RE: UK Highway Code: New road rule could see car 'passengers' hit with £1,000 fine
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The point is safety going mad. You remember when you were a kid and there was little of this nonsense? Some of it, is sensible but I crave the times when I could make my own choices. Now it's only like this in 3rd world countries.
0
0
0.000
Some other countries have much higher road deaths, including the US. Has to be some balance in these things. I would love a self-driving car if they could be at least as good as people. They will improve, but humans won't.
Today some stoned driver rolled their car just up from us taking out a telegraph pole and a wall. People are stupid.
I am not a great fan of driving and often find myself falling asleep, it's not particularly interesting and needs concentration. A bed in the back would work well!
I hear new cars from 2023 will have speed restrictors and will refuse to break the speed limit. Control again...
Long journeys are tedious in the car and I'd welcome it taking over at least on the motorway. I know some people will do 100mph when they think they can get away with it. Of course they think they are great drivers, but they have little time to react. I wonder if there will be lower speed limits to reduce fuel consumption as the US did years ago. I get that some people drive for fun, but it's mainly about transport and every accident is expensive to deal with. It will be interesting to see how much people fight against further restrictions.
The max speed limit in the U.S. used to be 55 MPH to save fuel. I think that restriction started in the 1970s and ended some time in the 1990s. I'm not sure what the ideal speed is for fuel efficiency these days. Seems like they would do better to make smarter traffic lights. However, the plan in the U.S. seems to be to force people to buy electric cars. Several states have banned the sale of gas cars starting in 2035. I just had to buy a car and wouldn't have minded an electric car if they weren't so overpriced (I mean even more overpriced than gas cars currently are).
I suspect the U.S. has a higher number of road deaths than most countries because it has far more drivers than most countries. But if I want to risk my life by not wearing a seat belt then why shouldn't I be able to? If I'm willing to risk my life I'm probably willing to risk a fine so it's clearly about money making more than safety. I would wear my seat belt anyway but I'm just saying...
It's the old debate about the 'nanny state'. How many people would ignore safety advice if it was not enforced?
BTW The US road death rate is four times that of the UK per 100,000 people. Others are far worse.
!BEER
Per 100,000 people but how does that translate per driving hour? In other words, I'm willing to bet that the average American spends a lot more time driving than the average person in the U.K. More time driving equates to more opportunities for accidents. I could be wrong but it would make sense. The U.S. is more spread out, public transportation isn't as widely used, etc.
In any case, I forgot what the point was. Does the U.K have stricter safety laws? I mean here in the U.S. we have laws against driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, laws against speeding, laws requiring seatbelts, laws requiring air bags (and numerous other safety features), laws requiring car seats for kids...the list goes on and on and on. Not sure how much more strict they could (un)reasonably be. Execute you for speeding maybe?
My point is, I should be able to ignore safety advice if I want (at least if we are talking about my own safety). Most of these laws aren't motivated by a concern for safety, they are motivated by a concern for revenue. Red light cameras are a perfect example. If I misjudge a traffic light and drive through a red light an eighth of a second after it turns red I've literally endangered no one. Still, I'll get that $200 fine (or whatever it is). I got a ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign once. There was no point for this particular stop sign as it was at an intersection of a dead end road. For someone to hit me they would literally have to be running off of the road. Didn't stop me from getting a $180 ticket though. Not a safety issue unless we are talking about the safety of the positive bank account balance of the local city police department/government.
View or trade
BEER.Hey @darth-azrael, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @steevc for you. Enjoy it!Did you know that you can use BEER at dCity game to **buy dCity NFT cards** to rule the world.
The knock on effect of doing dumb shit is that you are taking resources away from systems that are already heavily restrained. Smoking should be heavily taxed because by treating smoking cancers means the waiting list is longer for other treatments.
If you fine me for parking or driving dangerously there is at least some chance I won't do it again.
In the U.S., there isn't much of a waiting list for most things as far as medical treatment. There are a million things that are bad for you. Should we have extra taxes on people who drive more, eat more fast food, scuba dive, parasail, exercise less, etc.? In a system in which people pay for their own medical care and insurance, smoking is your own business (and perhaps that of your insurance company). But there's no shortage of medical care that isn't created by government intervention. I mean, there's a definite shortage of free medical care to be sure.
If I'm driving dangerously, I'm endangering other people. That's different than not wearing a seatbelt in which case you are really only endangering yourself.
It's fairly reasonable to have these taxes to offset the negative externalities whether it's environmental or pressure on healthcare.
Well if you put it in a wall and you go through the windscreen someone might have to try save you or break the news to your loved ones etc.
In America for healthcare you're mostly fine if you have money or good insurance.
In Europe/Canada unless you can afford to get treatment privately or It's covered by insurance then there are waiting lists and delays to get treatment.
In those countries if everyone is paying for everyone's healthcare which is probably an ethically good thing to do for society if done efficiently and fairly then some taxes on being stupid that can help fund better service are probably a good idea. Minimum alcohol pricing for example reduces liver diseases and other harm from alcohol.
I think if you participate in dangerous sports you should get adequate training and preparation for accidents. Maybe if horse jumping or surfing or whatever caused disproportionate costs to society then gear or training could be taxed higher but it wouldn't be in the same category as parking somewhere that could highly likely cause an accident or smoking or drinking or fast food. Things that society should discourage for the benefit of everyone.
the perspective is different between Europe and America and I don't think there's an exact right answer on social policies. I understand the libertarian reasoning of leave me alone and don't interfere in my life
At the end of the day, it comes down to how much you trust government with your money. At the end of the day, i don't. At all. And there are plenty of obvious reasons why.
Just for example, gas taxes exist supposedly to pay for roads, etc. but often they get redirected to other things. In Florida there is a state run lottery that started back in the 1980s. The profits were supposed to go to schools. It makes an obscene amount of money. I don't know where the money is going but sales taxes go up, property taxes go up (as a percent) and never go down. Yet they don't have enough money to pay teachers a reasonable salary. It's absurd. So, while I don't believe that NO government is the answer, I also don't believe that MORE government is the answer and firmly believe it is way too big as it is. "Big" defined here basically refers to what percent of the economy they control.
Government should be there for basic services and arguably as a safety net. The problem is that "safety net" has grown to become all encompassing control of wide swaths of people's life. Monopoly's are not generally good which is why I'm not a fan of the idea of single payer healthcare. It reduces competition, increasing overall costs and slowing progress. Government as a safety net health care provider for those that can't afford it? Maybe. But inevitably these things seem to grow out of control.
The Affordable Health Care Act (A.K.A. Obamacare) you would assume was designed to make health care more affordable. For SOME people it did by enabling them to get insurance when they otherwise would not have been able to. However, it had the effect of reducing competition among insurance companies and for MOST people increasing insurance costs (which were already quite expensive) a SIGNIFICANT amount. So trust government in these matters? Not likely.
At the end of the day, people should be responsible for themselves. I'm not saying they shouldn't get help if they need it but it shouldn't be the government's base job to take care of you. The government is not your mommy and it is not your daddy. If I wind up in the hospital because I'm not wearing a seatbelt then that should be MY responsibility. Fining me for it is stupid. Note: I always wear my seatbelt but that is and should be my decision. The logical extension of the idea that government should make you pay for risky activities that might incur a cost to society (mainly because government has elected to pay for such costs in the first place) is to simply ban everything. Fast food? banned. Cigars? banned. Alcohol? banned. Watching too much TV? banned. Honestly, that's not the society I want. Lets go the other direction. If my actions incur a cost then I should pay for it. If they don't, stop stealing my money. We teach kids to be responsible. Why can't adults be?