Sport Bikes banner

41 - 60 of 244 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
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
I agree wholeheartedly. Just wanted to see if you were logically consistent in your arguments. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,263 Posts
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
Except a passenger in the back seat can fly forward killing/injuring the driver. So, that argument doesn't hold. Seatbelts should be a law according to your previous argument about phones.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,772 Posts
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.

Thousands of people might die because of whatever sort of distractions are present. That did not suddenly appear with the invention of cell phones. There are lots of distractions, and people who are easily distracted will be. We have this convenient scapegoat to point at now, that's all.

It doesn't help that you don't actually need to know how to drive to get a license in this country.

What about all the people who aren't on the phone, who are paying as much attention as they possibly can, who you look you right in the eye and then pull out in front of you on your bike (or in my invisible truck)? What were they distracted by? Whatever they were daydreaming about, most likely.


Also, if riding a motorcycle is a danger to yourself, it's also dangerous to anyone you might crash in to, or who you cause to crash in an effort to avoid you after you lost control.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,772 Posts
a) I did not lanesplit in a way that endangered anyone else. And indeed, lanesplitting carries very little risk to others (and also very little to the rider himself if done well).
b) I did/do so only where it is legal, which it is in CA (and unfortunately not in NH).
c) I have never received a ticket for lanesplitting. I have been harassed a couple of times, in both cases by officers who actually outright lied to me during the harassment in question, but never ticketed.
a) I did not speak/listen in a way that endangered anyone else. And indeed, speaking/listening carries very little risk to others (and also very little to the driver himself if done appropriately).
b) I did/do so only where it is legal, which it is in most states handsfree
c) I have never received a ticket for speaking/listening while driving. I have been harassed a couple of times, by someone on a motorcycle forum, but never ticketed.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Except a passenger in the back seat can fly forward killing/injuring the driver. So, that argument doesn't hold. Seatbelts should be a law according to your previous argument about phones.
No, because the driver is a consenting person in that situation. He has the choice there to accept the risk of an unbelted passenger, in which case his rights are not being violated as he has willingly accepted that risk for himself, or he can insist that his passenger(s) be seatbelted. So, no. Seatbelts should not be a law according to my argument about phones.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,263 Posts
No, because the driver is a consenting person in that situation. He has the choice there to accept the risk of an unbelted passenger, in which case his rights are not being violated as he has willingly accepted that risk for himself, or he can insist that his passenger(s) be seatbelted. So, no. Seatbelts should not be a law according to my argument about phones.

PhilB
What about someone in the front passenger seat? They didn't willingly accept. They were just along for the ride.


You are incredibly inconsistent with this. If you think think cell phone use should be banned in its entirety, then seatbelts should be a law based on your arguments.

Neither one of your reasonings between the two make sense.

What are your views about drug/alcohol laws?
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
Thousands of people might die because of whatever sort of distractions are present. That did not suddenly appear with the invention of cell phones. There are lots of distractions, and people who are easily distracted will be. We have this convenient scapegoat to point at now, that's all.

It doesn't help that you don't actually need to know how to drive to get a license in this country.

What about all the people who aren't on the phone, who are paying as much attention as they possibly can, who you look you right in the eye and then pull out in front of you on your bike (or in my invisible truck)? What were they distracted by? Whatever they were daydreaming about, most likely.
The fact that some people are bad drivers does not give anyone else the right to be negligent themselves. That's ridiculously spurious logic.

Also, if riding a motorcycle is a danger to yourself, it's also dangerous to anyone you might crash in to, or who you cause to crash in an effort to avoid you after you lost control.
Riding a motorcycle is LESS hazardous to others than the normal alternative of driving a car. So by choosing to ride, you have REDUCED the risk to other people, thus doing a moral good. You are ethically permitted to do that. You are not ethically permitted to INCREASE that risk to others.

a) I did not speak/listen in a way that endangered anyone else. And indeed, speaking/listening carries very little risk to others (and also very little to the driver himself if done appropriately).
b) I did/do so only where it is legal, which it is in most states handsfree
c) I have never received a ticket for speaking/listening while driving. I have been harassed a couple of times, by someone on a motorcycle forum, but never ticketed.
Except that if you were driving while on the phone in any situation where there were other people on the road, your statement (a) is false.

My statements were all true, thus forming a rational defense of my action (and a rational refutation of your false accusation).
Your statements are not all true, and thus do not form a rational defense of your action.

PhilB
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
What about someone in the front passenger seat? They didn't willingly accept. They were just along for the ride.
The front seat passenger likewise has options. He can switch seats, insist that the person behind him use a seatbelt, choose not to ride in the car -- he is informed about what the situation is, in a way that the victim of a drunk or phoning driver is not.

You are incredibly inconsistent with this. If you think think cell phone use should be banned in its entirety, then seatbelts should be a law based on your arguments.

Neither one of your reasonings between the two make sense.
I'm not even slightly inconsistent about this. You have the right to make your own choices about your own risk. You don't have the right to make such choices for other people. Seatbelts are about your own risk, and I have explained above how others involved in a situation can choose their own risk levels in response to the choices others make.

What are your views about drug/alcohol laws?
I oppose pretty much all laws about drug and alcohol use, or even abuse, as those (again) concern a person's choices about his own life and risk. Actions that endanger others, such as driving while impaired, should remain against the law. Actions that do not endanger others or violate their rights should not be against the law. Again, simple and consistent.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,263 Posts
What about a meth head who attacks an innocent bystander while high? The bystander didn't consent to it, and the meth head is a danger to other people. But you oppose the drug laws, so long as he isn't driving.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,772 Posts
The fact that some people are bad drivers does not give anyone else the right to be negligent themselves. That's ridiculously spurious logic.

Riding a motorcycle is LESS hazardous to others than the normal alternative of driving a car. So by choosing to ride, you have REDUCED the risk to other people, thus doing a moral good. You are ethically permitted to do that. You are not ethically permitted to INCREASE that risk to others.

Except that if you were driving while on the phone in any situation where there were other people on the road, your statement (a) is false.

My statements were all true, thus forming a rational defense of my action (and a rational refutation of your false accusation).
Your statements are not all true, and thus do not form a rational defense of your action.

PhilB

The bolded statement is far from a fact. Speaking or listening while driving is not negligent behavior. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it negligent.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
What about a meth head who attacks an innocent bystander while high? The bystander didn't consent to it, and the meth head is a danger to other people. But you oppose the drug laws, so long as he isn't driving.
He gets in trouble for assaulting someone, which is and should be illegal whether he's on meth or not. The meth isn't the crime; the attack is. It is the behavior that actually harms or endangers another, or violates his rights, that ethically can and should be outlawed.

Once again, the core moral wrong is acts of aggression -- the initiation of violence, fraud, theft, property damage, or dangerous negligence. Acts that do not fall into those categories are not aggressions and should not be outlawed; indeed making and enforcing laws against acts that are not aggression is itself aggression and morally wrong.

The bolded statement is far from a fact. Speaking or listening while driving is not negligent behavior. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it negligent.
When it quadruples the chances of causing a crash, then it IS negligent behavior. Whether you like it or not.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,263 Posts
He gets in trouble for assaulting someone, which is and should be illegal whether he's on meth or not. The meth isn't the crime; the attack is. It is the behavior that actually harms or endangers another, or violates his rights, that ethically can and should be outlawed.
Even though the drug itself greatly increases aggression, psychosis, violent behavior, and paranoia?

The drug would likely be the main culprit for them acting aggressively.

So again, by your own logic, it should be banned.




Driving while on the phone, even with a hands free headset, does not automatically constitute danger to others. It greatly increases the chance of it happening.

So, if you think Meth shouldn't be outlawed, then driving on a phone shouldn't be outlawed.


In your own bolded point, "It is the behavior that actually harms or endangers another, or violates his rights, that ethically can and should be outlawed." Driving on the phone does not automatically harm or endanger another.




Your own logic does not have any consistency to it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,772 Posts
Tests that force people to focus completely on a conversation while driving do not reflect the real world or people with common sense. If you hog tie someone and throw them in a pool does that prove people are incapable swimming, so pools should be banned? If you blindfold someone and see how well they shoot, should we use that study to determine if people have the right to own a gun? I know you will say that speaking is in effect being blindfolded (which I do not agree with), but there is free will and common sense. The default should be that people can decide for themselves when it's ok to talk (and this is what we have now with hands free devices). If you cause an accident because you were distracted for whatever reason, then there is a problem.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 · (Edited)
Even though the drug itself greatly increases aggression, psychosis, violent behavior, and paranoia?

The drug would likely be the main culprit for them acting aggressively.

So again, by your own logic, it should be banned.

Driving while on the phone, even with a hands free headset, does not automatically constitute danger to others. It greatly increases the chance of it happening.

So, if you think Meth shouldn't be outlawed, then driving on a phone shouldn't be outlawed.

In your own bolded point, "It is the behavior that actually harms or endangers another, or violates his rights, that ethically can and should be outlawed." Driving on the phone does not automatically harm or endanger another.

Your own logic does not have any consistency to it.
You should stop saying "by your own logic" if you can't understand the logic in question.

In your example, you have a different situation from what I'm talking about.
If you take meth and do not assault someone, there is no risk, no victim, and no crime.
If you assault someone and do not take meth, there is risk, victim, and crime.
It is the assault that is the act of aggression, not the taking of the drug.
I would be fine with laws against driving/flying an airplane/operating heavy machinery while on meth -- those are activities that pose a hazard to others and thus carry a duty to be done with due care.

In the phoning-while-driving case, you are already performing an activity that poses a hazard to others, which is the dividing line here.
I am not saying that talking on the phone is itself hazardous, and am not advocating that phoning be illegal. Phoning while driving is hazardous, and increases the risk you pose to others by a great amount. THAT is what makes it an act of dangerous negligence -- that you are already doing an activity that requires that you take due care, and you aren't taking that due care.

Tests that force people to focus completely on a conversation while driving do not reflect the real world or people with common sense. If you hog tie someone and throw them in a pool does that prove people are incapable swimming, so pools should be banned? If you blindfold someone and see how well they shoot, should we use that study to determine if people have the right to own a gun? I know you will say that speaking is in effect being blindfolded (which I do not agree with), but there is free will and common sense. The default should be that people can decide for themselves when it's ok to talk (and this is what we have now with hands free devices). If you cause an accident because you were distracted for whatever reason, then there is a problem.
You keep citing what you see as a flaw in one study, as if that was all that has ever been done on the subject. This has been studied extensively, by many people, in many different countries, with many different experimental designs, and the results are amazingly consistent.

The default should indeed be free will and common sense, with people deciding for themselves when it's ok to talk (or do anything else), UNTIL they violate another person's rights. You don't have the right to negligently endanger other people.

Also, hands-free devices have consistently been found to not be safer than handsets; the problem isn't where the hands are, it's where the brain is.

And if you're depending on the attention you're not paying to tell when to stop talking and start paying attention -- well, that makes no rational sense whatsoever. Try this experiment: get on a bike and start out, and close your eyes. Plan to open them before you hit something, as your method of avoiding hitting things. See how well that works.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
When it quadruples the chances of causing a crash, then it IS negligent behavior. Whether you like it or not.

PhilB
Quadrupled from what, to what?

Quadrupled from 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 10,000?
Quadrupled from 1 in 4 to 1 in 1?

No different than people say "oh, well, you're 40 times more likely to die on a bike than a car!"
Cool, that's probably still 1 in over 25,000 (random guess, hyperbole perhaps at it's finest. It's an illustration, you get the point).

That's what I don't like about these studies. they all list the amount of multiplications in risk, rather than a % chance, per drive, of an accident on average.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 · (Edited)
Quadrupled from what, to what?

Quadrupled from 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 10,000?
Quadrupled from 1 in 4 to 1 in 1?

No different than people say "oh, well, you're 40 times more likely to die on a bike than a car!"
Cool, that's probably still 1 in over 25,000 (random guess, hyperbole perhaps at it's finest. It's an illustration, you get the point).

That's what I don't like about these studies. they all list the amount of multiplications in risk, rather than a % chance, per drive, of an accident on average.
The base risk varies due to a number of other factors.

In America, an average person has about a 1% lifetime risk of meeting his end in a vehicle crash. Which amounts to about 100 people a day, every day, dying on our roads. Quadrupling that risk makes for a lot of dead people.

Injuries and property damage are much more common; the majority of people will be in some sort of a vehicle crash in their lives, and those risks are equally increased by failures to operate vehicles with due care.

In our society, we expend a hell of a lot of money, time, and effort on much smaller risks. We have the FDA monitoring our food supply and making all sorts of rules about what we can grow, buy, sell, eat, and drink, when the number of people who die in this country from foodborne illness is in the hundreds per YEAR, not the hundreds per WEEK. We have tornado watch systems and warnings and shelters and all of that, when tornados kill about 60 people a year. And on and on.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
so my risk of getting into a life ending crash, goes up from 1% to 4% when I'm on my cellphone (note: of course, this is over a lifetime of driving, of course).
Wow. . .a 1 in 25 chance of dying from a car accident.


The death rate per mile on a bike is ~35 times higher per mile than in a car.
I doubt the death rate among cellphone users is that much higher than non cellphone users.
so, in order to save the children and lower the undue cost on society, I propose we ban bikes.

Note: I edited out a total strawman that made no sense.
and I may have replaced it with another. but I like this one more.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
so my risk of getting into a life ending crash, goes up from 1% to 4% when I'm on my cellphone (note: of course, this is over a lifetime of driving, of course).
Wow. . .a 1 in 25 chance of dying from a car accident.


The death rate per mile on a bike is ~35 times higher per mile than in a car.
I doubt the death rate among cellphone users is that much higher than non cellphone users.
so, in order to save the children and lower the undue cost on society, I propose we ban bikes.

Note: I edited out a total strawman that made no sense.
and I may have replaced it with another. but I like this one more.
Can you tell the difference between yourself and someone else?

Here's an example:
Suicide is when you kill yourself. You are dead, not someone else.
Homicide is when you kill someone else. You are still alive, and someone else is dead.

Can you repeat this idea back to me, using your own words?

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
OK, I'm done. I don't need to read "The worlds most condescending poster, with Philb".

Your little stat there does not discriminate between "homicide" and "suicide". It is only "you have a 1% chance of dying, 4% if you are on a cellphone". Being on a cellphone does not equate to suicide or homicide, you jackass. Suicide is the intentional murder of oneself. as a method of suicide, talking on a cellphone is fucking inadequate.

Infact, being on a motorcycle is a more effective method of suicide.

and the fact that you brought that stupid silly shit into this has made me want to simply discontinue speaking with you. equating talking on a cellphone with willingly opening ones veins is the final straw.

Go fuck yourself. Gently. With a large stick.
There. You've made me angry. Mission accomplished.
 
41 - 60 of 244 Posts
Top