[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

That doesn't even make sense.

You have to excuse him, he hits the sauce a little early sometimes.

I jest, I jest...what does not make sense about that? The context or wording of how he projected it?

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

my way actually has measurable affect on people who would otherwise do the activity. Your way does not.



Either i'm right and stricter laws impacted this issue or you're right and we're all just much more ethically sound and better decision makers as a country than we were in 1985.



https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/f...paired-driving



https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-since-1988/



It's not like we as a country are drinking less (roughly the same per capita) or driving less. What changed? the law and enforcement of it did.

There are a few factors that you overlooked:

- the first article mentioned the fatalities, not the number of incidents. Remember that even a tiny car like Chevy Spark nowadays will hold up WAY better than any car from the 80s in a crash. That will also decrease the fatalities caused by impaired driving.

- the Internet also makes spreading a message a lot easier than back in the 80's and 90's. Media outlets have also changed quite a bit.

IMO stricter laws work... Up to a certain point. After that, it's diminishing returns at best. At worst, it backfires or people start pushing back. There are so many examples to show my point:

- the alcohol ban in the 30's. We all know how that went. Rich people didn't give a flip and just smuggled alcohol - which cost pocket change to slightly more pocket change to them. The working class took their chances and started drinking fake alcohol, some of which was made with methanol which killed them. Nothing changed, but you had more people die from drinking fake alcohol. Rich people are pretty much always above the law anyway. They have an army of lawyers that will find any loopholes in the law.

- the legalization of marijuana in Canada. I remember the amount of fear mongering from some communities to which I scoffed and predicted that nothing will change. I don't smoke pot, and legalization of it doesn't mean that I will automatically just rush into a pot store and buy a crap load. People who smoke pot will continue to do so. You are only really making a small difference to that small crowd that's "on the edge." Of course, the financial aspect isn't going as well as the federal government is expecting, but the main point is that I don't see much of a change from how things are functioning in our society.

- and speeding. It's one of those things that doesn't get reinforced as strictly, and yet, most people drive at a speed that's considered safe and reasonable. Look up Solomon curve. You will always have your Toyota drivers that drive way too slowly and teens being stupid doesn't matter how you set the speed limit or change the repercussions. Most people are simply trying to get a balance of getting to a place at a reasonable speed while making sure they do make it there in one piece.

The sad thing is, media will probably make a big deal out of incidents like this and then try to paint your average commuters that go 10 MPH over the speed limit the same as this one Camaro guy and thousands of Mustangs out there.

[Wobble Goat]

3 killed
35 year old male (hit directly by the Malibu)
14 and 16 year old brothers

Some more videos are coming out with "sensitive" material ... there were a lot of cell phones recording the incident.

I agree with FarmerFran, we need better parents. Not trying to sound like Captain Hindsight, but what were a 14 year old and 16 year old doing out at a "car meet" at 9:35pm on Sunday?

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by Wobble Goat

3 killed
35 year old male (hit directly by the Malibu)
14 and 16 year old brothers

Some more ... "sensitive" videos are coming out with "sensitive" material ... there were a lot of cell phones recording.

I agree with FarmerFran, we need better parents. Not trying to sound like Captain Hindsight, but were a 14 year old and 16 year old doing out at a "car meet" at 9:35pm on Sunday?

Freaking sad man, just freaking sad.

[Aragorn]

Here in Arizona we have very strict DUI laws. Not sure if it’s a coincidence or not but all my younger coworkers use Uber religiously after every happy hour. Makes me wonder if they would still use Uber if the laws were more lax.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Here in Arizona we have very strict DUI laws. Not sure if it’s a coincidence or not but all my younger coworkers use Uber religiously after every happy hour. Makes me wonder if they would still use Uber if the laws were more lax.

Two points:

- I am not saying laws don't work. Obviously, we need bottom lines at some point, but my point is that, while you can make a big difference by change the punishment of DUI from $100 to $3000 and loss of your driver's license, you won't make as much of a difference by keeping raising that amount. At some point, you also start to make the law makers and enforcement look bad. There was a story in BC, Canada that an old lady was given a distracted driving ticket simply because she has her phone in the cupholder. Wasn't even looking at it, and the local police got a pretty bad PR because of that. I am obviously against distracted driving, but this level of enforcement is way too extreme and can backfire.

- a lot of the time, the forces behind laws like this is not logic/common sense/science/ethics. It's the good'ld moolah. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Uber and/or the local cab companies lobbied for stricter DUI law because that means more people are more likely to use them after a few drinks and that equate to $$$. I don't know about Uber, but don't underestimate the lobbying power cab companies have. It just happens that this kind of things is easy to sell because you can attach a label that the public can agree with. Think about speeding cameras. It's not because that a lot of governments actually set them up logically - traffic impacts have shown to go UP in some areas after installation of such devices - it's because tickets = $$$. Oh and it makes the city safer or some crap like that.

[BMR Sales]

Originally Posted by SSDan

Check out the carnage this 350 Z did at a Cadillac dealership after losing control at high speed. Unbelievable what stupid people can do behind the wheel of a car! At least no one was killed in this one. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mot...ocid=chromentp

Weird thing about that one is that there was no Local News coverage of this. I live a couple miles away from the scene and didn't know anything about til the article you linked. The Pictures are actual

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

You have to excuse him, he hits the sauce a little early sometimes.

I jest, I jest...what does not make sense about that? The context or wording of how he projected it?

He said "most law abiding" people were following the law. That doesn't make sense, either you are, or you aren't.

The idea that there's this class of "law abiding" people out there is just ridiculous, as in some uber-class of people. People tend to decide which laws they want to follow and if you aren't following all of them, it's ridiculous to call such a person "law abiding". In other words, you don't get to pick and choose which ones to follow and then try to call out other people as "not law-abiding", aka "criminals".

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

He said "most law abiding" people were following the law. That doesn't make sense, either you are, or you aren't.

The idea that there's this class of "law abiding" people out there is just ridiculous, as in some uber-class of people. People tend to decide which laws they want to follow and if you aren't following all of them, it's ridiculous to call such a person "law abiding". In other words, you don't get to pick and choose which ones to follow and then try to call out other people as "not law-abiding", aka "criminals".

What you described here is theory, a definition of absolutes, while Petrol Head talked about practice, the reality of human society.

There isn't a single person who keeps every law all the time, yet we still can and do engage in discussions and use the term "law abiding", even though the definition is neither perfect nor absolute.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

There are a few factors that you overlooked:

- the first article mentioned the fatalities, not the number of incidents. Remember that even a tiny car like Chevy Spark nowadays will hold up WAY better than any car from the 80s in a crash. That will also decrease the fatalities caused by impaired driving.

The stats on non-fatal accidents are harder to find on a national level. But found this one from indiana that covers a few years

https://trafficsafety.iupui.edu/topi...2016_FINAL.pdf

This shows that while total accidents increased year over year, alcohol related non-fatal ones remained steady or dropped.

I see no reason to think that pattern wont exist across the board.

The pattern is, dui fatal or not is not increasing linearly with the increase in population of drivers (while accidents in general is). The disproportionate crack down on dui driving seems to be a big red flag as to why.

- the Internet also makes spreading a message a lot easier than back in the 80's and 90's. Media outlets have also changed quite a bit.

not sure how that matters. are you suggesting that the internet makes shaming people into not making mistakes more than the fear of the police catching them or having to deal with the aftermath of being in an accident while dui? The internet existing or not has nothing to do with the data reporting.

IMO stricter laws work... Up to a certain point. After that, it's diminishing returns at best. At worst, it backfires or people start pushing back. There are so many examples to show my point:

- the alcohol ban in the 30's. We all know how that went. Rich people didn't give a flip and just smuggled alcohol - which cost pocket change to slightly more pocket change to them. The working class took their chances and started drinking fake alcohol, some of which was made with methanol which killed them. Nothing changed, but you had more people die from drinking fake alcohol. Rich people are pretty much always above the law anyway. They have an army of lawyers that will find any loopholes in the law.

nobody is suggesting all laws make sense or that they should exist and their failure just requires harsher penalties. This wasn't a case of a law that was too harsh ...it was the case of a law that shouldn't have existed at all.

The fact is, we dont have a population of people who think it's cool to street race / kill people with their car or generally suck at driving and get into accidents. So laws that punish those that do are not going to meet the kind of response as prohibition.

- and speeding. It's one of those things that doesn't get reinforced as strictly, and yet, most people drive at a speed that's considered safe and reasonable. Look up Solomon curve. You will always have your Toyota drivers that drive way too slowly and teens being stupid doesn't matter how you set the speed limit or change the repercussions. Most people are simply trying to get a balance of getting to a place at a reasonable speed while making sure they do make it there in one piece.

The sad thing is, media will probably make a big deal out of incidents like this and then try to paint your average commuters that go 10 MPH over the speed limit the same as this one Camaro guy and thousands of Mustangs out there.

you'll be lucky if in the coming decades your car will let you go beyond the speed limit or that it will not tattle on you to the police for a ticket or that the roads wont be littered with speed cameras like it the UK.

even speed limits are an easy example to see where my point stands.

people break that law to varying degrees when they think they can get away with it and think it's worth the given penalty for how much they break it and follow it strictly when they think they'll get caught in general. Why does it suddenly get followed (such as when a cop is in sight )? not because the people got all ethical and more responsible. They simply fear the punishment.


I'm not saying i want draconian control and enforcement of every single law, just that the laws currently do not hold drivers accountable to the level they should be when in control of a 2-3 ton machine on public land and if they did, a lot of drivers would be more careful and that dent in the total numbers matters. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be good. it's not like those not falling afoul of the existing laws will suffer any more than they already do. So win-win for everyone except those doing what they shouldn't.

[MR's 2SS]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

super scary enforcement of the laws that were broken in that video to deter skirting them flagrantly does not amount to slavery or impact anyone not following those laws already.

But what will happen is those laws wont be made more strict, so the victims wont get justice and so they'll look to make such a thing not happen some other way. This would amount to putting pressure on the manufacturers (which will impact everyone) or create new laws (which might impact other people ).

it's hard to justify making something where the test to use it hasn't increased in difficulty as the thing you're being allowed to use has increased in danger - and so it's going to be easy to justify limiting that thing to the levels of danger it had when those tests were relevant or to some level of ability that matches the avg driver's ability to safely operate.

i see a very dim future for any car enthusiast who has fun in their car in ways other than just leisurely cruising below the speed limit.

Your very right about the dim future. I see most young men driving like old ladies. Its not their fault. Its not that they arent capable drivers. But it is that here in NJ we have more cops per mile I think than any place on the planet. They literally prey on the kids and consequently the kids are so scared to get out of line that they never learn evasive maneuvers. They never learn how to counter steer or how a car can be controlled in a skid and then when it happens in an accident they just drive right into an avoidable situation and crash.
I found a young man out in the snow in a Jeep. He was at the top of a minor hill stopped blocking traffic. I got out to see if he needed help and what the problem was.... And he was just terrified to drive his Jeep down this little hill. Im sorry but I have little patience for that. If he was that unskilled he should stay home. He was not 17. He was at least 20. Old enough to have already returned from a tour in some sand box.... and hes incapable of going 30 in the snow in jersey.
Laws dont make anyone safe. Me getting pulled over for going 10 miles an hour over the limit by a State Trooper whos 21 and having him talk to me as though I was a criminal... is ridiculous.
Most of us in here will accelerate briskly and run over the limit because really thats why were here.
I never understood the burning up of $300 tires anyway but doing burnouts to triple digits within inches of a crowd of equally defective onlookers is the kind of stupidity laws will not deter. And I for one do not wish to enable law enforcement to harass normal people doing normal things because some jackoffs did something particularly stupid.
Like I said earlier. Look at whos making the laws in this country these days.
Im not naming names... but just look. I feel zero inclination to allow those clowns to further control my life.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

He said "most law abiding" people were following the law. That doesn't make sense, either you are, or you aren't.

He also said "for the most part", which implies that sometimes you don't follow every law, or at least don't follow them all to the absolute letter.


Norm

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

He also said "for the most part", which implies that sometimes you don't follow every law, or at least don't follow them all to the absolute letter.


Norm

Then you aren't Law Abiding™

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

not sure how that matters. are you suggesting that the internet makes shaming people into not making mistakes more than the fear of the police catching them or having to deal with the aftermath of being in an accident while dui? The internet existing or not has nothing to do with the data reporting.

The internet - social media in particular - in its current form is much more a part of the problem than any part of a solution here.

Impromptu "meets" can be put together in a matter of what? Minutes?

And there's the apparent need with so many people today to put so much of their lives out for everybody to see . . . and hopefully gather a lot of "likes" that they don't even think to censor themselves. Not even out of fear that something could come back at them, somehow. It's all about popularity in the moment.


Norm