Smoking

[Famine]

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.

I don't know. It'll probably be around the time that you twig that allowing people to cause the death of others in the name of "freedom", when instead they could be educated on how not to cause death - like by being a responsible driver - is simply unacceptable. Why should disinterested victims be forced to pay for the actions of someone who just simply doesn't know that something is dangerous?

By the way, the shoe is, effectively, on the other foot. I obey the law - so I'm doing what I'm apparently being told to do. I expect those around me to obey the law too - and the majority do. That's why so many of us get to work successfully of a morning.

 

[Danoff]

By the way, the shoe is, effectively, on the other foot. I obey the law - so I'm doing what I'm apparently being told to do. I expect those around me to obey the law too - and the majority do. That's why so many of us get to work successfully of a morning.

Not what I was talking about.

I don't know. It'll probably be around the time that you twig that allowing people to cause the death of others in the name of "freedom", when instead they could be educated on how not to cause death - like by being a responsible driver - is simply unacceptable. Why should disinterested victims be forced to pay for the actions of someone who just simply doesn't know that something is dangerous?

How far do you want to take that? Should we not be allowed to own guns because they are dangerous? What about driving with a passenger in the car? How about running in a subway terminal? You might knock somone off the edge. How about carrying a pencil in your pocket? You could drop it and someone else could trip and fall and get it stuck in their eye (if they landed sideways).

So should guns and knives and cars be banned because some people will use them badly?

Another point here... I don't care about people being educated about how not to cause death. I have no problem with driver's ed. I wouldn't have a problem with the course telling people that driving while talking on a cell phone is dangerous. They told me driving on a motorcycle was dangerous... I've got no beef with that. What I have a problem with is telling other people the manner in which they must drive appropriately. I don't see that as being my place, they can decide for themselves how to drive appropriately and they usually do... which is why so many of us get to work successfully in the morning.

 

[Famine]

How far do you want to take that? Should we not be allowed to own guns because they are dangerous? What about driving with a passenger in the car? How about running in a subway terminal? You might knock somone off the edge. How about carrying a pencil in your pocket? You could drop it and someone else could trip and fall and get it stuck in their eye (if they landed sideways).

So should guns and knives and cars be banned because some people will use them badly?

Funnily two of the four things you mention are illegal in this country (one through law, one through the regulations of the companies running our Underground and train systems) - and it's illegal to carry guns or knives in public places.

Gun law is interesting. I can see no reason why anyone should be allowed guns - other than sportsmen. After all, only registered sportsmen are allowed possession of crossbows too. But then you run the risk that, by criminalising gun possession, the only people who carry guns are, in fact, criminals - exactly the sort of person you want a gun to defend yourself against (unless you can talk them into a "Scissors, Paper, Stone" contest). I don't have the answer to that one yet.

However, we're running the risk of descending into your political ideal vs. anyone who disagrees again, and I think we've got enough of those threads for now.

 

[Party for GT4]

I'm unsure whether anyone here is a motorcyclist, but have you thought, Danoff, that maybe some people do concentrate constantly on the road. I have been pillion on several motorbikes with ex-Police motorcyclists, with a voice link-up. They weren't actually speaking to me, they were constantly talking to themselves abou the road. All I can say is that the skill that some have is incredible. They are entirely focussed on the road. Every minute little thing that comes into their view is accounted for. Each side-road is noted, each car observed.

For example:
"That stopped car has exhaust gases, it might have someone in, ready to pull away or get out. Speed limit has changed- why? what hazard is there? Parents with children- reduce speed, dab brakes to show person behind you are slowing. School in distance, car indicating to pull out. Past school. Bump in road, reduce speed, steady throttle. Road opens, speed increased. No side roads. Derestricted speed sign. Look over hedge, car beyond vanishing point round next corner, drop speed." And it went on.

We need drivers to appreciate that it is essential to concentrate. I'm not saying you are certain to stay focussed 100% of the time, but isn't 80% better than 60%?

On another point, I've heard of three fatal crashes in my county when the driver dropped their cigarette on their leg or seat, panicked and lost control. In all cases that could have been avoided.

 

[Arwin]

How far do you want to take that? Should we not be allowed to own guns because they are dangerous? What about driving with a passenger in the car? How about running in a subway terminal? You might knock somone off the edge. How about carrying a pencil in your pocket? You could drop it and someone else could trip and fall and get it stuck in their eye (if they landed sideways).

So should guns and knives and cars be banned because some people will use them badly?

Another point here... I don't care about people being educated about how not to cause death. I have no problem with driver's ed. I wouldn't have a problem with the course telling people that driving while talking on a cell phone is dangerous. They told me driving on a motorcycle was dangerous... I've got no beef with that. What I have a problem with is telling other people the manner in which they must drive appropriately. I don't see that as being my place, they can decide for themselves how to drive appropriately and they usually do... which is why so many of us get to work successfully in the morning.

It's a simple matter of weighing the benefits against the costs.

cars - cost
kills many children and adults, pollutes and kills the environment

cars - benefit
Greatly increases range that individuals can travel to make themselves economically and socially useful, as well as increase their own happiness by visiting relatives, nature areas, and so on

conclusion in our country
we accept that the benefits are considerable and therefore choose to keep them, although we do as much as possible to reduce the costs by taking all kinds of measures and imposing rules to minimise the costs, and continually evaluate and look for viable alternatives

guns - cost
extremely dangerous, kills many by virtue of opportunity and accident alone

guns - benefit
can prevent dangerous people from harming you or others, either by threat or by maiming/killing

conclusion in our country
the availability of guns leads to a lot more deaths than it prevents. Accidents alone will kill many. People who get mugged normally will generally only lose their wallet which does not outweigh the deaths by accident alone. The availability of guns in general facilitates crime and generally causes crime to become more serious - for example, if robber suspects victim to be defending himself, he will be more likely to kill and then take the wallet, rather than threaten and take the wallet. Therefore only selected offcials who have been extensively trained to use guns when needed, such as in the military and police, are allowed to carry guns.

knives - cost
can and will be used as a weapon

knives - benefit
essential cutting device for among others foodstuffs

conclusion in our country
after detailed risk analysis, carrying a knife with a blade of 4cm or longer has been prohibited under certain circumstances, such as going out to cafes or nightclubs during the evening/night.

driving with a cell-phone - cost
very soon after the cell-phone became widely accepted, cell-phone related accidents rose very extensively, probably because the cell-phone was new and people that had never before had the opportunity to use a cell-phone while driving did not appreciate the dangers of the new situation

driving with a cell-phone - benefit
because the cell-phone had been so recently introduced, no essential benefits were perceived, certainly none outweighing the cost

conclusion
people had to be actively educated about not driving with cell-phones, quickly. The danger caused by this behaviour to others was very real, people talking on their cell-phone in their car can even today often easily be spotted by their swerving over the road. Analysis was made of the situation and decreased attention combined with one hand at the wheel were deemed responsible for the problem. Extensively advertising about the dangers of driving while using a cell-phone were considered and based on previous experience and the urgency of the situation considered not effective enough. Therefore a penalty was instated and this was made into a specific offense, to facilitate prosecution of this kind of reckless endangerment and to speed public awareness of the issue.

I understand what you mean Danoff, but I think you are being too fundamentalist in your beliefs what the government should specifically enforce and what is up to a person's own responsibility.

 

[Danoff]

However, we're running the risk of descending into your political ideal vs. anyone who disagrees again, and I think we've got enough of those threads for now.

Isn't that what the opinions forum is all about, people's opinions?

For example:
"That stopped car has exhaust gases, it might have someone in, ready to pull away or get out. Speed limit has changed- why? what hazard is there? Parents with children- reduce speed, dab brakes to show person behind you are slowing. School in distance, car indicating to pull out. Past school. Bump in road, reduce speed, steady throttle. Road opens, speed increased. No side roads. Derestricted speed sign. Look over hedge, car beyond vanishing point round next corner, drop speed." And it went on.

Motorcycles are increadibly dangerous - especially if you're going to try to split lanes like they do here in California.

We need drivers to appreciate that it is essential to concentrate. I'm not saying you are certain to stay focussed 100% of the time, but isn't 80% better than 60%?

I think I do better than 80% of the time. I'd say that probably 90% of my attention is on the road 99% of the time.

There is probably .5% of the time that I'm at 100%, and .5% where I'm at like 50%. However, the times when my attention goes down (like to change radio stations or whatever) are calculated carefully by studying the road and determining that probability is low that conditions will become hazerdous quickly enough to cause problems.

I'm simply pointing out that it is not humanly possible to focus 100% on the road 100% of the time. I don't think it can be done.




Now... on to the real substance here....

It's a simple matter of weighing the benefits against the costs.

Fatal mistake. This is not what you should do for analyzing civil liberties. Your example.

the availability of guns leads to a lot more deaths than it prevents. Accidents alone will kill many. People who get mugged normally will generally only lose their wallet which does not outweigh the deaths by accident alone. The availability of guns in general facilitates crime and generally causes crime to become more serious - for example, if robber suspects victim to be defending himself, he will be more likely to kill and then take the wallet, rather than threaten and take the wallet. Therefore only selected offcials who have been extensively trained to use guns when needed, such as in the military and police, are allowed to carry guns.

Actually I think the statistics for guns being used for self defense are quite amazing. I personally have a gun in my bedroom for self defense and am quite happy it's there.

But here's an analogy of a freedom that causes more harm than it does good.

Smoking.

Cost - Lung cancer, second hand smoke, hundreds of thousands of fatalities per year (?)
Benefits - Slight high for the smoker

Sounds like it does more harm than good... it should be illegal right?

Here's another one:

Campfires.

Cost - Millions (?) of acres of forest burned to the ground by man. Probably thousands of severe burn cases per year.
Benefit - Smores, Minor amount of heat at a small radius.

Sounds like campfires should be illegal too. It's not like people couldn't have fun camping if campfires weren't there.

I can come up with more but I'll make my point now. Just because a freedom has more cost than benefits does not mean that it isn't justifiable. There is benefit in simply having the freedom to perform the action, even if it is dangerous and provides little benefit to the performer. Motorcyles are another good example of a freedom that has more cost than benefit. Yet, it has to be up to the individual to decide what the costs are and what the benefits are. Sometimes the individual will decide that reason for peforming a dangerous action with no benefit is "just because" - and that's the very essence of freedom. Allowing people to make their own decisions, their own judgement, and holding them responsible for the consequences of their actions.


Please, when responding, don't just try to pick apart my examples (although I'm sure it's tempting). I'm only using the examples to illustrate the above paragraph. Look at my reasoning and respond to that.

 

[Arwin]

Fatal mistake. This is not what you should do for analyzing civil liberties. Your example.

Actually I think the statistics for guns being used for self defense are quite amazing. I personally have a gun in my bedroom for self defense and am quite happy it's there.

We think so too. We look at Canada, which had 165 people killed by a firearm in 1999, and then we look at the U.S., which had 8259 people killed by a firearm in that same year. With Canada having a population slightly more than 10% of the U.S., that would amount to 1650 murders by a firearm in Canada versus 8259 in the U.S. (source: www.yournation.com )

Taking the burglary statistics for the U.S. form the same site, you have 2 million burglaries per year (7.23 per 1000 people), compared to 12,658 murders (0.04 per 1000 people). As only a small percentage of murders occur while being burglared, the number of children being killed by accident or killing themselves alone may well be higher than that (1200 for 2000).

(in our country gun-related deaths still make the national newspapers - they exist, but are extremely rare)

But here's an analogy of a freedom that causes more harm than it does good.

Smoking.

Cost - Lung cancer, second hand smoke, hundreds of thousands of fatalities per year (?)
Benefits - Slight high for the smoker

Sounds like it does more harm than good... it should be illegal right?

Second hand smoke at the very least should be illegal, and it is now in many countries. Doing things that harm yourself are stupid, but not necessarily illegal. Where the law should and does cut in is when you do things that harm others. Sure enough nicotine is a potent and addictive drug and the fact that alcohol and nicotine are not illegal compared to some other drugs that are in most countries seems to me fairly arbitrary, but as soon as you use them in such a way (for instance while driving) that you risk harming others, they are illegal. Makes a lot of sense.

Here's another one:

Campfires.

Cost - Millions (?) of acres of forest burned to the ground by man. Probably thousands of severe burn cases per year.
Benefit - Smores, Minor amount of heat at a small radius.

Sounds like campfires should be illegal too. It's not like people couldn't have fun camping if campfires weren't there.

They are in fact illegal in many countries and areas where they can cause forest fires, and forest fires have been doing serious damage to both people and property in many countries the last few years ...

I can come up with more but I'll make my point now. Just because a freedom has more cost than benefits does not mean that it isn't justifiable.

Doesn't that sound weird? Wouldn't you rather say it isn't justifiable. Unless you have a very odd perception of justice ...

There is benefit in simply having the freedom to perform the action, even if it is dangerous and provides little benefit to the performer.

Well I agree with you there. Jumping out of a plane with a parachute is dangerous and provides little benefit to the performer, although it is a lot of fun. I would never want to prohibit something like this though, because in my view people are entitled to pretty much do with their lives what they want. But there is a very clear limit in my view and that's the point where their doing what they want endangers others.

Motorcyles are another good example of a freedom that has more cost than benefit. Yet, it has to be up to the individual to decide what the costs are and what the benefits are.

Driving a motorcycle is also dangerous almost exclusively to the motorcyclist.

Sometimes the individual will decide that reason for peforming a dangerous action with no benefit is "just because" - and that's the very essence of freedom. Allowing people to make their own decisions, their own judgement, and holding them responsible for the consequences of their actions.

I agree, but to me the essence of freedom is to be able to drive myself against a wall in a car, but not drive someone else against a wall; to be able to destroy my own lungs, but not those of others; to set myself on fire, but not to be set fire to.

Please, when responding, don't just try to pick apart my examples (although I'm sure it's tempting). I'm only using the examples to illustrate the above paragraph. Look at my reasoning and respond to that.

It was too tempting, I apologise, but I do hope that I have been able to use that to support where I think your (plausible) reasoning has its limitations.

 

[Danoff]

I was trying (unsuccessully apparently) to illustrate the fact that some crime has to be tolerated to have freedom.

Personally, I don't care if people are stupid and let their kids get ahold of their guns. That doesn't mean that my government has the right to disarm me against an attacker (who would illegally obtain firearms anyway). It's up to me to decide whether I can use a gun (or cell phone) responsibly and live with the consequences of my actions.

Cost and benefits doesn't come in to the equation, this is about what's right and wrong. This is about what people should fundamentally be free to do - and there is so much that fits in to that category that you have to expect some crime. You prosecute it, lock up the criminals, but it's a fact of life.

 

[Arwin]

I was trying (unsuccessully apparently) to illustrate the fact that some crime has to be tolerated to have freedom.

Personally, I don't care if people are stupid and let their kids get ahold of their guns. That doesn't mean that my government has the right to disarm me against an attacker (who would illegally obtain firearms anyway). It's up to me to decide whether I can use a gun (or cell phone) responsibly and live with the consequences of my actions.

Not unsuccessfully, I do understand your point, and I'm fine with that you want to have responsibility and live with the consequences of your actions, but you can't expect me to want to live with (or die from) the consequences of your actions. That limits my freedom a lot more than the extra laws do.

 

[Danoff]

That limits my freedom a lot more than the extra laws do.

There are already laws against me causing you problems as a result of my actions.

 

[Arwin]

There are already laws against me causing you problems as a result of my actions.

I understand. Where do you live exactly? I was just talking to a colleague who emigrated from the U.S. and she came from an area in the U.S. where the roads are wide and empty. I could imagine you would have a lot of trouble understanding why specific laws would be needed for this in areas that are more challenging traffic wise, of which The Netherlands is an extreme example, as we have one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

You'll have to understand that if the existing laws were efficient enough, we would have used them instead. Perhaps that where you live, they have instated laws for certain big cities where there was a real problem, whereas where you live it hardly seems relevant.

If existing laws are efficient enough, then of course I appreciate your point that a new one shouldn't be needed and just adds unnecessary red tape. But at least in the Netherlands, I just simply know this not to be true.

 

[Danoff]

I live in Los Angeles - which has some of the worst traffic in the world.

Explain to me what was happening in the Netherlands that they "needed" to impose these new restrictions?

 

[Arwin]

I live in Los Angeles - which has some of the worst traffic in the world.

Explain to me what was happening in the Netherlands that they "needed" to impose these new restrictions?

An estimated 40 dead and 400 seriously wounded per year. Doesn't perhaps sound like much, but we 'only' have about 3 traffic deaths per day. With 16 million inhabitants living on only 41.525 km² and driving 7 million cars on average 16.000km a year, that makes the Netherlands a relatively safe country in terms of traffic accidents, but you can imagine that doesn't come without some effort.

We were one of the later countries to impose a specific ban on cell-phone use while driving. Because of this we had the benefit of data from other countries surrounding us, which indicated that a specific ban did in fact decrease the casualty rate. I just read that based on casualty data, we actually preferred to ban using the phone in cars altogether, but that would have been very hard to enforce.

Now the law is in harmony with the vast majority of surrounding countries, something worth considering for a country that ends after a maximum of about 2 hours driving in any direction.

 

[Danoff]

We were one of the later countries to impose a specific ban on cell-phone use while driving. Because of this we had the benefit of data from other countries surrounding us, which indicated that a specific ban did in fact decrease the casualty rate.

By how much... and at what point is it worth it? 1 Death per year? 100?

Do the ends justify the means?

 

[Arwin]

By how much... and at what point is it worth it? 1 Death per year? 100?

Do the ends justify the means?

We think so. It's too early to tell how much it helped over here, too tired now to go googling for data from other countries. But in general we value a human life very highly here so the fact that 40 die now in related accidents would generally be perceived more than enough reason to act.

Polls confirm this general sentiment and showed a majority of the population was in favor. Even the national car-owner's club (big thing over here, don't know if there's a U.S. equivalent) voted for this law and didn't even think it was strict enough.

 

[donbenni]

I've just read from page 4. Took a while. I skipped this last page because its clear that one side of the debate is much stronger than the other.

Should smoking whilst driving be subject to the same laws as the mobile phone?

That's roughly the question anyway.

And my answer is yes. I've only ever smoked once whilst driving (my first time obviously) and it is by far the hardest thing to do. I was shocked as i assumed it wasn't going to be too tough. My mistake. Smoking and driving is dangerous. In general, a lit cigarette has the potential to start a fire, and when driving, that's not nice. Oh damn, my trousers are on fire, oh crap the ash is on my seat, oh dear, there's a child in my engine bay.

When driving manual cars you can't change gear unless you take your non smoking hand off the wheel (leaving the wheel open), or you stick your fag in your mouth and have to deal with smoke in the eyes. And for both people with autos and manuals, you still have the issue of trying to steer completely one handed. Not something that's easy to do. I've found while driving that some road users are pretty spontanious, and it is impossible to keep a car in control in an emergency situation with only one hand on the wheel.

Smoking whilst driving should be considered under the same laws as mobile phones in my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

I asked, do the ends justify the means.

We think so. It's too early to tell how much it helped over here, too tired now to go googling for data from other countries. But in general we value a human life very highly here so the fact that 40 die now in related accidents would generally be perceived more than enough reason to act.

I really didn't expect you to take the bait on that one. I'm really surprised at this answer.

the ends do not justify the means

Anyway if you want to prevent people from getting killed in car accidents all you have to do is make killing people with your car illegal (which it is). If people are still doing it that only means they don't fear the consequences enough. If the penalty for failure to use your blinker, or getting in to a minor fender bender was 10 years in prison, I'd bet just about everyone would voluntarily stop using their cell phones.

It doesn't help to try to regulate people's lifestyles. It's not right, and it won't workin the long run (because they'll start doing something else).

 

[Arwin]

I asked, do the ends justify the means.



I really didn't expect you to take the bait on that one. I'm really surprised at this answer.

the ends do not justify the means

Anyway if you want to prevent people from getting killed in car accidents all you have to do is make killing people with your car illegal (which it is). If people are still doing it that only means they don't fear the consequences enough. If the penalty for failure to use your blinker, or getting in to a minor fender bender was 10 years in prison, I'd bet just about everyone would voluntarily stop using their cell phones.

It doesn't help to try to regulate people's lifestyles. It's not right, and it won't workin the long run (because they'll start doing something else).

While I fully agree it doesn't always take a new rule to deal with a new situation, that doesn't mean a new rule can never be better. In this case, you seem to suggest that the law telling people that killing others with their car is sufficient from preventing them to break all the rules they've learnt in driving school. In my theory book, the basic premise is to drive such that you do not endanger others. Almost the same thing. But because of the complexity of traffic, we learn a lot more rules on how to make situations predictable and how to avoid dangerous situations.

Do you think that people will think about killing someone if they don't use the blinker? No. In fact, despite the rules, many stop using their blinker out of laziness, because for instance in many cases when they drive somewhere there is rarely other traffic (so why use the blinker if noone else can see it). But then there is traffic, and because it is no longer automated behaviour, they forget to blink or blink too late. I see this happen enough often enough. It hasn't killed me yet, partly because I'm skeptical of driving capabilities of others, but it has caused me to stop needlessly many times.

In much the same way, people may run stop signs for years without accident, and completely forget about the original reason for them being there. A 'gentle' reminder of that you shouldn't run the stop sign keeps this more fresh in memory and is a lot cheaper than waiting for a more fatal mistake.

In terms of cell-phones, people weren't aware of the danger, or may even stubbornly refuse to believe there is any danger, despite educational adverts and so on. Then instead of waiting for someone to change his mind all by himself, we force him to change his behaviour in advance of that change of mind (if that ever comes at all).

You're a bit like a child when it has first discovered the declension rule for regular verbs, and then starts applying this to all irregular verbs as well. All children do this at some stage. It's intelligent behaviour, but eventually you learn there are exceptions (strong verbs) and you grow out of it.

In your case you've put a principle in your mind that has very clear merits (reflected in at least our driving instruction manuals as the 'prime directive' of traffic participation), but you are turning it into a dogma and are being all fundamentalistic about it.

 

[Danoff]

In your case you've put a principle in your mind that has very clear merits (reflected in at least our driving instruction manuals as the 'prime directive' of traffic participation), but you are turning it into a dogma and are being all fundamentalistic about it.

See below

You're a bit like a child when it has first discovered the declension rule for regular verbs, and then starts applying this to all irregular verbs as well. All children do this at some stage. It's intelligent behaviour, but eventually you learn there are exceptions (strong verbs) and you grow out of it.

Let's stick to the issues at hand.

Do you think that people will think about killing someone if they don't use the blinker? No. In fact, despite the rules, many stop using their blinker out of laziness, because for instance in many cases when they drive somewhere there is rarely other traffic (so why use the blinker if noone else can see it). But then there is traffic, and because it is no longer automated behaviour, they forget to blink or blink too late. I see this happen enough often enough. It hasn't killed me yet, partly because I'm skeptical of driving capabilities of others, but it has caused me to stop needlessly many times.

That's why there are penalties for not using your blinker and not stopping at stop signs. These are dangerous driving practices.

However, talking on a cell phone is not inherently a dangerous driving (take what I say literally here). Neither is reading, or driving with your eyes closed. The dangerous driving is the swerving across lanes, running the stop sign or ramming another car. That is what is regulated. Why people drive badly is something that not only shouldn't be regulated - it's impossible to regulate.

 

[Carl.]

Why people drive badly is something that not only shouldn't be regulated - it's impossible to regulate.

Why bother with DUI then? What's the difference between killing someone because your judgement is impaired and killing someone because you were looking at your vanity mirror while shaving instead of looking on the road? Why, if a police officer see someone doing the latter, he shouldn't arrest him on sight?

 

[Famine]

However, talking on a cell phone is not inherently a dangerous driving (take what I say literally here). Neither is reading, or driving with your eyes closed. The dangerous driving is the swerving across lanes, running the stop sign or ramming another car. That is what is regulated. Why people drive badly is something that not only shouldn't be regulated - it's impossible to regulate.

It's perfectly possible to drive dangerously, yet in a straight line on a clear road and beneath the speed limit.

Remember the lorry driver I mentioned earlier? The one who was so busy writing a text message he killed a child? He was convicted of the offence of "Death by Dangerous Driving" - his attention was focussed on the act of writing a text message, but other than that he was driving under the speed limit on a clear open road. It seems that the police think that driving whilst reading is actually dangerous driving - I'm curious as to why you think that it isn't?

If it's not inherently dangerous to not look at the road, why did you make such a fuss about your machine-like level of attention to the road? Do you think it'd be dangerous to drive through a pedestrian precinct - legally at 15mph - with your eyes closed? If not, why not try it?*

Perhaps the location makes a difference to you? Okay - have a crack at driving down the freeway - legally at whatever the speed limit in your territory happens to be - with your eyes closed**. Have someone with you to help you stay in lane if you like. Would you think the local constabulary/PD would agree that it's not an inherently dangerous act?

Do you think that registered blind people should be allowed a driving licence ([satire]if they haven't already[/satire])?

*Note to anyone: Don't try it..
**Note to anyone: Still don't try it..

 

[Danoff]

If it's not inherently dangerous to not look at the road, why did you make such a fuss about your machine-like level of attention to the road? Do you think it'd be dangerous to drive through a pedestrian precinct - legally at 15mph - with your eyes closed? If not, why not try it?*

I don't think I could do it. I don't claim to be able to drive perfectly safely with my eyes closed. But I'll allow for the possibility that others could. There was a guy who drove across the country blindfolded as a stunt.

My point is, let people decide what to do. I decide every day not to drive with my eyes closed because I know I can't drive safely while doing that. Other people have to rely on my judgement in that matter. They have to rely on the fact that I have good incentive not to drive with my eyes closed - not going to jail for hitting someone.

That being said, I do close my eye sometimes when I'm driving to blink or sneeze.

Edit:

Do you think that registered blind people should be allowed a driving licence

If somehow they can prove that they are perfectly safe and capable behind the wheel I don't see why anyone should be denied a license (except for kids, whose judgement could be considered impaired).

 

[Anaconda]

In my opinion I think it should be banned but not as a total 100 percent from locations. I think zones should be established within most areas that are widely accepting smoking and non smoking. Simply because there are alot of people out there whom are prone to getting sick (respiratory) around smoke. Second hand whatever it may be the fumes could cause them to have itchy throats and such and there are many people I lknow of whom have experienced this not only me. Bah im at work and cant discuss too much. heh.

 

[Danoff]

Second hand whatever it may be the fumes could cause them to have itchy throats and such and there are many people I lknow of whom have experienced this not only me.

Flowers cause people to have headaches and runny noses. Cats give people rashes and irritated eyes.

Walking around sick can get someone else sick and they could have lots of symptoms including fever for days.

 

[Anaconda]

Flowers cause people to have headaches and runny noses. Cats give people rashes and irritated eyes.

Walking around sick can get someone else sick and they could have lots of symptoms including fever for days.

...........



ok.

 

[87chevy]

Flowers cause people to have headaches and runny noses. Cats give people rashes and irritated eyes.

Walking around sick can get someone else sick and they could have lots of symptoms including fever for days.

well, flowers are naturally occurring, cat's are naturally occurring. Second hand smoke is some invention of man that started out as a way to get buzzed and now is a way for a few people to make billions of dollars and make the products dangerous and addictive.

 

[Danoff]

Second hand smoke is some invention of man that started out as a way to get buzzed and now is a way for a few people to make billions of dollars and make the products dangerous and addictive.

Of course, people know its addictive and chose to smoke anyway.

well, flowers are naturally occurring, cat's are naturally occurring.

So the distinction here is that if things are not man-made then whatever, but if they're man made then we have to prevent them from causing anyone any discomfort ever?

 

[87chevy]

Of course, people know its addictive and chose to smoke anyway.



So the distinction here is that if things are not man-made then whatever, but if they're man made then we have to prevent them from causing anyone any discomfort ever?

well, cat's (and many other animals) are pretty well regulated already. plenty of laws on pets and strays and such. i don't come across to many cats in front of the supermarket or at the gas station. but people smoke everywhere that they can.

 

[Danoff]

well, cat's (and many other animals) are pretty well regulated already. plenty of laws on pets and strays and such. i don't come across to many cats in front of the supermarket or at the gas station. but people smoke everywhere that they can.

So the distinction here is that if things are not man-made then whatever, but if they're man made then we have to prevent them from causing anyone any discomfort ever?

..............

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Smoking should NOT be banned because we need the tax revenue. As far as the legalization of the marijuana -- I say no. If it is legalized, it should be taxes heavily.

At the same time, though, I think cigarette companies should be forced to display the ingredients in/on every box of cigarettes. Personally, I don't smoke (or use any illegal substances) and if someone decides to smoke a cigarette around me, I'd like to know what the hell it is I'm inhaling. The last time I did research on the subject, I read that there are over 5,000 different chemicals in cigarettes, 140+ are known carcinogens.

If a person wants to smoke a cigarette, I believe they have every right to (we need the money). We need raise taxes on cigarettes, though.