as in they've gotten better...
sorry i got that backwards :-/
inntheory said:
What I find interesting though is things were already south, not that I think that most people understand the bigger picture but seriously the economy this year is more about the years before with dashes of things could have been much worse.
What I find interesting though is things were already south, not that I think that most people understand the bigger picture but seriously the economy this year is more about the years before with dashes of things could have been much worse.
Not everyone got a chance to vote out their incumbents in 2008.
Not everyone got a chance to vote out their incumbents in 2008.
Ah I see what you were getting at...
Yeah, I heard a story on NPR this morning where a political analyst was stating support for that idea. Stating that in many ways people are just upset with how things have been for some time... and whether they be democrats or republicans they distrust whomever it has been.
Olifant said:
I got that, I wandered which European elections you were talking about.
I got that, I wandered which European elections you were talking about.
I totally missed this post.
I can't be specific because I read about it a while ago. From what I recall, Europe is swinging.
Germany is the only example I can think of, off the top of my head, where the right now controls the gov't.
But the bigger trend is that far-right parties are winning seats in the European Parliment.
And in Europe, far-right means any combination of openly racist, fascist, anti-immigrant, white supremicist,
anti-gypsy (hello eastern europe), etc. The kind of people who'd never get a seat at the table in the USA.
Distracted driving: Government pursues texting law
The issue of distracted driving has been propelled to the forefront of top transportation safety issues, but the larger question is what to do about it? Following on the heels of last month’s Department of Transportation two-day Distracted Driving Summit, which discussed the problems and addressed possible solutions, the issue is now hitting Congress. Two bills have been introduced in the Senate that take different approaches to programs and incentives for the states to enact to help combat this growing problem. (Read our highlights from the Distracted Driving Summit.)
One bill, titled the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009, was introduced by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, among other Senators. It offers financial incentives to states that enact texting bans, require using a hands-free cell phone device, and prohibit young drivers from using any cell phone while driving. To qualify for the grant money, there are a number of provisions:
Some exceptions include calling 911, use by emergency personnel, and using the phone in a parked vehicle.
The money for the grants will not involve an additional financial burden as it will come from redirecting unused surpluses from the seat-belt safety program. Once states enact these laws, they can then apply for the funds to use in driver education programs on the dangers of distracted driving and for other projects that improve traffic safety. This program will model the already successful drunk driving and “click it or ticket” seat-belt campaigns.
Additional provisions of the bill include a national driver distraction education program run by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and further research, data, and reporting of accidents by police.
The second bill, titled the ALERT Drivers Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator Schumer of New York along with three other Senators, earlier this year. Senator Schumer testified at last week’s Commerce Committee hearing in support of his bill; he is also a cosponsor of Senator Rockefeller’s bill. The ALERT Drivers Act takes a “stick” approach, as opposed to the “carrot” approach of the other bill, by reducing the amount of Federal highway funds available to states that do not enact a law prohibiting drivers from writing, sending, or reading text messages or e-mails while operating a motor vehicle. At the hearing, there was debate among the Senators about whether the “carrot” or the “stick” method is the better way to approach this epidemic.
Currently 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, have a law addressing texting-while-driving. Use of cell phones by novice drivers is restricted in 21 states and the District of Columbia, and seven states, plus the District of Columbia have statewide hand-held driving bans.
A 2008 government study noted that in any given moment there are 812,000 distracted drivers on the road. This bill aims to make sure that their lives, as well as their passengers and everyone else on the road, are not at risk.
The issue of distracted driving has been propelled to the forefront of top transportation safety issues, but the larger question is what to do about it? Following on the heels of last month’s Department of Transportation two-day Distracted Driving Summit, which discussed the problems and addressed possible solutions, the issue is now hitting Congress. Two bills have been introduced in the Senate that take different approaches to programs and incentives for the states to enact to help combat this growing problem. (Read our highlights from the Distracted Driving Summit.)
One bill, titled the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009, was introduced by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, among other Senators. It offers financial incentives to states that enact texting bans, require using a hands-free cell phone device, and prohibit young drivers from using any cell phone while driving. To qualify for the grant money, there are a number of provisions:
* The state law must make a violation a primary offense, which means that police can pull over a driver without any other moving violation. * Requires a minimum fine for first and increased penalties for subsequent violations. * Civil and criminal penalties to a driver who causes an accident due to cell phone use. * The subject of distracted driving must be added to the state’s driver’s license exam.
Some exceptions include calling 911, use by emergency personnel, and using the phone in a parked vehicle.
The money for the grants will not involve an additional financial burden as it will come from redirecting unused surpluses from the seat-belt safety program. Once states enact these laws, they can then apply for the funds to use in driver education programs on the dangers of distracted driving and for other projects that improve traffic safety. This program will model the already successful drunk driving and “click it or ticket” seat-belt campaigns.
Additional provisions of the bill include a national driver distraction education program run by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and further research, data, and reporting of accidents by police.
The second bill, titled the ALERT Drivers Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator Schumer of New York along with three other Senators, earlier this year. Senator Schumer testified at last week’s Commerce Committee hearing in support of his bill; he is also a cosponsor of Senator Rockefeller’s bill. The ALERT Drivers Act takes a “stick” approach, as opposed to the “carrot” approach of the other bill, by reducing the amount of Federal highway funds available to states that do not enact a law prohibiting drivers from writing, sending, or reading text messages or e-mails while operating a motor vehicle. At the hearing, there was debate among the Senators about whether the “carrot” or the “stick” method is the better way to approach this epidemic.
Currently 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, have a law addressing texting-while-driving. Use of cell phones by novice drivers is restricted in 21 states and the District of Columbia, and seven states, plus the District of Columbia have statewide hand-held driving bans.
A 2008 government study noted that in any given moment there are 812,000 distracted drivers on the road. This bill aims to make sure that their lives, as well as their passengers and everyone else on the road, are not at risk.
Europe is swinging right
I can't wait until this current generation of texters turn 65 and start plowing into farmers' markets while texting
I prefer the carrot method. Giving incentive to states to enact laws is better then punishing them for not enacting them. The stick method can be seen as "OMG GUBMENT TUK ERR FUNDS AND OVERSTEP DER STATE BOUNDREEZ. GUBMENT CONTROL SOCIALISM."
I can't wait until the federal government starts witholding federal funds to a state unless everyone in the state who operates a microwave, vcr, or god forbid a toaster without the proper licenses or certificantion.
Oh Drock, you so silly.
I'll need to see your license to be silly or I'll make an internet citizens arrest.
I'll need to see your license to be silly or I'll make an internet citizens arrest.
Come out with your hands up, we know you have a toaster, we know you made toast, and we know you don't have a license. You could have burned down the entire block you madman!
The future will be one way or the other no exceptions!
Some people can drive and talk on their phone. Some people can't.
Some people can make toast, some people can't.
Some people can make toast, some people can't.
Do you want to administer the tests to determine who can?
in my darker moments, I think we may want to consider licensing for some things, like voting and breeding.
Some people are also better drivers when they drink!
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
Let me know when toasters weight 2000+ lbs and can go 65mph
Caz1982 said:
in my darker moments, I think we may want to consider licensing for some things, likevoting and breeding.
in my darker moments, I think we may want to consider licensing for some things, like
Right there with ya.
Yes, gerf was very clear a while ago that drunk driving laws are unjust because some people can avoid killing people while driving drunk.
Are you sure you want to take the same tactic, Drock? Arguing that because a few people can avoid getting into accidents while talking on the cell phone while driving, we should ignore the mounds of statistical, scientific and even anecdotal evidence that driving while using a cell phone reduces almost everyone's ability to operate a vehicle safely and increases the danger on the roads for drivers and pedestrians alike?
Are you sure you want to take the same tactic, Drock? Arguing that because a few people can avoid getting into accidents while talking on the cell phone while driving, we should ignore the mounds of statistical, scientific and even anecdotal evidence that driving while using a cell phone reduces almost everyone's ability to operate a vehicle safely and increases the danger on the roads for drivers and pedestrians alike?
D rock 007 said:
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
Where do you draw the line between "public safety" and "federal/state government, leave me alone"
D rock 007 said:
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
I'll remember that when you get T-boned by some dumbass 17-year-old writing "lol wat u up 2 2nite"
Some people are also better drivers when they drink!
I wouldn't go so far as to say that but some people are not really inebriated at .08 either. But I'm cool with that simply because there is currently no better way than BAC to qualititavely measure the impact of alcohol on people's motor functions.
D rock 007 said:
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
No I want people to be left the fuck alone.
Yes, I would like to be left the fuck alone too, and not have to wonder if some idiot is going to barrel into me because he was on his cellphone and didn't pay enough attention to his blind spot before switching lanes.
Your right to be left the fuck alone ends exactly where you start to endanger other people.
Are you sure you want to take the same tactic, Drock? Arguing that because a few people can avoid getting into accidents while talking on the cell phone while driving, we should ignore the mounds of statistical, scientific and even anecdotal evidence that driving while using a cell phone reduces almost everyone's ability to operate a vehicle safely and increases the danger on the roads for drivers and pedestrians alike?
There are so many things people shouldn't do. We don't, nor shouldn't have to make them all illegal.
D rock 007 said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that but some people are not really inebriated at .08 either. But I'm cool with that simply because there is currently no better way than BAC to qualititavely measure the impact of alcohol on people's motor functions.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that but some people are not really inebriated at .08 either. But I'm cool with that simply because there is currently no better way than BAC to qualititavely measure the impact of alcohol on people's motor functions.
And there's no better way to qualitiatively measure one's distractedness from the road due to cell phone use than "Are they holding and using it right now?" or not.
Well you either believe that the government should control every decision and tell everybody what to do every second of the day or you think that the government should just be the military that protects our border and let all its citizens be free to sit on a rooftop with a gun all day and protect their shit from their neighbors.
There is nothing in between.
There is nothing in between.
But I'm cool with that simply because there is currently no better way than BAC to qualititavely measure the impact of alcohol on people's motor functions.
Just like there's no better way to keep everyone safe than to enact a blanket rule banning DWTexting. You err on the side of caution, and if you need to send a text that badly, pull the fuck over.
D rock 007 said:
There are so many things people shouldn't do. We don't, nor shouldn't have to make them all illegal.
There are so many things people shouldn't do. We don't, nor shouldn't have to make them all illegal.
You're right. But we do make them illegal when the situation warrants, such as in this case, when cell phone use while driving is too much risk for too little benefit.
With freedom comes inherent risks.
There are so many things people shouldn't do. We don't, nor shouldn't have to make them all illegal.
No, but the ones that can easily be banned and enforced should be. Because it's clear that people aren't smart enough to stop DWT without it being banned.
I believe we've entered the portion of the debate where Drock ignores everyone's arguments and posts meaningless cliches.
The socialist government won't let me drive on their socialist roads without obeying their fascist text laws?
D rock 007 said:
With freedom comes inherent risks.
With freedom comes inherent risks.
What you mean is, with your freedom comes an inherent risk to me.
Obviously the fact that cell phone use while driving has been proven to reduce driving skill for just about everyone is irrelevant to you.
Well most studies show that hands free isn't really safer.
What about people trying to eat a burrito or burger while driving?
I mean where does it stop? Having a conversation with someone else the car? Do we need to mandate that the driver be isolated from the passengers in all future vehicles?
What about people trying to eat a burrito or burger while driving?
I mean where does it stop? Having a conversation with someone else the car? Do we need to mandate that the driver be isolated from the passengers in all future vehicles?
Or, to put it another way: My freedom not to be struck and injured by a distracted driver comes with the inherent risk that you might not be able to order a pizza while driving home after work.
I don't DWT because I can't. But I can fucking answer my phone and have a quick conversation without a problem.
God this slope sure is slippery.
D rock 007 said:
Well most studies show that hands free isn't really safer.
What about people trying to eat a burrito or burger while driving?
Well most studies show that hands free isn't really safer.
What about people trying to eat a burrito or burger while driving?
Ban it.
I mean where does it stop? Having a conversation with someone else the car?
Don't ban it.
Do we need to mandate that the driver be isolated from the passengers in all future vehicles?
No.
See what I did there? I looked at them on a case-by-case basis and decided which are too dangerous and which aren't. No two people will agree on which need to be banned, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to look at each individual situation than it does to just say FREEEEDOMMMM! YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS!
D rock 007 said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that but some people are not really inebriated at .08 either. But I'm cool with that simply because there is currently no better way than BAC to qualititavely measure the impact of alcohol on people's motor functions.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that but some people are not really inebriated at .08 either. But I'm cool with that simply because there is currently no better way than BAC to qualititavely measure the impact of alcohol on people's motor functions.
There have been many studies that have found reaction time for a drunk driver is actually better than someone who's texting while driving. And the drunk drivers reaction times aren't good at all.
http://jalopnik.com/5302414/drunk-driving-safer-than-texting-while-driving
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/08/everyone-knows-the-law-few-of- us-abide-but-the-studies-are-rolling-in-and-theyre-saying-texting-while-driving- is-not-only-i.html
Well most studies show that hands free isn't really safer.
I'm fine with banning hands-free, too, as a matter of fact.
What about people trying to eat a burrito or burger while driving?
What about it? Hands off the wheel, focusing on not dripping hot grease on yourself? Yeah, I'd be okay with not allowing that, either, if it was shown to be as unsafe as cell phone usage.
I mean where does it stop? Having a conversation with someone else the car? Do we need to mandate that the driver be isolated from the passengers in all future vehicles?
No, because the same studies that prove cell phone usage is a distraction also show that conversation and radio use has no detrimental effect or improves driving.
You ask these questions like some innocent naif, but these aren't philosophical mysteries that will never be solved. We know that some things are unnacceptable, and other things aren't. Some things will be outlawed, others won't. This slippery-slope tactic you take every time when it comes to "freedom" is ridiculous. Some questions have answers, Drock.
D rock 007 said:
I don't DWT because I can't. But I can fucking answer my phone and have a quick conversation without a problem.
I don't DWT because I can't. But I can fucking answer my phone and have a quick conversation without a problem.
So what do you propose? A time limit? 5 minute conversations, max? Have the cop follow you around for 5 minutes with a stopwatch?
I have the freedom to not get robbed. Robbery has been illegal for a long time. People still get robbed.
You still can get hit by a distracted driver. He may not even be on his phone he might have dropped his cigarette and is trying to grab it before it burns a hole in the floormat.
You still can get hit by a distracted driver. He may not even be on his phone he might have dropped his cigarette and is trying to grab it before it burns a hole in the floormat.
D rock 007 said:
I don't DWT because I can't. But I can fucking answer my phone and have a quick conversation without a problem.
I don't DWT because I can't. But I can fucking answer my phone and have a quick conversation without a problem.
No, you can't. Or at least, you shouldn't. Because just like a drunk driver can have a few shots and then get home no problem sometimes, it still constitutes an unacceptable risk.
D rock 007 said:
I have the freedom to not get robbed. Robbery has been illegal for a long time. People still get robbed.
You still can get hit by a distracted driver. He may not even be on his phone he might have dropped his cigarette and is trying to grab it before it burns a hole in the floormat.
I have the freedom to not get robbed. Robbery has been illegal for a long time. People still get robbed.
You still can get hit by a distracted driver. He may not even be on his phone he might have dropped his cigarette and is trying to grab it before it burns a hole in the floormat.
Therefore... robbery should be legal? What is your point?
I have the freedom to not get robbed. Robbery has been illegal for a long time. People still get robbed.
Yeah, but not nearly as much as when it wasn't outlawed. Way to prove my point. Outlawing something and enforcing it makes bad things less likely to happen. I'm so ashamed.
From: Syntax Error wants to hurt you just to hear you screaming his name
Date: 11/4/09 @ 5:02 PM
48,848
I need to learn how to drive with a blindfold.
You still can get hit by a distracted driver. He may not even be on his phone he might have dropped his cigarette and is trying to grab it before it burns a hole in the floormat.
Guess what? I'm not operating under the assumption that making it illegal eliminates it. That's your strawman.
Making it illegal and enforcing it will definitely make it less likely, though, and that's a good thing.
I think I should be outlawed from PWW (posting with Wander).
We've been shadowing each other for like 10 posts.
We've been shadowing each other for like 10 posts.
| forum | login | new user | top |