Fergie
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ
GJ Red and ECKS.....I'm confused as all get out.
Naive question...
- Thread starter Fergie
- Start date
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Sounds like most of us agree on one point - the current path of "nanny state" legislation (product warning relaying the patently obvious, as a first example) has effectively halted the course of human evolution in the United States. Is that read correct?
I've been saying it for years - so I'm certainly not arguing. I often start spouting off about accelerating evolution and not protecting idiots, but then I get into the idea of terminating gene lines that show an inability to learn/adapt/live unassisted, and then I get accused of being an eugenicist, a new Hitler, and quite a few other things not fit for polite conversation.
This usually seems to come from people whose gene lines should be terminated.
Y'ask me, perhaps the Oath of Hippocrates should be amended to include the concept of improving the race through natural selection. I'm not going to start a breeding programme or anything like that (mutations should be random, after all, and it is the maintenance of a genetic melting pot that makes for all the trial and error of evolution,) but for those who do something stupid, sterilization may be warranted. For someone who, through their own stupidity, endangers the life(s) of another(s), it would be warranted that not only should that individual be sterilized, but all of his offspring as well.
There is now precedent for this - I recall a case in the last five years or so (another "baked baby" case - leaving a kid in the car in summer) where the judge ordered both parents sterilized because they weren't fit to have children responsibly. While this is the limit of my eugenics, this is not RPT not a bad idea, if you ask me.
I find it amusing that we are required to have a license for nearly everything now - but having children. Face it - there are people out there who are not and will never be fit to be parents, but they are allowed to breed anyhow. I've seen some of what's involved in adopting children - and adopting animals can be nearly as difficult - but people can just go have children willy-nilly and nothing is done. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm seeing something backwards here.
And as for inequity in "protective" laws - why is it I've been able to be pulled over for nothing more than not wearing a seatbelt, but a motorcyclist here in CA could not be pulled over for not wearing his helmet? If a motorcyclist got a helmet ticket, it was incidental to something else (usually speeding, given the rice rocketeers out here.)
Why is it legal for motorcycles to zip up the lane lines when everyone else is at a standstill, but I can't use a shoulder to make a right-hand turn to keep traffic moving? With four-wheel-drive and proper tyres, I certainly can't think of it as "unsafe passing" - but who gets the ticket?
Moreover, if the idea of having traffic laws is to protect people from others (who, generally, should not be driving from what I see,) why is it a minimum fine of $271 for a carpool lane ticket (a patently stupid idea!) but $281 minimum for running a red light?
A carpool lane is a dumb idea that doesn't work - so is the metering light - and both should go the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo. However, if I'm alone in my vehicle in the carpool lane during "commute" hours (it's not a rush - no-one's moving!) I'm not endangering anyone in the slightest. Running a traffic light? Yeah - you could kill someone doing that. I don't like traffic lights - I think they're inefficient - but I stop for them. I also try to encourage "those in power" (I'd say "those I voted for," but somehow the ones I vote for don't make it into office...) to find a better way to handle the problem. If you want to reduce emissions, you keep vehicles moving. This lowers aggregate emissions by lowering the time spent getting zero miles per gallon. But I digress.
Anyhow - it seems to me that either A) reduce or eliminate the carpool ticket (I favour the latter) and/or B) increase the red light fine significantly. While we're at it, let's try to teach people to drive! Last time I checked, the fact that driver's licenses are issued means that it is a privilege and not a right - and the difference is more than simple semantic.
This means that with licenses should come training standards, and the ability to exercise a privilege carries the responsibility to do so in a manner that is conducive to public safety - this is the basis of the "higher standard of conduct" that our law enforcement officers seem to be largely no longer subject to.
Therefore, in exercising the privilege conferred by the granting of a driving license, you have the responsibility do operate your vehicle - of whatever type - in a manner that does not endanger another person unnecessarily. I specify that because there is inherent risk in everything - but if a new car breaks and kills someone the chances are good it wasn't the fault of the operator. If it's an older vehicle and it breaks, it's probably due to a lack of regular maintenance and inspections, and is therefore the fault of the operator (for not checking things out regularly.) I also include this with someone who is renting or borrowing a vehicle - if you know it's older or is used roughly, you had damn well go over it before you go anywhere. It takes ten minutes.
You should all remember that government is no longer for the benefit of those goverened...
5-90
I've been saying it for years - so I'm certainly not arguing. I often start spouting off about accelerating evolution and not protecting idiots, but then I get into the idea of terminating gene lines that show an inability to learn/adapt/live unassisted, and then I get accused of being an eugenicist, a new Hitler, and quite a few other things not fit for polite conversation.
This usually seems to come from people whose gene lines should be terminated.
Y'ask me, perhaps the Oath of Hippocrates should be amended to include the concept of improving the race through natural selection. I'm not going to start a breeding programme or anything like that (mutations should be random, after all, and it is the maintenance of a genetic melting pot that makes for all the trial and error of evolution,) but for those who do something stupid, sterilization may be warranted. For someone who, through their own stupidity, endangers the life(s) of another(s), it would be warranted that not only should that individual be sterilized, but all of his offspring as well.
There is now precedent for this - I recall a case in the last five years or so (another "baked baby" case - leaving a kid in the car in summer) where the judge ordered both parents sterilized because they weren't fit to have children responsibly. While this is the limit of my eugenics, this is not RPT not a bad idea, if you ask me.
I find it amusing that we are required to have a license for nearly everything now - but having children. Face it - there are people out there who are not and will never be fit to be parents, but they are allowed to breed anyhow. I've seen some of what's involved in adopting children - and adopting animals can be nearly as difficult - but people can just go have children willy-nilly and nothing is done. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm seeing something backwards here.
And as for inequity in "protective" laws - why is it I've been able to be pulled over for nothing more than not wearing a seatbelt, but a motorcyclist here in CA could not be pulled over for not wearing his helmet? If a motorcyclist got a helmet ticket, it was incidental to something else (usually speeding, given the rice rocketeers out here.)
Why is it legal for motorcycles to zip up the lane lines when everyone else is at a standstill, but I can't use a shoulder to make a right-hand turn to keep traffic moving? With four-wheel-drive and proper tyres, I certainly can't think of it as "unsafe passing" - but who gets the ticket?
Moreover, if the idea of having traffic laws is to protect people from others (who, generally, should not be driving from what I see,) why is it a minimum fine of $271 for a carpool lane ticket (a patently stupid idea!) but $281 minimum for running a red light?
A carpool lane is a dumb idea that doesn't work - so is the metering light - and both should go the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo. However, if I'm alone in my vehicle in the carpool lane during "commute" hours (it's not a rush - no-one's moving!) I'm not endangering anyone in the slightest. Running a traffic light? Yeah - you could kill someone doing that. I don't like traffic lights - I think they're inefficient - but I stop for them. I also try to encourage "those in power" (I'd say "those I voted for," but somehow the ones I vote for don't make it into office...) to find a better way to handle the problem. If you want to reduce emissions, you keep vehicles moving. This lowers aggregate emissions by lowering the time spent getting zero miles per gallon. But I digress.
Anyhow - it seems to me that either A) reduce or eliminate the carpool ticket (I favour the latter) and/or B) increase the red light fine significantly. While we're at it, let's try to teach people to drive! Last time I checked, the fact that driver's licenses are issued means that it is a privilege and not a right - and the difference is more than simple semantic.
This means that with licenses should come training standards, and the ability to exercise a privilege carries the responsibility to do so in a manner that is conducive to public safety - this is the basis of the "higher standard of conduct" that our law enforcement officers seem to be largely no longer subject to.
Therefore, in exercising the privilege conferred by the granting of a driving license, you have the responsibility do operate your vehicle - of whatever type - in a manner that does not endanger another person unnecessarily. I specify that because there is inherent risk in everything - but if a new car breaks and kills someone the chances are good it wasn't the fault of the operator. If it's an older vehicle and it breaks, it's probably due to a lack of regular maintenance and inspections, and is therefore the fault of the operator (for not checking things out regularly.) I also include this with someone who is renting or borrowing a vehicle - if you know it's older or is used roughly, you had damn well go over it before you go anywhere. It takes ten minutes.
You should all remember that government is no longer for the benefit of those goverened...
5-90
Matthew Currie
NAXJA Member #760
- Location
- Vermont, land of big clay
To 5-90 : Most other states do not allow "lane splitting" by motorcycles or anyone else, largely for the protection of the motorcyclists, because "cage drivers" are too apt to deny them full use of the lane and cut them off already, and lane splitting would end up making it very dangerous for motorcyclists, especially at stop sings and lights. However, it's an interesting issue. You of course have 4 wheel drive and know how to use it, but to what extent can you trust that others do? Would allowing cars to drive on the shoulder actually work, or would it just amount to another, unregulated lane of traffic on an area not meant for it? As for lanesplitting cycles, if you lay aside your irritation at the creation of a privileged class for which you're not eligible, what is gained by NOT letting them do it?
On the question of HOV lanes, has anyone done a really good study to see whether or not they're having their intended effect? As I understand it, the intention is not just to hasten traffic flow, but to create an incentive for high occupancy vehicles - in other words, to confer on them a privileged status which would be removed if they did not get a faster lane than all the rest, and that goal might be seen as worthwhile even if removing the privilege resulted in faster overall flow under current conditions. So I'm just wondering whether anyone has done an unbiased study to determine whether HOV lanes have actually had any of their intended effect.
On the more general question, I think perhaps the issue of speed limits is a good one to ponder. We all probably break them a little occasionally, and perhaps a lot, but does that mean we really want them gone? The question, which may be useful to apply to other questions of what we should or shouldn't be permitted to do, comes down to this: do you think we would be better off if EVERYONE right now were allowed to choose his/her speed without legal consequence? And no fair saying "we need better driver education, stricter licencing, blah blah." I'm talking about right now as the world is already. We all believe we're better drivers than all those others. Some of us know we are! But somewhere along the way we may have to accept some limitations because we cannot trust everyone to be as smart as we are. Whenever you're in a mood to rant about the speed limits, look around at the other drivers around you - you know, the drunks, the tailgaters, the stupid kids, the truckdrivers who follow you at 2 feet at 60 miles an hour, the dips**t Jersey skiers who pass 7 cars on a blind hill, and ask yourself "I know enough to choose a rational speed, but do I really trust THEM to?"
You can dismiss a law like that by saying "I'm not hurting anybody," but of course many other people hurt many others by violating those laws every day, and it just isn't very mature to expect that somehow the law should be designed so that it applies to everyone but oneself. I'm reminded of when my stepson was 4 or 5, and we'd get caught up in traffic, and he would start ranting indignantly about the traffic. I kept trying to tell him we have no right to cuss the traffic when we're in it. We are the traffic. It took a long time for him to figure that out.
By the way, just because I reluctantly believe in some laws, even ones that I feel pretty confident I don't need, don't get the idea that I think we need laws about everything that might hurt us. I think in other areas (guns and dope come to mind) there are far too many laws aimed at the source rather than results, and we end up with stupid laws that don't work and that target the wrong things and the wrong people. But that's more an issue of what laws we need, not whether we need them. It also brings me back to the liberal/conservative issue, because if you are against regulation of both guns and dope, you're between a rock and a hard place where affiliation is concerned.
I'm happy to report, however, that there is a political party "for the rest of us," and while it's of course a crock and a joke, you can't argue with the slogan!
On the question of HOV lanes, has anyone done a really good study to see whether or not they're having their intended effect? As I understand it, the intention is not just to hasten traffic flow, but to create an incentive for high occupancy vehicles - in other words, to confer on them a privileged status which would be removed if they did not get a faster lane than all the rest, and that goal might be seen as worthwhile even if removing the privilege resulted in faster overall flow under current conditions. So I'm just wondering whether anyone has done an unbiased study to determine whether HOV lanes have actually had any of their intended effect.
On the more general question, I think perhaps the issue of speed limits is a good one to ponder. We all probably break them a little occasionally, and perhaps a lot, but does that mean we really want them gone? The question, which may be useful to apply to other questions of what we should or shouldn't be permitted to do, comes down to this: do you think we would be better off if EVERYONE right now were allowed to choose his/her speed without legal consequence? And no fair saying "we need better driver education, stricter licencing, blah blah." I'm talking about right now as the world is already. We all believe we're better drivers than all those others. Some of us know we are! But somewhere along the way we may have to accept some limitations because we cannot trust everyone to be as smart as we are. Whenever you're in a mood to rant about the speed limits, look around at the other drivers around you - you know, the drunks, the tailgaters, the stupid kids, the truckdrivers who follow you at 2 feet at 60 miles an hour, the dips**t Jersey skiers who pass 7 cars on a blind hill, and ask yourself "I know enough to choose a rational speed, but do I really trust THEM to?"
You can dismiss a law like that by saying "I'm not hurting anybody," but of course many other people hurt many others by violating those laws every day, and it just isn't very mature to expect that somehow the law should be designed so that it applies to everyone but oneself. I'm reminded of when my stepson was 4 or 5, and we'd get caught up in traffic, and he would start ranting indignantly about the traffic. I kept trying to tell him we have no right to cuss the traffic when we're in it. We are the traffic. It took a long time for him to figure that out.
By the way, just because I reluctantly believe in some laws, even ones that I feel pretty confident I don't need, don't get the idea that I think we need laws about everything that might hurt us. I think in other areas (guns and dope come to mind) there are far too many laws aimed at the source rather than results, and we end up with stupid laws that don't work and that target the wrong things and the wrong people. But that's more an issue of what laws we need, not whether we need them. It also brings me back to the liberal/conservative issue, because if you are against regulation of both guns and dope, you're between a rock and a hard place where affiliation is concerned.
I'm happy to report, however, that there is a political party "for the rest of us," and while it's of course a crock and a joke, you can't argue with the slogan!
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Matthew -
I am inclined to think not - and information queries have supported this. Mainly, the problem is that a significant percentage of the freeway is cut off during peak hours, and many people work odd schedules/hours (like me - first with road service jobs, now school) and are unable to carpool - or it's people with some sort of mobile service job who have to ride solo, and spend about a third of business hours sitting in traffic. Besides, the HOV lane is usually empty while I'm parked on the freeway...
For some reason, it is legal for motorcycles to split lanes here in CA. I don't know why. It seems incredibly hazzardous to me - especially with the crotch rocketeers who insist upon taking a space about two and a half feet wide and using it like a freeway - doing at least 50 between standing vehicles. When traffic is flowing slightly, this is a worse idea - these people come up so fast that they can get hit by someone changing lanes. Not because the car driver didn't look, but because the motorcyclist approached faster than traffic and at a speed somewhere well beyond "reasonable and prudent."
The "right turn" example came from about 10 years ago - for those of you familiar with Metro SJ, it was before the refits on 87 really got underway. N/B87 was cut down to a single lane just south of Brokaw - which goes between the North end of downtown and SJC Airport. I'd been sitting, waiting to get to Brokaw to make a right-hand turn, for about forty minutes. I didn't want to get ahead of people, I wanted to get away from them. I went slowly up the shoulder (about 10 mph - didn't want to lose reaction time) and I was exercising more caution than normal (even for me - California drivers make me paranoid to begin with.)
As far as speed limits go, I can understand having them on surface streets. I see no reason why things are held to 65 or less on the freeway out here - it's a restricted access road, and most of the Interstates and I-loops in CA were designed for 100mph or thereabouts. There damn well SHOULD be speed limits on surface streets in town - but when the roadway is restricted and isolated, there's no reason for them to be low (save, possibly, increasing revenues.) Speeding in town should be punished more harshly, and DUI should be damn near considered murder, y'ask me. At least attempted murder.
I am highly inclined to agree with you in most respects - there are far too many laws on the books, and enforcement is far too spotty. I'd much rather have a simple system that is enforced consistently than one that is so vast it can't be understood by any single person, and so full of loopholes you can get away with nearly anything. That's why I'd like to see simplification - if you can't fit the entire body of law into, say a book about 6" thick with reasonable type size, it needs to be simplified. There are sections of law that take up six feet of bookshelf, and there are people who think this is a good thing. Hell, the Internal Revenue Code takes up about five feet of shelf, is so Byzantine you can't get consistent answers from any two agents who did not confer beforehand, and trying to get your tax return straight is about on a par with squaring the circle.
5-90
I am inclined to think not - and information queries have supported this. Mainly, the problem is that a significant percentage of the freeway is cut off during peak hours, and many people work odd schedules/hours (like me - first with road service jobs, now school) and are unable to carpool - or it's people with some sort of mobile service job who have to ride solo, and spend about a third of business hours sitting in traffic. Besides, the HOV lane is usually empty while I'm parked on the freeway...
For some reason, it is legal for motorcycles to split lanes here in CA. I don't know why. It seems incredibly hazzardous to me - especially with the crotch rocketeers who insist upon taking a space about two and a half feet wide and using it like a freeway - doing at least 50 between standing vehicles. When traffic is flowing slightly, this is a worse idea - these people come up so fast that they can get hit by someone changing lanes. Not because the car driver didn't look, but because the motorcyclist approached faster than traffic and at a speed somewhere well beyond "reasonable and prudent."
The "right turn" example came from about 10 years ago - for those of you familiar with Metro SJ, it was before the refits on 87 really got underway. N/B87 was cut down to a single lane just south of Brokaw - which goes between the North end of downtown and SJC Airport. I'd been sitting, waiting to get to Brokaw to make a right-hand turn, for about forty minutes. I didn't want to get ahead of people, I wanted to get away from them. I went slowly up the shoulder (about 10 mph - didn't want to lose reaction time) and I was exercising more caution than normal (even for me - California drivers make me paranoid to begin with.)
As far as speed limits go, I can understand having them on surface streets. I see no reason why things are held to 65 or less on the freeway out here - it's a restricted access road, and most of the Interstates and I-loops in CA were designed for 100mph or thereabouts. There damn well SHOULD be speed limits on surface streets in town - but when the roadway is restricted and isolated, there's no reason for them to be low (save, possibly, increasing revenues.) Speeding in town should be punished more harshly, and DUI should be damn near considered murder, y'ask me. At least attempted murder.
I am highly inclined to agree with you in most respects - there are far too many laws on the books, and enforcement is far too spotty. I'd much rather have a simple system that is enforced consistently than one that is so vast it can't be understood by any single person, and so full of loopholes you can get away with nearly anything. That's why I'd like to see simplification - if you can't fit the entire body of law into, say a book about 6" thick with reasonable type size, it needs to be simplified. There are sections of law that take up six feet of bookshelf, and there are people who think this is a good thing. Hell, the Internal Revenue Code takes up about five feet of shelf, is so Byzantine you can't get consistent answers from any two agents who did not confer beforehand, and trying to get your tax return straight is about on a par with squaring the circle.
5-90
CheapXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 570, 813 or 303
5-90 in '08!
you've got my vote Jon!
you've got my vote Jon!
ECKSJAY
Water is dirty
- Location
- Covington, WA
JeffV said:
Dead horses don't complain, Jeff. hasta
rockwerks
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Chito Beach Resort, WA
ECKSJAY said:
powned
ECKSJAY
Water is dirty
- Location
- Covington, WA
Tom R. said:Let's get you up to speed. That's pwned.
Or in my case it'd be PNWed.
ig:
Fergie
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ
Well Jeff, when I get to be a crotchety old fart like yourself, I hope to have all the answers that you seem too mighty to share with everyone else.
And heaven forbid that someone asks a question, trying to gain more intrinsic motivation, rather than say "Thats how it is...oh well."
So, to conclude my whining, confused and naive ramblings, I have two suggestions for you:
1. Pound sound up your ass.
2. Piss up a rope.
:kissyou:
Fergie
And heaven forbid that someone asks a question, trying to gain more intrinsic motivation, rather than say "Thats how it is...oh well."
So, to conclude my whining, confused and naive ramblings, I have two suggestions for you:
1. Pound sound up your ass.
2. Piss up a rope.
:kissyou:
Fergie
ECKSJAY
Water is dirty
- Location
- Covington, WA
Alright! A classic 2-party debate!
Where's the scandal to make this complete?
Where's the scandal to make this complete?
Fergie
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ
Yes, it should be sand.
Fergie
Fergie
87CherokeeChief
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Sacramental
Thanks for all the good readin guys, this is really interesting to me. as for 5-90 '08....lets see 16 now...its 05 yea, im down for that.
I tried to piss up a rope....i dont think its possible(just a little FYI)
I tried to piss up a rope....i dont think its possible(just a little FYI)
Rocketman
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Bolingbrook, IL
5-90 said " I would be fully in favour of an anarchistic society, if it could be made to work. Why? It's the only thing that hasn't been tried yet."
Sure it has. GYPSIES. YES, they do exist. A "society" doesn't necessarily have to have borders. It can exist as a free-roaming group. Do you think they are a successful society?
Inevitably, in any society without a rigid government structure, SOMEONE rises to the top and takes control. We call those societies MONARCHIES & DICTATORSHIPS, and we've played THAT experiment out pretty well.
Sure it has. GYPSIES. YES, they do exist. A "society" doesn't necessarily have to have borders. It can exist as a free-roaming group. Do you think they are a successful society?
Inevitably, in any society without a rigid government structure, SOMEONE rises to the top and takes control. We call those societies MONARCHIES & DICTATORSHIPS, and we've played THAT experiment out pretty well.
Matthew Currie
NAXJA Member #760
- Location
- Vermont, land of big clay
Rocketman said:
Interesting, but I wonder if you can rally count Gypsies as anarchistic in any meaningful way. You have to make sure you don't confuse anarchy with a simple unwillingness to give up tribal or clan autonomy for larger government. In addition, owing to their peculiar position in the world, you have to wonder if they would continue to be a successul "anarchic" society either socially or economically without a surrounding "normal" society as a counterbalance. Without that, I think they'd soon find themselves requiring a more normal structure of their own, as I believe does happen in settled gypsy communites in Europe already.
Can you have a cash-based underground economy, or a black market, without a "legitimate" market and monetary system to exploit?
