Big Tone wrote:
But you know what Rush, there's something I just don't get which happens in most other walks of life but not driving...
May I start by saying that my evidence suggests that the vast majority of women and a slight majority of men are more likely to get into some sort of car accident costing more than a thousand dollars, than to get into some sort of 'fight'?
So why are there more martial arts schools than driving schools?
Quote:
You know how in science we look at what does or doesn't work and borrow from it to make human life better? Why has that never been done with driving I wonder?
In nature, we will look at the habits of insects and mammals and see what makes for a successful society by looking at was is or isn't working and their habits etc. In human life, they look at our world and see after much research that the sun is damaging to our skin and tell us we should cover up or use sun screen. They look at Eastern and Western diets and see the food we eat makes us more or less vulnerable to cancer and advise us on what's good to eat and what's not.
Since we are the only animal that prefers to prey upon itself, and also the only animal that willingly cooperates in its own victimization, you have to remember things like:
Sunscreen is much more expensive than clothing, has a much greater potential for toxic side effects, and is much less permanent a barrier, yet it's still a growth industry (No matter how much sunscreen she uses, she'll look better at 50 if she avoids the sun, than if she uses sunscreen as an excuse to spend more time in the sun.)
Much of the advice on what's good or bad for you (or someone else) comes from someone trying to hawk a product for profit while telling you what you think you need to hear to convince you of what they say is good or bad for you. (I generally abstain from any artificial food product, or food item subjected to unusual artificial processes.)
Quote:
So why don't 'they' collect evidence by looking at drivers from all walks of life: Your age, do you drink, your gender, have you ever had an accident? etc. etc. Just like a study you would do in science and collate the facts and base the governing of our roads on empirical evidence and scientific analysis? I'm sure they would find that:
A driver can be over the drink limit, (or have had a drink but still be under the limit), and be safer than someone who is tea-total.
A young driver is more at risk than a mature driver. (Insurance companies have got that far, but not Government).
A driver can exceed the speed limit without being a danger to himself or anyone else. (Again, insurance companies have got that far but not Government)
Why not look at drivers habits, take accurate records and analyse the evidence from the broadest cross section of drivers and then base the 'road rules' or punishment on your findings to create a fairer and better society?
I'm sure it comes down to greed. I'm equally sure it does not come down to road safety and protecting the masses, but there again if they don't protect drivers they can't screw them to boost revenue. Speeding is a very convenient way of making money off the backs of millions of safe drivers who have never had an accident or are the lowest risk in the eyes of insurance companies and are no threat on the roads.
I'm one of them but I'm sure my turn will come soon enough...
On the surface, the key differences between individuals and governments lie in their perspectives. For our purposes, I'll stick with:
Governments see people as recurring variations on recurring and unifying themes, thus anomalies such as people who can't drive unless they are drunk, or people who seek significant amounts of kinaesthetic stimulation rates, are routinely discriminated against because such people will never form a critical political mass (Dare you imagine a nation not only populated, but governed entirely by extreme athletes, neo-Spartans, and other physical artists?)
I may never die or be maimed in a car accident, but does anyone know of a nation (or government body of any size) that isn't basically counting down the days til someone becomes a KSI in an automotive collision, and never needs more than five fingers? To most governments, death by car is a certainty.
I suspect that, as end users, we are hardwired to prefer the preventive approach, whereas governments tend toward a mitigatory approach.
Once it becomes obvious that a preventive approach could be too successful from a profit standpoint, the mitigatory approach - as well as the appearance of it - yields profits which could be spent in a myriad other ways, depending on the nature of the spenders.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
