New York attempting to outlaw Spinnerz

[nhrocker]

Intelligence need not be a criterion for establishing a stable, self-sufficient arnarchic system.

I agree! I guess I should have used a better term. (Now that I read what I wrote, I don't know why I chose "intelligence") When I was referring to intelligence, I didn't mean it as mental aptitude or intellect as much as "the understanding and the ability to reach a logical conclusion prior to taking actions" as you put it. Viewing the differences between generations, it appears to me that logic is changing (while it should remain a constant with some adaptation) with each new generation. Yes, I am of a "younger" generation than most, but even when I look at my own peers I can see a significant drop in the application of logic to every day life when compared to that of "older" generations.

 

[RichP]

Two things will never happen, first is the reduction of govt, people love power, people love having people working for them so that they get a perceived increase of power based on the number of people who work for them. They also get an increase in status if their dept is bigger than their opposites in other depts. No one wants to give up power once they have gotten it. Unlike the real world it does not take great smarts, hard work or god like management skills to increase your power in the govt, all you have to do is an adequate job or perceived adequate job and you will rise over time. Govt is the growth industry for the mediocre...
Second is a reduction in the number and complexity of law, an entire industry has been started, built and continues to grow based on that complexity. The 'specialists' who teach, practice and profit by the complexity of the law will not willingly give it up and give away their livelyhood.
As has been said before, you really already know how to function in society by the time you have finished kindergarten.
As for social security, well, I have two views on that, a govt guaranteed income upon reaching retirement age is a good thing, provided it is safe from outside influence, speculation, theft or other protections that a private retirement account does not have.

As for spinners, if an accident does occur and the driver of the spinner equipped vehicle can be shown to have caused a distraction similar in nature to say a woman ripping her top off at a critical time in a sports environment to distract then that driver should be held accountable. Hence my comment about me becoming the spinners drivers worst legal nitemare in a prior post..

 

[XTrmXJ]

Virginia is also trying to make them Illegal

 

[Silverstreak01]

a bit off topic. but i got into a huge argument with a girl i work with on spinner rims. I told here basicly there a waste of money that people with to much have... she fliped out told me well things you buy for your jeep are a waste of money. THe diff is ThINGS i buy i need/ or will better my performance offroad. spinners dont do nothing but make the people that are driving think there THUGS

 

[vwkaferman]

I'm going to go ahead and disagree on this one. It would be the same as my grandmother saying "They should outlaw those darn Jeeps with the big tires, cause they pick up rocks, and damage my windshield, and they sit too high, so they're dangerous in corners, and could roll over on me..."

I could keep going.

You can't legislate common sense. I could care less either way for spinners, but I could also care less for a LOT of other mods people do to cars, i.e., bolting on a flimsy "Spoiler" on the back of a front wheel drive car. Should it be against the law? Well, it already is against the law of Physics, but that's another topic.

Some people are set in their ways on how vehicles "should" look, but me personally, that's the Gestapo approach. It's all up to YOU, the individual, not the Sheeple.

Regardless if a vehicle next to me has wheels that give the illusion that it's moving, or not moving, I know AT ALL TIMES what my vehicle is doing, and adjust my driving technique accordingly. Guess that's how I survived 5 years in Germany (which is statistically safer to drive in Germany).

Rant off, it's all personal taste. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it should be against the law. If it IS against the law, who is next? US? You bet.

James

 

[5-90]

Which is why I'll never be elected to office. "I've beendoing so much with so little for so long I can now do anything with nothing before I start." It's to do with what soldiers and such call the "teeth/tail" ratio - if you aren't producing forward motion to complete the mission, you're creating drag to prevent it.

My first action would be to send a memo to all and sundry stating, simply put, "Justify your existence." You then have to explain exactly why it's a good idea for you to continue being paid to do whatever it is you're doing; what, exactly, you're doing in the first place; and why that's supposed to be a good thing. Also, justify why you make as much as you're getting - and is that amount really necessary (anyone who says "Yes" or clamours for more will be investigated more fully.) This will especially apply to appointed positions.

Anyone who is found to be holding a sinecure with no benefit to the people will be downsized - and anyone under him. Now go find a way to work for a living, or starve, I really don't care.

That's another topic I plan to attack - all these little tin-pot dictatorships in our governement that place an unnecessary drain upon the economy (and those of us pulling the wagon) need to be clipped. If you don't produce anything useful, there's no reason for you to be paid to do it - or not to do it - I'm not really sure how to phrase that.

5-90

 

[Ludakris]

a bit off topic. but i got into a huge argument with a girl i work with on spinner rims. I told here basicly there a waste of money that people with to much have... she fliped out told me well things you buy for your jeep are a waste of money. THe diff is ThINGS i buy i need/ or will better my performance offroad. spinners dont do nothing but make the people that are driving think there THUGS

That is just a bad arguement.

 

[jpfreak]

Personally, I think that the government should (for the most part) stay out of vehicle modification regulations. I don't find spinners to be dangerous, I don't find talking on your phone to be dangerous, I don't find driving a lifted vehicle to be dangerous, etc., etc., I think that people need to be aware of their vehicle and its limitations, and if they are at fault for an accident (I'm sorry, spinners come on LARGE vehicles - suburbans, escalades, navigators, H2s, etc., you NOTICE the vehicle whether it has spinners or not - that is not a valid excuse to me) they should be punished appropriately.

Furthermore, I think that the spinners vs. lifted vehicle arguement is incredibly stupid; Would I buy them? Probably not, but I respect a vehicle which is modified in the owner's taste when done right (and safely).

 

[5-90]

Talking on the phone while driving isn't dangerous? Brother, you should hang out around here for a while. I can't think of a week in the past four years where I didn't have some damn fool almost hit me while yakking on the phone - I say "almost" because someone (invariably ME) ends up taking evasive action.

I'm talking about things like someone trying to change lanes into me (deliberately or no,) pulling out while dialing and not seeing me, and things like that. I drive a white 2-door - it's pretty visible. I consider driving while talking to be just a half-step above DWI - I'm a damn good driver and I refuse to do it! The people with my cellphone number have standing orders to not leave messages (I have CID anyhow) and if I don't answer, try again in 10 minutes (gimme time to get off the road) unless I call back first.

The government, however, is involved in vehicle mods - check out the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS.)

Spinners are not dangerous per se, but they offer a cue to other drivers that shouts "moving!" until you take a second look. Depending upon the environment, you are fairly likely to take evasive action on sheer reflex (especially out here.)

Driving a lifted vehicle is not dangerous - as long it is a properly designed boost AND you remember that you are in a lifted vehicle and therefore can't drive like you're in a Corvette.

People do need to be aware of their vehicle and its limitations - that's the basis of my "type certification" argument. Just like pilots - they have to be "type certified" on a particular airframe before they can fly it solo (in my case, it was Piper Cub, Piper Cherokee, Beechcraft Bonanza, and (I was really lucky on this one!) Stearman Biplane. Someone at Aretz had one while I had my ticket, and was a CFI willing to check out anyone on it! What a fun little plane...) If you want to drive a large truck - get checked out. If you want to drive a sports car - get checked out. I'd also like to spee "speed ratings" on licenses - some of us find the speed limits chafing, and are able to maintain and drive at higher speeds (and can make effective decisions as to when to do it - if it's 0200 and no-one's on the road, who cares if I want to do 120 or so - as long as I can prove I'm capable of doing it and my vehicle can handle it. Given the speed limits in most of the country, owning a high-performance car is quite pointless here in the States. Why buy something that does 180 when you can't take it past 75?)

Oh - and spinners aren't always on large vehicles - I see them on Hondas and Acuras as well as Navigators, Suburbans, and H1's and H2's.

Do I have an issue with lowering a vehicle? Beyond the fact that I think it looks silly, no - as long as the mod is properly executed (new springs, fix the camber issues, and suchlike.) The same goes for lifts - if the kit maintains proper geometry, spring rates, and other factors, go ahead! (but don't bother lifting 12" and 38's when you wash and wax each week-end and the damn thing won't go off-road - that's just silly AND wasting money!)

Apart from devices that offer specious cues to other drivers, I firmly believe that the primary safety device on any vehicle is between the driver's ears - that's why drivers should be better trained, and possibly type- and speed-rated (if you can't handle doing 50 or more, stay off the damn freeway! There's a reason they're called "limited access" roadways - they're supposed to be low-traffic at high speed.)

I'm not trying to kill your opinon (I'd not do that, even if we disagreed,) but to support my own. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it" - and I've spent a number of years doing just that.

I also believe that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house - free expression does not include the right to willfully or inadvertently endanger other people. (emphasis mine.) And, if governments are supposedly going to get involved in safety, then they had damn well better do it and do it properly - by training people, and not mandating technology (ABS came about because so many people don't know how to "feather" their brakes in a pinch. I refuse to buy it.)

5-90

Personally, I think that the government should (for the most part) stay out of vehicle modification regulations. I don't find spinners to be dangerous, I don't find talking on your phone to be dangerous, I don't find driving a lifted vehicle to be dangerous, etc., etc., I think that people need to be aware of their vehicle and its limitations, and if they are at fault for an accident (I'm sorry, spinners come on LARGE vehicles - suburbans, escalades, navigators, H2s, etc., you NOTICE the vehicle whether it has spinners or not - that is not a valid excuse to me) they should be punished appropriately.

Furthermore, I think that the spinners vs. lifted vehicle arguement is incredibly stupid; Would I buy them? Probably not, but I respect a vehicle which is modified in the owner's taste when done right (and safely).

 

[Matthew Currie]

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.

It's always been up to the government to decide how we can modify our vehicles. We can always hope that they will stay reasonable, and allow us modifications that we feel are appropriate, but we cannot now mount sirens or bermuda bells, take off our catalytic converters, run red headlights, take off our fenders, and a host of other things that are deemed unsafe for the highway. It may be a slippery slope, but we're on it, and always have been. The only real argument here is whether spinners are unsafe enough to warrant that kind of control.

 

[HTeK]

While spinners are fruity, I dont think they should be outlawed. For many reasons, but a main concern (as has been mentioned) is the idea of the slippery slope of banning aftermarket vehicle accessories. I mean really, we all have enough trouble keeping our XJ's street legal.

While we're on the subject - no using cellphones for more than 30 seconds while driving

Cellphones dont cause accidents - stupid people do. With that said, i limit my cell phone conversation while driving because it CAN be a distraction. I use my cell phone properly as follows: when merging, in heavy traffic, or otherwise engaged in a situation that requires both hands free and my full attention, I set the phone down even if in the middle of a call. I use my cellphone responsibly while driving so why should I be banned from using it? Remember, you can't legislate stupidity... now matter how many laws you enact to control stupid people, you never will.

-jm

 

[jpfreak]

5-90:

I appreciate the fact that you respect my opinion. I do believe that talking on a cell phone is dangerous. I don't have problems driving and talking on a cell phone at the same time. I don't think that the government should be able to ticket people for doing so. I do believe that it (talking on the phone) should be taken into consideration if the person talking on a cell phone causes, or is involved in, an accident. The people who get in accidents while talking on cell phones are generally the same people who get in accidents anyway.

FMVSS is "generally" designed to regulate stock vehicles coming off the assembly line. Although it does apply to modded vehicles as well, it doesn't *specifically* regulate how they can and cannot be modified. Again; I feel that people should be free to modify their vehicle however they please. Should a wheel fall off a lowered car and cause an accident, that should be taken into account in both the insurance & police reports, and any liability that may stem from it. But I think the same thing applies to lifted vehicles, i.e., should a lift spring break due to poor installation or engineering, that should also be taken into account.

 

[ACE]

The only real argument here is whether spinners are unsafe enough to warrant that kind of control.

Right on Matt. If this legislation can provide data that shows spinners cause accidents, then it becomes debatable. Lacking any consistent data, it's a stupid proposition. I would be more distracted by a beautiful woman driving any car, than by spinning wheels.
I'd rather government stay out of it.

 

[DrMoab]

Cellphones dont cause accidents - stupid people do. With that said, i limit my cell phone conversation while driving because it CAN be a distraction. I use my cell phone properly as follows: when merging, in heavy traffic, or otherwise engaged in a situation that requires both hands free and my full attention, I set the phone down even if in the middle of a call. I use my cellphone responsibly while driving so why should I be banned from using it? Remember, you can't legislate stupidity... now matter how many laws you enact to control stupid people, you never will.

-jm

I agree....100%. I think...if you get in a wreck while talking on a phone then you should have the book thrown at you. But if you take cell phones away from drivers who can't drive with cell phones then they will just get distracted by changing radio stations and run you off the road anyway.

 

[Eagle]

I have to be in favor of banning the things. They are dangerous. I don't know what they teach (IF they teach?) in drivers' education these days, but back when I took it my instructor taught (Barney Rubble) taught us that the way to determine if a car was actually stopped at an intersection was to look at the wheels. As already noted, spinnerz make that invalid.

They are just a bad idea. SEMA should pick their battles kore carefully.

 

[Rob Mayercik]

I have to be in favor of banning the things. They are dangerous. I don't know what they teach (IF they teach?) in drivers' education these days, but back when I took it my instructor taught (Barney Rubble) taught us that the way to determine if a car was actually stopped at an intersection was to look at the wheels. As already noted, spinnerz make that invalid.

They are just a bad idea. SEMA should pick their battles kore carefully.

You know, that reminds me - I have always wondered why it is legal to sell those little LED washer nozzle kits - isn't it illegal to have blue lights anywhere on your car (or any red ones beyond the tail lights), unless you're fire/police/rescue?

Rob

 

[5-90]

Depends on the state. There are quite a few states that still don't have any trouble with the old "Blue-dots" in taillights - although California isn't one of them. Technically, any SOLID blue light is illegal pretty much everywhere. Red is tolerable, but it is "technically" reserved for emergency vehicles (although you can sometimes get away with it.) Generally, any non-official "emergency" vehicle (civilian DR, tow trucks, Red Cross, and the like) are going to mount yellow lights - with red lights for "first-aiders" and "first responders" as a sort of badge of office.

I do recall hearing that there was going to be a pretty big flap over the clear "Euro" taillights somewhere around New York - apparently, the things can look like headlamps in a reflection until the coloured bulbs come on.

Also, given the bluish tint that is seen in the "mock" HID headlamps, I'm surprised nothing's been mandated there as well. I just get tired of the things - if you want your lights nice and bright, stick to a white beam. Don't bother with anything beyond a pale yellow (for habitually foggy areas) - if you want fog lights, install them. If you don't have to deal with fog every damn day you don't need yellow headlamps, and there's no point is using a light with its own colour for primary vision when it will wash out the colours of everything it lights up...

5-90

 

[bjoehandley]

Ditto on what 5-90 said. Never heard the euro light problem though, I know there's some debate over "clear-outs", but if you use orange or red (where applicable) bulbs that shouldn't be a problem.

When I learned to drive, it was pretty lousy and Illinois doesn't allow teens to get their permits till they are 15 and when they enter driver's "education", so they have one less year to practice driving before getting their licenses. I actually learned more from my parents, who both learned in Iowa in the 50's (Dad actually started on the farm in the late 40's!) where the permit age is still 14 years old, and drivers ed is at 15 years old. Dad taught me more about vehicle CONTROL than they did at the high school.