Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - LaHood Weighs Urging Ban on All Driver Phone Use in Cars

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

LaHood Weighs Urging Ban on All Driver Phone Use in Cars
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:48 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Also, there is no logic argument for why cell phones should be banned, but not driving while on caffeine or listening to the radio (or while simply stressed out for that matter). Maybe having 2 people in a car should be banned because it's inherently distracting to drive while talking to someone? There's no clear cut logic, it's all simply up to the government's "discretion" (ie. a bunch of control freaks get to run our lives as they see fit, because they know best). It's all a load of bull.

As far as I know talking on the cell phone(even hands free) is more distracting than talking to a passenger.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060815161706.0xbugxlr&show_article=1

This is first thing i saw with a google search but i remember a big discussion about it on a science show I listen to. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on why this is the case but the evidence does seem to back it up.

Yeah well, there's always a "scientific study" around to support whatever bogus regulation the government wants to pass at the time. It's old hat by now. These people will even lie blatantly to the public about something as serious as swine flu vaccines or climate change (throwing the word "consensus" in our face), get caught red handed, and still pass whatever regulations they feel like. There's really very little credibility left. Trying to pretend this is anything other than the government imposing regulation at its own discretion is an insult to my and other peoples' intelligence.

Quote:

The idea that cell phones are dangerous when driving is the result of studies not created out of whole cloth.

By that logic, I'm sure more accidents occur during certain times of the day (studies will probably show it), so perhaps we should ban driving during those times. Maybe studies will show that more accidents happen on average on Wednesdays? Better ban driving on Wednesdays.

Keep following this logic chain, and pretty soon we'll have to ban driving altogether.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:07 am Post subject:

I thought the WHO and governments reacted in the correct way to a possible epidemic. They may have overreacted but that is the correct reaction.

The awesome part of your world view is that either way you win. Swine flu turns out to be not as serious as first thought...it was all a ruse to sell vaccines or whatever. If Swine flu turns out to be an epidemic...you know what..I heard it was created in a government lab by some of those bad scientists. The same ones that roll out fake studies(that seems to be your implication) to support their crazy policies.

Quote:

The old slippery slope argument. It is possible that more people have accidents on certain days. It is extremely unlikely that that day itself causes the accidents by its very existence. That is just silly. Don't be silly.

What you would do is predict why people have more accidents on certain days and then design studies(based on the predictions) and experiments to isolate the reason/s. Then you would enact policies based on those studies and subsequent studies to help eliminate/reduce these causal factors.

candyteacher

Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Location: where ever i want

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:03 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

candyteacher wrote:

Fox wrote:

I oppose seat-belt laws because one's safety should ultimately be one's own choice. Talking on your phone while driving, however, is taking other people's safety into your own hands as well. The state is totally within its rights to illegalize it.

Rocktek wrote:

A better solution would be to just install cellphone/dmb jammers along the freeways.

There are legitimate reasons why one might need to use a cell phone in those areas though (e.g. your car breaks down). There's also no reason to restrict passengers from using phones.

I agree banning the use of mobile phones while driving is a good idea. However I cant agree with the seat belt being a choice, you are endangering the lives of the others in the car by not wearing a seat belf.

It always make me think of this advert from home about seatbelts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzvzqaicMz0&NR=1

Something similar actually happened in a car that crashed not far from my parents house, back passenger not wearing a seatbelt left a girl in a coma for weeks.

That's a good point. I never considered the potential of one's own body doing damage to another person as it flew around the car during a collision. I'm not sure if it will change my stance on seatbelt laws (since it still seems to be primarily a threat to those who ride with you rather than those in other cars, meaning they can choose whether or not to share a car with you when they know you aren't wearing a belt), but it's definitely something to consider.

JMO wrote:

The idea that cell phones are dangerous when driving is the result of studies not created out of whole cloth.

Precisely. It's not a matter of applying principle, it's a matter of applying data.

Thats fair enough. As far as I know at home (Ireland) the driver is fined if a passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt, as they are in control of the car and must ensure all passengers are belted up.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:51 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

The awesome part of your world view is that either way you win. Swine flu turns out to be not as serious as first thought...it was all a ruse to sell vaccines or whatever. If Swine flu turns out to be an epidemic...you know what..I heard it was created in a government lab by some of those bad scientists. The same ones that roll out fake studies(that seems to be your implication) to support their crazy policies.

Nice strawman right off the bat. But even if I indulge you here, the two possibilities you presented are not necessary mutually exclusive. Ultimately it makes no difference, however, because I don't care about winning a stupid debate per se, I just want the government to stay the hell out of my life. Simple. I neither want nor need its "protection" or services. I would like to live in a society where I, and the people in my community, are free to do as we please, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others. If I murder or steal, the government should get involved. Otherwise, not.

[quote]By that logic, I'm sure more accidents occur during certain times of the day (studies will probably show it), so perhaps we should ban driving during those times. Maybe studies will show that more accidents happen on average on Wednesdays? Better ban driving on Wednesdays.

Quote:

It most certainly is a slippery slope. What I said was intentionally silly, but from my point of view hardly any more so than banning cell phones while driving.

How about some other arbitrary example, like driving while not on psychotropic drugs? I bet the government could easily come up with some study that shows Ritalin "improves" driving ability; therefore a new safety standard could be set, and driving while not on Ritalin would be banned. Obviously that would be absurd, but there you have it. I could go on and on... but there's not much point since it's so obvious the point I'm making, if you haven't gotten it yet, I don't expect you will...

kotakji

Joined: 23 Oct 2006

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:05 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Ultimately it makes no difference, however, because I don't care about winning a stupid debate per se, I just want the government to stay the hell out of my life. Simple. I neither want nor need its "protection" or services.

Out of curiosity Visitorq, do you acknowledge that there are a lot of us (I'd dare say a majority of US citizens for example) that do want the government involved in their lives to a greater extent than you personally advocate? Moreover, a lot of those people voting for representatives that favor government regulation are well informed and intelligent citizens that simply dont have the same philosophical or pragmatic priorities?

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:25 am Post subject:

kotakji wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Moreover, a lot of those people voting for representatives that favor government regulation are well informed and intelligent citizens that simply dont have the same philosophical or pragmatic priorities?

I certainly wouldn't call them "well-informed". I would say most people are very much in the dark about how bad the government is; however I think many suspect something is wrong, and are by and large well meaning, decent folk. These people can be woken up (and are waking up more and more).

But then you have your self-righteous liberal types, as well your moral majority, phony conservative types, and as far as I'm concerned they're just a bunch of spineless cretins who love bowing down to authority (when a push comes to shove they happily get down on all fours to lick the gov'ts boots). These people love tyranny, just as they despise anyone else who just wants to mind their own business and be left alone. Whether these are the majority or not, I'm not sure (I doubt it), but there certainly is a lot of them, and they'll gleefully vote in another Bush or Obama (hell, even Hitler was voted in, lets not forget) with much pomp. But America is still a constitutional republic, not a majority rule democracy - so what we have really is a culture war between those who want America to be as it was intended at the founding (liberty) and those who want us all to live in a socialist/corporatist hell-hole (tyranny). If enough good people wake up, then hopefully we'll take our country back.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:37 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Nice strawman right off the bat.

That wasn't intended to be a strawman. I got the distinct impression that that is exactly what you believe. My apologies.

Quote:

How about some other arbitrary example, like driving while not on psychotropic drugs? I bet the government could easily come up with some study that shows Ritalin "improves" driving ability; therefore a new safety standard could be set, and driving while not on Ritalin would be banned. Obviously that would be absurd, but there you have it. I could go on and on... but there's not much point since it's so obvious the point I'm making, if you haven't gotten it yet, I don't expect you will...

Oh, it is absurd and I'm sure the other examples would be equally so. Of course I get the point, I just think is an obviously flawed one. A precedent has been set for laws that are simple and preventative on the road. There is no precedent for the government mandating that the general population take a psychotropic drug to drive. It does not follow. I'm sure your other examples will be the same.

The data on road deaths show that governments have done a decent job on this over the last 50 years or so. I'm going to go with that and not some hypothetical scare story about the next fifty.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:29 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

The precedent is prohibiting people from driving under the influence of alcohol. It follows that other substances may instead "enhance" some peoples' driving ability, making the road a 'safer place': http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/news/archives00/ritalin_adhd.cfm

Quote:

The data on road deaths show that governments have done a decent job on this over the last 50 years or so. I'm going to go with that and not some hypothetical scare story about the next fifty.

Done a "decent" job by what standard? That is nothing more than your opinion, since a "good job" is subjective. Appealing to government studies (ie. hackery) is not going to change that - and besides, you haven't even posted any links.

At the end of the day you believe it's okay to sacrifice freedom for "security", and I don't. I don't see much middle ground here, eventually either your side will win out, or mine will. Arguing on the internet isn't going to change much. But if you could at least post any links to your "government studies" we could attempt a debate on something of substance.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:44 am Post subject:

Stopping people from drinking and driving is not a precedent for putting them on drugs. They are two different actions. That is like saying stopping people from killing is a precedent for putting the population as a whole on anti-kill medication. Therefore we shouldn't stop people from killing each other. Thin end of the wedge man.

Quote:

Appealing to government studies (ie. hackery) is not going to change that - and besides, you haven't even posted any links.

Ok. In UK there has been a sharp decline in fatalities since the 50s.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

Quote:

The chances of dying in an automobile accident in 1953 was four times greater than in 2003, based on fatalities per mile driven in the United States

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa

Quote:

At the end of the day you believe it's okay to sacrifice freedom for "security", and I don't

Safety is important and there should be regulations in certain areas. I think most people agree on this.

kotakji

Joined: 23 Oct 2006

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:33 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Sure, I'll acknowledge it, but it doesn't mean I respect it. Regardless it wouldn't be a problem if they only wanted it for themselves (if somebody actually chooses to become a slave, then it's not my concern), the point is that they want the same loss of freedom to apply to me (and others who just want to be left alone) as well.

I certainly wouldn't call them "well-informed". I would say most people are very much in the dark about how bad the government is; however I think many suspect something is wrong, and are by and large well meaning, decent folk. These people can be woken up (and are waking up more and more).

visitorq wrote:

At the end of the day you believe it's okay to sacrifice freedom for "security", and I don't. I don't see much middle ground here, eventually either your side will win out, or mine will.

Fair enough, I think we can boil the conversation down to basically this last statement. I just wanted to point out that it is possible to disagree with the position that freedom is an immutable, sacrosanct ideal. Rather that, regardless of what Ben Franklin said, it is one value that should be juggled along with others such as stability, security, affluence etc. This is not to say that the various values are always or even usually mutually exclusive.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:29 pm Post subject:

JMO wrote:

We're talking about a person's mental state while driving, so it's a similar argument. Regardless, so what if there's a "precedent"? The government just does what it wants anyway.

Quote:

Appealing to government studies (ie. hackery) is not going to change that - and besides, you haven't even posted any links.

Ok. In UK there has been a sharp decline in fatalities since the 50s.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

And you attribute this decline to what exactly?

Quote:

The chances of dying in an automobile accident in 1953 was four times greater than in 2003, based on fatalities per mile driven in the United States

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa

So? Maybe there's more traffic congestion, which results in a lower average? Your sources offer no attempt at an explanation as to why fatalities have dropped. Maybe we simply drive better/safer cars now, on better roads? We don't need the government for either.

Quote:

At the end of the day you believe it's okay to sacrifice freedom for "security", and I don't

Safety is important and there should be regulations in certain areas. I think most people agree on this.

Well that's just a total non sequitur right there. And claiming most people agree (whether they actually do or not) adds nothing to the logic.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:41 pm Post subject:

kotakji wrote:

visitorq wrote:

At the end of the day you believe it's okay to sacrifice freedom for "security", and I don't. I don't see much middle ground here, eventually either your side will win out, or mine will.

Freedom, while rare, is the only way to guarantee stability, security, affluence etc. for society in the long run. The government may offer you goodies in the short term, but once you are dependent you will lose all of the above eventually (unless you yourself are one of the privileged few who benefits at everyone else's expense). Once a tyrannical government really takes control, hell is unleashed. Look at the histories of Russia or China for recent examples.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:54 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

We're talking about a person's mental state while driving, so it's a similar argument. Regardless, so what if there's a "precedent"? The government just does what it wants anyway.
.

Do you have an example of a government mandating a psychotropic drug for road safety? If not, I don't see why we should necessarily expect it in the future. You can't just say, that any law can be enacted because laws have been enacted before. That is ludicrous.

Quote:

And you attribute this decline to what exactly?

Safer cars and better laws.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf

Quote:

NHTSA estimates that safety belts have saved 147,246 lives in the period 1975-2001, and airbags saved 8,369 lives between 1987 and 2001

Their methodology is in the paper.

Quote:

Maybe we simply drive better/safer cars now, on better roads? We don't need the government for either.

It was the government in the US who mandated that companies produce safer cars. They also enforced seat belt and air bag legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act

Quote:

Well that's just a total non sequitur right there

I'm going to explain this a little easier for you. Safety is important and there should be regulations to ensure safety in certain aspects of life. Driving is one of them. These regulations should be based on scientific research. This model works.

BTW do you have evidence that the government faked the cell phone data or the seat belt data? That should be a central pillar of your argument. It is incredibly lazy just to say 'Government bad" to everything.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe