandatory breathalyzers on all cars sounds like a good idea. I'm just honestly at a loss for what to type here. We've come a long way from the Magna Carta. Elaborating why it would be such a bad idea, would be a nice start. Frankly, the only downside I see is that I can't wash my teeth with Listerine in the morning. And I never do that My mistake. More state control over the citizens' daily lives is probably always for the best. The ministry of transportation must ensure safer driving for us somehow. They should also install cameras into the vehicles to make sure that people aren't doing anything else dangerous, like texting, putting on make-up, eating. Or perhaps a mechanism to restrain the drivers hands to the wheel to prevent unsafe driving practices, that would be doubleplusgood. Of course, ideally there would be no privately owned vehicles, the ministry of transportation should eventually outlaw them. Mandatory public transportation for all citizens would be even safer, and the increased walking distances would be better for public health too! We are making progress, comrade. Sign me up! You don't have to sign up for anything. All you have to do is not protest when they take another liberty away. Look on the bright side of things. "I don't even use listerine! No loss there." Did you protest when they made safety belts mandatory? That's where it all started going downhill. Car insurance? speed radars? A gigantic loss of freedom! Today they enforce drunk driving laws, tomorrow.... tomorrow... there will be, uh, less drivers around. I guess, uh, that's completely unacceptable. Because after all, if one chooses to drive while drunk, it should be his right to do so.
Safety belts are an entirely different topic, to my knowledge there are no cars yet whose engine will not start if you dont weat your seatbelt. But you do realize there already ARE laws against drunk driving? Why does everything have to be controlled? Just increase the penaltys for drunk driving / speeding, so that the majority doesn't have to be cut in their freedom just because a few people are retards. Same reason why cameras on public places, or the likes are bad.
I don't know how good you guys are informed about those topics but here in germany organizations like Gestapo and Stasi have shown us that the state should never control its citizens. Besides that any system like a breathalyzer could always be cheated, like EVERY system can be cheated. A number of methods have already been listed in this thread (drinking after starting engine, faking breath, ...).
Speaking from my personal expierence: In my circle of friends it has never been a problem to find one guy who isn't going to drink for the evening and can drive for the other. That would be impossible if it's forbidden to drive in the dark or at night.
|
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license.
|
Theres been talk about laws like this for a while now, the most resonable version of it I've heard is restrictions of driving with passengers in city centers with passgengers after dark. Something I'm all for, driving drunk friends home can be distracting. I'm pretty sure that the law in the op is against some equalright laws...
edit: There should be a law against politicans makeing stupid suggestions, wasting time on suggestions like this is just silly.
|
On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license.
Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread:
Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks:
a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]
b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder.
|
Norway's "young" ppl got owned a second time!
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder.
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.
|
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???
Yet those statistics of yours fails to show why this is. You can't just make up laws based on statistics without doing research into the reason they are like that in the first place. For instance: I know a couple where both the woman and the man has a car. The woman's work place is further away then the man, but its through a city. This way I'm sure by now she's racked up more miles than the guy. However, when they drive long distance, the man always drives. Which scenario is more likely to cause a fatal crash? The long distance or through city driving?
This is only one specific case. But nearly every couple I know, the man drives when it comes to long distance driving. Personal experience, I know. But things like this doesn't show up in your statistic. Thus its unusable to make laws from. If we start down this road, before you know it its "religion is now banned because statistically, they're the biggest reason for war".
|
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???
I could pull up similar stats showing blacks have a higher rate of violent crime than other races. So it should be totally okay to implement a blacks-only curfew, right? I mean, it's based on data!
|
On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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.
Now 18-23 males have to drive shitty cars because politicians think its best for them? REALLY?
What is wrong with you, people should be allowed to buy whatever car they want and be held highly accountable for their actions. I don't want to blow a fucking machine to test my alcohol level every time I drive, I don't want to drive a shitty car if I can afford a better one, and I don't want a car with a speed cap because emergencies, however rare, DO HAPPEN. I assume norweigans feel the same.
Governments are taking our rights inch by inch under the arguments of our "self interest" and the "common good". We should oppose this decisively.
|
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.
Uh it IS discrimination.
Even if you consider it justified it's still discrimination, much like INSURANCE is. Yes it's based on statistical fact but it's also a statistical fact that black males commit more crime than white males. Doesn't mean you can search them whenever you want because of that.
I never like general regulations. I still play a shit ton for my insurance at the age of twenty four regardless of the fact that I have only had one accident since I started driving, zero tickets, two defensive driving courses, and FOUR PROFESSIONAL driving courses. Even with all of that my insurance company wanted to charge me 370 dollars a month for insurance on my Genesis because and I quote "It's a turbo and you're a high risk driver." Oh did I mention I'm married?
That's completely horseshit and it really isn't fair. I'm being punished for shit other people and that's never okay. My Wife pays half as much as I do with two accidents, three tickets, and no driving courses. Based on simple fucking math, she's a worse driver than I yet pays next to nothing for insurance because she's "lower risk" than I.
I hate laws like this and I hate when people try to justify it as statistical science when it's just discrimination justified through numbers.
P.S. I switched insurance companies and still pay 160. That's still ridiculous.
|
The reason males are more likely to be in accidents is because men do more of the driving. If a family goes out then the father will usually drive, men drive when they take women out on dates, somewhat more men are out in the workforce and for a greater number of days per year etc etc
It is obviously true that young men are more likely to blatantly engage in reckless driving and that does result in accidents but I would say they also tend to be more skilled drivers overall. Women tend to be slow and indecisive and more likely to overreact to situations that occur such as a tiny animal running out in the front of a car. And from my experience I see a lot more young women engaging in distracted driving, not just stuff like texting which everyone does sadly, but fixing their hair, making duck faces into the mirror, fixing makeup etc. Just today I was in the car with my son's mother and she damn near swerved off the road because some stupid bird couldn't decide which direction it wanted to go to get out of the way..if there had been cars parked on the side of the road....I don't even want to think about it but I've never met a male that would have responded that way, I know a handful of women who do the same thing if a mouse was crossing the road.
Those things I said are from my experience, they may or may not be true in the larger scheme of things. I stand by my belief that in general men are more skilled drivers though. A skilled driver who is being reckless is a big danger on the road, it is true. But my point is there are other factors which aren't as easily quantified that contribute to unsafe road conditions.
The way I see it is reckless driving behavior should be punished, not an entire gender. If more men are ticketed, and/or lose their licenses due to punishment because they break the rules then that is fine. And remember, statistics show limited information. They show true facts about the world but they don't say all of the facts. I know statistics show that women are less likely to drive drunk but I don't believe it for a second. Most cops are male and are probably more likely to let women go outright, or agree to follow them. Oh and if a man and a woman get drunk together at a bar and intend to get home together, can you really only blame the one who gets stuck driving (who would usually be the male)? I am asking this because if 2 people are in a car drunk only the driver is going to end up on those statistics, the passenger might get put into protective custody for the night but no driving offenses. It sounds obvious because "she isn't driving" but I would say for most drunk driving men you will a drunk non-driving woman who is complicit.
|
I wonder how many people here who think men should be regulated and pay more for insurance because they cost more also believe that women should have to pay more for health insurance due to the fact that they cost more?
|
You know why women have fewer driving fatalities?
because there is no highway between the kitchen and the bedroom LOLOLOL
|
On November 17 2011 08:53 Mannified wrote:
Norway's "young" ppl got owned a second time!
Did you just make, and I use the word extremely loosely, a joke about the murdering of 69 innocent children that happened this summer? Using the word "owned" to describe what happened this summer is in extremely bad taste and makes me sick to my stomache.
If I misunderstood, I apologize.
More on topic, these kind of suggestions have come forth every now and then the last few years, but nothing will ever happen as the majority of the politicians understand that this is retarded. While the intention is good, not only would it be extremely unfair, but probably also ineffective. The practical implications are huge.
Boys between 18-22 probably makes up around 90% of the army's drivers. Most of the military bases are situated in the far north where it is dark all day, during the winter, and the need to drive personel around is pretty big.
While I have no doubt the military would be exempt from this rule, it would be very hypocritical to deny boys to drive with passangers while in civilian clothing, but make them drive with passangers in extremely harsh conditions and in demanding situations (not always easy to get enough sleep, for example, during field exercises).
|
On November 17 2011 15:45 macil222 wrote:
I wonder how many people here who think men should be regulated and pay more for insurance because they cost more also believe that women should have to pay more for health insurance due to the fact that they cost more?
What do you mean by 'cost more'?
|
On November 17 2011 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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. Now 18-23 males have to drive shitty cars because politicians think its best for them? REALLY? What is wrong with you, people should be allowed to buy whatever car they want and be held highly accountable for their actions. I don't want to blow a fucking machine to test my alcohol level every time I drive, I don't want to drive a shitty car if I can afford a better one, and I don't want a car with a speed cap because emergencies, however rare, DO HAPPEN. I assume norweigans feel the same. Governments are taking our rights inch by inch under the arguments of our "self interest" and the "common good". We should oppose this decisively.
yup, i think that would be pretty reasonable for them (and i wasn't talking about males only) to drive shitty cars until they have the experience, also it is pretty educational so you learn that some cars just can't accelerate as fast, no matter how much you try to push (this is SO common on german speedways, though not limited to young drivers).
the "freedom" argument is also totally bullshit here. you still get anywhere even with a shitty car and it is for the "greater good" if people don't drive cars that don't suit their "skill".
and good for you that you're one of those priviledged people with wealthy parents, most young people that just made their drivers license don't have the money to buy a big car anyway, it is their parents. and most people with big cars in that age, don't know how to drive and think they are the kings of the road.
btw: the blatant sexism in this thread is digusting. even if the norwegian proposal is sexist too many people in this thread are going way over the top with their retarded comments.
|
As I 19 year old male, I am a pretty damn responsible driver. But at the same time a lot of my friends are reckless fiends so I can understand some of the limitations. Especially when another teenager is in the car it kind of presents peer pressure to drive fast. like, when I am driving the speed limit, or 5 over, my friends give me shit. It doesn't bug me that much, because I prefer to drive chill. Come to think of it though, I don't really know if drivers mellow at as they grow older. They in fact might grow even more reckless with arrogance, they just become better at avoiding accidents.
Looking at that 3rd point about a breathalyzer test, I originally laughed it off as ridiculous. But the more I ponder it, the more I realize it doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea. I mean, there was a time when seat belts weren't required in cars and the thought of it being mandatory was probably ridiculous to some people.
|
On November 17 2011 16:47 itkovian wrote:
As I 19 year old male, I am a pretty damn responsible driver. But at the same time a lot of my friends are reckless fiends so I can understand some of the limitations. Especially when another teenager is in the car it kind of presents peer pressure to drive fast. like, when I am driving the speed limit, or 5 over, my friends give me shit. It doesn't bug me that much, because I prefer to drive chill. Come to think of it though, I don't really know if drivers mellow at as they grow older. They in fact might grow even more reckless with arrogance, they just become better at avoiding accidents.
Looking at that 3rd point about a breathalyzer test, I originally laughed it off as ridiculous. But the more I ponder it, the more I realize it doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea. I mean, there was a time when seat belts weren't required in cars and the thought of it being mandatory was probably ridiculous to some people.
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.
|
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.
The blatant sexism is hilarious. You know for a fact if this was some law trying to restrict women the backlash would be so great it would be on every major news outlet in the world, however this story will most like NOT make any national headlines outside of norway. Living in a world with double standards just tells people they can be hypocrites all day and not even care about it, which is exactly why most people are. Enjoy your generalized mind.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
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.
|
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.
So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding.
|
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.
The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue.
If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun).
If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 17 2011 20:11 g.Sagan wrote:Show nested quote +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. The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue. If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun). If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves.
It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice.
On November 17 2011 18:45 PunkyBrewster wrote:Show nested quote +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. So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding.
I do not think that the threat of Muslim extremists highjacking airplanes is anywhere near high enough to warrant such measures. Or other measures that are already in practice.
|
On November 17 2011 21:14 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 20:11 g.Sagan wrote: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. The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue. If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun). If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves. It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice. Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 18:45 PunkyBrewster wrote: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. So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding. I do not think that the threat of Muslim extremists highjacking airplanes is anywhere near high enough to warrant such measures. Or other measures that are already in practice.
speaking in generals is never good. I did not behave like an overconfident idiot and i was able to control my drinking (and my behaviour) with very few exceptions (and i never drove afterwards) during that age.
If you are too stupid to drive at night and unable to control yourself why should we, that are able to do this, suffer?
giving young people in general (male and female) only access to slower cars would IMHO be much more helpful overall and it IS a social factor that plays a major role in this.
edit: to the quoted islamic terrorist argument. it is not true that the majority of terrorist attacks during the last 20 years where made by muslims. this is pure propaganda and not worth responding to because it's no argument at all.
|
On November 17 2011 16:40 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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. Now 18-23 males have to drive shitty cars because politicians think its best for them? REALLY? What is wrong with you, people should be allowed to buy whatever car they want and be held highly accountable for their actions. I don't want to blow a fucking machine to test my alcohol level every time I drive, I don't want to drive a shitty car if I can afford a better one, and I don't want a car with a speed cap because emergencies, however rare, DO HAPPEN. I assume norweigans feel the same. Governments are taking our rights inch by inch under the arguments of our "self interest" and the "common good". We should oppose this decisively. yup, i think that would be pretty reasonable for them (and i wasn't talking about males only) to drive shitty cars until they have the experience, also it is pretty educational so you learn that some cars just can't accelerate as fast, no matter how much you try to push (this is SO common on german speedways, though not limited to young drivers). the "freedom" argument is also totally bullshit here. you still get anywhere even with a shitty car and it is for the "greater good" if people don't drive cars that don't suit their "skill". and good for you that you're one of those priviledged people with wealthy parents, most young people that just made their drivers license don't have the money to buy a big car anyway, it is their parents. and most people with big cars in that age, don't know how to drive and think they are the kings of the road. btw: the blatant sexism in this thread is digusting. even if the norwegian proposal is sexist too many people in this thread are going way over the top with their retarded comments.
You are entlited to beleive whatever u want, but you (or politicans) are not to impose your will others.
However, your argument is still retarded. My freedom is to drive anywhere I want on anything I can afford.
If I want to drive a expensive car, and brag about it it's my fucking right.
Hopefully u won't complaint when some politicans pass a law that says young people should learn that life isn't easy and everything requires hard work, so you have to do 3 years of force labor in some government office.
No, I do not have wealthy parents nor an expensive car. Also expensive =/= strong engine.
I used to drive my brother's 1990 ford ranger (3k market prize) which is cheap, yet fucking powerful. A really cool car aswell, If I may say.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 17 2011 21:30 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 21:14 Fenrax wrote:On November 17 2011 20:11 g.Sagan wrote: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. The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue. If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun). If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves. It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice. On November 17 2011 18:45 PunkyBrewster wrote: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. So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding. I do not think that the threat of Muslim extremists highjacking airplanes is anywhere near high enough to warrant such measures. Or other measures that are already in practice. speaking in generals is never good. I did not behave like an overconfident idiot and i was able to control my drinking (and my behaviour) with very few exceptions (and i never drove afterwards) during that age. If you are too stupid to drive at night and unable to control yourself why should we, that are able to do this, suffer? giving young people in general (male and female) only access to slower cars would IMHO be much more helpful overall and it IS a social factor that plays a major role in this.
So we agree that is okay to put restraints on young drivers. Those should be put on these drivers because they are far more likely to cause accidents than older drivers. Which rules are better is not very relevant, the thread is about equality. And I do not see a reason to restraint women as well if they have no increased risk of causing dangerous accidents.
|
On November 17 2011 21:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 16:40 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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. Now 18-23 males have to drive shitty cars because politicians think its best for them? REALLY? What is wrong with you, people should be allowed to buy whatever car they want and be held highly accountable for their actions. I don't want to blow a fucking machine to test my alcohol level every time I drive, I don't want to drive a shitty car if I can afford a better one, and I don't want a car with a speed cap because emergencies, however rare, DO HAPPEN. I assume norweigans feel the same. Governments are taking our rights inch by inch under the arguments of our "self interest" and the "common good". We should oppose this decisively. yup, i think that would be pretty reasonable for them (and i wasn't talking about males only) to drive shitty cars until they have the experience, also it is pretty educational so you learn that some cars just can't accelerate as fast, no matter how much you try to push (this is SO common on german speedways, though not limited to young drivers). the "freedom" argument is also totally bullshit here. you still get anywhere even with a shitty car and it is for the "greater good" if people don't drive cars that don't suit their "skill". and good for you that you're one of those priviledged people with wealthy parents, most young people that just made their drivers license don't have the money to buy a big car anyway, it is their parents. and most people with big cars in that age, don't know how to drive and think they are the kings of the road. btw: the blatant sexism in this thread is digusting. even if the norwegian proposal is sexist too many people in this thread are going way over the top with their retarded comments. You are entlited to beleive whatever u want, but you (or politicans) are not to impose your will others. However, your argument is still retarded. My freedom is to drive anywhere I want on anything I can afford. If I want to drive a expensive car, and brag about it it's my fucking right. Hopefully u won't complaint when some politicans pass a law that says young people should learn that life isn't easy and everything requires hard work, so you have to do 3 years of force labor in some government office. No, I do not have wealthy parents nor an expensive car. Also expensive =/= strong engine. I used to drive my brother's 1990 ford ranger (3k market prize) which is cheap, yet fucking powerful. A really cool car aswell, If I may say.
i see, my argument is "retarded", just lol.
in every society there are things that are prohibited because they hurt majority of the people. this is the basis of every civilization... and you just called it an "retarded" argument...
your "freedom" to drive anywhere you want on anything you can afford limits the freedom of all the people affected and threatened by your selfish approach.
also my argument even let's the people the freedom to drive whereeveer and whenever they want, compared to the norwegian woman. they just have to gain experience with slow cars and can later still buy whatever car they want. this is no big limitation of freedom at all and therefore safety gain for all people for a very small cost.
On November 17 2011 21:53 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 21:30 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 21:14 Fenrax wrote:On November 17 2011 20:11 g.Sagan wrote: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. The world is not staunch black and white, and one of the joys of maturing and enhancing your 'mental capacity' is finding out that there are subtle shades of gray at play. Perhaps it's better to attempt to understand the cause of why the statistics are skewed one way or the other. Then, implement a program of education to address the issue. If young male drivers are more likely to be involved in vehicle accidents because they are driving more irresponsibly, then there is probably a social factor at work, something that can be brought to the surface and scrutinized, ultimately being used to help educate young males of the dangers of their actions and really driving it home (pardon the pun). If you want to babysit citizens by slapping a law on every issue that rears its head, without addressing the core issue, then all you're going to end up with is a state of babies, incapable of thinking, acting or taking responsibly for themselves. It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice. On November 17 2011 18:45 PunkyBrewster wrote: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. So because most major terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been committed by Islamic Extremists we should limit the air travel of all Muslims? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your logic is astounding. I do not think that the threat of Muslim extremists highjacking airplanes is anywhere near high enough to warrant such measures. Or other measures that are already in practice. speaking in generals is never good. I did not behave like an overconfident idiot and i was able to control my drinking (and my behaviour) with very few exceptions (and i never drove afterwards) during that age. If you are too stupid to drive at night and unable to control yourself why should we, that are able to do this, suffer? giving young people in general (male and female) only access to slower cars would IMHO be much more helpful overall and it IS a social factor that plays a major role in this. So we agree that is okay to put restraints on young drivers. Those should be put on these drivers because they are far more likely to cause accidents than older drivers. Which rules are better is not very relevant, the thread is about equality. And I do not see a reason to restraint women as well if they have no increased risk of causing dangerous accidents.
i agree that it's ok to put restraints on young drivers. but it must be resonable restraints, not ones that prevent the young people from driving at all (f.e. at night). and also, not related to your argument, restraints that make no sense at all (general speed lock, breath analyzers).
|
|
|
It is not a Social Factor. It is called Testosterone and you can't therapy that. Men between 18 and 24 are overconfident idiots, especially when awake at night and even more so when drunk. I've been one myself not too long ago. It is just no good idea to let us drive at night. Consider making it a requirement for every driver of this age but excluding those who don't suffer from Testosterone. Now I know such a law has 0% chance of passing because people are obsessed with equality and shit but in theory it is easily the correct choice.
Social expectations, gender stereotyping and a lack of education are no doubt in my mind what causes this type of reckless behavior. I find it really hard to believe that the majority of young males today are slaves to a medically diagnosable hormonal imbalance, insurmountable irrespective of their upbringing, education and mental faculties.
Young adults won't be overconfident if they are shown that they are not indestructible, at the moment though with no formal instruction, it's usually only a fatality of someone within their immediate social group that gets the message home. Driving needs to be presented as what it really is; a privilege granted by society to those responsible enough to handle it, not as a right for anybody looking to go for a spin. Promotion of critical thinking, and the running of driving or road safety courses during later school years should help to get the message across. Along with a healthy dose of parenting.
No one is drunk or jacked up on Testosterone 24/7 and unable to make a level-headed decision beforehand about their driving habits. If people have trouble controlling their actions while intoxicated or have a legitimate hormonal imbalance and don't trust themselves not to get behind the wheel of a car while in such a state, then either don't drink so much or leave your car at home and catch a taxi/cab. It all comes back to their decision making skills beforehand.
I personally was never a 'Hoon' or irresponsible when behind the wheel (or any other time for that matter) during my early twenty's, and I doubt I'm anything special. It's a harder road to travel relative to the process of 'non-thinking' and doing what you like regardless of the consequences, but really all it takes is a conscious effort not be a dickhead. The problem of course is that a lot of people who are dickheads don't realize it. They simply don't know any better, and that is where education comes in.
I hear what you are saying about the obsession for equality and what not, but I just can't get behind an idea for blanket laws of age and gender groups that discriminates against those with good intentions, not when there are alternatives.
|
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
|
On November 17 2011 16:34 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 15:45 macil222 wrote:
I wonder how many people here who think men should be regulated and pay more for insurance because they cost more also believe that women should have to pay more for health insurance due to the fact that they cost more? What do you mean by 'cost more'?
I mean that the statistics show that men are more likely to be involved in accidents, that means more damages to property and people's bodies. So when it comes to insurance for example they are asked to pay more because they, as a group, cost more to insure...but they only cost more to insure because they cause more damages.
Women cost more than men in health care. They are more likely to see their doctors and other specialists more frequently throughout the year. They also incur other costs which men don't, ie pregnancy and child birth. Because of this, in some places women get charged higher premiums for health insurance.
|
Funny how these feminists always demand equal rights but they are literally robbing men of their rights.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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?
|
I would completely agree with the speed-lock and alcohol-lock rules. But I would apply that to every single vehicle that isn't used for rescue or protection type services. (Ambulances, Firetrucks, Cop cars etc.)
Anyway that is just extremely discriminatory. This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
On November 17 2011 23:30 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I voted yes on the thing, simply because I think this would be hilarious.
|
On November 17 2011 16:50 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 16:47 itkovian wrote:
As I 19 year old male, I am a pretty damn responsible driver. But at the same time a lot of my friends are reckless fiends so I can understand some of the limitations. Especially when another teenager is in the car it kind of presents peer pressure to drive fast. like, when I am driving the speed limit, or 5 over, my friends give me shit. It doesn't bug me that much, because I prefer to drive chill. Come to think of it though, I don't really know if drivers mellow at as they grow older. They in fact might grow even more reckless with arrogance, they just become better at avoiding accidents.
Looking at that 3rd point about a breathalyzer test, I originally laughed it off as ridiculous. But the more I ponder it, the more I realize it doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea. I mean, there was a time when seat belts weren't required in cars and the thought of it being mandatory was probably ridiculous to some people. 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
|
On November 18 2011 01:08 irongar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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?
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.
|
On November 18 2011 04:09 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 01:08 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 08:58 fleeze wrote:On November 17 2011 08:35 irongar wrote:On November 17 2011 07:37 David451 wrote:
I haven't seen any good arguments against the speed lock for young drivers. Frankly that's a great idea. Not a bad idea for everyone, actually, unless you have a special license. Maybe you didn't search good enough. This is what I got out of the thread: Speed locks are too hard to implement. There where two models of implementation talked about in this thread and both have huge drawbacks: a) Never allowing the car to go faster than some specific value. This is quite easy to do but has major drawbacks: Imagine you are living in Norway where I believe that fastest you are allowed to drive is 100km/h. But should you ever leave Norway (you might for example drive to sweden during holiday) you can't go faster than 100km/h, but the speed limit in sweden is 120km/h, so you are imposing a threat to all other drivers, because you drive slower then they expect you do to, and you can't do anything about it. Worse, you might come to Germany, where there is no absolute speed limit. [Source]b) Have some intelligent system that checks where you drive and how fast you are allowed there, and controlls your car accordingly. This is just really hard to implement in praxis and will also cost a ton. Besides that, if the system fails to work for whatever reason, people can always say as an exuce that they relied on the system to work. Making punishment of speeding mush harder. 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? 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.
|
This is pretty ridiculous and sexist. If she wants to extend the proposition to both genders, then it would still be kind of ridiculous but at least not as overtly sexist. Data in this regard doesn't really matter when the gender discrimination is so overt, if the issue is with reckless driving then it should target the prevention of reckless driving.
|
How cheap are cars in Norway? Law like that in Finland would make maybe 80% less drives between 18-24 males which leads to bad drivers at 24 age. Maybe alcohol on 17 or 19 would also help since you don't get to drink and drive at same age when most want to try both.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
It's wrong to discriminate unless it's statistics then we call that insurance rates!
|
On November 18 2011 08:12 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On November 18 2011 09:09 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:12 Adeny wrote: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. + 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.
|
On November 18 2011 09:19 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 09:09 sevencck wrote:On November 18 2011 08:12 Adeny wrote: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. + 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.
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?
|
Actually what the politician referred to in the OP says, is that she wants a speed and alcohol lock and a "gradually increase in driving rights" for men between 18 and 24 years. Just to get the facts straight.
|
The feminist movement never at any time wanted "equality", they wanted more period. More welfare, more child support, more laws to prosecute men. The fact that they've moved from subtle discrimination of men to obvious isn't a surprise. You get cocky after 40 years of winning.
|
On November 18 2011 08:12 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Odd, I thought that Norway was giving out jobs in boardrooms solely based on having a vagina. It has reduced the value of those companies by 20%, but who cares? Equality, right?
|
oh wow Image had a male politician propose something similar for women...Career...over...
|
On November 16 2011 05:59 Retgery wrote:+ 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?
I realize this was posted a while ago, and perhaps someone called you out on this. But in case nobody did...let me inform you since you seem to be a little uneducated here. I'm a Computer Engineering and Psychology double major on my last year. Have you ever wondered why women typically score lower on math? There are many different theories..However, there have been multiple psychological studies performed; and when the teenagers taking a test aren't told beforehand the statistics of how the genders performed in each category, guess who outperformed who in Math? Women did. Guess what happened when women were prefaced beforehand that math is statistically proven to be a male "thing". Well, women performed far lower than men.
Psychology and the mind is a powerful thing. Culture has deemed gender roles, and each gender tends to follow it. For those that don't, guess what happens to them? They succeed. For example, there are barely any women in the engineering dept. here at my University; but they outperform the males in math and in logic courses. FFS...sometimes it is so frustrating trying to get this information out there. Don't feed into the societal garbage and break a person, or gender in this case down.
|
On November 18 2011 08:12 Adeny wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It makes sense that since you can't spell affirmative action, you also don't know what it entails. Jobs aren't give out solely based on nationality or gender here either. In some cases they are allowed to consider race/gender as a factor, but minority quotas are already banned and individualized consideration is required.
I should also note that the Supreme Court has been taking a dimmer and dimmer view of affirmative action in its current form, and it's only a matter of time until it is replaced by intervention based on socio-economic status. Which seems much better to me.
|
On November 18 2011 09:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
The feminist movement never at any time wanted "equality", they wanted more period. More welfare, more child support, more laws to prosecute men. The fact that they've moved from subtle discrimination of men to obvious isn't a surprise. You get cocky after 40 years of winning.
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
They want to dominate men. They want to keep their privileges while expanding their rights. It's to be expected; that's why they love painting themselves as the underdog. That's still true in a lot of countries and cultures; but in many areas, like certain professions, in the exercises of many privileges, they should not be allowed to cry foul where it no longer exists or never did.
Anyway, this female politician probably isn't conscious of gender equality because, really, no one calls women out on it. People should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
