|
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 |
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Strawman again.
No one here is saying "the slower the better."
I believe most think that "as quickly as possible within the limits of the law and within safe limits for the conditions at the time" seems reasonabale enough. And that, it would seem, is what the Korean police have said they are going to do. y the way, WHY do you think the police have decided to do this? Because of public pressure maybe?
The Dominos policy was rescinded because people were getting killed. Dominos decided to risk bankruptcy  and rescind the policy.
In the end, both morally and legally, a person's right NOT to be run over and killed by a careless driver trumps the right to operate a delivery business, and th right to recive a delivery as quickly as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
strange_brew
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So does anyone else wonder how much time SR has to waste on those ridiculously long replies. Also, does anyone else just skip them and can basically summarise what he has wasted his time arguing by the next person's much shorter post.
Also, diver pretty much has this thread nailed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
myenglishisno
Joined: 08 Mar 2011
Location: Geumchon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the real problem is people being god damned lazy.
I've only ordered food here a handful of times when I've been very sick or when I'm craving something far away that I don't have the means to get to. In my half decade here, I can only remember ordering food three or four times.
Anyway, the moral of the story is don't order food unless you have to. Nothing in Korea is far enough away to warrant ordering. I order food in Canada because the nearest anything is a 30 minute drive from my house.
A 5000 won delivery fee would solve all the problems.
Also, don't knock sidewalk motorcycle driving until you've tried it. It's a lot of fun, especially ramping off those bent halmonies!
I'm going to hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| strange_brew wrote: |
| So does anyone else wonder how much time SR has to waste on those ridiculously long replies. Also, does anyone else just skip them and can basically summarise what he has wasted his time arguing by the next person's much shorter post. |
Damn, I guess I'm not the only one lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As I said, what is the difference in physical motion necessary to dodge a scooter vs. dodging a jogger? |
Here's a physics test.
What's the difference in damages when a motor vehicle hits a person vs when a person hits another person?
Weight
Material
Speed
I'm no Sheldon Cooper, but I'd put money on there being a dramatic difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As I said, what is the difference in physical motion necessary to dodge a scooter vs. dodging a jogger? |
Here's a physics test.
What's the difference in damages when a motor vehicle hits a person vs when a person hits another person?
Weight
Material
Speed
I'm no Sheldon Cooper, but I'd put money on there being a dramatic difference. |
Depends on the weight of the person and the velocity of the scooter. Depends on whether you catch a rubber wheel or plastic or metal. Depends whether you catch flab or knee/elbow/head.
An NFL linebacker could potentially be more damaging. Should people be allowed to jog on sidewalks at only certain speeds or if they weigh a certain amount?
And interesting you make this comparison- What's the difference between a truck hitting a scooter and a scooter hitting a pedestrian? There's your dramatic difference.
People hit by scooters don't end up as smears on the pavement or getting their teeth implanted into a rear bumper. Scooter drivers hit by trucks do.
| Quote: |
| I believe most think that "as quickly as possible within the limits of the law and within safe limits for the conditions at the time" seems reasonabale enough. And that, it would seem, is what the Korean police have said they are going to do. |
I agree, but some argued for a strict crackdown that would lead to the practice being effectively ended.
That is what I'm arguing against.
Also people seemed to be flippant about the impact on business.
| Quote: |
| In the end, both morally and legally, a person's right NOT to be run over and killed by a careless driver trumps the right to operate a delivery business, and th right to recive a delivery as quickly as possible. |
Which is why when someone causes an accident they can be held liable. That doesn't mean you enforce strict crackdowns on something that seems to be a minor problem (10 fatal accidents a year in a city of 20 million). Just because I'm at risk from a right turn while crossing the street as a pedestrian doesn't mean you ban "turning right on red". Yes, that has killed people too. But in the end, it's worth it. Unless you are against "turning right on red."
Are you against that traffic practice?
Because if saving lives is more important than convenience, by that logic you should be against the "turn right on red" policy. In fact, speed limits should go down by 10 mph across the board. It saves lives.
| Quote: |
| Dominos decided to risk bankruptcy and rescind the policy. |
Their policy did not affect their physical capability to deliver pizza (if anything it may have expanded it). There is a difference between ending a "30 minutes or your pizza is free" policy and strict enforcement of a common traffic practices that would double or even triple delivery times.
I can't believe anyone is equating the two.
Last edited by Steelrails on Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've seen someone flattened by a motorcycle. Can't say for sure that they were dead, but they weren't moving. There was a lot of blood as well.
Let me ask you a question, SR... How often do you see football linebackers jogging down Seoul streets? Now, how often do you see scooters/motorcycles on the sidewalk?
Also, your grasp of physics seems to be pretty light. You seem determined to dodge the issue and facts of this case... That when a machine hits a person, the person ends up on the losing side.
If you've got issues with scooter safety on the road....take it up with road safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Steelrails]Their policy did not affect their physical capability to deliver pizza (if anything it may have expanded it)[/quote]
Neither does this new policy in Korea.
Dominos ended their policy because they were found liable in a couple of cases causing death and injury - where drivers broke the laws to meet the 30-munite requirement. The police can't be everywhere at once, but had those drivers been seen by the police, they would have been ticketed.
Two important points:
1) Dominos was held legally responsible for the damage their policy caused.
2) Dropping their policy did not cause EVERY Dominos to go out of business throwing thousands out of work. This a a concrete, real-life example of a business that DID not have to promise 30-minute delivery and was able to thrive. In fact, people do NOT drive on the sidewalks in the US, but delivery businesses seem to be doing fine. Can you point to ANY example of an ENTIRE industry put out of business as the indirect result of a traffic law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I've seen someone flattened by a motorcycle. Can't say for sure that they were dead, but they weren't moving. There was a lot of blood as well. |
Motorcycle or scooter? Are we talking a Harley or a Vespa?
| Quote: |
| Let me ask you a question, SR... How often do you see football linebackers jogging down Seoul streets? |
Not often, but if risk/potential for injury is your criteria, then how can you allow one and ban the other?
And a normal-szied person running at a pretty decent clip could certainly cause significant injury if they ran into an unsuspecting person, particularly if their heads collided.
The point is that a human being has the potential to cause the same amount of damage as a scooter, perhaps not in the same fashion, but certainly its within their potential.
| Quote: |
| Also, your grasp of physics seems to be pretty light. You seem determined to dodge the issue and facts of this case... That when a machine hits a person, the person ends up on the losing side. |
Not always, depends on its size, material, and velocity.
| Quote: |
| If you've got issues with scooter safety on the road....take it up with road safety. |
I think clearly the two issues are related, not existing in a vacuum. Many scooter drivers favor driving on the sidewalk because it is safer for them.
And I'd maintain that scooters on the sidewalk are overall more safe than scooters on the street.
Again, the odds of a pedestrian surviving a collision with a scooter are significantly more likely than a scooter driver surviving being hit by a car and especially being hit by a bus or any other large vehicle.
So which is safer overall? Which policy saves more lives overall?
| Quote: |
| Dropping their policy did not cause EVERY Dominos to go out of business throwing thousands out of work. This a a concrete, real-life example of a business that DID not have to promise 30-minute delivery and was able to thrive. In fact, people do NOT drive on the sidewalks in the US, but delivery businesses seem to be doing fine. |
I never said that every delivery service store would go out of business. In fact I even claimed that some would benefit.
But again, it's completely different. Domino's delivery times now simply reflected the same ones as the rest of the market. In fact, one could argue that being able to expand the delivery area without having to worry about the 30 minute guarantee increased their business to compensate for any loss because of delivery times.
People would still be getting their food in a reasonable time and still enjoying a hot and fresh product. Unlike delivery times of 45-hr where the product is spending 30-45 minutes in transit.
And just because Domino's officially dropped the policy, doesn't mean that they still have a 30 minute delivery goal and try to reach it.
| Quote: |
| Can you point to ANY example of an ENTIRE industry put out of business as the indirect result of a traffic law? |
Again, not claiming the practice will cease, but it will affect some stores. Where did I ever say that?
I'd say rail service took a hit because of the increase in speed limits back up to 70 mph. Amtrak was on life support before that, but its even more so now.
But not off the top of my head. But I think this one would.
May I ask why do you think it would not? Because of what happened with Domino's? I'm sorry that's not very compelling, for the reasons I stated. That is not the same thing as what a strict sidewalk ban would bring about.
Is food quality affected by time spent in transit from oven to customer?
Would diminished food quality and excessively long delivery times cause a reduction in orders?
Would a strict ban result in significantly increased delivery times?
Are some food businesses highly dependent on delivery service to generate profits?
Are there lots of food delivery services in Seoul?
Can a reduction of 10-33% in businesses be the line between profitability and loss?
Seems pretty obvious that there would be an affect.
And lastly, if delivery times don't affect food businesses, why do food businesses worry so much about delivery times?
Last edited by Steelrails on Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Savant
Joined: 25 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Again, the odds of a pedestrian surviving a collision with a scooter are significantly more likely than a scooter driver surviving being hit by a car and especially being hit by a bus or any other large vehicle.
So which is safer overall? Which policy saves more lives overall? |
You are deflecting the argument: the issue is about the danger/nuisance posed by scooters to pedestrians on a sidewalk.
You're argument seems to be running parallel to the issue of how in general Korean roads are not safe for a variety of road users and the answer would be what? More laws and enforcement which is something that you seem to be clearly against as an obstacle to progress.
You are defeating your own argument by using the answers to a wider problem instead of discussing the sole issue on hand in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are deflecting the argument: the issue is about the danger/nuisance posed by scooters to pedestrians on a sidewalk. |
But the answers to such an issue do not exist in a vacuum. You have to look at how it would affect things overall.
| Quote: |
| You're argument seems to be running parallel to the issue of how in general Korean roads are not safe for a variety of road users and the answer would be what? More laws and enforcement which is something that you seem to be clearly against as an obstacle to progress...You are defeating your own argument by using the answers to a wider problem instead of discussing the sole issue on hand in this thread. |
I agree with stricter enforcement against the most egregious offenders. I have proposed a system that would enable qualified individuals (or modify it to simply include commercial vehicles) greater leeway in exchange for a more rigorous driving records or certification. Clearly there are steps that can be taken that will improve safety, but that doesn't mean some knee-jerk pet-peeve based action and crackdown is the best answer.
I'm just saying that a rigorous strict ban and overwhelming crackdown would be an inefficient use of public funds and manpower, be harmful to business, and would likely produce costs that would outweigh the benefits.
You say more laws and enforcement would be the answer. How so? Are more laws and enforcement guaranteed to solve a social problem?
What do you think might be the unintended consequences of a strict crackdown and enforcement? I think it would take funds and manpower away from more pressing criminal matters, would pose risks to business and jeopardize livelihoods, might promote reckless behavior in other manners, and could very well be politically unfeasible/disastrous.
Or do you really believe that a crackdown would end everything and that would be that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No. Your proposal gives a pass for certain people to not follow the law. I don't think it's practical nor needed. The law is in place and should be enforced.
As well, you're not being truthful when you say that a person to person collision causes the same damage that a person to motorcycle/scooter would.
You've either got a warped perception of physics, or you've simply dug in and are determined to troll this one out.
I have to say, I've lost tons of respect in you as a poster of late. Making up numbers, calling me a liar, insisting on taking the argument to the most asinine extreme... Really, man. For a long time I thought of you as a reasonable poster on this forum. Not someone I'd always agree with, but someone who did their side of the argument a service.
No longer, I'm sorry to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After we regulate all motorcycles off the sidewalk and all people to wear seat belts and helmets, I think the next crusade should be the implementation of PFD law in Venice. How can they allow people to drown in such a cavalier manner? It's barbaric.
Seriously, I like the bikes and whatnot on the sidewalk. It's part of the feel of Seoul.
Can't believe this thread is still going...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
myenglishisno
Joined: 08 Mar 2011
Location: Geumchon
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
After we regulate all motorcycles off the sidewalk and all people to wear seat belts and helmets, I think the next crusade should be the implementation of PFD law in Venice. How can they allow people to drown in such a cavalier manner? It's barbaric.
Seriously, I like the bikes and whatnot on the sidewalk. It's part of the feel of Seoul.
Can't believe this thread is still going...
|
I know. Captain Corea and Steelrails sound like they're 80 years old and writing letters to the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| myenglishisno wrote: |
| T-J wrote: |
After we regulate all motorcycles off the sidewalk and all people to wear seat belts and helmets, I think the next crusade should be the implementation of PFD law in Venice. How can they allow people to drown in such a cavalier manner? It's barbaric.
Seriously, I like the bikes and whatnot on the sidewalk. It's part of the feel of Seoul.
Can't believe this thread is still going...
|
I know. Captain Corea and Steelrails sound like they're 80 years old and writing letters to the government. |
Dear Mr. President, there are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate 3. I am not a crackpot.
| Quote: |
| No. Your proposal gives a pass for certain people to not follow the law. |
If the proposal makes what they're doing legal, they ARE following the law.
Seriously, there are so many laws for so many different people. Some people can fly planes or practice medicine, others can't. That's not inequality or law breaking. That's licensing and certification.
| Quote: |
| As well, you're not being truthful when you say that a person to person collision causes the same damage that a person to motorcycle/scooter would. |
Never said they do. I said they are much closer in damage, than a collision between a truck and a scooter. In terms of mass and speed a scooter would be about the same as a linebacker.
But there is a reason there are only 10 deaths a year in Scooter-Pedestrian collisions. In most cases the scooter lacks the mass or velocity to cause fatal injury.
Here's one- Should we ban bicycles on sidewalks?
I'm guessing there are far more deaths in auto-scooter accidents a year.
| Quote: |
I have to say, I've lost tons of respect in you as a poster of late. Making up numbers, calling me a liar, insisting on taking the argument to the most asinine extreme... Really, man. For a long time I thought of you as a reasonable poster on this forum. Not someone I'd always agree with, but someone who did their side of the argument a service.
No longer, I'm sorry to say. |
Cap'N, I never called you a liar.
And I don't think what I'm talking about is extreme.
Are my numbers made up? Yes, but I've explained the reasoning behind them. I have no problem with someone saying that a scooter would take more than 1-2 minutes to go 1 block in heavy traffic on the sidewalk. I have no problem with someone saying that it would be less than 5 minutes to go 1 block by car in heavy traffic.
I never presented those numbers as facts. Where did I do so? I always presented them as estimates, projections, and hypotheses. I'm sorry, I don't have the data on how time of sidewalk driving vs. car driving, only personal experience and observation. I do have to guess. But I can't ignore what I have observed either and I have to do that to draw a conclusion.
Observing that a human being can cause as much damage as a scooter is not ridiculous. Yes or no, a linebacker can hit as hard as a scooter? Of course, yes. Should we ban linebacker sized people from jogging? If safety is #1, I guess we have to say yes.
Postulating that enforcement that would significantly hurt delivery times might cause some places to go out of business is not extreme. I gave the numbers projections, I detailed scenarios which I think are reasonable.
I would say that thinking that there would be NO impact on business is more extreme.
As for the political angle, I don't think it's extreme to predict a critical reaction to a knee-jerk policy that causes job loss. All a political opponent would have to do is find one store owner who went under, turn them into "Joe the Plumber" and it would be a negative issue.
Anyways, I fail to see how my view is extreme, when the opposing view advocates an extreme crackdown on a common practice. I mean your idea is the one that advocates having a bunch of police spending their time, not focusing on say, sex crimes or dunk driving, but having them chasing people driving their scooters on sidewalks and issuing stiff penalties. That's extreme. Taking a pet peeve and believing it should be the focus of a massive campaign is extreme. Remember, I'm not the one advocating a radical change in societal practice and a massive shift in police resources and manpower. I'm for basically the status quo. Limited government and an eye towards the law of unintended consequences. I'm conservative, not extreme.
Personally, I think the last two threads where we've gotten into it have been threads about pet peeves of yours. |
|
| 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
