[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by MR's 2SS

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.

Do people really believe this?

[UnknownJinX]

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".

Your comment perfectly showcases my problem.

Media and police try to lump average people who go 10 MPH over the speed limit and that one crazy guy in Mustang together.

https://youtu.be/2BKdbxX1pDw

Yeah I get it, we are all sinners but there is a difference between a jaywalker and a murderer.

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

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.

It's a factor, I am just questioning if it's the only factor or the biggest one.

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.

No, I am saying that the message of not drinking and driving gets spread faster with the Internet. Back in the 80s, all you have are TVs, radios and maybe a few cheesy posters. Now people have access to accidents like that much more easily all the time thanks to the Internet.

Then again, Internet is a double edged sword in the sense that it promotes more reckless actions and it's easier to organize dangerous events with the media.

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

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.

But laws should make sure to a majority of the public.

And I am not sure about America but I know the street racing penalties where I live is already pretty high. Not sure how you can make it worse without making the law look too unreasonable, even to your average person. We all know streetracing is wrong, but that doesn't mean a streetracer should be sentenced to life or worse.

Let's be real here, people screw up in life, and that's why the punishment should be proportionate to what they have done. Otherwise, you make people who make minor infraction once into hardened criminals by sending them to jail and ruining their lives.

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

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.

I am all for speed limit reinforcement if they make sense. As that video I attached shows, they don't in North America. They are set up as cash grabs. That's the issue.

They fear the punishment but what happens when cops are not in sight? They speed right back up to how fast they were going. You know why some intersections actually saw more accidents after installation of red light/speed cameras? People slam on the brakes out of fear of the ticket, and bam, the guy behind them rear ends the car. Yep, definitely safer.

You want people drive better? Teach them how to drive better. I have ridden with people who go way too slowly on a highway because they are scared of speeding which is way more dangerous than going 10 over.

As someone said above, engineer the problem out of the way is better than forcing laws. It's just demand and supply. If there are people who demand stupid things, then there will be supplies of stupid things. Heck, the stricter punishment makes that dopamine hit from the thrill even harder.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Then you aren't Law Abiding™

You do realize that there's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and that nothing really defines them as being identical.

The letter of the law means that every time you're observed driving at, say, 51 mph in a speed limit 50 mph zone you absolutely should get a ticket.

The spirit of that same speed limit law allows the observing LEO to make a judgement call to not write you up for one over . . . or maybe even 9 over. Spirit = a little tolerance that depends on circumstances.


Norm

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by MR's 2SS

Your very right about the dim future. I see most young men driving like old ladies.

Driving overly cautiously and all "defensive driving" is what society wants. until the robots can drive the cars for us, that's seen as the lesser of two evils because we're incapable of telling people they suck too much to be allowed to drive.

But people of all ages being incapable of driving in the snow happens in the northeast, especially driving up/down hills they shouldn't have or being afraid to do so and would have been better staying home (which is not an option for many since they have to get to their service industry work which stays open in bad weather). I know i drove in the snow in my rear wheel drive camaro tons of times in nj/philly to get to my crappy job because they never closed and the roads were empty except for big trucks and me driving sideways everywhere.

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.

Previous generations (if you're 30ish or less) are making the laws and who apparently were more manly and capable than the people who have now had to grow up under them. And they're state laws so who actually made them varies state to state, but they exist in much the same way everywhere when it comes to driving.

I dont see that getting any more "free" until the robots are driving the cars.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

No, I am saying that the message of not drinking and driving gets spread faster with the Internet. Back in the 80s, all you have are TVs, radios and maybe a few cheesy posters. Now people have access to accidents like that much more easily all the time thanks to the Internet.

Then again, Internet is a double edged sword in the sense that it promotes more reckless actions and it's easier to organize dangerous events with the media.

People have always known that driving drunk is bad. The difference is it became something non-subjective and self regulated. and then penalties were made much stricter than they had been.

People didn't just find out they shouldn't do it in the 90's and 00's because of the media.

But laws should make sure to a majority of the public.

And I am not sure about America but I know the street racing penalties where I live is already pretty high. Not sure how you can make it worse without making the law look too unreasonable, even to your average person. We all know streetracing is wrong, but that doesn't mean a streetracer should be sentenced to life or worse.

Let's be real here, people screw up in life, and that's why the punishment should be proportionate to what they have done. Otherwise, you make people who make minor infraction once into hardened criminals by sending them to jail and ruining their lives.

I'm not talking about speeding == prison.

I'm talking killing or severely injuring people in a car due to your actions as a driver that were under your control should not be treated as an "accident", they should be treated as assault with a deadly weapon and/or 2nd degree murder as everyone who gets in the driver seat should know they're in control of something that can kill multiple people in a single action.

Instead of being treated as manslaughter or less.

And that new liability being hammered home in drivers tests and when you register a vehicle etc.

The complexity of driving and speeds that things happen etc should demand more responsibility from the driver, not give them excuses for why they should not be held accountable.

You want people drive better? Teach them how to drive better. I have ridden with people who go way too slowly on a highway because they are scared of speeding which is way more dangerous than going 10 over.

that apparently is not an option. Driving tests haven't gotten harder since i started driving. They've basically not changed for decades. Yet cars have gone from averages in the mid 100hp range to over 300 and the population on the road has increased significantly along with average speeds.

I wish it was something that could be done, but it hasn't happened for the past 30-40 years so I doubt it will happen until people can push the job off to machines.

As someone said above, engineer the problem out of the way is better than forcing laws. It's just demand and supply. If there are people who demand stupid things, then there will be supplies of stupid things. Heck, the stricter punishment makes that dopamine hit from the thrill even harder.

engineering out the problem is gonna be even more fun for those who feel they have the skill to command the power of modern cars because that just means cars will be designed to max at the speed limit based on gps coordinates and auto-ticket you when you break the law (so it's like the cop is around all the time - so no worry about what happens when the cop leaves). i have no doubt that solution is coming as well, but that's not mutually exclusive ...they'll just do both. Stricter laws + engineered solutions. Eventually public transit will be acceptable for use at some point.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

That doesn't even make sense.

Sure it does. Law abiding people aren't driving a hundred miles an hour anywhere on public roads like this guy did.

Law abiding people aren't going to carry a gun if they're made illegal, only criminals will.

That was my point. You can make all the laws you want to make, and the people who abide by laws will abide by them. Those who don't won't.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Sure it does. Law abiding people aren't driving a hundred miles an hour anywhere on public roads like this guy did.

Law abiding people aren't going to carry a gun if they're made illegal, only criminals will.

That was my point. You can make all the laws you want to make, and the people who abide by laws will abide by them. Those who don't won't.

only true if nobody considers consequences before acting

since that's not true, the number who don't follow the law will be less in doing something than if the law didn't exist or existed with weaker punishments.

[supersportss]

Damn chiggeros.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by MR's 2SS

Ill take dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery any day.

The gun analogy feels almost right here except for one thing.
Driving like a complete fool or even driving safely for that matter. Is not a recognized natural right as highlighted by the Second Amendment.
But there will always be breakers of the law. And in fact the video is showing several blatant examples of existing laws doing not one single thing to prevent this.
Then theres the problem we have with already having a government thats so completely out of control that I barely recognize the country I grew up in during the 60s and 70s.
Not to excuse this ridiculous deadly behavior... but I am not willing to be subjected to further regulation or restriction to be saved from the actions of these assclowns.
Just as I am unwilling to be subjected to further restrictions on my right to self defense because of gang shootings in Chicago... or a mass shooting by a nut case in a night club. All of which are already against enough laws to put all those engaged in such behavior either behind bars for life... or 6 feet under.
Have you looked at the news lately? See those jeeerkofffs in congress speaking as though they were special??
Im sorry... I will not be subjugated by the likes of them.

Sandy hook shooting - including 20 children between six and seven years old
No is going to take our guns, and I’d actually welcome more compressive gun laws.

[pyroguy]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Sandy hook shooting - including 20 children between six and seven years old
No is going to take our guns, and I’d actually welcome more compressive gun laws.

Sandy Hook happened with stolen guns and a mentally ill person behind the trigger. Stealing guns is illegal and obtaining a gun when mentally unstable is illegal. What would you have done differently to restrict gun ownership to have prevented the tragedy to have happened when the events leading up to the tragedy were already illegal. Keep "common sense" restrictions away from constitutional freedoms.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Sandy hook shooting - including 20 children between six and seven years old
No is going to take our guns, and I’d actually welcome more compressive gun laws.

Originally Posted by pyroguy

Sandy Hook happened with stolen guns and a mentally ill person behind the trigger. Stealing guns is illegal and obtaining a gun when mentally unstable is illegal. What would you have done differently to restrict gun ownership to have prevented the tragedy to have happened when the events leading up to the tragedy were already illegal. Keep "common sense" restrictions away from constitutional freedoms.

At least one armed security guard - or anyone - on the school premises would have drastically reduced the loss of life. But that's another argument for another forum.

I will just say this: My Mom is a retired grade school teacher who taught 4th grade in the inner city of Cleveland for 30 years. If she could have she would have carried her gun to school and kept it on her, loaded, every day, all day.

[MR's 2SS]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Do people really believe this?

What do you mean. Believe my description of what I see every day?
How my own son drives around scared to get pulled over?
Believe it or dont. That whats going on.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

No is going to take our guns...

I wish I could live in your world....

[MR's 2SS]

Originally Posted by pyroguy

Sandy Hook happened with stolen guns and a mentally ill person behind the trigger. Stealing guns is illegal and obtaining a gun when mentally unstable is illegal. What would you have done differently to restrict gun ownership to have prevented the tragedy to have happened when the events leading up to the tragedy were already illegal. Keep "common sense" restrictions away from constitutional freedoms.

That.... and also on mood altering drugs. The "fact checkers" deny the correlation but it seems that most mass killings are done by someone whos meds were just altered or they stopped or just started taking them.
Due to the lobby power of the drug companies that never gets a mention. Its always the gun.
Then theres the medical association... almost universally anti gun...- but the estimates of medical malpractice deaths begin in the 200,000's and go over 400,000... compared to 30,000 gun deaths. 60% of which are suicides and the majority of the 40% left are gang or drug related.
At least I dont see anyone talking about banning Camaros because some Ahole killed people with one.
Maybe we should ban black Camaros with semi auto transmissions.