|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2001 : 03:15:56 [Permalink]
|
Freedom from being killed by incompetant drivers is a more important freedom then the freedom to run red lights.
As for income tax, why do people seem to think they shouldn't have to pay it?
With tests, yes it is likely that some will only regard the road rules during the test, but there are some who wont and it might get them off the road.
Privacy laws need to be increased and enforced, putting arrest photos on the net is something that should cause whoever does it to be given quite a bit of punishment.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 03:40:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Freedom from being killed by incompetant drivers is a more important freedom then the freedom to run red lights.
I've also pointed out that there are other alternatives to cameras. Which don't prevent the person from breaking the law, only tickets them when they do. The two trial cities here have had great successes with the radar that changes the light to decrease traffic speed. Besides, those of us driving should be intelligent enough not to immediately step on the gas when the light turns green, rather take the few seconds to check for the idiots who are determined to run the red light. So take some responsibility while your driving on the road. It's generally called defensive driving.
As for one freedome more important than another... You've missed the point of Ben Franklin's quote. Another quote that I must paraphrase (since I can never seem to remember it): People would rather suffer under the yoke of persecution than change their state for fear of the unknown. (I think I've totally blown this quote again, but it's the basic sentiment.)
There is only so much freedom you can give over to your government before your government moves to become oppressive. By allowing the filming of street corners is it not then possible to begin a systematic demoralization of those who would oppose the views of a particular group. Laws are only as good as those who uphold the law. If the system is corrupt then the law becomes corrupt by association. Any government can only be judged on the level to which it maintains its corruption.
Besides, I think women who decide they must put their makeup on in the car while driving, men who shave while driving and people who read while driving are imminently more dangerous than those who run red lights.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 03:53:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Besides, I think women who decide they must put their makeup on in the car while driving, men who shave while driving and people who read while driving are imminently more dangerous than those who run red lights.
OMG, people read while driving? I hesitate to ask how this is humanly possible....
-Timmy! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 05:15:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Those who are willing to give up Liberty for Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
It is a nice quote, and I am sure that there is some truth in there, but there are also several flaws in thinking this way.
- People rarely get what they deserve.
- People are genetically programmed to seek safety.
- People may cry for liberty but what they don't really want it. They just want the illusion of liberty. For most people giving them death would be far more mericful, then giving them true liberty.
- Giving up Liberty for safety is the basis of our society.
- Even the originator of this quote was giving up some of his liberties for safety.
- We are already making a compromise with todays arangement. We just need to find a democratic consensus where to draw the line.
I myself am ofcourse all in favor of total Anarchy, I just don't think it would work for the majority of the rest of mankind.
Edited by - Lars_H on 07/11/2001 05:30:38 |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 05:31:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Besides, I think women who decide they must put their makeup on in the car while driving, men who shave while driving and people who read while driving are imminently more dangerous than those who run red lights.
OMG, people read while driving? I hesitate to ask how this is humanly possible....
Oh yeah, Boron...they read, they put on makeup, they talk on phones...I have even seen, in morning rush hour traffic, one guy who had a laptop going while he was "driving".
Absolutely scary.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 10:29:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Besides, I think women who decide they must put their makeup on in the car while driving, men who shave while driving and people who read while driving are imminently more dangerous than those who run red lights.
OMG, people read while driving? I hesitate to ask how this is humanly possible....
-Timmy!
When I saw it, it was at 80mph. He had the paper open on the steering wheel. He never looked up.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 11:40:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[Cameras] don't prevent the person from breaking the law, only tickets them when they do.
There's a stink about this in London, in which the cameras, which are justified by being labelled a "deterrence", are actually being hidden, so the speeders and light-runners don't even see them. It's obvious that in this case, the cameras are simple revenue generators, safety be damned...
As for liberty and freedom, I'm quite the Libertarian, but when it comes to how people drive, I think government has every right to impose laws and regulations. While cell phones are next to last on the list of things that cause accidents, I have no problem with them being outlawed, but to be consistent, they also need to make sure that eating, farding (putting on makeup  ), fiddling with the radio, smoking, etc. are equally punished. Except for smoking, all of these activities are more dangerous statistically than talking on a cell phone, with fiddling with the radio as number one.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 15:07:17 [Permalink]
|
The camera thing smacks of big brother but the system in the rest of the south is much scarier.
Large, sweaty men in mirrored sunglasses wait calmly behind billboards eating porkrinds and drinking weak coffee. As a scofflaw passes by, he races after them and pulls em over. Then, at the porkers discretion, they are harrassed, lectured, and so on. Unless they attend his church or have big boobs, then they get off free.
If the cameras are used to catch criminals and write tickets, OK. But if the data is used to create profiles of individuals or anything unrelated to traffic safety, I think it is a bad Idea.
We are, however, being photographed by cameras at banks, couthouses, malls and so on, every day.
I've seen my FBI file and nothing they have came from surveillance cameras.
Now wheres my OJ mask and the keys to the white bronco? I got some speedin to do.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2001 : 01:41:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've seen my FBI file and nothing they have came from surveillance cameras.
I'll grant you this. However, technology is advancing at a rate that legislation is unable to keep up with. We already use cameras at major events to photograph those who enter and run the images through a database that can identify individuals.
These are things that are done for public safety. However, at what point does this effort for preserving the public safety cross the line into 'Big Brother is Watching You'? I'm not so sure that I would want to give over the anonimity I enjoy for personal safety. Granted this is my opinion.
quote:
It is a nice quote, and I am sure that there is some truth in there, but there are also several flaws in thinking this way.
I'm sure you are quite correct in your supposition here. However, I would rather my personal freedoms (those that I enjoy now at least) than a Big Brother state. Cameras at street corners etc, can develop into that if we aren't careful with how their used and who's using them.
quote:
Oh yeah, Boron...they read, they put on makeup, they talk on phones...I have even seen, in morning rush hour traffic, one guy who had a laptop going while he was "driving".
I enjoy blowing my horn at women in front of me attempting to put on mascara when the light turns green. It's especially funny when they run brush across their face and leave a black streak. (OK, my purely sadistic side comes out when I see women who can't spend the extra five at home to put their faces on.  )
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2001 : 04:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Talking on Mobiles in cars has been found to increase the likelyhood of an accident 4 times.
When a person is driving a car thats what they should be doing.
Not reading, not putting on make-up, not talking on a phone, not using a laptop computer, etc.
Also if the cameras are hidden people might actually think to obey the law, if the cameras weren't they would only obey the law where the cameras exist.
As for safe driving, its always a good idea to check before coming out, but there are a lot of people who don't (hopefully big trucks) and might crash into those who run red lights.
Laws can be used to prevent the cameras being used to spy on you, they would be used only to catch criminals, which to think about it would be just like a police officer looking at cars running a red light and recording their number plate.
Its just using technology to do a better job then what humans could do.
Anarchy and any so called Libertarian societies wouldn't be nice places to live in because they have too much freedom (actually not enough would probably be more accurate, unless your really rich).
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2001 : 20:44:57 [Permalink]
|
while i like to see traffic laws enforced, the fact that THE STATE is able to watch one's every action, and even look into one's home is a bit scary. remember that police agencies do not exist to protect your rights; if they feel that violating your rights is, in their mind, justifiable, your rights will be violated. We need to activly protect our selves from what is sometimes an overly protective government.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2001 : 22:23:09 [Permalink]
|
I think the city of Los Angeles can find better things to do with OUR tax payer money.
This just in from an email newsletter from my city councilman:
RED LIGHT CAMERA INSTALLED IN WEST L.A. * Motorists who speed up to catch a yellow light at Sepulveda and National Boulevards beware: the City is watching. Since the first week of July, a camera has been in operation at this corner to detect motorists who run red lights. The camera takes their pictures and the City mails the photos to the car's owner, along with a citation of nearly $300. Red-light cameras are being installed at locations throughout the city as part of an effort to reduce red-light running, an increasingly serious vehicle code violation and one which, because increased speed is usually involved, often causes serious bodily injury when collisions result. In other cities where photo enforcement of red light violations has been instituted, the numbers of accidents has dropped dramatically. Use of red-light cameras has revealed that many cars do not have a front license plate, as State law require, and without which photo citations can't be issued. Police have begun increased enforcement of this license-plate law.
|
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2001 : 03:02:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
An alternative advise could be to obey the speed-limit.
I thought about that recently after my insurance premium increased 100%.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2001 : 04:05:17 [Permalink]
|
The state can't watch your every move and even if they had enough cameras they wouldn't be able to process it all.
But whether they do that or not is up to the majority of people.
Also who defines what an overly protective government is?
Is it you? The government itself? The majority of people living under the government?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2001 : 04:02:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
An alternative advise could be to obey the speed-limit.
I thought about that recently after my insurance premium increased 100%.
Whooha Deb. And I thought we had those problems here.
You must be a terror on the road!
The way you guys drive up there that's a surprise. Ha ha.
VHEMT |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
