donn@sdchema.UUCP (06/12/83)
Reference: tekid.1258
>From the LA Times Business Section (6/10/83, Pt. IV, p. 1):
FIRM ROCKED BY THE DEATH OF ITS PRESIDENT
by Ellen Farley, Times Staff Writer
Eagle Computer Inc., a fast-rising maker of small desk-top computers,
began picking up the pieces Thursday following the death of company
president Dennis Barnhart on Wednesday -- only hours after Eagle, based in
Los Gatos, made its first public stock offering.
Hours after Barnhart, 40, had become a multimillionaire from the stock
sale, he was killed when his red Ferrari sports car crashed through 20 feet
of guardrail and landed at the bottom of a ravine, just blocks away from
Eagle's headquarters. A passenger, Sheldon Caughey, president of a San
Rafael yacht company, was seriously injured and was in stable condition
late Thursday.
A fire district spokesman quoted witnesses as saying that the car had
been traveling at high speed...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To admit my biases up front, I hate speeders. A speeder in a Volkswagen
bus couldn't stop in time and as a result my youngest brother had to have
an operation to remove a spike of bone from his skull that was driven into
his brain when he got run over. I was there; I still vividly remember the
screech of tires, the careening skid, the impact, the little body bouncing
off the bumper, bouncing off the asphalt, coming to rest in a blood-
spattered heap. It would be ridiculous for me to maintain that this hasn't
affected my outlook on cars and driving and speed laws. All I can say is,
if it happened to everyone else's little brother then perhaps we would all
be less reckless drivers.
The problem is, cars are not just a form of transportation. Cars are also
lethal weapons; they kill more people every year than guns do. Unfor-
tunately the gun nuts have made this statistic sound silly: "Cars kill more
people than guns do; should we then ban cars to save people's lives?"
The reason why this is not silly is that cars have exactly the same prob-
lems that guns do. I'm sure that the majority of people who have been
writing in that own radar detectors and drive at 85 when the cops are nap-
ping are responsible, even careful drivers; many of them sound rational and
educated and adult about their driving behavior. The same can be said for
the shooting behavior of many NRA members, those articulate, educated,
wealthy people for whom guns are essential to recreation and defense of the
home and are trained experts in using them.
Alas, these fine people are not in the driving or shooting majority. This
is not to imply that the remaining people are all violating the law with
malicious enthusiasm. Most gun deaths are not due to habitual criminals,
just as most car accidents are not due to chronic, flagrant speeders. In
fact criminals and flagrant speeders tend to be in the 'responsible' class
for the simple reason that they have to learn to be good with guns and cars
because of the way they use them.
The problem is that many otherwise respectable citizens do not have an
appreciation for the skill that is necessary to handle dangerous
instruments like cars and guns. Worse, they often don't realize when their
own responsibility is diminished, by passion in the case of guns and by
alcohol or sleepiness in the case of cars. (Although passion no doubt
plays a role with cars, too: if you have a brand new Ferrari and you feel
like a million dollars, by George nothing is going to stop you from going
out on the road and taking it through its paces. The fact that you are not
a race car professional is not going to stop you if have the money to buy a
Ferrari.)
Such negligence is 'understandable', but I don't think that makes it excus-
able. I don't find murder and manslaughter excusable, do you?
The obvious thing for me to do here is to say that cars and guns should be
restricted to those people who can responsibly use them. Unfortunately
this argument is not well accepted, for what I consider to be both good and
bad reasons. The bad reason is one that is used by gun nuts: laws that
restrict gun ownership are never perfect and one way or another they must
deprive some responsible people of their rights to own guns. The implica-
tion is that these rights must override those of the people who are blown
away by irresponsible people who get guns when the laws are too liberal. I
just don't agree with this. My lack of sympathy stems from those situa-
tions you read about in the newspaper, where an avid hunting father has a
gun in his dresser drawer to protect against burglars, but the gun is not
protected against his child, who uses it on a friend not realizing that it
is not a toy like the ones on TV. This same man may be very careful out in
the hills hunting for duck or rabbits or squirrels, and will be a steady
voter against gun control laws that might protect him from himself. Simi-
larly a man with a fancy sports car might be very careful with it on the
road even when breaking the speed laws, but when his teen-age son and three
friends take it for a joy-ride and run off a curve in a flaming wreck that
kills all of them, whose responsibility is it? (This in fact is how four
classmates of another brother of mine met their unnatural end shortly
before they were due to graduate from high school.) The problem as I see it
is that laws restricting the use of cars and guns to "experts" won't work
because they will always let some irresponsible people through.
In this case I think responsible people will just have to suffer with laws
that assume that EVERYONE is potentially irresponsible, especially with
cars and guns, which are so easy to misuse. Yes, this means letting some
people spoil it for everyone, but who said life was simple? Yes, this
means that there will be irresponsible people who break the law, but isn't
this what the law is for, to have a way to catch irresponsible people?
I will continue to drive 55 and vote for 55. As for the people behind you
who honk when you stop at a stop sign instead of giving it the old Califor-
nia rolling stop, or those who honk when you leave more than one car length
in front of you in heavy traffic at 55 on the Santa Monica Freeway, or
those who honk when you don't enter an intersection as the light turns yel-
low, let them honk; don't change the laws for them.
Flame, flame, flame...
Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. RRCF ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donntrb@floyd.UUCP (06/13/83)
Donn Seeley gave his impassioned defense of strict laws against speeding and of the 55mph limit. He did use some biased examples though, and I'd like to reply. He talked about what happenned to his little brother and implied that we all should think about our little brothers. Had his little brother died while riding a bicycle or drowned in a pool or choked on a peanut shell, he could make impassioned pleas about those activities as well. Seeley used the example of the president of some company wasting himself in his Ferrari right after his company went public. NO mention was made to whether the guy was drunk or whether the guy had ever driven the car before. My guess is that he was and he hadn't. I drive a GTI, which performs pretty well. It knows how to go around a corner, even in the rain. I have driven my parents' Hondas with their Bridgestone tires and I can control my GTI with Pirelli P6's much more easily than I can control the Hondas, even at "safe speeds." I am not advocating that everyone's car must have Pirelli tires. When I drive down the sparsely populated highway at 75 or 80 mph I'm not endangering anyone. When I drive 45 in a 35 zone on the way home from work late at night I'm not endangering anyone. I've never been in an accident and NJ still charges me $1200+/year to insure my car with $500 deductible. Tell me which laws we should change. Donn compares car control to gun control. Donn, criminals use guns as violent weapons to intentionally commit crimes and intentionally kill people. I've never heard of a case of a criminal pointing a car at someone and asking for his money. I agree with Donn that people should be responsible for their actions when driving. A person who has had anything to drink or who is sleepy shouldn't be driving AT ALL, not at 85, not at 55. I don't drink, I've never driven while under the influence of alcohol. I have driven (twice?) while sleepy, and boy, that's scary. As Ralph Nader would say, unsafe at any speed. People who drive irresponsibly should be treated harshly. I don't think that driving 75-80mph on a clear, well kept road in a car that can do it is irresponsible. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
emma@uw-june.UUCP (06/13/83)
Your article has spent a good deal of time dwelling on two points. First, taking car outside of its design envelope causes accidents. Second, it is possible to kill people with guns. These are continuously juxtaposed to attempt to create an analogy, and you finish by saying we need gun control laws and a 55 mph speed limit. My response would be as follows. First, there is speeding and there is speeding. The highways are designed around 70mph+ speeds; every automobile I've ever driven is perfectly safe on the highway at these speeds. This is not outside the envelope! Somebody doing 45 in a school zone deserves everything the cops will want to do to them. The only reason to drive 55 is "It's The Law." There is absolutely no reason to vote for continuance of the inanity. Your argument for gun control laws boils down to "people get hurt by accident so protect them." Unfortunately, in your own example, the NRA member-hunter-father would most assuredly be licensed in any reasonable gun control ordinance. Even if not allowed a handgun, he would have rifles in the house and his son would be just as likely to kill his buddy with one of these. One last note on teenagers and sports cars-- teenage males drive anything fast, not just sports cars. They're at least as likely to kill themselves in daddy's Cadillac as in daddy's MG. -Joe P.
woods@hao.UUCP (06/13/83)
Oh, boy! Another Jerry Falwell! Just what we need: another vigilante who wants to impose *his* moral values on everyone!
mjl@ritcv.UUCP (06/14/83)
Damn right I want to impose my 'moral values' on activities that
threaten me and mine! I don't consider it anyone's right to act in an
irresponsible manner endangering another's life or possessions. And if
there's one 'crime' that is not victimless, it is the yearly slaughter
on our highways. Take potshots, if you will, at proposals claiming to
reduce the carnage, but don't give me any crap about some supposed God
given right to do any damn thing you please!
I happen to favor the 55 mph limit, and until now the arguments against
it have at least recognized there is a problem. The discussion in this
newsgroup has centered on the relative efficacy of the limit in
reducing fatalities. Questioning the means to a solution is one thing,
but questioning the goal is sheer lunacy.
Mike Lutz {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjldonn@sdchema.UUCP (06/14/83)
Reference: floyd.1568 Dum de dum... What would we do without net.flame? Andy says: [Donn] talked about what happenned to his little brother and implied that we all should think about our little brothers. Had his little brother died while riding a bicycle or drowned in a pool or choked on a peanut shell, he could make impassioned pleas about those activities as well. I could, and maybe would, except since cars kill thousands of times as many people and with a larger probability than bicycles and swimming pools (people spend an awful large amount of time in cars), I figure my time is better spent ranting about automobile safety. Seeley used the example of the president of some company wasting himself in his Ferrari right after his company went public. NO mention was made to whether the guy was drunk or whether the guy had ever driven the car before. My guess is that he was and he hadn't. The article didn't say and I wouldn't presume (unlike Andy) to say. Does anyone from Silicon Valley (my old home town) have any details? I don't think this affects my argument anyway. When I drive down the sparsely populated highway at 75 or 80 mph I'm not endangering anyone. When I drive 45 in a 35 zone on the way home from work late at night I'm not endangering anyone. I've never been in an accident and NJ still charges me $1200+/year to insure my car with $500 deductible. Tell me which laws we should change. I don't necessarily want to argue that Andy alone is unsafe at 75 or 80 on some deserted highway or even 45 in a 35 zone. The problem is that it's always "the other guy" that causes the accident. I HAVE been in an accident (and my insurance is still $600 per year) -- some jerk was driving 45 in a 35 zone behind me and didn't react in time to my left turn signal; he mashed the left side of my car in and went spinning out of control across the intersection and snapped off a traffic light before coming to rest in someone's garden. He was so shaken up, he had to send his friend down the street to get a six-pack from the liquor store that they could suck on while waiting for the cops to come. He didn't believe that his reflexes were that bad. As for 70 or 80 on "deserted" highways, I remember back in March where my brother and I were on a "deserted" highway in the San Joaquin Valley and for my sake he was driving 55 instead of 70 or 80; a motorcycle appeared in the distance in the other lane and my brother didn't worry a bit until it got within a hundred feet or so and it turned out to be a one-eyed car driving down the center line at 80 mph. We got off onto the shoulder just barely in time to avoid turning into peach flambe. Little incidents like this have always indicated to me that (1) it's "the other guy" who determines accident rates and (2) don't trust your reflexes -- within reason, the more time you have to figure a dangerous situation out, the more likely you are to live through it. Donn compares car control to gun control. Donn, criminals use guns as violent weapons to intentionally commit crimes and intentionally kill people. I've never heard of a case of a criminal pointing a car at someone and asking for his money. I think Andy missed the point of this entirely. What I said was, otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens frequently use guns as violent weapons to unintentionally commit crimes and unintentionally kill people. It seems to me that people do exactly the same things with cars. It's no use telling me that YOU would never do something like that -- it's not YOU I'm worried about. I agree with Donn that people should be responsible for their actions when driving. A person who has had anything to drink or who is sleepy shouldn't be driving AT ALL, not at 85, not at 55. I don't drink, I've never driven while under the influence of alcohol. I have driven (twice?) while sleepy, and boy, that's scary. As Ralph Nader would say, unsafe at any speed. If you're asleep or drunk at the wheel, you're going to kill someone. (The terrible thing is, it may not be just yourself.) I can still think of a few reasons why, given this, 55 is better. If you are sleepy, your reactions are slowed, not stopped; although you have no excuse for driving, if nothing can prevent you, then at least drive at a speed where your increased reaction time has less effect. Of course if you are drunk then you are likely to ignore the speed limit, in which case a cop has every excuse to pull you over -- if the limit is 55, the cop can get you EARLIER. Lastly, if I'm tooling down the road and you're coming at me, if I have more time to think about what to do about you then I'm more likely to live through the encounter. People who drive irresponsibly should be treated harshly. I don't think that driving 75-80mph on a clear, well kept road in a car that can do it is irresponsible. I'm more worried about the people who drive irresponsibly treating ME harshly. I can take care of myself, it's "the other guy" I want to be regulated. If this means I have to live with the same regulations, it's still better than not living, regardless of the regulations. Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. RRCF ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn
bruce19@ihuxi.UUCP (06/17/83)
I just read Donn Seeley's excellent commentary comparing
guns and cars.
I have a question. For what reason is injuring someone with
a gun considered attempted murder, or assault with a deadly
weapon, etc. but injuring someone with a car considered
nothing more than reckless driving?
Bruce Whiteside
WeCo - Indian Hill
ihuxi!bruce19tech@auvax.UUCP (06/17/83)
thankyou
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (06/21/83)
From Bruce Whiteside: I have a question. For what reason is injuring someone with a gun considered attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon, etc. but injuring someone with a car considered nothing more than reckless driving? If I try to KILL you with a car I do get charged with attempted murder. If I kill you with a car because of recklessness than its involuntary manslaughter. Same with guns. -- Larry Kolodney (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
woods@hao.UUCP (06/21/83)
You can indeed be charged with attempted murder for running someone down in
a car. The difference between "reckless driving" and "attempted murder" is
intent of the driver, often difficult to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"
in a court. However, if the prosecutors can prove that the defendant ran down
the victim deliberately with his car, he could be charged with attempted
murder. Tha major difference between cars and guns in a case like this is that
with a gun, there is little doubt of the intent.
GREG
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | menlo70}
!hao!woodsnaz@sdcrdcf.UUCP (06/22/83)
I too used to favor the 55 speed limit. There is no denying the benefits of lives and gasoline saved. I changed my mind when I read an excellent article about the associated COST. Out on the open road, you have to sit in your car longer at 55 than you do at 70. I don't know about you, but my time is valuable. A boring ride at 55 on an open road isn't exactly my first choice of ways to spend my time. If you think 55 saves lives, how about 45, 35, 20, 10? Each of these would save even more lives. Since you have to draw the line somewhere, why not where the traffic engineers designed the Interstates for, 70. Studies have shown that there are much more EFFICIENT ways to save lives than by reducing the speed limit. NHA
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/23/83)
At age 20, I had my accident. I was doing 40 in a 40 zone. Unfortunately, there was a "Pay attention" sign on that road, so I was not looking forward to see that the car in front of me was stopped without having its brakelights on. (Before I look around me, I always do a "parse forward red lights.") I managed to slow down to about 20-25 before hitting, but my car was still totaled. The point is, I should have been able (probably) to avoid that car by safely swerving, but I had just never gotten around to taking that defensive driving course I had thought about. But at least I was a better driver at 20 than I was when the state of Florida gave me my license at 16. (I had just learned to drive a stick about 3 days before the test, although I had been driving automatics in traffic for a while.) In the course of my test, I: 1. Stalled the car twice because of my clutching (lack of) ability. 2. Put the car into reverse when I was supposed to put it in 1st. 3. Turned left when I was supposed to turn right. 4. Made the wheels squeal when I stopped quickly. I still got my license. Later that day, I was almost killed on one of our Florida racetracks when I was trying to turn left off of it. I was stopped waiting for a break in the other direction, I hear trememdous honking, and I see some idiot go flying by on MY LEFT (in the other lane). I wish they hadn't given me my license that day, because I would have been helpless in that situation. --Randy
crc@floyd.UUCP (06/29/83)
My car is not a penis substitute - it's a breast substitute!
sjk@sri-unix.UUCP (07/08/83)
#R:sdchema:-59400:sri-unix:8000009:000:403 sri-unix!sjk Jun 22 02:17:00 1983 Unfortunately, many guns are made expressly for the purpose of harming others. These "products" can actually be considered harmful and therefore would have to be removed from the market, by law. I forget the agency that this falls under. How many people do you know who buy cars with the expressed desire to harm or kill?? The entire analogy seems poor to me. scott kramer <sjk@ucbvax, ucbvax!sjk>