gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/14/85)
I feel I must register my opposition to the idea that it's OK for the government to force me to do things for my own good or to keep insurance rates down. Mandatory seat belts or helmets or insurance is a good example. Much of this kind of this kind of nonsense has occurred in the automobile area because the government co-opted automobile transportation early in its development. One account I read said that the original reason for introducing auto registration and licensing was that criminals were finding it too easy to flee and escape, which was not as possible on horses. (Horses were not regulated by the state (to my knowledge), though there were usually *local* laws on stables, street sanitation, etc.) I pray that the traditionally shortsighted computer industry does not allow the government to co-opt computer usage (or networking) too. It's a good thing you don't need a license to buy or use phone service, though it's certainly true that criminals can confer and plan and communicate through phones. Computers hold much of the same promise (for criminals as well as us regular folks who only break 10 laws a week or so). I believe that driving should be a right, not a privilege, and that it should require due process to take it away, like the right to vote. Do you want to take taxis to work for a year because you forgot to pay a couple of speeding tickets and didn't want to waste a few days in court? (I cynically note that they make it very easy to just pay them and very hard to challenge the cop in court, e.g. you have to show up in person to schedule the court date and then you have to show up and spend the day waiting until they call your case. Of course it's for THEIR convenience; they hold a monopoly.)
alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr) (10/15/85)
I used to think helmet laws were a good idea. Then I grew from
reading and now I think that helmet usage is natural selection
in action and laws just interfere.
I used to think that seat-belt laws were a good thing. Then I
realized that the principle of saying "X is dangerous" and
surrounding it with impediments to access (excessive licensing,
certification, training reqts, etc.) interfere with freedom in
ways that can chip away at our rights bit by bit. However, with
seatbelts, the driver can retain control more easily in
accidents. For example, if you hit sand in a slide area, skid,
and strike an obstacle with a glancing blow, I would like
you to recover so as not to bounce into my lane of oncoming
traffic. In this sense, seatbelts (and the laws that encourage
their use) protect innocent people in a real sense. So about
seatbelts I am wavering.
Insurance to cover third-parties is something I think is a good
idea, but I wonder what the best mechanism is? Perhaps
"no-fault" third party insurance would be good?
---
{ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!alan
"Extraordinary how potent cheap music is." Noel Cowardjb@x.UUCP (Jim Burnett) (10/17/85)
Driving as a right not a privilege? That is one of the most absurd statements I have heard in a long time. You think just because you are of legal age and can somehow procure an automobile, you should be allowed to travel on PUBLIC highways. Wrong...wrong...wrong. A car is a weapon just like a firearm and should be licensed and should be controlled in the same way anything that is dangerous to the public is. If you get "a few speeding tickets and don't pay them" you should have your driving license revoked. Not only are you endangering the public at large by high speed driving, but you are too immature to get in and either pay them or have your day in court. If this happens to you then you deserve whatever the authorities do to you. Maybe by taking a taxi to work and having a few hard earned dollars go to that you might learn the errors of your ways and behave like an adult behind the wheel rather than a cowboy. As for motorcycle helmets, I have two thoughts. One, any motorcycle rider crazy enough to get on the highway without a helmet on deserves to have his brains splattered on the pavement. I, for one, don't believe that someone who rides without a helmet has any brains so it wouldn't be much of a mess :-). The second thing to remember is that when some clown gets out there without a helmet and kills himself, the insurance industry bears the brunt of the financial burden. They don't like this so they pass the costs on to the customer. That means that I have to pay higher costs because some bozo cna't be bothered to have his "rights" restricted. Jim Burnett
rob@nitrex.UUCP (rob robertson) (10/21/85)
In article <805@x.UUCP> jb@x.UUCP (Jim Burnett) writes: >Driving as a right not a privilege? That is one of the most absurd >statements I have heard in a long time. You think just because you >are of legal age and can somehow procure an automobile, you should >be allowed to travel on PUBLIC highways. Wrong...wrong...wrong. >A car is a weapon just like a firearm and should be licensed and >should be controlled in the same way anything that is dangerous to the public >is. This isn't so much of a flame as a point to ponder about the American reliance on cars, but unless one lives in a big city with a rapid transportation system, if you don't have a car you don't have a livelyhood. I mean who in America lives close enough to walk to work, to the supermarket and to a department store? This is something our society really has to address.
nadya@dartvax.UUCP (Nadya M. Labib) (10/22/85)
In article <150@nitrex.UUCP> rob@nitrex.UUCP (rob robertson) writes: >In article <805@x.UUCP> jb@x.UUCP (Jim Burnett) writes: >>Driving as a right not a privilege? That is one of the most absurd >>statements I have heard in a long time. You think just because you >>are of legal age and can somehow procure an automobile, you should >>be allowed to travel on PUBLIC highways. Wrong...wrong...wrong. > >This isn't so much of a flame as a point to ponder about the American reliance >on cars, but unless one lives in a big city with a rapid transportation >system, if you don't have a car you don't have a livelyhood. I mean >who in America lives close enough to walk to work, to the supermarket and >to a department store? This is something our society really has to address. Here, here. Although there is an awful lot of responsibility that goes along with it. Driving is a right. .
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/23/85)
> ... "you don't need a car in Seattle or Rhode Island" ... > > I strongly feel that the car is not as necessary as many feel. And I didn't need a car in San Francisco, either. I tried doing without one here in Houston but it didn't work very well. If you modify that statement to "in some places a car is not as necessary as many feel" I'd have to agree, but in some parts of the country you are effectively stranded without one. Which is a shame... I prefer public transport myself. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (10/23/85)
> system, if you don't have a car you don't have a livelyhood. I mean > who in America lives close enough to walk to work, to the supermarket and > to a department store? This is something our society really has to address. I have lived in two small cities (Newport, and Middletown, Rhode Island for a period of 3 years without owning a car. I used the bus for wherever it went and used my bicycle to go to places where the bus didn't. At the present time, here in Seattle, I commute to work (17 miles EACH way) by bicycle on most days (by bus on others) and I use the bus and the bicycle (even here with a good bus system, there are places where busses do not go) and have been doing this for nearly a year. For those very infrequent times when I must get somewhere in a hurry, I will either take a cab or ask a friend of mine to drive me (this happened to me only about four times within the last year). I strongly feel that the car is not as necessary as many feel. on gettin 30 miles per loaf of bread and a bannana and paying no car insurance, I am Mark A. Allyn !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
> Driving as a right not a privilege? That is one of the most absurd > statements I have heard in a long time. You think just because you > are of legal age and can somehow procure an automobile, you should > be allowed to travel on PUBLIC highways. Wrong...wrong...wrong. > A car is a weapon just like a firearm and should be licensed and > should be controlled in the same way anything that is dangerous to the public > is. If you get "a few speeding tickets and don't pay them" you should > have your driving license revoked. Not only are you endangering the > public at large by high speed driving, but you are too immature to get > in and either pay them or have your day in court. If this happens to you > then you deserve whatever the authorities do to you. Maybe by taking > a taxi to work and having a few hard earned dollars go to that you might > learn the errors of your ways and behave like an adult behind the wheel > rather than a cowboy. [JIM BURNETT] I'm glad SOMEone said it. Too bad these cowboys talk big about their personal freedom and not about the effect that exercising their "freedom" might have on other people. -- "Mrs. Peel, we're needed..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/24/85)
Golly Mark,
do you have to sit close to people after that 17 mile ride ??
How many miles do you get per can of Right Guard ??
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
:-) :-) :-) :-) etc, etcrob@nitrex.UUCP (rob robertson) (10/27/85)
In article <407@ssc-bee.UUCP> maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) writes: >At the present time, here in Seattle, I commute to work (17 miles EACH way) >by bicycle on most days (by bus on others) and I use the bus and the >bicycle (even here with a good bus system, there are places where busses >do not go) and have been doing this for nearly a year. > >I strongly feel that the car is not as necessary as many feel. Not to flame you, but I assume and correct me if I'm wrong: a) your under 50 and in good health. b) your not on welfare/social security/retirement. My point: In most places in the USA is neccessary especially if you are elderly you need a car. I've lived in Europe and I think America really needs a good Public Transportation System. We're too dependent on the car (SOHIO forgive me :-)). BTW I also ride the bus to work and don't own a car. -- rob robertson decvax!cwruecmp!nitrex!rob.UUCP (216) 791-0922 cbosgd!nitrex!rob.UUCP nitrex!rob@case.CSNET nitrex!rob%case@csnet-relay.ARPA
geoff@ncr-sd.UUCP (Geoffrey Walton) (10/29/85)
> In article <150@nitrex.UUCP> rob@nitrex.UUCP (rob robertson) writes: > >In article <805@x.UUCP> jb@x.UUCP (Jim Burnett) writes: > >>Driving as a right not a privilege? That is one of the most absurd > >>statements I have heard in a long time. You think just because you > >>are of legal age and can somehow procure an automobile, you should > >>be allowed to travel on PUBLIC highways. Wrong...wrong...wrong. > > > >This isn't so much of a flame as a point to ponder about the American reliance > >on cars, but unless one lives in a big city with a rapid transportation > >system, if you don't have a car you don't have a livelyhood. I mean > >who in America lives close enough to walk to work, to the supermarket and > >to a department store? This is something our society really has to address. > > Here, here. Although there is an awful lot of responsibility that goes > along with it. Driving is a right. > . *** MASSAGE THIS LINE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT *** GIVE ME A BREAK!! Driving is a privilege accorded to those who demonstrate the maturity and responsibility to deal with the daily and frequent use of a potentially leathal weapon. The ability to drive a three-quarter ton (or more) projectile through crowded streets is NOT sufficient qualification; what is required is the maturity to understand the inherent dangers and to deal with the ever-changing situations encountered while driving. Those who do not display this maturity, or who demonstrate a lack of concern for the safety of themselves and others, while driving, do not deserve the PRIVILEGE. Is ther anyone out there in net.land who hasn't said, "That clown is a menace," on "God, there goes an accident looking for a place to happen," or "S/He must have gotten his/her license out of a Cracker Jack box," or some such comment? If so, you're lucky; if not, you know that some people drive with the same level of attention they exhibit when they brush their teeth. THIS is a problem which needs be addressed by our society. Before you light that torch and tune-up for your best "that's easy for you to say" flame, let me put the record straight: 1. I lost my license to drive quite some time ago, and thought (at the time) my rights had been infringed upon. 2. I live thirty plus miles from my office, and still manage to get to work every day. I ride three buses each way and spend three hours a day in transit. 3. I live two and one half miles from the nearest super market; but still manage to eat. 4. If I can't get somewhere by bicycle or bus, and I really want -- or need -- to get there, I ALWAYS find a way. It may not be fast, or easy, but I ALWAYS get where I'm going. 5. It is possible to survive (yes, even in California) after the revocation or suspension of one's driving PRIVILEGE. It may not be as easy, but it is possible. And after all, who is responsible for the loss of privilege, or for its maintenance? In a few months I get my license back; it will have been three years. In that time I've finished a masters degree, changed jobs twice, bought a house, and --recently-- gotten married. But more than any of these, I've had a LOT of time to think -- mostly on buses. I've also spent a lot of time looking out the windows of those buses, watching the rest of you drive to and from wherever. I must admit, the prospect of driving myself is both thrilling and frightening. Think about it, Geoff {wherever}!ucbvax!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!geoff Even the smallest problem becomes unsolvable if enough meetings are held to discuss it.
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (10/29/85)
> >I strongly feel that the car is not as necessary as many feel. > > Not to flame you, but I assume and correct me if I'm wrong: > > a) your under 50 and in good health. > b) your not on welfare/social security/retirement. > > My point: In most places in the USA is neccessary especially if you are > elderly you need a car. I've lived in Europe and I think America really First of all, I whole heartily agree with you about the transportation system here in the 'states. When I visited Japan a few years back, I almost cried. As far as myself, you are correct on both counts. However, I do know of several people both in the local bicycle club and outside, who meet neither criteria above and many others who are way over fifty who are active cyclists here in the Seattle area. In fact, some of them are in much better condition than the younger folks including myself (i am 32). As far as welfare and social security, I would think that would make it easier since there would be no need for commuting and having to be up and about breathin the air during the heavy rush hours along with everyone else. Since I think most welfare, social sec, and retirement checks are mailed to one's home, there should be no real need for any regular 'commuting' with the exception of grocery shopping and the like. In many town, especially smaller ones I am aware that there IS an effort to help the elderly with shopping needs and such with community and church sponsored mini vans used just for this purpose of carting around those who are infirm. Finally, I would like to point out that I strongly believe (and I could be wrong and correct me if so) that as long as I continue to ride and maintain my physical activity to the extent that it is now for the rest of my productive years, that I will be most probably be able to maintain a reasonable sence of sound fitness and health into my senior years and thus maintain my freedom from dependence on an automobile. Mark A. Allyn !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-beaver!maa