Sport Bikes banner

21 - 40 of 244 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
It's an odds game. Would you support driving drunk being legal, since most people who drive drunk do indeed get there without causing a crash?

There's a risk in driving -- even if you're sober and careful and paying attention, you might crash and die. Even if you're drunk and careless and on the phone, you'll probably get where you're going. But the chances you are taking are different; in the latter case you are risking the lives of yourself (which you have the right to do), and more importantly, other people (which you do NOT have the right to do) unnecessarily and unacceptably.

It's not the "mistakes"; it the FACT that driving while phoning, or drunk, or otherwise impaired, is irresponsibly dangerous to other people. NO ONE drives as well when impaired by these things as they do when paying proper attention. Driving while phoning, due to the way our brains function, is a b***** distraction than most, and studies show it to be equivalent in impairment to driving at the legal limit of drunk -- about FOUR TIMES the risk of driving responsibly.

So yes, the action should be condemned, as it is inherently hazardous to others, and thus falls under "lack of due care", or dangerous negligence.

PhilB
What happened to your libertarian tendencies? Has the sweet, sweet taste of socialism enticed you?:lgh2
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
As opposed to what other distractions? Like having a laptop at your fingertips, or screaming kids, which no one objects to.

Also, most people know to put the phone down before it becomes an issue. That's why things aren't really that bad.
In that sense I agree. Speaking only for myself, if I'm cruising or doing a day trip, I listen to music or podcasts (less boring and commercials) but if I'm going to work or a track day or event, I don't because it does distract me.

I don't recommend it but I don't condemn it either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
Speaking with people in the car does impair your ability to drive some, but not nearly as much as being on the phone. Conversing with passengers increases the crash risk by about 50%. Phoning while driving increases the crash risk by about 300%; SIX times as much, and (again) about the same increase as driving legally drunk.
sources needed.

and try and get sources for "hands free vs cell phones" as well.

personally i have used the fewer distractions, less disrupted field of view, and more engaging experience that motorcycle riding offers as arguments that a motorcycle would make a better starting vehicle for 14 year olds who just got their licence than a car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,772 Posts
I thought we had gotten off the riding aspect of it. Personally I hate being on the phone while riding even more than while driving. I just don't insist that everyone else is like me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,300 Posts
i wasn't arguing for calling some one while on a bike. i don't even know if anyone makes a blue-tooth helmet?, or ear thingy that would work for it.

I was pointing out that i consider cars more distracting and less engaging than motorcycles. (to me this is an argument for motorcycles being a good vehicle to start with)

any way if we are accepting people driving cars, we are accepting them using a vehicle that requires them to do a fair amount of stimulus triage. Their for i want a source for claims about the influence of distractions on driving. further i would prefer a source that showed a break down of whether their is a difference between hands free set ups and hand's on cell phones, in terms of their affect on driving ability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,263 Posts
i wasn't arguing for calling some one while on a bike. i don't even know if anyone makes a blue-tooth helmet?, or ear thingy that would work for it.
They do, to both of those.

This is what I have:
Sena SMH-10 Bluetooth Headset - RevZilla

Works great. I have made/received calls, made/sent text messages, and frequently use it for listening to music basically every day.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
As opposed to what other distractions? Like having a laptop at your fingertips, or screaming kids, which no one objects to.

Also, most people know to put the phone down before it becomes an issue. That's why things aren't really that bad.
Laptops while driving is a very bad idea, and I don't think anyone (including cops) should be doing that. Screaming kids are what they are; a driver should simply ignore that while driving, and pull over if it needs to be handled.

And no, most people do NOT "know to put the phone down before it becomes an issue". Most people drive around on the phone like idiots, not paying adequate ATTENTION to what they are doing, which is why it IS really that bad and thousands of people in this country are dying each year because of it.

What happened to your libertarian tendencies? Has the sweet, sweet taste of socialism enticed you?:lgh2
My libertarian tendencies (which are far more than tendencies), and libertarianism in general, do not and never have condoned people harming other people. Quite the opposite, the entire point of libertarianism is to protect people's individual rights. Those individual rights include the right not to be killed or maimed by someone else's negligent actions.

sources needed.

and try and get sources for "hands free vs cell phones" as well. ...
I have posted the full argument on this, including sources, on this forum more than once. I'll try to find it and post it yet again. The answer to the "hands free vs cell phones" question is that hands-free does not help much, if any. The problem isn't where the hands are; it's where the brain and attention are.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
Again, shouldn't be illegal to be on a cellphone and drive until you smash into someone/something because of it.

Up to that point, the law is quite literally in effect to punish us for what *might* happen.

Not for what *has*, *will*, or *did* happen.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 · (Edited)
Again, shouldn't be illegal to fire guns randomly in a city until you injure someone because of it.

Up to that point, the law is quite literally in effect to punish us for what *might* happen.

Not for what *has*, *will*, or *did* happen.
Again, shouldn't be illegal to drive at 100mph in a school zone or neighborhood until you actually run over a kid because of it.

Up to that point, the law is quite literally in effect to punish us for what *might* happen.

Not for what *has*, *will*, or *did* happen.
FTFY. :rolleyes

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
FTFY. :rolleyes

PhilB
You're normally better than this condescending shit.

You preach that whenever it suits your own logic as well. It should not be illegal until you put someone else in danger, correct?

Lets just get down to shredding your "Fixes", shall we?

I firmly believe that someone should not be charged with a DUI/DWI until their impairment causes an accident.
That's the key.
It is not until the impairment, of any kind, causes a collision or illegal act, that the impairment should even be considered an impairment.

Firing a gun into a crowd of people at random is not even close to being on the same level. Come on Phil, you're better than this.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 · (Edited)
You're normally better than this condescending shit.

You preach that whenever it suits your own logic as well. It should not be illegal until you put someone else in danger, correct?

Lets just get down to shredding your "Fixes", shall we?

I firmly believe that someone should not be charged with a DUI/DWI until their impairment causes an accident.
That's the key.
It is not until the impairment, of any kind, causes a collision or illegal act, that the impairment should even be considered an impairment.

Firing a gun into a crowd of people at random is not even close to being on the same level. Come on Phil, you're better than this.
I agree that "It should not be illegal until you put someone else in danger". That's NOT THE SAME as "It should not be illegal until you actually injure or kill someone".

Firing a gun at random, or speeding in a school zone, or driving while drunk or on the phone, or sleeping on the job in the control room of a nuclear power plant, are ALL EXACTLY the same logical case. They are all actions that do not guarantee that anyone will be harmed, but which are risky and stupid and increase the chances that someone will be harmed. They are all actions that DO "put someone in danger".

They are all unsafe actions that constitute a failure to exercise due care in the performance of an hazardous activity. They are all actions that rise to the level of dangerous negligence. If you are operating a gun, or a vehicle, or a power plant, you have a DUTY to exercise DUE CARE to do so in a reasonably safe manner, so as NOT to unnecessarily endanger other people. You do NOT have the right to risk other people's lives, to put them in danger, through your failure to perform that duty of due care.

You being a person who operates heavy equipment, I find it REALLY disturbing that you don't have a firm grasp of this concept.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
I agree that "It should not be illegal until you put someone else in danger". That's NOT THE SAME as "It should not be illegal until you actually injure or kill someone".

Firing a gun at random, or speeding in a school zone, or driving while drunk or on the phone, or sleeping on the job in the control room of a nuclear power plant, are ALL EXACTLY the same logical case. They are all actions that do not guarantee that anyone will be harmed, but which are risky and stupid and increase the chances that someone will be harmed. They are all actions that DO "put someone in danger".

They are all unsafe actions that constitute a failure to exercise due care in the performance of an hazardous activity. They are all actions that rise to the level of dangerous negligence. If you are operating a gun, or a vehicle, or a power plant, you have a DUTY to exercise DUE CARE to do so in a reasonably safe manner, so as NOT to unnecessarily endanger other people. You do NOT have the right to risk other people's lives, to put them in danger, through your failure to perform that duty of due care.

You being a person who operates heavy equipment, I find it REALLY disturbing that you don't have a firm grasp of this concept.

PhilB
You being someone who can read, I find it rather difficult to believe you'd actually lump me in with people who drink and drive, as if I do so, when I have stated before that I don't. The law doesn't make me not do so. My own education and logic does.

Thinking something should or should not be a law, and doing so myself are two very different things.

Again, you are normally above this.
Driving as a basic action puts everyone who does it in danger. As does climbing a ladder. By your black and white logic, we should do neither, particularly driving, as it puts others in danger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldSchlPunk

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 · (Edited)
You being someone who can read, I find it rather difficult to believe you'd actually lump me in with people who drink and drive, as if I do so, when I have stated before that I don't. The law doesn't make me not do so. My own education and logic does.

Thinking something should or should not be a law, and doing so myself are two very different things.

Again, you are normally above this.
You, being someone who can read, should realize that I did not at all say that you drove while drunk. I said that I am disturbed by your position that it should not be illegal to endanger other people when performing a hazardous duty, especially since you perform hazardous duties for a living.

Whether something should be a law or not depends on whether it is an action that violates the rights of another person. An example of something that should work as you say is helmet laws. Not wearing a helmet while riding does not pose a significant danger to others, and thus should not be illegal. I always wear a helmet when riding, regardless of the law (and I currently live in a place where it isn't legally required). My own education and logic drive me to do this. Others may choose differently. That's fine.

But I am talking about a behavior, an action, that violates the rights of OTHER people, by significantly threatening their lives and property without their permission. This is ethically wrong, and thus should not be legal.

Driving as a basic action puts everyone who does it in danger. As does climbing a ladder. By your black and white logic, we should do neither, particularly driving, as it puts others in danger.
You, being someone who can read, should read what I actually wrote. You completely missed what I said. In particular, I did NOT say that no one can ever do anything that poses any hazard to others. What I said was that WHEN doing something that poses a hazard to others, you have a duty to perform it as safely as you reasonably can. That is totally different than what you are claiming I said here.

You should be able to own any gun. When handling any gun (from a .22LR on up), you have a duty to observe basic gun safety practices (check that it is unloaded, never point it at anything you're not willing to shoot, etc.). You should be able to own any vehicle. When operating a vehicle (from a moped on up), you have a duty to observe basic vehicle safety practices (don't operate it in an impaired condition, pay attention to how you are operating it, etc.).

Again, a person has no right to pose significant avoidable dangers to other people. The people around that person DO have the right to not be endangered by that person's negligence.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts


Here ya go.

Since you expect me to change how I think, and I expect you to change how you think, I'll just give ya this and let you have at er.

I still figure we oughtta punish the crime, not the possibility of one. You still seem to figure we should do that sometimes and not others. Talking on the phone does not guarantee the danger of other people. Certainly not to the extreme degree of your ridiculous analogy of "shooting a gun in random directions in a city".

It should not be illegal to drive and talk on a phone, until the impairment causes a collision, or plays a significant role in one. Road head is about the same. I figure that oughtta be legal till it causes me to crash as well. ;)

end of story.

By the way, while we're on about avoidable dangers: Motorcycles are a big fat giant fucking avoidable danger. Food for thought.

You may now take your soapbox, and speak at will.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
What is this, the r/p section? Im unsubbing this thread. Phil, you're just being over-opinionated to the point of unreasonable, as you often do.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·


Here ya go.

Since you expect me to change how I think, and I expect you to change how you think, I'll just give ya this and let you have at er.

I still figure we oughtta punish the crime, not the possibility of one. You still seem to figure we should do that sometimes and not others. Talking on the phone does not guarantee the danger of other people. Certainly not to the extreme degree of your ridiculous analogy of "shooting a gun in random directions in a city".

It should not be illegal to drive and talk on a phone, until the impairment causes a collision, or plays a significant role in one. Road head is about the same. I figure that oughtta be legal till it causes me to crash as well. ;)

end of story.

By the way, while we're on about avoidable dangers: Motorcycles are a big fat giant fucking avoidable danger. Food for thought.

You may now take your soapbox, and speak at will.
This argument we've been having does assume that you are capable of making the simple distinction between *yourself* and *someone else*.

Liberty does not, and never has, meant "do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, and to hell with everyone else". Liberty means "do what you want, provided that you respect the equal rights of others to do what they want".

Your life, liberty, and property are yours, to do with as you will. Your neighbor's life, liberty, and property are HIS, to do with as HE wills. You have no right to his life, liberty, or property; he has no right to your life, liberty, or property. You have the right to risk your own life, to choose your own risk tolerance; you do not have the right to risk someone else's life, to choose HIS risk tolerance. Are you seeing a pattern yet?

So thus, for example, to ride a motorcycle -- that is indeed a "big fat giant fucking avoidable danger", but it's that to YOU, and thus within your rights to do. Which is DIFFERENT from an action that is a "big fat giant fucking avoidable danger" to SOMEONE ELSE which is NOT within your rights to do.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
So thus, for example, to ride a motorcycle -- that is indeed a "big fat giant fucking avoidable danger", but it's that to YOU, and thus within your rights to do. Which is DIFFERENT from an action that is a "big fat giant fucking avoidable danger" to SOMEONE ELSE which is NOT within your rights to do.
Out of curiousity, what's your position on seat belt laws then?
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Out of curiousity, what's your position on seat belt laws then?
I oppose seatbelt laws. The choice to wear a seatbelt or not concerns your own risk to yourself, which it is your right to choose. Likewise with helmet laws, and any other "protect you from yourself" laws.

PhilB
 
21 - 40 of 244 Posts
Top