Smoking

[ExigeEvan]

It depends how big the deer is. There are some that are little bigger than an alsation. Those you might be bale to hit with only cosmetic damage to your car. But if you are talking a large male stag then you shoudl avoid. It is surprising how much they weigh and how much damage they can do. One could easily break through your windscreen if you were to hit it at speed.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, for the last time.


It should be totally legal to avoid a squirrel, deer, or elephant in the road if you can do so while not driving recklessly . In other words, while not breaking the law . Or how about this... while not endangering other people .

So here's the take, you should be able to do just about anything (aside from impairing your judgement) in your car as long as you're not endangering other people and not driving recklessly . That includes talking on the cell phone, smoking, and avoiding elephants.

 

[yeti]

Isn't that what we were saying all along?

C.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't that what we were saying all along?

So you don't have a problem with people using cell phones while driving as long as they're not driving recklessly?

 

[Famine]

So here's the take, you should be able to do just about anything (aside from impairing your judgement) in your car as long as you're not endangering other people and not driving recklessly . That includes talking on the cell phone, smoking, and avoiding elephants.

In British law, talking on the mobile phone IS driving recklessly - if you do not have both hands on the steering wheel, your ability to take avoiding action in an emergency is severely hampered so any activity which requires that you drive for any length of time with only one hand is classified as "Driving Without Due Care and Attention" - an endorsable offence. However smoking somehow slips through this law. Hence the question - given that talking on a mobile phone whilst driving is a criminal offence due to the definition given in the Road Traffic Act, should smoking whilst driving be given the same status since it currently doesn't hold it despite meeting the definitions?

It's actually medically proven that people's minds wander during a routine commute... in other words... you do it too so shut up.

I'd love to see this paper. When I drive I pay attention only to the road, the surrounds, any potential dangers and the controls of the car. I rarely even have the radio on in case I hear something which interests me which might draw my attention away from what I'm supposed to be doing.

This country has seen fit to give me a licence to pilot 1-tonne+ chunks of metal around it's arteries at up to 70mph, law permitting. The very least I can do is do that to the best of my ability (which may or may not be better than the average - who am I to judge?) - and if I let my mind wander while doing it then I don't deserve the privilege I've been awarded.

And, although sometimes it may seem like it, I'm certainly not the only one.

 

[Danoff]

I'd love to see this paper. When I drive I pay attention only to the road, the surrounds, any potential dangers and the controls of the car. I rarely even have the radio on in case I hear something which interests me which might draw my attention away from what I'm supposed to be doing.

My father in law is a doctor and was explaining this one to me. I don't know what paper it is, but I know that it has been medically shown. I don't believe it's possible for any human being to remain fully concentrated on their daily commute every day. Whatever research it was also showed that the people in the study would react quickly to sudden changes but would in some cases, not even remember the drive.

and if I let my mind wander while doing it then I don't deserve the privilege I've been awarded.

I've never been in an accident and I've been driving for the better part of 10 years. I got 1 speeding ticket in a speed trap. I'm objective enough to admit that I can't fully concentrate on the menial redundant task of commuting every day. I don't think it makes me any less of a safe driver. I still react to stuff in the road and other cars and give good following distance. In other words, don't bother me about driving well and don't pretend like you're constantly alert.

In British law, talking on the mobile phone IS driving recklessly - if you do not have both hands on the steering wheel

You went on to add that this was not having both hands on the steering wheel for an extended period of time.

How about having both eyes on the road rather than some attractive scenery? What if you only have one arm? Can you not drive? How about having both ears on the road, should we be able to listen to the radio? Should they ban commerical billboards because they're distracting? I suppose they should ban your "War is Not the Answer" bumper sticker too then?

How far do you think the government should regulate your personal space before you stand up and say "I'm responsible, let me handle it!!!"

When will you admit that it's up to people to decide whether they can listen to the radio, change the CD, talk to their friend, smoke a cigarrette, or talk on the cell phone and accept the consequences of that decision?

(note: the following list does not include impairing one's judgement)

Edit: The point is, law enforcement should be pulling people over because they are driving dangerious, not because they are doing something other people have decided is too distracting for some people to handle.

 

[RallyF1]

this should be a poll. agree with smoking or disagree? in public places should it be allowed? what about in bars? you know a drink with out a smoke is like an icecream with out the cone? and why is it in Vegas smoking is allowed any where and everywhere? this is a heck of a topic that will never end

 

[Famine]

I've never been in an accident and I've been driving for the better part of 10 years. I got 1 speeding ticket in a speed trap. I'm objective enough to admit that I can't fully concentrate on the menial redundant task of commuting every day. I don't think it makes me any less of a safe driver. I still react to stuff in the road and other cars and give good following distance. In other words, don't bother me about driving well and don't pretend like you're constantly alert.

You seem to be reacting as though I've told you you're not a safe driver - I haven't.

I also don't have to pretend anything. Driving for me is never menial - it's a privilege, a joy and always, always fun. Doubtless I can no longer remember the minutiae of every journey I've made - and I've been driving for the better part of 10 years too (just 1 month and 4 days short, in fact) - but I could happily relate to you every aspect of the 18 miles I've driven today. Well, those that I noticed when my mind wasn't too busy wandering because some doctor 6000 miles away says it did*.

I've been in one accident and had no speeding (or other traffic offence) tickets. I'm not sure what the relevance is, but since we're comparing notes.

You went on to add that this was not having both hands on the steering wheel for an extended period of time.

How about having both eyes on the road rather than some attractive scenery?

Scenery is for passengers. Unless it is close to the road and could contain a potential danger (like hiding a child who's about to dart out across the road or the ilk) or he is totally stationary (e or a... I forget) the driver should not be aware of how pretty that holly bush is.

What if you only have one arm? Can you not drive?

You would be required to obtain a medical certificate from your doctor and satisfy the local branch of the DVLA that you could conduct your vehicle in a satisfactory manner. It would probably need a single-hand grip adaptor (which allows you to turn the wheel in a single constant circular motion, rather than the BSM-shuffle) and almost certainly be an automatic.

So yes you can - but only with the permission of the people who give out licences and a doctor.

How about having both ears on the road, should we be able to listen to the radio?

I already covered that before. However, I will add that a significant number of POLACCs (Police Accidents) and other incidents involving collisions between emergency vehicles and public vehicles, are caused as a direct result of the public driver having his/her stereo too loud to hear the sirens.

Should they ban commerical billboards because they're distracting? I suppose they should ban your "War is Not the Answer" bumper sticker too then?

I have no bumper stickers - and I resent the implication that I am anti-war (even without the capital).


However, cars have, usually, four seats or more. Passengers might like something nice to look at after all - and if what you say is true and drivers really can't concentrate for long without having to let their minds wander, let them look at the billboards too.

How far do you think the government should regulate your personal space before you stand up and say "I'm responsible, let me handle it!!!"

When will you admit that it's up to people to decide whether they can listen to the radio, change the CD, talk to their friend, smoke a cigarette, or talk on the cell phone and accept the consequences of that decision?

It's not up to people to be blase (curse that acute accent) about a privilege which has been afforded to them and believe that they can accomplish this task so easily that they can do other things at the same time, if the consequences directly involve other people.

Your actions on the public highways directly impinge on the lives of those around you. If you screw up because you have the attitude that driving is simple enough for you to do other things at the same time (and I've seen people reading novels whilst driving) there is a LARGE chance you will take someone with you - especially if it's that friend you're talking to. Hell, get them to change the CD.

This is exactly the reason why I have no time for street racers.


How far should "the government" regulate it? Far enough to stop imbeciles who have no respect for driving from killing other people.


*sarcasm

 

[toler]

That´s one LONG post Famine.

I just wan´t to say that my granny smoked for more than 70 years before she died of Alzheimer´s.

Smoking(s) look(s) cool.

 

[Danoff]

I've been in one accident and had no speeding (or other traffic offence) tickets. I'm not sure what the relevance is, but since we're comparing notes.

Was it your fault?

Your actions on the public highways directly impinge on the lives of those around you.

So do my actions at work and home and everywhere else.

How far should "the government" regulate it? Far enough to stop imbeciles who have no respect for driving from killing other people.

What does respect have to do with it? I'm talking about driving well, not having reverence for the action.


Edit:

when my mind wasn't too busy wandering because some doctor 6000 miles away says it did

What does his proximity to you have anything to do with anything?

 

[Famine]

You don't have to have "reverance" to have respect.

My car, at 1100kg, carries enough energy at 30mph to propel a 25kg object at 590mph. Replace "object " with person (okay, the exact situation wouldn't arise, because I wouldn't come to a dead stop upon collision and transfer all of my momentum to the "object").

Treat that action with disrespect by reading a book while doing it (not to imply you have, just that I've seen it done) and you just don't deserve the licence you've been given to do it.

Respect has everything to do with it.


Edit: Proximity relevance. On what population was the study conducted? At what educational levels? Which gender? What age group?

A study which only covers people in one country's responses and attitudes to driving cannot claim pan-global relevance. Other countries have different attitudes to driving - apparently.

 

[Danoff]

Respect has everything to do with it.

Nope, nothing to do with this topic.

You don't have to have respect for driving to be good at it and not having respect for it doesn't mean you're necessarily bad at it.

Those two statements cannot be refuted, so let's just concede that respect is beside the point and move on.

...unless you were thinking of having people arrested for not thinking properly about driving...

 

[boombexus]

Isn't this thread supposed to be about smoking?

Anyway, I just had my 1 year "quit smoking" anniversary a few days ago.

 

[Famine]

Nope, nothing to do with this topic.

You don't have to have respect for driving to be good at it and not having respect for it doesn't mean you're necessarily bad at it.

Those two statements cannot be refuted, so let's just concede that respect is beside the point and move on.

...unless you were thinking of having people arrested for not thinking properly about driving...

What nonsense is this? Those two statements cannot be refuted? Why? Just because you say so? Utter tripe.

I know of no-one who is "good" at driving (meaning behaves in a lawful manner, including "unwritten" rules on courtesy to other road users - including those without an internal combustion engine) who has no respect for it, and I similarly know of no-one who is "bad" at driving (meaning frequently breaks laws and so on) who respects the act. Those who think it's their right to drive - and do so often without licence, tax, insurance or a road-legal car - are amongst the worst drivers on the roads.

Anyway, seeing as you're so bored of this section of the topic that you've reverted to "my word is gospel" mode, have a go at answering the question I posed before you dragged it down the route of how you classify your own inattention at the wheel as normal.

That question was:
"given that talking on a mobile phone whilst driving is a criminal offence due to the definition given in the Road Traffic Act, should smoking whilst driving be given the same status since it currently doesn't hold it despite meeting the definitions?"

Accept that the law regarding mobile phones will not change in this country. Do you think that it is right that another activity which meets the exact same conditions is not a punishable motoring offence, while talking on the mobile phone is?


boombexus - congratulations. Choice or necessity? My dad still says that after 20 years of not smoking he could light up again happily right now... Scary.

 

[Danoff]

What nonsense is this? Those two statements cannot be refuted? Why? Just because you say so? Utter tripe.

I had more respect for you than that. I guess I was wrong.

I know of no-one who is "good" at driving (meaning behaves in a lawful manner, including "unwritten" rules on courtesy to other road users - including those without an internal combustion engine) who has no respect for it, and I similarly know of no-one who is "bad" at driving (meaning frequently breaks laws and so on) who respects the act. Those who think it's their right to drive - and do so often without licence, tax, insurance or a road-legal car - are amongst the worst drivers on the roads.

Totally beside the point.

Anyway, seeing as you're so bored of this section of the topic

I didn’t say that, don’t put words in my mouth.

that you've reverted to "my word is gospel" mode,

Logic, not my word. You tried to make a claim that you cannot logically make.

have a go at answering the question I posed before you dragged it down the route of how you classify your own inattention at the wheel as normal.

First of all, I have been referred to as a machine for my attentiveness to the road. I’d lay odds that I’m more attentive behind the wheel than you and I have the driving record to prove it. But I am not so dishonest with myself to claim that I do not think of other things while driving. Have you ever spoken one word to a passenger while driving? Have you ever read one word of a billboard when you were driving? Ever read someone else’s bumper sticker? Then you’ve proven my point.

That question was:
"given that talking on a mobile phone whilst driving is a criminal offence due to the definition given in the Road Traffic Act, should smoking whilst driving be given the same status since it currently doesn't hold it despite meeting the definitions?"

I normally don’t respond to things that hold no meaning for me. If you have to have laws that make no sense – laws against driving while using a cell phone for example – then I don’t see why you have to be consistent and make smokers abide by the law too. You’ve already made one arbitrary distinction, why bother being consistent now?

 

[boombexus]

boombexus - congratulations. Choice or necessity? My dad still says that after 20 years of not smoking he could light up again happily right now... Scary.

Thanks Famine.

My quitting was by choice. Decided smoking wasn't doing me any good and wasn't doing my wallet any good either. Figure I save ~$75 a month now by not smoking.

I still get cravings for them, few and far between though, but I just can't see myself smoking again.

While I'm not fully versed on the debate that you and danoff are having, assuming that it started off as something regarding smoking while driving, I'd like to say that now that I don't smoke anymore, and of course not while driving, the thing I enjoy the most about not smoking and driving is not littering the roads with my cigarette butts, and also knowing that I wont be starting any forest fires with one of those tossed butts.

 

[Carl.]

I normally don’t respond to things that hold no meaning for me. If you have to have laws that make no sense – laws against driving while using a cell phone for example – then I don’t see why you have to be consistent and make smokers abide by the law too. You’ve already made one arbitrary distinction, why bother being consistent now?

Following your logic if I get charged with DUI and I wasn't driving dangerously nor breaking any other law, I shouldn't get arrested for it? DUI wasn't illegal not so long ago, but we realized that the risks of causing an accident were too high to allow people drive while they have certain amount of alcohol in their blood. How is that different for not using a cell phone while driving? Why doesn't the latter make sense? We could say that DUI charges are arbitrary too.

 

[Famine]

I had more respect for you than that. I guess I was wrong.

Why?

To quote you, "Totally beside the point.". Speaking of which.

Totally beside the point.

Actually not. It's an elaboration of my point - a point which you seemed to be unwilling or unable to grasp. If you choose to ignore it, fine.

I didn’t say that, don’t put words in my mouth.

I didn't say that you did. I merely formed a precis of what you said - which seems to be your own favourite trick.

Your statement "Those two statements cannot be refuted, so let's just concede that respect is beside the point and move on." said to me that you had no intention of continuing with a section of the debate you had no ability to continue from your point of view. You covered this by making a massively sweeping statement and pretending that no-one could possibly contradict it.

Logic, not my word. You tried to make a claim that you cannot logically make.

Logic maybe - but crucially it is your logic. Your logic is flawed.

What was my "claim" by the way? Please elaborate on how I could not "logically" make it.

First of all, I have been referred to as a machine for my attentiveness to the road. I’d lay odds that I’m more attentive behind the wheel than you and I have the driving record to prove it.

Now that's arrogance - you're claiming that your ability behind a wheel outstrips that of someone you've never met, have little knowledge of and live several thousand miles away from.

Your driving record proves that your inattention to the road is such that you speed and don't notice speeding traps. Mine only proves that I've not been caught speeding yet - but there is no proof that I break any motoring laws. There is proof that you do.

But I am not so dishonest with myself to claim that I do not think of other things while driving. Have you ever spoken one word to a passenger while driving? Have you ever read one word of a billboard when you were driving? Ever read someone else’s bumper sticker? Then you’ve proven my point.

I'll answer "yes" to all those questions - but the answers don't necessarily "prove" your point, whatever that may have been (I think it's the one about the mind wandering). I observe everything around me while on the move or stationary, by habit - since almost everything around you can pose some danger. When my girlfriend comments "Did you see...", the answer is invariably "Yes". Does this make me a better driver? Yes - and the cyclist who undertook me (illegal) the other day as I was turning left into my own driveway was grateful of it while being an idiot at the same time. I only spotted him by the shadow he cast ahead of my car and onto the side of my garage. Does it make me a better driver than you? I don't know - I have no idea how you drive (although I have an impression) and wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim I was better in any given aspect.

I normally don’t respond to things that hold no meaning for me. If you have to have laws that make no sense – laws against driving while using a cell phone for example – then I don’t see why you have to be consistent and make smokers abide by the law too. You’ve already made one arbitrary distinction, why bother being consistent now?

How does the law make no sense? I've already told you which section of the Road Traffic Act the actions contravene - any action which diverts your attention from the road and stops you keeping both hands (where you have them and don't have a medical certificate) on the wheel for a prolonged period of time is "Driving Without Due Care and Attention".

Should people be allowed to apply their make-up while driving? Should people be allowed to read maps or novels whilst driving? In the event of an emergency, their ability to bring their vehicle to a halt safely is severely compromised by both actions - bringing about an increased likelihood of injury to others. You're always talking about how people should only be banned from doing things which may cause injury to others - how is this different? Now - how is talking to your friend on the mobile phone, while steering your car with the other hand alone, different from putting on your make-up in the vanity mirror, while steering your car with the other hand alone? Both tasks require concentration elsewhere - keeping a conversation going, or not applying eyeliner to your cornea - and both keep one of your hands from being in contact with your control point. Do you not see this?


boombexus - Yes, that's another good point. Of course you can't tar (hoho) all smokers with the same brush, but I frequently see people chucking the shrinkwrap rip-off from cigarette packets out of their car windows - not to mention the butts themselves.

It's funny though - that is yet another law smokers in this country seem to be exempt from - littering. You can be fined £1000 for throwing rubbish on the ground instead of a bin, but I've never, ever heard of anyone being fined for dropping a cigarette stub (again, not all smokers blah blah blah).

 

[yeti]

So you don't have a problem with people using cell phones while driving as long as they're not driving recklessly?

Hmmm did I say that? No.

I said that people could avoid a squirrel, deer or elephant if there was no other road user or person nearby that they could possibly endanger...

You somehow changed this into "People can use their mobile phones whenever, wherever they like when they're driving."

I live in Birmingham... the second biggest city in the country... Every day that I get a lift with my girlfriend she could have quite easily crashed into at least 1 person that wasn't paying attention... (Mainly from what I can see their own inability to follow road markings and the highway code and some seem to have no knowledge of what an automobile actually seems to do) Removing another thing that gain the drivers attention away from the road can surely only be seen as a good thing.

I refute the idea that it is the drivers responsibility to choose whether or not they are "good" enough to drive whilst being on the phone. How can it be their choice that they endanger people around them by answering that call?

C.

PS If you want to compare notes... I've been in one accident (when I was 17, so about 7 years ago, and yes it was my fault... I was driving like a wanker...) and have never been caught speeding. Precisely what that proves then I don't know.

 

[Arwin]

When will you admit that it's up to people to decide whether they can listen to the radio, change the CD, talk to their friend, smoke a cigarrette, or talk on the cell phone and accept the consequences of that decision?

The point is, law enforcement should be pulling people over because they are driving dangerious, not because they are doing something other people have decided is too distracting for some people to handle.

First of all, talking on a cell phone was prohibited specifically because people proved they couldn't handle it and it wasn't safe. Not only would they be less attentive to the road, but more importantly if that caused them to get into trouble they couldn't respond properly because they didn't have enough controll over the wheel. Don't compare this with the very few people who only have one arm as they are used to having only one arm, their arm is developed more and they often have special aids to assist them further.

We don't have the rule that you need to keep both hands on the wheel at the same time for nothing. It's simply much safer that way. Law enforcement is about protecting people from each other, and sometimes even from themselves. In this case, the liberty of driving with one hand talking to a cellphone has proven to be a lethal combination not worth the casualty rate, and therefore it was prohibited.

Over here, people don't whine about it but instead just buy a car-kit for their cellphones and work with that. Much more comfortable anyway.

 

[Danoff]

Following your logic if I get charged with DUI and I wasn't driving dangerously nor breaking any other law, I shouldn't get arrested for it? DUI wasn't illegal not so long ago, but we realized that the risks of causing an accident were too high to allow people drive while they have certain amount of alcohol in their blood. How is that different for not using a cell phone while driving? Why doesn't the latter make sense? We could say that DUI charges are arbitrary too.

I made apoint to mention that impairing your judgement is not cool while you're driving.

Logic maybe - but crucially it is your logic. Your logic is flawed.

Go check on the logic thread in the rumble strip and get back to me.

Your driving record proves that your inattention to the road is such that you speed and don't notice speeding traps. Mine only proves that I've not been caught speeding yet - but there is no proof that I break any motoring laws. There is proof that you do.

There is proof that I did, once. That I did in an area designed to make money by creating speed limits that made no sense. So whose fault was that accident you were in?

I'll answer "yes" to all those questions

Done, point proven.

Should people be allowed to apply their make-up while driving? Should people be allowed to read maps or novels whilst driving? In the event of an emergency, their ability to bring their vehicle to a halt safely is severely compromised by both actions - bringing about an increased likelihood of injury to others. You're always talking about how people should only be banned from doing things which may cause injury to others - how is this different? Now - how is talking to your friend on the mobile phone, while steering your car with the other hand alone, different from putting on your make-up in the vanity mirror, while steering your car with the other hand alone? Both tasks require concentration elsewhere - keeping a conversation going, or not applying eyeliner to your cornea - and both keep one of your hands from being in contact with your control point. Do you not see this?

We already have laws against driving recklessly. If you can do those things in your car without driving recklessly then you’re a better driver than I am and should totally be allowed to do it.

Hmmm did I say that? No.

Actually you did, but we’ll move on.

I said that people could avoid a squirrel, deer or elephant if there was no other road user or person nearby that they could possibly endanger...

You somehow changed this into "People can use their mobile phones whenever, wherever they like when they're driving."

Think about it for a while.

First of all, talking on a cell phone was prohibited specifically because people proved they couldn't handle it and it wasn't safe

Then they should be ticketed for driving recklessly.

Edit:

Now that's arrogance - you're claiming that your ability behind a wheel outstrips that of someone you've never met, have little knowledge of and live several thousand miles away from.

I said that was the odds and I'm sticking to it. It's just an observation of people in general, don't take it personally.

 

[Carl.]

I made apoint to mention that impairing your judgement is not cool while you're driving.

Who is the government to decide my judgement is impaired after I drank X beers? They only should arrest me if I'm driving recklessly.

Why does talking, or worse, dialing on a cell phone is cool?

 

[Danoff]

Who is the government to decide my judgement is impaired after I drank X beers?

Who is the government to decide that a 17 year old doesn't have the judge to marry and an 18 year old does? Gotta draw the line somewhere. Same deal.


...totally different from cell phones.

 

[Carl.]

Who is the government to decide that a 17 year old doesn't have the judge to marry and an 18 year old does? Gotta draw the line somewhere.


Same deal, totally different from cell phones.

Ok. So do we agree that they're all arbitrary decisons, at some point, based on judgement? That while your line is placed differently than theirs on this law, that doesn't mean the law doesn't make sense because you decide it's ok not to grant the "freedom" to drive under influence, but wrong when it's about the freedom of talking on your cell phone while driving?

Both can result in reckless driving, as both can be done while driving "normally".

 

[RallyF1]

now this is really weird. since smoking is so bad to your health, how come in japan, where they have the largest elderley population, and at the same time the highest number of smokers. i looked into it and asked some of my japanese friends, who are kind of fresh from japan . and the reason is, lifestyle. over here. individuals are under preasure all the time, or they would like to feel that way. while japanese people are easy going, nothing tends to bother them. and then there is the physical exercise wich 80% of the population ingage in for the sake of better health, not like us for the sake of looking good. it's all i guess about attitude

 

[Famine]

There is proof that I did, once. That I did in an area designed to make money by creating speed limits that made no sense.

So did you disobey the law on purpose, or were you unaware that your speed had crept up above the speed limit? I can't see any other alternatives.

The former is criminal - do you disobey other laws you don't agree with? The latter is inattentiveness - so much for the machine.

My accident was a single-vehicle accident. There were no casualties and no witnesses. In all measurable terms, it was my fault, since I managed to spin the car - at 20mph. However, the stretch of road (Woodhead Pass, A635, Derbyshire. Look it up, if you can be bothered) was later classified as one of the three worst in the UK less than a month later, due to poor construction methods leading to unexpectedly low temperatures on short stretches leading to sudden patches of "black ice" (which is, of course, invisible) throughout the winter months. I span my car at 8am on 3rd January - slap-bang in the middle of winter. Nevertheless, as I said, the accident was, in all measurable terms, my fault. I didn't see the invisible hazard, whilst driving at 1/3 the speed limit.


With regards to your "odds" game - do you seriously believe that you are a better driver than most (meaning 50.0% or more) other drivers? That's an astonishing claim and one no-one should make themselves - especially not those who are unaware of their speed, or just plain law-breakers. Personally I consider myself to still be learning how to drive - and will be right up until the point I die (hopefully not in a car).

Holding a licence doesn't mean you know it all - or even enough to make you "good". It just means that you've been judged competant to use the highways with everyone else - and remember that the overwhelming majority of those people you consider yourself to be better than, by the "odds game", have had to pass the same (although I'm aware there may be state-to-state variation over there) competancy test. Many have more experience than either of us -in terms of road time/miles, many have less. The odds are that you, and I, are merely "average" drivers. Don't be under any illusions as to your capabilities - that's a very quick way to a metal coffin with a hood badge.


Who are the government to decide the law? They are our duly elected representatives - but I would appreciate it if you stuck to the matters at hand and didn't turn this into another one of your tiresome "governments are wrong unless they're the one I want" threads. Please stick to the questions raised about smoking.

To refresh for latecomers to the thread:

Do you think smoking should be banned in public places?
Bear in mind that there is no validated proof that passive smoking (also known as "Secondhand Smoke") causes any statistically increased chances of suffering from ill-health, and that by banning it you are infringing the freedom of smokers to smoke. That said, it started off as their free-choice (even if it was peer-pressure induced or ill-informed) - do they have the right to inflict their choice of addiction onto other people?

Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?
This question isn't applicable in the USA (as far as my knowledge of US healthcare goes), but in the UK we are all entitled to free medical treatment. Smokers bring the disease on themselves, causing a huge load on the NHS. That said, they pay tax (tobacco duty AND VAT) on their cigarettes, which helps fund the NHS.

Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?
Nicotine is a habit-forming drug. The users suffer withdrawal symptoms if they try to stop and often have to ween themselves off with patches (similar to "curing" heroin addiction by administering methadone in reducing doses). Smoking-related disease kills far more people (deaths per user) than cannabis smoking (which doesn't carry the same levels of risk for the respiratory/mouth cancers). Yet cannabis is illegal and tobacco isn't. In fact, someone from outside the USA who has been given so much as a police caution for cannabis possession can be refused entry to the US even as a tourist - while someone next to him can wander through customs with a lit fagend* hanging out of his mouth.

Extra bonus question!
Do you think that smoking whilst driving ought to subject to the same laws as other "activities"?
Given that talking on a mobile phone whilst driving is a criminal offence due to the definition given in the Road Traffic Act (one should not engage in any activity whilst driving which requires you to divert attention from driving for any prolonged period of time, or remove one or both hands from the steering wheel for any significanr length of time. Drivers should find a safe place to pull over to engage in any such activity), should smoking whilst driving be given the same status since it currently doesn't hold it despite meeting the definitions?"


And congratulations to anyone who's persevered thus far!

 

[Danoff]

Ok. So do we agree that they're all arbitrary decisons, at some point, based on judgement? That while your line is placed differently than theirs on this law, that doesn't mean the law doesn't make sense because you decide it's ok not to grant the "freedom" to drive under influence, but wrong when it's about the freedom of talking on your cell phone while driving?

Both can result in reckless driving, as both can be done while driving "normally".

There is a difference between being responsible for your actions taken while your judgement is not impaired and being responsible for actions taken while your judgement is impaired. The difference is, people should not put themselves in a situation in which their judgement is crucial to other people's well being, and yet impaired.

So people shouldn't be allowed to drive drunk. Because when they're drunk, they can't properly judge what is safe or how well they are able to drive. The definition of drunk has to be arbitrary. But people should be able to use cell phones while driving, because (as long as they aren't drunk) they should be able to judge whether they are being safe and capable of being safe.

Just like they should be able to do that when they aren't using their cell phone, and should get off the road if they judge they are incapable of driving safely for any other reason. If they are not able to judge that for some reason, and are driving recklessly (aside from being intoxicated), they should be pulled over for reckless driving. If they are intoxicated the offense is worse since they knew their judgement was impaired.

 

[Danoff]

So did you disobey the law on purpose, or were you unaware that your speed had crept up above the speed limit? I can't see any other alternatives.

The former is criminal - do you disobey other laws you don't agree with? The latter is inattentiveness - so much for the machine.

My accident was a single-vehicle accident. There were no casualties and no witnesses. In all measurable terms, it was my fault, since I managed to spin the car - at 20mph. However, the stretch of road (Woodhead Pass, A635, Derbyshire. Look it up, if you can be bothered) was later classified as one of the three worst in the UK less than a month later, due to poor construction methods leading to unexpectedly low temperatures on short stretches leading to sudden patches of "black ice" (which is, of course, invisible) throughout the winter months. I span my car at 8am on 3rd January - slap-bang in the middle of winter. Nevertheless, as I said, the accident was, in all measurable terms, my fault. I didn't see the invisible hazard, whilst driving at 1/3 the speed limit.


With regards to your "odds" game - do you seriously believe that you are a better driver than most (meaning 50.0% or more) other drivers? That's an astonishing claim and one no-one should make themselves - especially not those who are unaware of their speed, or just plain law-breakers. Personally I consider myself to still be learning how to drive - and will be right up until the point I die (hopefully not in a car).

Holding a licence doesn't mean you know it all - or even enough to make you "good". It just means that you've been judged competant to use the highways with everyone else - and remember that the overwhelming majority of those people you consider yourself to be better than, by the "odds game", have had to pass the same (although I'm aware there may be state-to-state variation over there) competancy test. Many have more experience than either of us -in terms of road time/miles, many have less. The odds are that you, and I, are merely "average" drivers. Don't be under any illusions as to your capabilities - that's a very quick way to a metal coffin with a hood badge.

Yes I disobeyed the law on purpose and it is not the only law that I have purposefully disobeyed. What's your point? It was a rediculous speed for the area that has since been increased to the speed I was going. It was a speed trap.

With regards to your "odds" game - do you seriously believe that you are a better driver than most (meaning 50.0% or more) other drivers?

That's been my experience.

That's an astonishing claim and one no-one should make themselves - especially not those who are unaware of their speed, or just plain law-breakers

Why not? I broke the law on purpose but I didn't compromise anyone's safety. In fact, I've never harmed anyone while driving.

Holding a licence doesn't mean you know it all - or even enough to make you "good".

Captain obvious.

Many have more experience than either of us -in terms of road time/miles, many have less. The odds are that you, and I, are merely "average" drivers.

Most people I know have caused at least one accident and have had multiple speeding tickets. I know lots of people who have more experience driving who are way more dangerous (proven by driving record) than I am. So I'm afraid I won't bow to their expertise.

 

[Famine]

Surely you'd agree that Crime Prevention is better than Crime Detection?

Educating people that use of mobile phones whilst driving could cause them - and others around them injury - due to impairment of proper driving conduct is a much better use of resources than waiting until people break the law (usually in a mop-up call) and then bringing the law down upon them.

When people realise that one-handed driving is just plain dumb before they kill someone/themselves it's a much happier state of affairs. After all, human beings are SO smart they'd get it pretty quickly. Right?

Yes I disobeyed the law on purpose and it is not the only law that I have purposefully disobeyed. What's your point? It was a rediculous speed for the area that has since been increased to the speed I was going. It was a speed trap.

So is it your belief that if a law doesn't meet your own personal approval, you're allowed to break it?

The posted limit is the speed limit. It is not up to you or me to decide whether we should or shouldn't stick to it - it is our duty to stick to it, "rediculous" or not. The licence you have doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want in a car. Clearly that's not so obvious to you.

Most people I know have caused at least one accident and have had multiple speeding tickets. I know lots of people who have more experience driving who are way more dangerous (proven by driving record) than I am. So I'm afraid I won't bow to their expertise.

Yet you ignore the flip-side - if you claim (proven by driving record or not) to be less dangerous than "lots" of people with more experience than you, what about those with less? Or are they automatically worse by virtue of having less experience?

Your "driving record" and subsequent statements show you to be one of the most potentially dangerous people on the roads - one who purposely breaks road laws that they don't believe apply to them.

 

[Danoff]

Surely you'd agree that Crime Prevention is better than Crime Detection?

Nope. Some crime must be tolerated (and prosecuted of course) so that we can be free.

So is it your belief that if a law doesn't meet your own personal approval, you're allowed to break it?

No, I don't believe I'm allowed.

what about those with less? Or are they automatically worse by virtue of having less experience?

No.

Your "driving record" and subsequent statements show you to be one of the most dangerous people on the roads - one who purposely breaks road laws that they don't believe apply to them.

I don't see how you get that. I've gotten 1 speeding ticket in my life.

The licence you have doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want in a car. Clearly that's not so obvious to you.

...actually...

it is obvious to me.

When people realise that one-handed driving is just plain dumb before they kill someone/themselves it's a much happier state of affairs

When will you realize that you shouldn't try to tell people how to live their lives. You can tell them not to interfere with you, but don't tell them exactly how they should go about not interfering with you. I don't think you'd like it if the shoe was on the other foot.