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: Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids on 6 Apr 2010 01:48 Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:1fflr5998t5vc70eehus4gmme33v466pov(a)4ax.com: > > This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not > merely a privilege. 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. 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. The problem is NOT lack of public transport. It's our ready acceptance of "accidents". If anyone found at fault in a fatal crash got a mandatory 20+ sentence in the can, then everyone, including the deaf, would drive carefully.
From: z on 6 Apr 2010 02:03 "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2001(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns9D51F22BF6DE0riemann1850yahoocom(a)216.168.3.70: > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > news:1fflr5998t5vc70eehus4gmme33v466pov(a)4ax.com: > > >> >> This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not >> merely a privilege. 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. 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. > > The problem is NOT lack of public transport. It's our ready acceptance > of "accidents". If anyone found at fault in a fatal crash got a > mandatory 20+ sentence in the can, then everyone, including the deaf, > would drive carefully. > There is no public transport here. It's 16 miles to the nearest small market, 60 miles round trip to the nearest real supermarket. Hell a lot of people don't even have electricity yet in the boonies of Oregon. So even with a horse it's a long assed ride for supplies.
From: Brent on 6 Apr 2010 08:34 On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(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.
From: Michael Ejercito on 6 Apr 2010 21:25 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? Michael
From: Dave__67 on 7 Apr 2010 08:00
On Apr 6, 10:01 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Dave__67 <spamTHIS...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >Yes, we all know what a huge problem deaf drivers are. > > >Do you pick items from a list or do you make this stuff up as you go? > > If only your ability to properly edit the text you quote were as good > as your sarcasm, you'd be in pretty good shape. > > Now, perhaps you can explain why it is ILLEGAL for me to drive around > wearing headphones in most states? Isn't the rationale behind that law > that the headphones will prevent me from hearing sirens, other > drivers' horns, etc.? So if it's so dangerous for me to drive when I > have temporarily deafened myself, why is it A-OK for someone who is > permanently deaf to drive? > -- > The MFFY Litmus Test: > If your maneuver forces another driver WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY > to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY. First off, very few deaf people are actually absolutely deaf. Secondly, any observant person can spot emergency vehicles just fine (I doubt there are many surviving unobservant deaf people), sirens are more for morons that can't be bothered to know what's going on around them (or would actually ignore the lights) than for alerting at a range or around a corner that you can't see around. I think I've even seen you post on how useless sirens are when you can't actually see the vehicle. Thirdly, taking a capability you do have and nullifying it, you'd be stupid to do it, but unfortunately there are enough stupid people to make in necessary. Fourthly- my editing? You're attacking my editing? I should top post, your head would probably explode. Dave |