UK uses CarPC to Make speeding impossible? - Page 3

HiJackZX1 · 05-16-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by eigenVector

I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to 'teach people lessons.' Sure I would agree, it is a 'Good Thing', but I would argue that's not the role of government. You're also presuming that speeding causes injuries, and I understand how you may have come to that presumption, I too was raised in a government school, but let me be the first to tell you: It's not true.

But I'll resign, you make a good case for seat belt laws when you talk about the expense of the emergency services. If you're stupid enough to drive without a seat belt and you cause an accident and go flying through your windshield, it does cost the tax payers much more to scrap your carcus off the road.

I'm 100% with you on this one. Littering is a far worse offense than speeding in my book.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe there is a difference between speeding and wreckless driving. If your driving in a matter that will result in infringement of someone else's right to life, liberty or property, then I am 100% behind the role of legislation far more severe than a speeding ticket. However, speeding doesn't kill people; Driving wrecklessly kill's people.

I agree with you 100%, its people that drive wreck less that kill people. I will not lie, I am a speeder. You will usually see me going 60 in a 30. It is the only law I break, but I wear a seat belt, I never talk on the phone while driving unless its hands free, and my number one thing is always use turn signals. Any type of move I make I signal before making it so anyone driving slower knows what move I can make. I never cut people off, always leave at least a car length between me and another car. Its people that speed, talk on their phone, do their hair and or makeup, or just don't care, etc that cause all these accidents.

PS: On my voter registration card their is a D, but that doesn't mean I am all for having government control everything. Last time I checked it was people with R's taking our privacy rights away and doing warrant less spying on its own citizens. Makes me so glad to have dual citizenship, America is so blind, egotistical and narrow minded sometimes.

eigenVector · 05-16-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by HiJackZX1

I agree with you 100%, its people that drive wreck less that kill people. I will not lie, I am a speeder. You will usually see me going 60 in a 30. It is the only law I break, but I wear a seat belt, I never talk on the phone while driving unless its hands free, and my number one thing is always use turn signals. Any type of move I make I signal before making it so anyone driving slower knows what move I can make. I never cut people off, always leave at least a car length between me and another car. Its people that speed, talk on their phone, do their hair and or makeup, or just don't care, etc that cause all these accidents.

I don't speed that much in residential zones, but you'll find me doing 75mph in a 65, or 80 in a 70mph zone. But you'll only see me doing that when it's 100% visibility on the highway, when there is plenty of space between cars and when the road conditions are good, as to not bother any other drivers on the road.
You probably wouldn't believe the number of people who absolutely never use their turn signals up here on the highway.

Quote: Originally Posted by HiJackZX1

PS: On my voter registration card their is a D, but that doesn't mean I am all for having government control everything. Last time I checked it was people with R's taking our privacy rights away and doing warrant less spying on its own citizens. Makes me so glad to have dual citizenship, America is so blind, egotistical and narrow minded sometimes.

That's why I have an "L" on mine

(Libertarian) The dem's are mostly socialist's now, and the republican's are mostly fascist's. Either way, they are both for 'bigger government.' Libertarian's stand for small government, and individual liberties!

HiJackZX1 · 05-16-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by eigenVector

I don't speed that much in residential zones, but you'll find me doing 75mph in a 65, or 80 in a 70mph zone. But you'll only see me doing that when it's 100% visibility on the highway, when there is plenty of space between cars and when the road conditions are good, as to not bother any other drivers on the road.
You probably wouldn't believe the number of people who absolutely never use their turn signals up here on the highway.

That's why I have an "L" on mine

(Libertarian) The dem's are mostly socialist's now, and the republican's are mostly fascist's. Either way, they are both for 'bigger government.' Libertarian's stand for small government, and individual liberties!

I agree, obviously if visibility and road conditions are bad you have to slow down. HAHAHAHAHAHA OMG in miami (not to sound racist) but alot of Hispanic people drive crazy. I guess in their countries they don't have rules. Like today this lady bolted from the right lane flew 3 lanes over and almost into me. She then noticed me while still crossing over and turned on her blinker at the last second. She had this look on her face like "oh thats what that button does" and me kind of having a bit of road rage I stayed right on the side so she couldn't get over, people in small cars wont challenge a SUV, she then slowed down to get behind me and cross over.

Well it seems R believes in no government. D is over government. I kind of agree with L, I think small governments will be better, but with some over sight from a larger entity.

eigenVector · 05-16-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by HiJackZX1

Well it seems R believes in no government. D is over government. I kind of agree with L, I think small governments will be better, but with some over sight from a larger entity.

That's interesting that you perceive the republicans being 'no government.' It's the republican's who want to use the police power of government to force people to abide by morals. It's the republican's who want to use government to decide what you can and can't do with your own body (see abortion, and same-sex-marriage.) Don't kid yourself. The majority of both parties today are struggling for power. The size and role of government under George W. Bush grew far more under his two terms than any single president before him (ie: see Sarbanes-Oxley). Sadly however the majority of American's believe the answer to this is to elect yet another candidate who has grown the size of government more in his first 100 days in office than 8 years of the previous administration.
Now, if that's not change you can believe in, I don't know what is!

This country was founded with the core principal of small government: leaving the majority of power to the local area. Since then the federal government has taken so much power that the state's are becoming powerless. So what does the state do? They come up with stupid little laws (IE Speeding limits on highways) just to show that they can, and that they are still here. But just wait, it has happened before, and it will happen again: a national speeding limit.

HiJackZX1 · 05-16-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by eigenVector

That's interesting that you perceive the republicans being 'no government.' It's the republican's who want to use the police power of government to force people to abide by morals. It's the republican's who want to use government to decide what you can and can't do with your own body (see abortion, and same-sex-marriage.) Don't kid yourself. The majority of both parties today are struggling for power. The size and role of government under George W. Bush grew far more under his two terms than any single president before him (ie: see Sarbanes-Oxley). Sadly however the majority of American's believe the answer to this is to elect yet another candidate who has grown the size of government more in his first 100 days in office than 8 years of the previous administration.
Now, if that's not change you can believe in, I don't know what is!

This country was founded with the core principal of small government: leaving the majority of power to the local area. Since then the federal government has taken so much power that the state's are becoming powerless. So what does the state do? They come up with stupid little laws (IE Speeding limits on highways) just to show that they can, and that they are still here. But just wait, it has happened before, and it will happen again: a national speeding limit.

All I know is that as long as it doesnt go even more into the crapper, I dont really care what happens in government. If something really effects me or anyone else, they have the option to leave to another country. With the R's they expand other things, but kill vital things. Im not kidding myself, because I dont really care, lol. This has happened before and it will happen again.... Thats was of the sayings that the new BattleStar Galactica had in it. At the same time people dont protest like they used too. People have just either to lazy, scared, and or dont care. I saw that people in the past were not like that. Wonder what happened that we all changed?

eigenVector · 05-16-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by HiJackZX1

This has happened before and it will happen again.... Thats was of the sayings that the new BattleStar Galactica had in it.

Haha, that's great... Didn't consciously make that connection. I believe the quote was "This has all happened before, and it will all happen again"
What a great show!

HiJackZX1 · 05-16-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by eigenVector

Haha, that's great... Didn't consciously make that connection. I believe the quote was "This has all happened before, and it will all happen again"
What a great show!

yup, its one of the only shows I felt I had to have. I have every last episode and Razor..... Didnt care for the Caprica DVD though. I am waiting for BSG The Plan movie. HEHEHEHEHE were both frakin BSG fans, how funny.

Bugbyte · 05-16-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by eigenVector

Sadly however the majority of American's believe the answer to this is to elect yet another candidate who has grown the size of government more in his first 100 days in office than 8 years of the previous administration.

I was totally unaware of this. Could you please tell me what expansion took place?

eigenVector · 05-16-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Bugbyte

I was totally unaware of this. Could you please tell me what expansion took place?

Well, I can't entirely say I'm suprised by this response but lets just name a few:

Economic Recovery Act of 2009:
Instead of relying on the private sector to fix the economy, the government has stepped in and said "Look, we're in charge now" to take charge of all of our problems. The government has grown in the areas of Healthcare ($147 billion), Education ($90 billion), Energy ($61 billion), Housing ($12.7 billion)
Government: 1 | Individualism: 0

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act:
Although this act only amends an existing law, it only further shows that it's the government's responsibility to determine whether or not wages are 'fair', and not the employer.
Government: 1 | Employeers: 0

He signed a bill for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP):
It's now the responsibility of Government to provide 'health payment plans' (Don't let that word insurance confuse you, we don't have health insurance in this country) for children!
Government: 1 | Parents: 0

Bottom line is, spending. Obama's budget for 2010: 3.6 Trillion Dollars!
(FYI: here's a nice chart for those keeping tabs at home with previous budgets:

)
Where is this money coming from? Well it's technically coming from all of our children and grand children. But it's comming from the tax payers in this country.

Does any of this sound familiar? I hope it's answered your question: there's just so much to say, and not enough time to say it.

Oh and here's a good article I can't say I don't agree with:
http://wdbo.com/blogs/wdbo_neal_boor...accomplis.html

Bugbyte · 05-16-2009, 06:53 PM

Actually, no it didn't answer my question. The size of the budget has nothing to do with the size of the government.

Having read quite a bit about the financial crisis, the reason for the increased budget is a lack of government oversight of the financial system followed by fear that failure to intervene would cause a historic collapse.

We were failed by the regulators of the previous administration. I don't think for a second that either party would have submitted a lower budget for 2010. The damage to the economy and the financial system is so great that legislators can't afford to sit by passively. The real question is whether they are doing the right thing or not. Nobody knows the answer to that.

I certainly agree though, that 'government knowledge' is an oxymoron.

But I disagree that all government intervention is a bad thing. I certainly depend on the government for my safety - building code enforcement, nuclear plant operations, airline safety and so forth. Under your definition, drunk driving is a liberty that should be allowed. If people are stupid enough to drive drunk, they deserve what happens to them.

eigenVector · 05-16-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Bugbyte

The size of the budget has nothing to do with the size of the government.

Then we have come to one fundamental disagreement. How much money government spends, is how much control over the taxpayers it has. Government doesn't make money, period, the citizens of the country do. But let's move past the budget for my next response:

Quote:

I don't think for a second that either party would have submitted a lower budget for 2010.

Sadly, I agree with you here. McCain has a track record of being a big spender. I do feel Bob Barr would have cut the budget in half, however I didn't vote for him for other reasons.

Quote:

The damage to the economy and the financial system is so great that legislators can't afford to sit by passively. The real question is whether they are doing the right thing or not. Nobody knows the answer to that.

Let me rephrase a portion of that for you: "The damage ... is so great that legislators can't afford to let a good crisis go to waste." Or more simply put, look the public is in hysteria, lets take this opportunity to gain more power and make them feel 'safer.'

Quote:

Having read quite a bit about the financial crisis, the reason for the increased budget is a lack of government oversight of the financial system followed by fear that failure to intervene would cause a historic collapse. We were failed by the regulators of the previous administration.

The financial crisis started long before the previous administration. The problem with the financial crisis is the fact that we are a country that lives on credit, and to keep it short:
- The biggest contributor to the financial crisis is when government issued more and more regulations which forced lenders to knowingly make loans to people who simply can not afford it. (See: the Community Reinvestment Act)

Quote:

But I disagree that all government intervention is a bad thing.

I agree, not all government intervention is bad. The role of government is to provide for the common defense: protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic. An example of those foreign would be the radical Muslims who are trying to take away our freedoms. An example of those domestic would be the drunk drivers, and the crooked legislatures who are trying to take away our freedoms.

Quote:

I certainly depend on the government for my safety - building code enforcement, nuclear plant operations, airline safety and so forth.

We have yet another fundamental disagreement here then. I believe it is the role of the 'producer' (manufacturer, retailer etc) here, to prove (read: sell) the safety and effectiveness of it's product to the consumer. I also believe it's 100% the role of the consumer to weigh the pros/cons of the product or service before making a purchase. When government interferes, they pick which product is 'safe', which building is 'secure', they create a monopoly over the nuclear power plants, they pick the winners, not the consumers: they make the decisions for us. That is a liberty that is taken away from the consumer.
Since the government decides what is safe, do you honestly put your faith in the government to protect you from your own bad decisions? The majority of American's do. Many times I find myself letting my guard down, because it's so easy to do. 'Government' has dubbed product 'x' safe, but our elected officials were elected by the 'dumb masses.' So why should I believe a product is safe just because the guy who's making the decision won American Idol?

It's time for us as individuals to take responsibility for our own dumb decisions.

Quote:

Under your definition, drunk driving is a liberty that should be allowed. If people are stupid enough to drive drunk, they deserve what happens to them.

I don't recall ever stating people should be able to drive drunk. I am sorry to see you did not understand what I said, so let me clarify:
A law enforcing seat belts and a law enforcing sober driving are two different things.
- The law enforcing seat belt's designed to protect you the driver/rider of the car. Not the people you may encounter in an accident.
- The law enforcing sober driving is designed to protect the other people on the road from you infringing on their right to life liberty and property.

I would argue however that if someone wishes to drive drunk on their own property, there should be no law protecting him from himself, but that's not related to this discussion.

Now where's dinner?

HiJackZX1 · 05-16-2009, 09:30 PM

UGH, lol, I feel bad, I shouldnt have picked at you making the dem comment, LMFAO. Now ive started a political war. Maybe with the speed control system the UK wants to use, they can hit a button from headqaurters and make people that challenge them crash and get hurt so that cant talk no more, LMFAO.

JS8531 · 05-17-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by eigenVector

However, speeding doesn't kill people; Driving wrecklessly kill's people.

Quote: Originally Posted by HiJackZX1

I agree with you 100%, its people that drive wreck less that kill people. I will not lie, I am a speeder. You will usually see me going 60 in a 30.

You could be the best driver in the whole world, capable of winning races. If a child is to cross the road, are you able to react? sure a good driver can but the car will not stop on time.

You may say its the child fault for crossing at the wrong time, but for the majority of the pedestrian it is very difficult for them to judge speed, hear and all of the sudden, bang a speeding car is there ready to run them over.

Can they react on time to avoid getting hit? can you react? maybe, can the car stop on time? maybe. Dont forget we have old people to deal with too.

You may argue that resposible drivers will not speed in a dangerous place. Given that there is no speed limit, how many drivers would actually slow down? theres always gonna be an idiot speeding in such a place. They will not be fined, they will not be cautioned, they can do this everyday until someone get injured.

You got to ask yourself a question, how many times you nearly got hit by a speeding car? alot of the time they take you by surprise, am I correct?

Its not just the driver that need good reactions to be safe, everyone will have to adjust for it too. Reason why pedestrian are more cautious when crossing on a 60mph road and more relax when cossing on a 20mph road, I am sure majority behave like that. One day, you may cross a 20mph road, so relaxed talking on your phone and all of the sudden you have a car travelling at 60mph about to hit you.

If you really want to drive fast, go on a race track, you will find that you cant drive as fast as you thought you can. I got to admit I have been caught speeding before, I hated it because I know its a safe area. Im actually glad I got caught, got fined and learned my lessons. If I never did, its only a matter of time Ill hurt someone.

Final thought...

Sure we may like to speed up for a reason or two, its only gonna be safe as long as the other around us are aware of the speed and adjust accordingly, unfortunately not every one is able to adjust in a very short time.

You can argue that driving fast is safe and not reckless until you run out of luck and hurt someone.

eigenVector · 05-18-2009, 05:21 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by JS8531

You could be the best driver in the whole world, capable of winning races. If a child is to cross the road, are you able to react? sure a good driver can but the car will not stop on time.

You may say its the child fault for crossing at the wrong time, but for the majority of the pedestrian it is very difficult for them to judge speed, hear and all of the sudden, bang a speeding car is there ready to run them over.

Good point, and that's why I'm referring to speeding on the highway.
However, no I wouldn't say it's the child's fault. I would argue it's the parent's fault for allowing the child to play on the highway. But perhaps this is for another discussion.

Quote: Originally Posted by JS8531

Final thought...

Sure we may like to speed up for a reason or two, its only gonna be safe as long as the other around us are aware of the speed and adjust accordingly, unfortunately not every one is able to adjust in a very short time.

You can argue that driving fast is safe and not reckless until you run out of luck and hurt someone.

Wow, you honestly think 'luck' has to do with it? If you're driving on the road and you think 'luck' has anything to contribute, you shouldn't be on the road period. I'm sorry, but my handbook says nothing about luck. Who was it that said: "If you believe in luck, you better have lots of it?" (What do you drive? so I know to stay away from you)

And it's not about speeding for the sake of going fast. It's about being personally responsible, and deciding for yourself, based on the conditions of the road, other people who may be around you, visibility, the condition of your car, how fast is appropriate to go. That includes going faster and slower than the posted speed limit. If it's a curving road, where you're unable to tell there's a kid around the corner, then I would claim it's not a good decision to drive very fast around that corner.

It's all about using your brain. If you're on the road driving, and you turn your brain off, because government has posted a speed limit telling you how safe to go then you have ceased to exist.

Think people!

HiJackZX1 · 05-18-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by JS8531

You could be the best driver in the whole world, capable of winning races. If a child is to cross the road, are you able to react? sure a good driver can but the car will not stop on time.

You may say its the child fault for crossing at the wrong time, but for the majority of the pedestrian it is very difficult for them to judge speed, hear and all of the sudden, bang a speeding car is there ready to run them over.

Can they react on time to avoid getting hit? can you react? maybe, can the car stop on time? maybe. Dont forget we have old people to deal with too.

You may argue that resposible drivers will not speed in a dangerous place. Given that there is no speed limit, how many drivers would actually slow down? theres always gonna be an idiot speeding in such a place. They will not be fined, they will not be cautioned, they can do this everyday until someone get injured.

You got to ask yourself a question, how many times you nearly got hit by a speeding car? alot of the time they take you by surprise, am I correct?

Its not just the driver that need good reactions to be safe, everyone will have to adjust for it too. Reason why pedestrian are more cautious when crossing on a 60mph road and more relax when cossing on a 20mph road, I am sure majority behave like that. One day, you may cross a 20mph road, so relaxed talking on your phone and all of the sudden you have a car travelling at 60mph about to hit you.

If you really want to drive fast, go on a race track, you will find that you cant drive as fast as you thought you can. I got to admit I have been caught speeding before, I hated it because I know its a safe area. Im actually glad I got caught, got fined and learned my lessons. If I never did, its only a matter of time Ill hurt someone.

Final thought...

Sure we may like to speed up for a reason or two, its only gonna be safe as long as the other around us are aware of the speed and adjust accordingly, unfortunately not every one is able to adjust in a very short time.

You can argue that driving fast is safe and not reckless until you run out of luck and hurt someone.

Thats why as a speeder I make sure to think at least 6 car lengths ahead of me. I don't just drive and assume everything is going to get out of my way. Before when I had my old school Porsche, I could stop on a dime, and maneuver instantly. When I switched to an SUV I knew that driving situations would radically change. Now with more speed you have to add car lengths. If I'm going 60 in a 30, then I keep at least a 7 car length mentality about what if. What if a dog runs out, what if a lady on the phone pulls out, what if a kid runs into the street. Not once have a got into a accident, infact all my accidents have been going slow speeds, stuck in traffic and always caused by other people. Alot of people only keep their view a short distance when they speed. I don't, I think ahead, and always ask what if. It has nothing to do with LUCK, there is no such thing. Your either a good driver or a bad driver point blank.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password