Re: Speeding Cameras
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Just leave me alone to live in peace"
But what if I'm one of the 15,000 who get killed by drunk drivers? By you, because you want to be left in peace?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't drink, let alone drink and drive, so that wouldn't be possible.
Also, I won't care much if I get killed by a drunk driver, either; the very low risk of that is well worth not having to blow into a stupid breathalyzer device every time before starting the car.
If you're actually so worried about getting killed by a drunk driver that you think breathalyzers should be required in every car, your best bet might be to give up driving altogether and use alternate transportation instead.
Does a 15,000/300,000,000 risk each year when driving really scare you that much that you'd want to have to activate and use a breathalyzer device every time you get in your car? Let's see, that's the same as 15/300,000 which is 1/20,000. How many more years do you expect to be driving, anyway? If you expect to drive 40 more years you could cut out 40/20,000 chance of getting killed by a drunk driver. All it would cost is your time to do it, and a modest investment in the built-in devices themselves.
Now let's figure up how many times a year you'd be forced to use the infernal device (let's say 4 times per day) and determine if the hassle is really worth it. So you (and everybody else) would be using that device over 1400 times per year to alleviate a 1/20,000 chance of dying. You'd be spending probably 4 minutes a day = 1400+ minutes a year = 25+ hours a year blowing into a breathalyzer and listening to it talk to you in an artificial voice. All to miss out on a 1/20,000 shot that will only count for the x number more years you will be driving anyway. Hmm.
Now let's think up 10 more hassle-inflicting safety measures we can impose that can cost us each 4 more minutes every day but that each will statistically avert another 1/20,000 chance for us of dying each year. What's 40 minutes a day if it saves us 1/2000 chance of dying each year? How many more years are we expecting to live, anyway? How about 400 minutes a day to save us 1/200 chance of dying each year? With 800 minutes a day invested in the proper safety procedures, we could cut out a 1/100 chance of dying each year!
I'm not trying to sound rude or be silly, but it just seems absurd to me to trade that much time of living for a tiny reduction in the chance of dying. And that's not even counting the aggravation factor which could conceivably take additional years off our lives too [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
If you really want to live that safely, I won't be one to try to stop you. I just don't think it's wise and I don't think it would be fair to force everyone else to do it too - even if it saves you a 1/20,000 chance of dying each year. If we were going to live 20,000 years though, you might have a point with which I could almost agree. But then again I don't know if I could put up with 20,000 years of that kind of aggravation, 20,000 years of blowing into breathalyzers and listening to the artificial voice.
Hopefully my point and this post makes some sense. By the way, thanks for responding to my posts.
[/ QUOTE ]
This post is really useful in helping me to understand the complete lack of respect a significant % of the population has for my freedom. So many people suffer losses in their lives/their families lives and rather than learning to get past it they want all these laws enacted to make themselves feel better. (mom killed by drunk driver so now person goes on a crucade to have the breatalizer thing for everyone). Rather than accept responsibility with managing their emotions about this tragedy they displace it onto society. Rinse and repeat with countless scenario's where accidents and other tragedies happen across the country.
I now realize that no only government, but joe average citizen, has very little regard for my freedom. Thanks again, this post was very instructive.
|