Jedi Council Forums - The social acceptability of dangerous driving

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 5:02pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	That's sad to know. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 10:53pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Speaking of drunk driving, a business in LA just came up with a brilliant solution. When you realize you're too drunk to drive, but you've already driven somewhere that will tow your car if you leave it there overnight, calling a cab isn't very practical, and let's face it: some people put their convenience ahead of everyone else's safety. Well, this new business found a solution: you call them, and a driver comes to you in a little fold-up scooter. He packs the scooter into the trunk of your own car, then drives you IN your car to your home. Then he takes the scooter and leaves. It's a pity you have to make it that easy before some people will do the right thing, but on the other hand, what if your designated driver gets food poisoning? Either way, this is a very practical way to deal with the problem, and it should save a few lives, and that's what really counts.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TeeBee Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 1:45am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	I think we're describing the same sort of childish attitude. I don't know why you guys thought I meant something else. Because your post clearly said that it wasn't the childish behavior that needed to change, but the amount of money businesses near where people live pay people. That as a whole, it is a societal/economic problem rather than a personal issue. Ridiculous. People are moving further from the cities, the cities are not moving further from the people. As sellars said, We're in a hurry everywhere we go because we choose to spend more time behind the wheel. Most people don't care if they live near work - they live where they WANT to live. Then they deal with it in a dangerous manner. And not all cities are like that. Montreal is not the sprawl LA is, and people do live fairly close to where they work. Yet cell phone use while driving at ALL times of the day is rampant. Why? Because it's not illegal and people just don't give a damn about the dangers. And, KW, I didn't know we were allowed to say things like TeeBee's "That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen", …. Ok, perhaps a little hasty, not well thought-thru response. "Be careful you don't dislocate your shoulder, with all that reeeeeeaching you're doing there." Better? -----signature----- If I am me because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am me and you are you. But if I am me because I am not you, and you are you because you are not me, then I am not and you are not. - Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/31/03 2:10am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	People who write bad checks hurt stores that take those checks. Which means that it also hurts those that work for the place means cut backs and so on. That's why God invented fines. It's hard for people to pay back a bounced check from jail. People who write bad checks should be forbidden from writing checks to that store again, and they should be fined the amount of the check plus some. There is no need to put them in jail for it. There are people that smoke pot then go onto a job site work with stuff they should not be working with then do something wrong and kill someone. All in the name of smoking pot. And there are people who go to work drunk too. That doesn't mean we should bring back Prohibition or jail people who drink. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 4:51am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/31/03 4:53am (1 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
	Britain's prisons do indeed have an overcrowding problem. The remedy is not to send less people there (do you solve overcrowded hospitals by refusing to treat people?) The solution is to build more prisons; and, Mr44, if that has to be done in order to deal properly with dangerous drivers, I see no obstacle. Criminal offences do indeed have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not stop Britain already having an offence of dangerous driving, defined by s. 2 and 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended): 2. A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. 2A. (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)— (a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. (2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. (3) In subsections (1) and (2) above "dangerous" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. (4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried. What must now happen is more prosecutions for dangerous driving, and increased sentences for it. (Not just in terms of jail time, but with respect to automatic impoundment of the car and disqualification for life.) It's not just a matter of where "the offence looked more dangerous"; in a trial, it's for the jury to determine whether the conduct was dangerous on the evidence available (which might, for example, include the fact that the offender was exceeding 100mph). Mr44, indictable, summary, and either-way offences are distinguished by the courts they can be tried in (and consequently, by the penalties they can incur). However, a jury conviction is not considered more serious than a summary conviction when it comes to the offender's criminal record. anakin_girl, for the last time: I am NOT suggesting that "every minor traffic violator" be jailed. People who write bad checks should not go to jail. We agree on that at least.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
sellars1996 Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 7:07am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Mr44, I am curious how Illinois handles traffic tickets. One of your posts implied that traffic tickets there are not criminal or or handled differently than criminal offenses. Many defendants from other states who appear in my court are offended that they are treated as criminals, and I have to explain to them that in Texas, traffic offenses are considered criminal offenses, though they are class C misdemeanors (punishable by fine only). In municipal court, we are bound to follow the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, but there are special chapters and provisions for municipal court. All traffic offenses must be proved beyond a resonable doubt, but since the punishment is fine only, the defendant has no right to a court appointed attorney. Some traffic offenses are higher level and are outside my municipal court's jurisdiction. For example, drag racing is a class B misdemeanor (possibility of fine and jail time). DWI is a class B for first time offenses, class A for second time, and a felony for third time offenses. Driving under the influence is like DWI, but only for minors and is a class C misdemeanor for first offenses. Reckless driving is also a higher level misdemeanor. Urban sprawl undoubtedly is the cause of a lot of the current driving mindset. My wife lived in Boston a few years ago and was initially shocked, after living in Texas for many years, to find out that one did not need to have a car to exist. She could live near where she worked and ride a bike or walk to buy groceries. However, when we choose to live in suburbs 30 miles away from the city and drive all over Hell's Half Acre to get to work and school, we are contributing to the problem. Cheaper housing in the cities, better public transportation, and lower urban crime rates might help alleviate suburban flight, but ultimately, changing our attitudes and being less selfish is the only thing that will truly change our behavior. -----signature----- Every married father's wish ... to live as well as his wife and children. The kindest words ever said about a lawyer: well, at least he didn't run for Congress.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 7:42am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/31/03 7:46am (1 edits total) Edited By: anidanami124
	That's why God invented fines. It's hard for people to pay back a bounced check from jail. People who write bad checks should be forbidden from writing checks to that store again, and they should be fined the amount of the check plus some. There is no need to put them in jail for it.[/i] Though they know they are writing bad checks and keep doing over and over again? And there are people who go to work drunk too. That doesn't mean we should bring back Prohibition or jail people who drink. If you drive drunk and kill someone you sure as hell should be in jail. When you drive drunk that is dangerous not only to you about others around you. So yeah you should spend some time in jail. When you go to a bar and drink all night then you want to go home. So you get in a car your driving drunk and kill someone. What should happen? I'm not saying bring back prohibition. But if these people are not going to fallow the rules of the road then they needed to get off the road. If you are going to speed in a work zone and kill someone yeah you should spend some time in jail. You knew you where in a work zone. You knew that there was someone work on the side of the road. When you know you have bad checks and you keep writing them you need to spend sometime in jail. You need to learn the laws of the land and fallow said laws. If you got to a work site after smoking pot and they fire you to bad. Why should they let someone who has been smoking pot work on that site. So when I see these dangerous drives who don't care about the rules and don't care that they may kill someone with there car well...they need to spend time in jail and they need to take drivers ed all over again. Until they get it right. Edit: I will take the best exmaple of people who need to go by the rules but don't teenagers. They don't go by the rules they don't think they needed to. I read in the paper that 7 seven teens were driving a car. They got killed. Here's the part that get's me they were not old enough to be driving, they did not have lecaines(sp). But they were also not wearing ther seat belts. Which is also just as bad. Because if there seat belts were on they would have had a really good chance of living. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/31/03 8:43am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Not sure where you live, anidan--that incident actually happened about an hour north of me. And I do feel sorry for them, not because what they did was right, but because they are kids and their families are heartbroken. One family lost two kids. Though they know they are writing bad checks and keep doing over and over again? Care to explain how they are going to pay back the money they owe from jail? This is the reason they got rid of debtor's prisons. Also, do you have any idea what happens in jail? Nothing I'm going to say here because I would get banned for it, but I'll just put it this way...it's a pretty harsh punishment for writing a bad check. Most people don't write bad checks on purpose, they do it because they either can't or won't keep up with their bank accounts. Maybe they should be forbidden from having checking accounts. That would make a hell of a lot more sense than jailing them. As far as pot and liquor--I said nothing about driving while high on pot or liquor. I was talking about using it. Right now you can't even smoke pot in the privacy of your own home without risking arrest. That's stupid. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 8:48am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/31/03 8:52am (1 edits total) Edited By: anidanami124
	As far as pot and liquor--I said nothing about driving while high on pot or liquor. I was talking about using it. Right now you can't even smoke pot in the privacy of your own home without risking arrest. That's stupid. No it's not lets say you have kids and you drop them off at someones house you know the person. What you don't know it that this person smokes pot. If you did know would you drop your kids off at said house? I know I would not I would not want my kids being watched by someone who smokes pot. Edit: Also A-G just because it's in your own home does not mean you are not hurting any one. My aunt had a really big problem with durgs. It was so bad that she used up alot of the money that her, and my uncle had save up for not only themselevs but also there son. What she did affact ever one in the family. So it my be in the privacy of your home but it is still wrong because you are hurting my then just yourself. Ask my uncle if it hurt just her. He will tell you it hurt him to, and his son, and so on. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/31/03 8:52am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/31/03 8:54am (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	One, I plan to know enough about a person who babysits my kids to know whether or not they would smoke pot while watching them. I would rather someone who has been smoking pot watch my kids than someone who has been drinking. Are you going to eliminate alcohol as well? You could drop your kids off at the house of someone who has been drinking. Also, I am very familiar with drug addiction--however, using your argument, alcohol should also be outlawed. People are more likely to get hooked on alcohol (one out of every ten people who drink) than they are to get hooked on pot. Pot is not like heroin or cocaine, which will addict anyone who ever tries them. Pot is generally nonaddictive. You see a hell of a lot more people in rehab for alcohol than for pot. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 8:53am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/31/03 9:16am (3 edits total) Edited By: anidanami124
	I would rather someone who has been smoking pot watch my kids than someone who has been drinking. Are you going to eliminate alcohol as well? You could drop your kids off at the house of someone who has been drinking. A-G I would not drop them off at ether one. Because they are both bad. They are both hurting more then just themselevs. Edit: A-G after seeing what my aunt, uncle and there son went through with durgs. It gives me a whole new out look on just how bad pot and other durgs are. however, using your argument, alcohol should also be outlawed. People are more likely to get hooked on alcohol (one out of every ten people who drink) than they are to get hooked on pot. Pot is not like heroin or cocaine, which will addict anyone who ever tries them. Pot is generally nonaddictive. You see a hell of a lot more people in rehab for alcohol than for pot. The only argument I'm using here is that: A) People who are dangerous drivers are real. They need to be delt with. Not with a slap on th hand. But with jail time. B) That whta you don in your life hurt more then just you. It hurts ever one around you. I said nothing about outlawing alcohol. Because that is a really bad idea do to the very fact you can pick up any history book and see just how bad it was. C) I'm very much against pot, and all other durgs they don't help people in any way what so ever. D) I'm very much against this whole well it's really no ones faulit with people who are dangerous drivers. Because people who do that are at fault. They don't drive safe end up killing someone. Then what just give them a slap on the hand? They need to learn how to drive they need to speand someone time in jail. They need to learn that there is more then just them out on the road. I have seen not only first hand what durgs do but what it's like to get into a car accdent and almost kill someone. I have a whole new out look on life and driving. I almost killed someone because I zoned out. A-G I ran a red light. Came with in incehs of kill two people and maybe even killing myself. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/31/03 9:24am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/31/03 9:26am (1 edits total) Edited By: TreeCave
	Because your post clearly said that it wasn't the childish behavior that needed to change, but the amount of money businesses near where people live pay people. Are you really that unable to distinguish arguments? I said clearly the childish behavior was in saying, "Well, I'm too much of a wimp to demand a good enough salary to live near work, so in revenge for my inconvenient commute, I'll do whatever I want while I'm driving". This is typical, surly teenage rebellion. It's not simply talking on the phone that is inherently childish (or else we'd consider it childish if someone unable to pull over phoned in an emergency to 911 while driving) - it's the attitude and motivation behind it. And Los Angeles does not have worse commute times than a lot of American cities. Portland OR is actually worse. It takes an hour and a half to get from one side of POrtland to another, and a lot of people have to do that to get to work. I've only been to Motreal once, so I don't know about your commute times. A-G after seeing what my aunt, uncle and there son went through with durgs. It gives me a whole new out look on just how bad pot and other durgs are. By "other drugs" I hope you're including over the counter and prescription drugs. Many of those are nearly as dangerous as heroin (Paxil, for example, bonds to brain cells exactly the same way, and the withdrawal is MURDER), and even over the counters like Sudafed can deeply impair one's ability to react quickly, just like alcohol. Don't rely on govt bans to tell you what is bad to put in your body. It varies from person to person, metabolism to metabolism, but it is ultimately your responsibility if you drive impaired, even out of ignorance. I've seen so many road rage psychos with huge cups of Starbucks that I wonder if some people shouldn't avoid caffeine and sugar while driving.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 9:37am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	By "other drugs" I hope you're including over the counter and prescription drugs. See I am. That's why I would never use any of those over the counter stuff to loss weight. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MyKe1138 Registered: Aug '03	Date Posted: 12/31/03 9:41am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	So anyone who has a cold or is depressed should not be allowed to drive at all. We can't risk them 'using' before they get behind the wheel... And anyone who uses Listerine should have to wait at least 1/2 an hour before driving, so that the effects of the alcohol wear off... Let's not get ridiculous... -----signature----- "You're wrong. Soon, I'll be banned... and you with me." ... Sir "phrase deemed inappropriate by the Mods a year after the fact" of the Knights of The Sarcasm Table
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/31/03 9:57am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Actually, you are not that far off. 625 ILCS 5/11-501 covers any driver who is under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or any substance which results in impairment While simply gargling with Listerine or having a shot of Binanca probably wouldn't do it. If you take cold medicine, for example, that says "may cause drowsiness or impairment," and you are too impaired to drive, you can be charged with DUI, even if the medicine was over the counter, or legally prescribed by a doctor. The point is that the impairment doesn't have to result from alcohol or illegal drugs. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | Next | Reload