Speeding Cameras

[bkholdem]

[ 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 ]

Very sweet post! Thanks for taking the time to post this.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't have happened if they weren't alive either. So, since you oppose infanticide, it's your fault on that count to.

We can come up with all sorts of ridiculous arguments. My point is that government mandated speed limits, supported by enforcement utilizing available technology, is a reasonable protection of public safety. As is attempting to keep drunk drivers off the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like political speech to get the public to accept it. Fortunately for me I think for myself and use my own frames to understand things the way I see fit to rather than buying this kind of stuff.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I lived in LA for a while and an idiot going 35 in the left hand lane of the 405 while everyone is going 70 is going to cause other accidents because of people trying to get around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, it is the idiot overtaking unsafely who is causing an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the moron who is going too slow in the left hand lane--is he without blame or fault here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely blameless. The only moran is the one overtaking unsafely!

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude--but it is people that think like you that cause many of these mini "road rage" events which actually cause those people to attempt to pass unsafely. Traffic on the road should move with a certain flow. People who impede this flow by driving too fast or too slow in their respective lanes are the people who are most likely to be involved or cause accidents. This has nothing to do with speed limits, but rather the speed that traffic has decided to go, whether higher or lower than the posted limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude, but attribute road rage to another with a safe and legal behavior is pushing the responsibility to the wrong person. Road rage seem to stem more from a psychological deficiency in the one that exhibits it.

As the traffic deciding I would rather expect the people in the traffic abide by the law governing driving on public road. Anything that will reduce the number of people infringing these, by issuing fines, by random testing, by cameras, will make driving safer for all. Go cameras! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

How many hours of my life should I have to give up in undergoing safety checks and regulations, etc in order for you to continue this pursuit of feeling safe?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And your comments about morality are not directed at my comments to John. John was getting annoyed by government intrusiveness restricting the things he can and cannot do in the name of saving lives. He mentioned examples where government was restricting your behavior where it already had not. Government is not making another restriction on your behavior here, it is already a restriction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if government makes little mini hover satellites for everyone that sit outside their houses to catch 'already illegal activity' and these things start hovering over our heads when we leave our houses and follow us everywhere and are programmed to take pictures the moment we do something 'already illegal' all is OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Strawman
I never said any means used to enforce laws were acceptable. There's a trade-off (duh) involved every time. Random cameras along roads don't strike me as much more intrusive than cops already staking out highways waiting for speeders.

2) Extreme examples stemming from strawmen and making false assumptions don't help you prove points. Watch:
You're against cameras? So you don't think we should try to stop speeding? It would be "ok" if I could blast down a residential street with lots of kids on it doing 150?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And your comments about morality are not directed at my comments to John. John was getting annoyed by government intrusiveness restricting the things he can and cannot do in the name of saving lives. He mentioned examples where government was restricting your behavior where it already had not. Government is not making another restriction on your behavior here, it is already a restriction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if government makes little mini hover satellites for everyone that sit outside their houses to catch 'already illegal activity' and these things start hovering over our heads when we leave our houses and follow us everywhere and are programmed to take pictures the moment we do something 'already illegal' all is OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Strawman
I never said any means used to enforce laws were acceptable. There's a trade-off (duh) involved every time. Random cameras along roads don't strike me as much more intrusive than cops already staking out highways waiting for speeders.

2) Extreme examples stemming from strawmen and making false assumptions don't help you prove points. Watch:
You're against cameras? So you don't think we should try to stop speeding? It would be "ok" if I could blast down a residential street with lots of kids on it doing 150?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever hear of a slippery slope my friend? In which direction do you think we are headed?

[Poofler]

You could invoke "slippery slope" for basically anything, in any argument. And it's not always right. That kind of momentum argument didn't make invading Vietnam a good move in the 60's, for one.

[bkholdem]

[ 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.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
You could invoke "slippery slope" for basically anything, in any argument. And it's not always right. That kind of momentum argument didn't make invading Vietnam a good move in the 60's, for one.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my main ways of making a point is to use extreme examples. So cameras to catch speeders are ok with you and personal hover sattelites to catch all crimes are not, fair to say somewhere inbetween is also not ok with you?

I have already reached my 'not ok' point.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could invoke "slippery slope" for basically anything, in any argument. And it's not always right. That kind of momentum argument didn't make invading Vietnam a good move in the 60's, for one.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my main ways of making a point is to use extreme examples. So cameras to catch speeders are ok with you and personal hover sattelites to catch all crimes are not, fair to say somewhere inbetween is also not ok with you?

I have already reached my 'not ok' point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't always make a point, it can also obscure them. And yes, I think any of us here have a "not ok" point. Some cameras that target real speeders (not this 5 over stuff) don't exceed my "not ok" point.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could invoke "slippery slope" for basically anything, in any argument. And it's not always right. That kind of momentum argument didn't make invading Vietnam a good move in the 60's, for one.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my main ways of making a point is to use extreme examples. So cameras to catch speeders are ok with you and personal hover sattelites to catch all crimes are not, fair to say somewhere inbetween is also not ok with you?

I have already reached my 'not ok' point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't always make a point, it can also obscure it. And yes, I think any of us here have a "not ok" point. Some cameras that target real speeders (not this 5 over stuff) don't exceed my "not ok" point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we moving toward or away from your 'not ok point'?