Should Driving While Deaf be Banned?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Come and Meet A Few of My Friends
Next: Police secretly photographing 14million motorists and their passengers every day and keeping images for two years
From: Brent on 7 Apr 2010 08:46 On 2010-04-07, Michael Ejercito <mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 5:34�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not >> > merely a privilege. >> >> Because it isn't a privilege. We've been conditioned to believe it is, >> but it isn't. As a privilege it's a wedge to force us to waive our >> rights. >> >> > People who can't hear, people who have no use of >> > their legs (and thus have to use their hands to operate steering >> > wheel, throttle, brake, and transmission), and so on are all given >> > licenses without a second thought. >> >> So? �I really don't care how someone operates their vehicle and I've >> seen drivers who didn't have the use of their legs drive far better than >> the average 'able-bodied' american. If they always need both hands to >> control the vehicle they won't be able to talk on the cell phone while >> driving. >> >> > This is because our public transit >> > system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to >> > drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for >> > the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or >> > daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation; >> > perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our >> > public transit infrastructure. >> >> Why would you expect a completely socialist transportation structure to >> be better than a semi-socialist one? >> >> What is now 'public' transportation used to be private for-profit >> companies. These companies used government to protect their markets and >> government in turn demanded to control the price of the services. This >> seemed good at first, but the companies got lazy, government demanded >> more for less, and they eventually became government owned. Health-care >> is going the same route btw. > Is there any reason why afor=proft corporation can not buy a fleet > of buses and use them to compete with public buses for intra-city > travel? Government would have to license them. Government would control what rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place. To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it. (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it, but what they actually do is different)
From: Brent on 7 Apr 2010 11:37 On 2010-04-07, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > And yet what's the problem with nullifying a capability you apparently > don't need in order to drive? Why would that be a surprising state of affairs for traffic enforcement? It's the same law and traffic enforcement combo that lets Judy drive its beater car around slowly but will ticket someone in a corvette or other very capable and safe car for doing 50mph on a 45mph 6 lane arterial at 2am with no other traffic present.
From: Michael Ejercito on 7 Apr 2010 21:25 On Apr 7, 5:46 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-07, Michael Ejercito <mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 5:34 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > This is because our public transit > >> > system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to > >> > drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for > >> > the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or > >> > daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation; > >> > perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our > >> > public transit infrastructure. > > >> Why would you expect a completely socialist transportation structure to > >> be better than a semi-socialist one? > > >> What is now 'public' transportation used to be private for-profit > >> companies. These companies used government to protect their markets and > >> government in turn demanded to control the price of the services. This > >> seemed good at first, but the companies got lazy, government demanded > >> more for less, and they eventually became government owned. Health-care > >> is going the same route btw. > > Is there any reason why afor=proft corporation can not buy a fleet > > of buses and use them to compete with public buses for intra-city > > travel? > > Government would have to license them. Government would control what > rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That > is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place. > > To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it. > (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it, > but what they actually do is different) Do governments set the rates for charter buses? Michael
From: Brent on 7 Apr 2010 22:32 On 2010-04-08, Michael Ejercito <mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 5:46�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-04-07, Michael Ejercito <mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 6, 5:34�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > This is because our public transit >> >> > system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to >> >> > drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for >> >> > the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or >> >> > daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation; >> >> > perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our >> >> > public transit infrastructure. >> >> >> Why would you expect a completely socialist transportation structure to >> >> be better than a semi-socialist one? >> >> >> What is now 'public' transportation used to be private for-profit >> >> companies. These companies used government to protect their markets and >> >> government in turn demanded to control the price of the services. This >> >> seemed good at first, but the companies got lazy, government demanded >> >> more for less, and they eventually became government owned. Health-care >> >> is going the same route btw. >> > � �Is there any reason why afor=proft corporation can not buy a fleet >> > of buses and use them to compete with public buses for intra-city >> > travel? >> >> Government would have to license them. Government would control what >> rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That >> is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place. >> >> To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it. >> (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it, >> but what they actually do is different) > Do governments set the rates for charter buses? I doubt it. But I was discussing transit.
From: Michael Ejercito on 8 Apr 2010 12:18
On Apr 7, 7:32 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-08,Michael Ejercito<mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 5:46 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-04-07,Michael Ejercito<mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > Is there any reason why afor=proft corporation can not buy a fleet > >> > of buses and use them to compete with public buses for intra-city > >> > travel? > > >> Government would have to license them. Government would control what > >> rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That > >> is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place. > > >> To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it. > >> (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it, > >> but what they actually do is different) > > Do governments set the rates for charter buses? > > I doubt it. But I was discussing transit. Would a regular bus service between two commercial districts in Queens and Manhattan count as transit service? Michael |