New York attempting to outlaw Spinnerz

[Osprey413]

But having 4wd does help....

 

[rj454]

(you're in a parking lot - SLOW DOWN!!!)

THANK YOU !!! :worship: THANK YOU !!!

I also think that there should be rather more stringent testing of drivers prior to issuing a license - we seem to have forgotten that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT, and that is why licenses are issued. The use of a license and testing implies that certain minimum standards should be in place - here in California, they seem to be a pulse, minimum visual perception, and about three functional brain cells.

I am SO behind the idea of retesting elderly drivers;I could start a signature drive right now...

but certify people by type of vehicle - like we do with commercial licences (hazmat/double/triple/bobtails/busses/whatever).

I think Grant said driving a SuperDuty in South Africa would require a Class C License.

 

[nhrocker]

But having 4wd does help....

Yes, it definitely does. But it doesn't make you invincible. Some people get the idea that it means they don't have to worry about road conditions anymore. One of my friends rolled a WRX because it had all-wheel drive, so she thought she'd be fine taking a corner on ice at normal speed. Again, a lot of it was her own lack of understanding for her vehicle.

 

[5-90]

Four wheel drive helps you go, it don't help you stop. I've not found ABS to be much help, either.

OTOH, if you actually know what the Hell you're doing, you've got a shot at getting about safely. As far as me goes, I learned to drive in Lafayette, IN; in an old pickup with Armstrong Power Steering (arm really strong - I think I gained about two inches across the shoulders driving that damn thing...) and brakes that barely worked. All during a good, nasty winter - I took my driving test in that truck in February! That included parallel parking...

I have also taken every driving course I could get into - starting with a foul weather driving course that Lafayette PD offered. Every time the Air Force offered a chance to learn to drive something else, I took it. I have driven everything from motorcycles to tanks and doubles. I'd teach a driving school out here if I could make it mandatory!

Makes me glad I taught my two boys (and a handful of my nieces) to drive - that's that many fewer drivers around here I have to worry about...

5-90

 

[Blackash132]

I'd rather legislation that makes it mandatory for anyone over 60 to pass an eye/hearing exam every year...

second that...my grandma is crazy!!!!!!!1:wierd:

 

[Yucca-Man]

But having 4wd does help....

Yeah, it helps you START...but doesn't do jack to stop you.

 

[Culinary_Hooligan]

I don't get this. I have never looked at a cars wheels to make sure the car was actually stopped. Instead I look at the car itself, and if it isn't moving then it isn't going anywhere. Who stands on their brakes when someone next to you peels out? I'm not trying to defend the wheels, I don't like them and I think they are silly, but people should simply pay more attention when driving instead of blaming everyone else for their careless mistakes. Now, on the subject of spinners, has anyone been worried about one flying off and hitting oncoming traffic? That seems like a more plausable excuse for outlawing them, then people seeing optical illusions.

EXACTLY!!! As much as I hate the "Spinners" legislation against them is just plain retarded..... Instead of watching the wheels, pay attention to the road, lights, signs, and vechicles to determine what your course of action should be...

 

[BruteXJ]

Let me get this straight....some of you are saying that we should drive responsibly.....in responsibly built/maintained vehicles....that we have familiarized ourselves with...while keeping our eyes on the road....

What a perfectly bizarre idea.

 

[Osprey413]

A wild idea, huh?

 

[REDXJ4FUN]

Pretty much most of us who have a clue drive like we have a brain. I'm sick of having to be a "defensive driver" just so i don't get hit every damn day because someone isn't paying atention. With the spinners they have gotten a few times. but oh well. the big problem is if they pass a law like that is easy for them to start add little bits to ban other wheels and then on to other thing. VA was trying something similar a month or two ago but thank god it got killed.

 

[RichP]

Pretty much most of us who have a clue drive like we have a brain. I'm sick of having to be a "defensive driver" just so i don't get hit every damn day because someone isn't paying atention. With the spinners they have gotten a few times. but oh well. the big problem is if they pass a law like that is easy for them to start add little bits to ban other wheels and then on to other thing. VA was trying something similar a month or two ago but thank god it got killed.

The NRA has been saying and fighting that kind of legislation for years.. it's called 'the slippery slope'

 

[lesslimited]

.. it's called 'the slippery slope'

Or, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

 

[RichP]

Or, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

Or as the arabs say 'never let the camel get his nose in the tent for surely the rest will follow'...

 

[What Rd]

Or as the arabs say 'never let the camel get his nose in the tent for surely the rest will follow'...

. . . and we're back to Hillary!

:laugh3: :laugh3: :laugh3:

 

[Lucas]

FWIW i've almost walked into a pole walking down the sidewalk b/c I was staring at a set of spinners. I don't like them per se, but they are damn eye cathing and hypnotizing to look at.

 

[junkxj]

There has been alot of good points made here so far. I understand what everyone has said, and they do have a good reason behind there opinion. On one side there is the opinion that nothing that you can add to your car to make it look better is worth risking even one wreck that could be prevented. The other side says that if you are dumb enough to wreck because the other cars wheels continue to spin after it stops then you should not be driving. This is mostly the two arguments that I have gotten out of this. Personaly I hate spinners, and think they are as gay as anything out there. But I do understand some people like them, and many people would say any built jeep is stupid. I guess what I want to say is if they can ban these types of wheels, then it will be much easier to ban lift kits, after market bumpers, larger tires, etc. I hate to say it, but in my opinion any time you put larger tires on a jeep than it came with stock your are creating more of a safety hazard than any spinner wheels could cause because a larger tire will affect the braking ability of your jeep. I know you can upgrade your brakes on your jeep to compensate for this, but really how many people upgrade there brakes before they slap on some 31s? Maybe some will not agree with this, but anytime you incress the size/weight of your wheels and tires it will affect the stopping distance, even alitle bit.

Sorry for this being so long!

 

[olivedrabcj7]

i had spinners on my avalanche. the only harm i ever caused anybody was a few broken necks. people stopped what they were doing and stared. i can see how this would be a distraction when driving or something.....but it should NOT be up to the government to decide how we can modify our vehicles. ive been distracted by watching a nice looking Jeep rolling down the road before, not a reason to ban nice looking jeeps though. i think its stupid to try to make such a law.

 

[5-90]

Yeah - another point I've been making for years is that our current legal system is about *this* far from collapsing under its own weight. I'd like to see another measure passed that would achieve a sort of "unity state" in law - in order to pass a new law at any level, an existing law must be rescinded at the same level. This would effectively halt any growth at this point. Later, amend this to read that the rescinsion of two laws is required, which would result in effective negative growth. It is often said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but we have something like twenty-six areas of legal specialisation - which tells me that there's too much going on around here. If ignorance is no excuse, then the system must be kept the the point where the average man not devoted full-time to the study of law can actually keep up with what's going on - there's no tangible benefit to the people of having as many laws as we already have. How much longer will it be before "what is not mandatory is forbidden, what is not forbidden is mandatory?" This is my principal objection to the passage of laws - we have too many as it stands.

I would openly and freely advocate for the creation of a saner system of law, which could be neatly summed up with a book about the size of a middlin' Cussler novel, and written in plain English as could be understood by, say, a ninth-grade student (which should damn well be a minimum literary proficiency level for graduation - and that's setting the bar too low already!)

Perhaps another idea would be to put a cap on the number of laws which may be passed for a given interval - say, no more than ten per annum (along with the "break one to make one" rule,) which would also keep things down to the point where we could keep up. Any laws passed must be concieved so as to protect the "dear peepul" from the actions of other individuals, and no need to protect us from ourselves. (Whose damn business is it anyhow if all I want to wear on a motorcycle is a Snoopy hat? I'm really quite cautious. I can't claim RichP's record of a million accident-free miles, but I've never had a ding while driving for pay, and I've got well over a million miles behind me driving pretty much anything you could care to name and pretty much anywhere on the planet - sometimes with some pretty nasty cargoes. Further Deponent Sayeth Not.)

"The urge to save Humanity is most often a false front for the urge to rule"
H. L. Mencken

"Governance is not carried out for the benefit of the governed"
I don't recall whose this is, and I'm probably misquoting a bit, but the substance is effectively the same.

I would, in fact, be in favour of anarchy is human nature did not make this impossible. Before anyone starts shouting, let me properly define a couple things:
Anarchy, firstly, is not an absence of order, it is an absence of governance. To wit - a system of anarchy is simply a group of peopole who agree to live without the dubious benefit of an externally-imposed government, preferring instead to govern themselves according the the unwritten code commonly referred to as a "social contract." Anarchy could, in fact, work if self-interest were properly invoked - you just don't do to anyone else what you don't want anyone to do to you. Honestly, I'd like to see someone come up with a workable anarchy (which would probably require a Botany Bay as well - I'm only mildly optomistic here,) wherein people would simply make their way upon their own merits.
Another benefit of anarchy would be the effective abolition of the "welfare state" that has only grown since 1933 (beginning, actually, with "Social Security." More on that if and when.) By supporting a segment of the populace that is, at that time, producing literally nothing for the monies they are paid, we have a very effective drain upon the economy - which also serves to devalue the dollar somewhat, by logical extension. I am not decrying welfare in toto - sometimes people need help. But there's a huge difference between a "hand out" and a "hand up" - and I'd sooner see people getting a "hand up" if anything. If you need to go on welfare for whatever reason, it should only pay the bills, and as the following should be conditions of acceptance:
1) The Pauper's Oath. People actively accepting living subsidies/welfare/AFDC/whatever are, for the time they are on welfare, not to be allowed to exercise their sovereign franchise (simply put - they can't vote.) Use of the franchise shall return when you are no longer "on the dole" and usefully producing again.
2) Betterment of the Self. If you are going to go onto welfare, you will either actively and provably seek work, or you will attend a trade or other school designed to allow you to find gainful employment. Failure to do so means no money. Getting bounced from school means no money. Attendees of trade or other schools shall get some sort of placement assistance - but not at the expense of other qualified applicants (in short - you'd better do well while you're in school, since we still expect you to stand on your own merits.)
3) Limitation of benefits. Payment of welfare benefits shall be limited to, say, one year at any period - save that such payments may extend farther for those in schools.
4) Forfeiture of assets. You can't hang onto anything really spendy while you're on the dole - you shall show that you've made an effort to reduce your expenditure and eliminate as many payments as possible before you can get help. No Beemers or Benzes, and welfare won't let you keep an overpriced home.
5) Limitation of benefits (again.) Monies paid from "public assistance" shall be limited to an amount determined at the time benefits are begun, and may only be increased due to cost of living as determined by changes in the Consumer Price Index and/or the change in cost of critical commodities (such as fuel or staple foodstuffs.) Welfare pays the bills and a small stipend for "incidentals," such as worn-out clothing or necessary repairs to vehicles and such.
That's the short form of that.

The inception of an anarchic system would also have an excellent effect on the economy for two reasons - both related:
More money in circulation, since the "authority" to collect taxes has been abolished.
The elimination of an unproductive batch of midlevel functionaries of government - who produce nothing and are paid for it. If you think welfare's bad, look at the amount of money wasted on governement payroll. The worst part is that this utterly unproductive branch of society is also allowed to vote - perhaps they should also take a Pauper's Oath or something similar.

I've also got some ideas for political reform at the public level - even though they aren't altogether mine. For elucidation, I encourage all of you to read Starship Troopers by Heinlein (no, watching the movie just don't count. Verhoeven butchered the story..) or The Curious Republic of Gondour by Twain. There are also a couple good bits tucked between the major bits of Heinlein's "Expanded Universe" that come to mind, but I don't recall which - I'd have to look.

The principal reason for the "slippery slope" is that the concept of Yin and Yang simply don't exist in the political mind - if they ever did. What our legislators have is authority - the authority to pass measures "as they see fit to protect the safety and security of the body politic." However, the converse of that authority - responsibility - does not exist, and there is therefore no internal check upon the Legislature to keep their actions in line with the stated purpose. That responsibility would of necessity derive from being held accountable to their actions - which they are essentially not (for more information, refer to the concept of "Congressional Immunity" as I believe it is called. A similar precept exists for the police, in fact, which makes "to protect and to serve" the Big Lie. They don't have any responsibility to us, either.) Since there is no responsilibity to counterbalance the authority exterted, their actions reflect the lack of accountability - and since they hold themselves immune to their own fiat, it matters not what happens to us. How to fix this? I'm still working on it - but for starters, write the laws and measures in plain English and reinstate term limits so these people don't get comfortable. Why not finish the job - make sure they don't make more than national median salary (or perhaps, pay no more than their bills during the term of service and NO salary, or a small stipend at most.)

I'll have to write up a coherent essay on the subject (with more opinions that I care to express at present) and I'll post it when I get it done - say, around 2015 or so. I've got a lot to do in the meantime...

5-90

The NRA has been saying and fighting that kind of legislation for years.. it's called 'the slippery slope'

 

[nhrocker]

:scared: :worship:

That's a nice short view at some of your perspectives on change in the government! :laugh3:

Good synopsis, great points, and I fully stand behind changing welfare policies to mimic your model! Like you, I would also stand behind functional anarchy if I had better faith in the intelligence of those that would have to participate in it. Currenty, I think that the loss of goverment would lead to a collapse of society and more than that, order. For anarchy to work there would need to be a minimum standard of intelligence/merits and a general understanding of the "social contract" among all participants. I don't believe we can even come close to those standards, mainly because of (as you mentioned) human nature.

 

[5-90]

Thank you. However, I am inclined to think you hit the nail right on the side with part of your belief, to wit:

Intelligence need not be a criterion for establishing a stable, self-sufficient arnarchic system. Even with the meanest intellect, it is possible to understand the intricacies of the social contract - after all, people with an IQ of 50 or so can perform calculus - and I'm not talking about an idiot savant. Want proof? Toss an idiot a ball, he'll usually catch it. This requires a subconscious ability to understand a ballistic course subject to gravitic action and atmospheric resistance, which results in an accurate prediction of where that ball will be, and therefore where one's hands must be, in order to catch the thing. All this can be done without any knowledge of general mathematics beyond simple integer addition - I'm willing to be you wer able to catch a ball before you entered grammar school.

It is possible to understand the social contract in much the same way - without the need to explain it. The simple ability to follow the much-vaunted "Golden Rule" comes into play here - and that is really all you need. I stated the thesis of the working anarchy in the statement "Don't do anything to someone else than you don't want done to you." It's really that simple - and can be understood by someone with an IQ of six (conversely, you'll find that someone who can be productive with an IQ of six will enjoy a certain protection under a working anarchy by the other members - simply by virtue of his token effort. Don't forget our friendly idiot (and I'm not using the term in a derogatory fashion here - simply describing intellectual ability) - you'll probably see him again when I work on the governmental these I need to do once I finish breaking the thrice-damned MLA "Five-Paragraph Essay" model. My last writing teacher had a real hangup on them - which I find generally unfit for college-level essaying.)

Therefore, I don't plan on an anarchy surviving based on the intelligence of the membership - merely the understanding and the ability to reach a logical conclusion prior to taking actions. It's really that simple.

But you're heart is in the right place, and you're head's screwed on pretty good, so I'll give you half marks! I do suggest you catch up on your "recommended reading," if you haven't done so recently. My essay will likely include rather more pieces (such as 1984[/I] by Orwell as an excellent example of a "negative Utopia" and an examply of what happens when a government is allowed to progress unabated.) You'll probably see it here as "Saving America" or somesuch - and I've got a few other people who want to publish it when it's done, and are both smart enough and kind enough not to jog my elbow while I get my "duckies in a row..."

5-90

:scared: :worship:

That's a nice short view at some of your perspectives on change in the government! :laugh3:

Good synopsis, great points, and I fully stand behind changing welfare policies to mimic your model! Like you, I would also stand behind functional anarchy if I had better faith in the intelligence of those that would have to participate in it. Currenty, I think that the loss of goverment would lead to a collapse of society and more than that, order. For anarchy to work there would need to be a minimum standard of intelligence/merits and a general understanding of the "social contract" among all participants. I don't believe we can even come close to those standards, mainly because of (as you mentioned) human nature.