Re: UK: Drivers may be banned from smoking at the wheel

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 5/14/07, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:

> > I think you are both arguing the same point from a slightly different
> > angle: Someone is free to drink themselves to death, but not free to run
> > over little Debbie.  The place where you differ is that Brian seems to
> > be coming from the "no victim, no crime", and Solly from the "the crime
> > is the potential victim".  I apologize if I have misstated your
> > positions.

That's an accurate description of my argument. Now explain to Nick how
reasoning such things out is a higher form of intellectualism than
simply poo-pooing an idea you don't agree with and name calling.

> The crime is the endangerment. I say that a crime is committed even if
> there isn't an accident on this occasion, just as it's a crime if you fire
> into a crowd, even if you get lucky and miss everyone.

"Drunk" is subjective though, firing a loading pistol is not.

Let me put it this way, because perhaps this more closely states my
point: If the would-be killer drinking and driving can be observed
breaking other laws, then they should be pulled over and removed from
the opportunity of doing more serious harm. That makes perfect sense
to anyone. However, what we have today is a large revenue generating
stack of laws which are sold to the public as a safety measure but
which do nothing, and have done nothing, but generate revenue for the
State and destroy lives. And seemingly every couple of years, because
the laws are ineffective, they come back and lower the alcohol level
to be considered impaired. It's safety theatre.

> I don't feel threatened by someone else brushing their teeth or knitting,

You really didn't miss his point there did you? This is sarcasm right?

> even when they're drunk. I do feel threatened by someone drunk in charge
> of a couple of thousand kilograms of metal moving at 100 kilometers per
> hour.
>
> The point isn't to protect people from their own folly, it's to protect me
> from someone else's folly.

So you pass a law against drinking and driving, talking on the cell
phone and driving, smoking and driving...then, because that won't
actually have an effect on anything you'll tighten those laws and pass
new ones: brushing your teeth while driving, knitting while driving,
carrying on conversations with passengers while driving (just as
distracting, when its a heated conversation - or not so heated in the
case of a gaggle of girls), and, my favorite, reading a novel on your
steering wheel while driving (this woman I observed doing this for a
year on my daily commute has disappeared..perhaps an accident,
finally).

Those laws won't work either.

> Not sure what your point is here. Medically insane people don't get
> driving licences,

He was probably referring to mad as in road rage. However, unless your
government is screening kids for insanity, how do you know whether the
next driver you see is medically or criminally insane or not? Unless
they've been diagnosed as such they probably don't even know.

> and driving one-handed while you do whatever (including
> cell phone) can lose you your licence.

Which is, again, ridiculous.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.