|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JustinC
Joined: 10 Mar 2012
Location: We Are The World!
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| comm wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But the seat belt and child seat thing is a bit ridiculous and they need a better campaign. Start fining people too. Not too big of a fine that it becomes the latest bribe/pay raise, but like 20,000 won a pop. Enough so that the person thinks about it. |
Because the 30,000 won fine for smoking is effective? Only significant fines change behavior. Hell, even if someone WAS pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and that's unlikely), they'd probably pay the 20 and keep doing it, hoping not to be pulled over again. |
We had this come in in the UK around 25 years ago, the police would come up to your car at the traffic lights and tell you to pull to the side of the road. You got a fine a bit more than $20 - I think it was more, but not much, but I wasn't driving then. This plus extensive tv and billboard campaigns changed a lot of British drivers' habits, as did the years of drink driving campaigns.
Mind you we are, on average, a pretty lazy bunch and the constant hammering of drivers' bad habits means it's easier just to obey the rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I can excuse the chemicals by the mop sink on the floor, because kids aren't that stupid. Like I said, chemicals on the floor are as dangerous as rocks on the ground in a park. Any kid can choose to be destructive if they want. At some point you have to accept that .001% will die or kill another kid because of stupidity and/or random destructive impulse. |
We're never going to agree, but the obvious difference is that responsible people don't GIVE a kid a rock to play with.
| Quote: |
I can excuse playing around the bus stop, because again, common sense and I don't want to see kids in leashes, which is what it would take.
|
From one extreme to another? Does common sense really tell you it's ok not to watch a toddler as they play next to a busy street?
| Quote: |
| I can excuse kids with exacto knives because at some point you have to learn how to use tools and everyone injures themselves at least once. |
When did pencil sharpeners become obsolete? Does a 5 year old city kid need to know how to use tools?
| Quote: |
| But the seat belt and child seat thing is a bit ridiculous and they need a better campaign. Start fining people too. Not too big of a fine that it becomes the latest bribe/pay raise, but like 20,000 won a pop. Enough so that the person thinks about it. |
I think the information is out there. Every morning, evening and night there is a program that runs samples of video from car dashboard black boxes. There is always a PSA at the end advocating seat belts. Information is also provided in the process of acquiring a new license.
What about most bus drivers who ignore the rules of the road, and the rules of physics when transporting schoolchildren and the elderly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| We're never going to agree, but the obvious difference is that responsible people don't GIVE a kid a rock to play with. |
No one is giving a kid bleach to play with either. But schools have rocks on the ground around trees that kids walk by. Gravel paths that kids rock on that contain rocks. So what difference does it make if bleach in a bottle is on the floor?
These are kids, they're like incarcerated felons when it comes to turning something into a weapon (probably our inner survival instinct). If you want a danger free zone, you have to somehow turn off whatever it is that makes little boys MacGuyver when it comes to making a weapon.
I'm pretty sure more kids have thrown chairs or books at each other than chugged bleach. Should we ban chairs and books from school?
| Quote: |
| When did pencil sharpeners become obsolete? Does a 5 year old city kid need to know how to use tools? |
Fine, no one under 8. At 8 you're not a total idiot. When is the right age for you? 7th grade? Come on, at that age boys were old enough to go off to war.
| Quote: |
| What about most bus drivers who ignore the rules of the road, and the rules of physics when transporting schoolchildren and the elderly? |
Have them drive slow and safe and deny the kids an extra 45 minutes of sleep so they don't have to worry about rushing through traffic. That and prepare teachers to deal with kids streaming in at random times, up to and including 45 minutes after the first bell.
Oh wait, in the real world that's pretty much what happens. Sure in some neighborhoods you could maybe only have to worry about +/- 15 minutes, not so bad.
As for city buses, yes have them show up at stops whenever. I'm sure no one will complain and blame Koreans for some cultural incompetency for having buses that follow haphazard scheduling.
| Quote: |
| Because the 30,000 won fine for smoking is effective? Only significant fines change behavior. Hell, even if someone WAS pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and that's unlikely), they'd probably pay the 20 and keep doing it, hoping not to be pulled over again. |
Not necessarily. A heavy fine can make the law look ridiculous and heavy-handed. It can also lead to it becoming a bribe law.
Actually the key is frequency and certainty. Hitting people with a small fine regularly for a small act would be more likely to produce change in my opinion, rather than a heavy fine that is not a certainty. Of course the problem is continuous enforcement, which history has shown is not the most likely of outcomes here.
Maybe something like black box sensors in the seat belts? Mix that video cam technology with some HiPass type scanning and verify seatbelt usage in cars on random stretches of the road.
And sorry, but if you're a cop and you pull over a lady with 3 screaming kids, in a beater car, with her restaurant apron on, are you going to fine her $1000 dollars (a month's income for some) because her kids happened to be unbuckled? Or is this going to be a "Late model car only" law? You do realize that heavily fining working parents, working single mothers especially, is probably going to create more child issues than it solves, right? Did you even consider that?
Ahhh Dave's, the land of political solutions where everyone lives an ideal life with tons of money and laws work out exactly the way they are written. Want to stop people from drinking? Ban alcohol! Nothing else will happen but people not drinking. And this law will be perfectly and fairly enforced with the wave of my magic wand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because the 30,000 won fine for smoking is effective? Only significant fines change behavior. Hell, even if someone WAS pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and that's unlikely), they'd probably pay the 20 and keep doing it, hoping not to be pulled over again. |
Not necessarily. A heavy fine can make the law look ridiculous and heavy-handed. It can also lead to it becoming a bribe law.
Actually the key is frequency and certainty. Hitting people with a small fine regularly for a small act would be more likely to produce change in my opinion, rather than a heavy fine that is not a certainty. Of course the problem is continuous enforcement, which history has shown is not the most likely of outcomes here. |
Ok, so you've decided that:
1. "frequency and certainty" is the most important factor
2. continuous enforcement is unlikely
3. somehow small fines will still work?
If the fine is 100,000₩ it will certainly be something to think about without crushing a family's finances. And if that becomes a 50,000₩ per-incident bribe... well then we'll likely have frequent and continuous enforcement, wont we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
No one is giving a kid bleach to play with either. But schools have rocks on the ground around trees that kids walk by. Gravel paths that kids rock on that contain rocks. So what difference does it make if bleach in a bottle is on the floor?
These are kids, they're like incarcerated felons when it comes to turning something into a weapon (probably our inner survival instinct). If you want a danger free zone, you have to somehow turn off whatever it is that makes little boys MacGuyver when it comes to making a weapon.
I'm pretty sure more kids have thrown chairs or books at each other than chugged bleach. Should we ban chairs and books from school? |
You're making things up again. When did I ask for a danger free zone? As I've said three or more times now, all that's needed is reasonable care. Common things like chairs and rocks have much less interest to the curious and mischievous than unmarked chemicals. Why do you need to keep making these absurd parallels? Furthermore, leaving unmarked bottles of chemicals on the floor is the same as providing them with an additional and convenient source of mischief. To use the logic; "well, they're going to cause mischief anyway' is truly nonsense.
| Quote: |
| Fine, no one under 8. At 8 you're not a total idiot. When is the right age for you? 7th grade? Come on, at that age boys were old enough to go off to war. |
Again, hyperbole, and not the point. The point is not what the kids are old enough for. The point is when given a choice between a cheap pencil sharpener and a more expensive exacto knife, the choice was to provide the more dangerous item. If that shows concern for safety, then colour me silly.
| Quote: |
| As for city buses, yes have them show up at stops whenever. I'm sure no one will complain and blame Koreans for some cultural incompetency for having buses that follow haphazard scheduling. |
I was only speaking of city buses, but LOL this has to be the most poorly thought out response I've read from you in long time. Unfortunate that you need to rely on these strawmen. You're worried about people complaining about cultural incompetency for bus scheduling are you? Hilarious. And, I'm sure the 10 seconds lost pulling over to the outside lane is going to cause so huge scheduling snafus. Ok, got ya. You do realize bus schedules are continuously adapting, and are monitored with respect to changing traffic patterns, right?
| Quote: |
| Ahhh Dave's, the land of political solutions where everyone lives an ideal life with tons of money and laws work out exactly the way they are written. Want to stop people from drinking? Ban alcohol! Nothing else will happen but people not drinking. And this law will be perfectly and fairly enforced with the wave of my magic wand. |
That was some amazing fiction there. Is there any possible way you can refrain from constructing your own hyperbolic conclusions and attaching them to the issue? Every time you resort to this nonsense, you look more desperate and dishonest. You yourself suggested a political solution to the seat belt issue in your previous post. Make up your mind, and try taking things others write at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oh they just did a piece on the news here in the states about a couple who took their 5 year old daughter to swim with the sharks and that's not behind a cage either really swimming with the sharks, americans...^_^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oh they just had a show on the news here in the states about a couple who took their 5 year old daughter to swim with the sharks and that's not behind a cage either really swimming with the sharks, americans...^_^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motiontodismiss
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustinC wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But the seat belt and child seat thing is a bit ridiculous and they need a better campaign. Start fining people too. Not too big of a fine that it becomes the latest bribe/pay raise, but like 20,000 won a pop. Enough so that the person thinks about it. |
Because the 30,000 won fine for smoking is effective? Only significant fines change behavior. Hell, even if someone WAS pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and that's unlikely), they'd probably pay the 20 and keep doing it, hoping not to be pulled over again. |
We had this come in in the UK around 25 years ago, the police would come up to your car at the traffic lights and tell you to pull to the side of the road. You got a fine a bit more than $20 - I think it was more, but not much, but I wasn't driving then. This plus extensive tv and billboard campaigns changed a lot of British drivers' habits, as did the years of drink driving campaigns.
Actually I think the same thing should apply to drunk driving. If the car senses alcohol in the driver's breath (an onboard breathlyzer of sorts I guess) it won't start.
Mind you we are, on average, a pretty lazy bunch and the constant hammering of drivers' bad habits means it's easier just to obey the rules. |
I think there should be a law mandating that car manufacturers install a device such that the car won't even start if the passenger doesn't have his/her seatbelt on, and locks the seatbelt in the fastened position while the car is in motion. If you hit the gas pedal while your seatbelt is unfastened, your car turns itself off.
Same thing with drunk driving. ALL cars should have ignition interlock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodge7
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| oh they just had a show on the news here in the states about a couple who took their 5 year old daughter to swim with the sharks and that's not behind a cage either really swimming with the sharks, americans...^_^ |
That's an anomaly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oppa637
Joined: 05 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could think of numerous incidences when having a car not start due to not being buckled could be hazardous.
There are some very interesting views here on Dave's. I guess it's like I'm reading jersey shore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| oh they just had a show on the news here in the states about a couple who took their 5 year old daughter to swim with the sharks and that's not behind a cage either really swimming with the sharks, americans...^_^ |
What kind of sharks? Makes quite a difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because the 30,000 won fine for smoking is effective? Only significant fines change behavior. Hell, even if someone WAS pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and that's unlikely), they'd probably pay the 20 and keep doing it, hoping not to be pulled over again. |
Not necessarily. A heavy fine can make the law look ridiculous and heavy-handed. It can also lead to it becoming a bribe law.
Actually the key is frequency and certainty. Hitting people with a small fine regularly for a small act would be more likely to produce change in my opinion, rather than a heavy fine that is not a certainty. Of course the problem is continuous enforcement, which history has shown is not the most likely of outcomes here. |
Ok, so you've decided that:
1. "frequency and certainty" is the most important factor
2. continuous enforcement is unlikely
3. somehow small fines will still work?
If the fine is 100,000₩ it will certainly be something to think about without crushing a family's finances. And if that becomes a 50,000₩ per-incident bribe... well then we'll likely have frequent and continuous enforcement, wont we? |
Steelrails might have a point here. What comes to mind for me is Massachusetts' marijuana decriminalization law; when they changed the law, they made the penalty $100 for less than an ounce of pot. As it is, that's a fairly hefty fine, and by all accounts from folks who have lived there since it passed, it goes entirely unenforced. It's pretty routine for people to be smoking in the street, while driving, in parks, etc. at this point, as the police don't ever bust anyone. If the fine was $20, I'd imagine cops would be a lot more willing to slap it on folks indiscriminately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because the 30,000 won fine for smoking is effective? Only significant fines change behavior. Hell, even if someone WAS pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and that's unlikely), they'd probably pay the 20 and keep doing it, hoping not to be pulled over again. |
Not necessarily. A heavy fine can make the law look ridiculous and heavy-handed. It can also lead to it becoming a bribe law.
Actually the key is frequency and certainty. Hitting people with a small fine regularly for a small act would be more likely to produce change in my opinion, rather than a heavy fine that is not a certainty. Of course the problem is continuous enforcement, which history has shown is not the most likely of outcomes here. |
Ok, so you've decided that:
1. "frequency and certainty" is the most important factor
2. continuous enforcement is unlikely
3. somehow small fines will still work?
If the fine is 100,000₩ it will certainly be something to think about without crushing a family's finances. And if that becomes a 50,000₩ per-incident bribe... well then we'll likely have frequent and continuous enforcement, wont we? |
Steelrails might have a point here. What comes to mind for me is Massachusetts' marijuana decriminalization law; when they changed the law, they made the penalty $100 for less than an ounce of pot. As it is, that's a fairly hefty fine, and by all accounts from folks who have lived there since it passed, it goes entirely unenforced. It's pretty routine for people to be smoking in the street, while driving, in parks, etc. at this point, as the police don't ever bust anyone. If the fine was $20, I'd imagine cops would be a lot more willing to slap it on folks indiscriminately. |
The cops are just lazy. I bet they have a quota and once they've met it they don't want to take the time and energy to write someone up for smoking a joint.
If they stopped you while driving and smoking, I'd bet they'd get you for more than just smoking pot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
If they stopped you while driving and smoking, I'd bet they'd get you for more than just smoking pot. |
Funny, you'd think so, but it doesn't appear to be the case. My buddy was recently riding as a passenger with someone who was pulled over and arrested for having a suspended license. The cop shined a flashlight in his eyes and could tell he had been smoking, which my friend proceeded to admit to. Following the driver's arrest, the officer asked my friend if he was okay to drive, and after hearing that he was fine, allowed him to do so. That's just one example, but on the whole it seems like the police are disinclined to do anything about it, even when driving is involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Common things like chairs and rocks have much less interest to the curious and mischievous than unmarked chemicals. |
Sorry, but a dingy bottle of Clorox on the bathroom floor holds the same allure as a dingy rock on the ground. Seriously, you could put an unopened bottle of Pepsi on the bathroom floor next to the mop and no one would drink it.
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, leaving unmarked bottles of chemicals on the floor is the same as providing them with an additional and convenient source of mischief. |
I trust that the appeal of using a map or broom as a weapon outweighs the allure of drinking a dirty bottle of bleach (and we all know how lovely that smells and tastes), therefore you don't have to worry. At that point you could claim that anything is dangerous and anything has the potential to kill.
Sorry, but there's a reason we haven't heard about 1000 kids dropping dead from chemicals in the school bathroom. It's because chemicals on the school bathroom floor don't look that fun to drink and play with it. It's a non-issue.
| Quote: |
| . To use the logic; "well, they're going to cause mischief anyway' is truly nonsense. |
And using the logic that because something is dangerous (which is pretty much everything), it should be out of the reach of kids is what? Brilliant reason?
| Quote: |
| The point is not what the kids are old enough for. The point is when given a choice between a cheap pencil sharpener and a more expensive exacto knife, the choice was to provide the more dangerous item. If that shows concern for safety, then colour me silly. |
No, they get both a paper cutting device AND a pencil sharpener in one. It's a multi-use tool.
| Quote: |
| I was only speaking of city buses, but LOL this has to be the most poorly thought out response I've read from you in long time. Unfortunate that you need to rely on these strawmen. You're worried about people complaining about cultural incompetency for bus scheduling are you? Hilarious. And, I'm sure the 10 seconds lost pulling over to the outside lane is going to cause so huge scheduling snafus. Ok, got ya. You do realize bus schedules are continuously adapting, and are monitored with respect to changing traffic patterns, right? |
Yes, but as I said, if you start getting uber-slow and cautious buses then you start getting buses showing up at haphazard times and one pulling up right after the other and increased costs and all of that.
The point is that these decisions and regulations don't work in practice like they do in theory. Believing that its as simple as having drivers drive better is ignoring the question of why they drive that way. I assume most bus drivers would rather drive slow and easy, but they aren't for a reason. What is that reason? Culture?
| Quote: |
| That was some amazing fiction there. Is there any possible way you can refrain from constructing your own hyperbolic conclusions and attaching them to the issue? Every time you resort to this nonsense, you look more desperate and dishonest. You yourself suggested a political solution to the seat belt issue in your previous post. Make up your mind, and try taking things others write at face value. |
Yes, and I was quick to recognize the limitations and the potential for unintended consequences, so I offered another solution, one that will have its own limitations and unintended consequences. But nowhere did I d the standard "If people just did this, then X would happen." Rarely does X happen, and often Y and Z happen as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
