The Subaru SVX World Network   SVX Network Forums
Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
IRC users:

Go Back   The Subaru SVX World Network > SVX Main Forums > General SVX Babble

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 05-18-2004, 09:12 AM
Mr. Pockets's Avatar
Mr. Pockets Mr. Pockets is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 6,916
Send a message via ICQ to Mr. Pockets
Registered SVX
Quote:
Originally posted by mohrds


I find it a very enlightening topic!!!
That doesn't even deserve a response, and yet here it is anyway...

__________________


2005 RX-8 Grand Touring
2005 Outback
2002 Mercedes-Benz E320 wagon

END OF LINE
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-18-2004, 10:23 AM
Uncamitzi's Avatar
Uncamitzi Uncamitzi is offline
Member #447
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,902
Send a message via MSN to Uncamitzi Send a message via Yahoo to Uncamitzi Send a message via Skype™ to Uncamitzi
Registered SVX
Re: Re: Re: Its about time the US looks at new lighting rules! (long)

Quote:
Originally posted by mohrds


Submitter:
U.S. DOT/NHTSA
Richard L. Van Iderstine
Office of Rulemaking

F. R. Pub. Date:
02/12/2003

Category: Rulemaking Docket
Status: Pending
Subcat.: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Thank You!
__________________
Mitch Hansen
"uncamitzi"
This is a Dark Ride
92 Teal SVX LS-L 128K tranny swap with 4.11's
Well.. my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle .
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-19-2004, 02:57 AM
UberRoo's Avatar
UberRoo UberRoo is offline
SVX Appeal
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound, Washington
Posts: 843
So when I have to pay an inspection fee because I bought wider tires, can I send the bill to you?


Quote:
Originally posted by mohrds
These are not new laws, they are updating existing laws to be more on par with the rest of the world.
I don't want to be like the rest of the world! I want to be like the United States is, (or used to be.) How about these regulations from Australia? It's naive to think more laws will not be added. Moreover, adding more provisions to the current laws amounts to the same thing. Oh, and the title of this thread is "Its about time the US looks at new lighting rules!"

"In Germany and throughout Europe, customising laws are an important factor in vehicle modification. After WW II, a technical proving institute known as TÜV came into being, putting many restrictions on cars and parts in Germany. For example, car owners are issued complete car identification papers with all the technical data such as height, weight, wheel and tyre size, motor etc, for each car. All custom parts used on the car must be listed in the paperwork. Each vehicle is inspected by TÜV every 2 years. All custom parts must be tested and approved by TÜV or the cars don't pass the inspection. If illegal parts are found on a vehicle they must be removed, and the owner is subject to losing the vehicle registration and insurance." www.englishpages.de/hamburg/travel.htm

Whee! That sounds like fun, doesn't it? I love Big Brother.


Quote:

There did not receive freedom, the freedom was there, it was just not cost effective to pursue. The general public doesn't accept radical change.
No. As I recall - and I may be wrong - but as I recall, sealed beam headlights were mandated by the government. The reason the mandate was recalled is because it adversely affected the manufacturer's ability to create aerodynamic and fuel-efficient cars. (Hello fuel crisis!) When the freedom to build quality light fixtures was restored, lighting improved. I would say HIDs and projector assemblies are a pretty well-accepted and radical change compared to the previous standards.


Quote:

Lights under a certain candlepower are considered marker lights and are only restricted in color (white or yellow in front, red or yellow in rear).
They are now.


Quote:

Modification will not be illegal if you conform to the regulations. You can do what I did and re-title you car as a custom (modified) vehicle and be allowed to do whatever you want if it matches the regulations.
Is there anyone here who loves emissions testing? If our regulations start looking like European regulations, when you install upgraded brake rotors, wider tires, a spoiler, or any number of other things, you get to have your vehicle inspected. As much as I love dealing with the local state patrol, paying them a visit for anything other than a VIN inspection seems like a complete waste of time. (Especially since in my area, they're only open Monday and Thursday, 10:00am through 2:00pm with an hour lunch in the middle - and if they don't have time for you today, tough luck.) Here's Britain's scheme: http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/hgvpsvop...lterations.htm



Quote:

Experimentation will always be done. But, perhaps with better worded regulations, experimentation will be done in the labs, not on the roads as a lot are now.
No. That sucks. I should have the right to test things however I want within the guidelines of our current laws. That's like telling musicians to keep it in the studio until they get a contract.


Quote:

not wattage, intensity.
I believe you are right. (I do think there is some regulation that uses wattage as a measure. Maybe for incandescent headlamps?)


Quote:

The laws are archaic and contribute to the problem.
Yes, laws do contribute to problems. I think the most adaptable laws are the ones which rely on the officer's discretion. Though prone to abuse, they are a great catch-all. A law so black-and-white that it does not provide for an arbitrator's discretion is unheard of. How does this not cover the glaring headlight problem?

"...driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver." (RCW 46.37.230)



Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
If anyone really feels this is a serious problem, wouldn't the logical place to start be with the people who aren't enforcing our current laws? I really wish people would stop chipping away at out freedoms. If ya give 'em an inch...

Originally posted by mohrds
The freedom to glare oncoming drivers? You are blowing this way out of proportion.
Did I somehow miss the part about how our current laws prohibit lights that glare and affect oncoming drivers? I'm angry that I can't ride my motorcycle without a helmet. I don't wear it because the law requires that I do, but rather because it's the smart thing to do. I'm angry that I'm now forced to wear my seatbelt. I wore it before there was a law, but I'm furious that my personal freedom would be infringed in such a bold and blatant manner. I don't want more laws. We have enough lousy ones already. I don't want a bloated system of vehicle inspections for minor modifications like Britain and many other countries have. I can't think of any recent laws that actually improved anything. I'm sure there are some, but I can think of many that we'd be better off without.

I am not blowing this out of proportion. Is the world getting more dangerous? No. Then why all the new laws? Why do we have a jay-walking law? Are you incapable of crossing the street without special lines to guide you? My dog can cross the street safely, AND HE'S A DOG! Anyone who is oblivious to the fact that roads are full of fast-moving, dangerous vehicles wizzing back and forth is also quite likely to be unaware of the jay-walking law. I'm insulted that somebody thinks I'm too stupid to cross the street without my own little lane. It concerns me that someone might actually ticket an adult for crossing the street without the assistance of a timed light. Bicyclists must now wear helmets. How long until pedestrians will also be required to wear them? More than 50% of fatalities in car accidents are a direct result of head trauma. How soon until we'll be required to wear helmets in our cars? Imagine cutting fatalities in half! We don't need more laws.
__________________
1994 LSi, Laguna Blue SVX Appeal
1992 LS-L, Ebony Pearl SVX-Rated
UberLocker

Last edited by UberRoo; 05-19-2004 at 03:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-19-2004, 12:10 PM
Nemesis Destiny's Avatar
Nemesis Destiny Nemesis Destiny is offline
6MT STi-ified, now with R180!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 668
Send a message via ICQ to Nemesis Destiny Send a message via MSN to Nemesis Destiny
Quote:
Whee! That sounds like fun, doesn't it? I love Big Brother.
No, that doesn't sound like fun, but what you are advocating is the other extreme: near anarchy. You seriously think it would be a good idea to leave things up to discretion? Soooooo much potential for abuse. Not everyone is a lawyer and some are very naive, ready to believe anything the officer says. Even if the fine is, say, sexual favours. You don't think that wouldn't happen?

Quote:
Is there anyone here who loves emissions testing?
Yes. I do. Have you no regard for environmental concerns whatsoever? These mandates are necessary to keep the millions of older vehicles on our roads from becoming mass polluters. The drivers of said vehicles otherwise don't care as long as they have their cheap wheels, but environmental responsibility is far more important in the long run than somebody's selfish desires for cheap transportation. Can't afford to drive clean? Then you shouldn't be driving.

When was the last time you enjoyed driving behind someone in a car so badly in need of a tuneup that you had to inhale a black and blue plume of smog?

Quote:
Did I somehow miss the part about how our current laws prohibit lights that glare and affect oncoming drivers?
No you didn't, but leaving all laws to discretion is a bad, bad, bad idea, and will actually lead to more problems than well-worded new laws that actually protect the interests of the citizens while more carefully targeting offenders.

Quote:
I'm angry that I can't ride my motorcycle without a helmet. I don't wear it because the law requires that I do, but rather because it's the smart thing to do. I'm angry that I'm now forced to wear my seatbelt. I wore it before there was a law, but I'm furious that my personal freedom would be infringed in such a bold and blatant manner.
Well, congratulations, you are more sensible than a lot of people then, but others are not. The laws are there, at least partially, to protect those not smart enough to figure out that helmets and seatbelts are life-saving devices. The other reason, of course, is to generate revenue from the foolish.

Quote:
I don't want more laws. We have enough lousy ones already.
How about the not-so-lousy ones? Like against murder? assault? embezzlement? conflict of interest? collusion (corporate price-fixing)? child abuse? toxic waste dumping?

My friend, there are many, many things, horrible things, that people would do were there not laws to prohibit them from committing these acts. Do not forget: not everyone has the good sense that you or I do about these things.

Quote:
I don't want a bloated system of vehicle inspections for minor modifications like Britain and many other countries have.
Me either. Laws can be done in a way such that they are not bloated and without relying on the dangerous and corruption prone "officer's discretion" clause. How many kids do you think get pulled over just because they are kids living within the letter of the law, if not within its spirit, as the officer sees it at the time? Now THAT's Big Brother for you.

Quote:
I can't think of any recent laws that actually improved anything. I'm sure there are some, but I can think of many that we'd be better off without.
You'd better believe there are some. Of course that depends on what you mean by recent. At least in Canada, and some of the less backward states, there are. Like laws protecting gay and lesbians from human rights abuses while allowing them the same status as all the other homosapiens on the planet.

Quote:
I am not blowing this out of proportion.
Yes, you really are. You are soooo concerned for your precious rights that you have no concern for the rights of others not to have their freedoms infringed upon by people being stupid. I'll explain shortly.

Quote:
Is the world getting more dangerous? No. Then why all the new laws?
To try and improve things, naturally. Even if it doesn't always work out that way. If we never did that, we'd still live in a world where slavery is commonplace, jews would likely be extinct, and many would be uneducated because you wouldn't be forced to send your kids to school, instead you'd be allowed to keep them on the farm, have as many as you like, and use them for virtual slave labour. All the kids would know is whatever their parents had them to do... where's the freedom in that? Sounds suspiciously like communist USSR...

Quote:
Why do we have a jay-walking law?
I'm going to assume that you know that jay walking is an old law and that this is not connected to your previous statement about new laws...

Quote:
Are you incapable of crossing the street without special lines to guide you? My dog can cross the street safely, AND HE'S A DOG!
Many dogs have worse judgement than your dog apparently. Many people have worse judgement than your dog has.

Quote:
Anyone who is oblivious to the fact that roads are full of fast-moving, dangerous vehicles wizzing back and forth is also quite likely to be unaware of the jay-walking law.
That may be true but in that case, the law helps to protect the liability, at least somewhat, for the person that hits the jay walker with their car. The person was driving the speed limit, obeying all the rules of the road, when some jackass decides to excercise their freedom to use their bad judgement whenever they want, and jumps out in front of the car. Who is at fault here? Were it not for the jaywalking law, the fault would point to the driver of the car, when in fact (s)he has done nothing wrong.

Quote:
I'm insulted that somebody thinks I'm too stupid to cross the street without my own little lane. It concerns me that someone might actually ticket an adult for crossing the street without the assistance of a timed light.
As I have said, not everyone has judgement and perception as keen as yours. Laws must be made for the lowest-common-denominator or they become inherently unfair, tokens of an elitist society. Is that what you are? An elitist?

Besides, can you imagine how chaotic urban thoroghfares would be if you had a hundred crackerjacks crossing the road indiscriminately, not at every intersection, but through them? Or all along the road? Roads and sidewalks are an infrastructure. Emphasis on structure which means that they are designed to do something, that being, conduct both pedestrian and vehicular traffic in an efficient and safe manner. There is nothing efficient or safe about chaos. Just ask my friend who visited Jakarta recently.

Quote:
Bicyclists must now wear helmets. How long until pedestrians will also be required to wear them?
Bicyclists wear helmets because they are technically driving a vehicle and are therefore subject to the same laws as a motorcycle. Cars have room to build in safety equipment, whereas bicycles and motorcycles do not.

Likewise, pedestrians will never be required to use a helmet. Cars will simply be made safer for pedestrian impacts. This is occurring in europe already. While I tend to disagree with this as an extreme, other such measures have already come to pass, in the form of softer front and rear bumpers, which while they hurt freedom of styling at first, are a good thing in the long run. Designers will always find a way to meet the standard while improving the way things look.

Quote:
More than 50% of fatalities in car accidents are a direct result of head trauma. How soon until we'll be required to wear helmets in our cars?
The idea is not to make people in cars wear helmets, but rather to make the cars safer from the inside. You will probably never see a law requiring passengers in a car to wear a helmet. That would be like admitting defeat on the airbags, etc. front. You have to look at the way things are going. To make an extrapolation like you just did is absurd. If 50% of fatalities were caused by head trauma, why do you think then that so much is going into side-curtain airbags for your head?

Quote:
Imagine cutting fatalities in half! We don't need more laws.
If everyone was like you, content to simply stay where we are in terms of safety, we would never make any advances. How many fatalities are 'acceptable'? People do imagine a better world, where fatalities ARE cut in half, so they mandate (there's that word again) automakers to implement safety features like airbags and seatbelts. Don't forget, many people are not as sensible as you. How many do you think would volunteer to pay extra for seatbelts and airbags? More importantly, how many wouldn't. That's why these things start off as optional, 'luxury' equipment, then become mandatory on all vehicles.

So you see, that laws are not a blatant attempt to rob you of your precious 'freedoms' but an attempt to protect everyone else's freedoms from the lowest common denominator. Or would you prefer wild-west justice? That is what 'officer's discretion' amounts to in the end, and THAT would be a scary world. Would you like Freedom Fries with that? *shudder*
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-19-2004, 01:23 PM
mohrds's Avatar
mohrds mohrds is offline
Fight Eminent Domain Abuse!
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,175
Send a message via AIM to mohrds Send a message via Yahoo to mohrds
Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
So when I have to pay an inspection fee because I bought wider tires, can I send the bill to you?
Nope, but if you can afford wider tires, you can afford the inspection. I don't know about your area, but here, off-registration inspections are only $15. At registration, inspections are included in the registration price. I cringe every time I see a car with the tires ompletely outside the wheelwell because it is "cool". I can only imagine what would happen if they have to move the steering wheel in an emergency situation. Not all people have the common sense that you do and I don't want them modifying their cars without being checked.

Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
Did I somehow miss the part about how our current laws prohibit lights that glare and affect oncoming drivers?
Apparently you did. The current laws actually ALLOW glare to reach the oncoming driver's eyes. With old filament bulbs, it was a non-issue. With new technology, beam patterns and test points need to be rethought.

Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
I'm angry that I can't ride my motorcycle without a helmet. I don't wear it because the law requires that I do, but rather because it's the smart thing to do.
That is a state law. In Wisconsin, land of Harleys, we have no helmet law. Then again we also have higher fatality rates.

Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
I'm angry that I'm now forced to wear my seatbelt. I wore it before there was a law, but I'm furious that my personal freedom would be infringed in such a bold and blatant manner.
If you already wore them, then what is the big deal? If they make a law saying you must breathe, why should you care?

Quote:
Originally posted by UberRoo
It concerns me that someone might actually ticket an adult for crossing the street without the assistance of a timed light.
That again is the law in your area. In Milwaukee, you can cross anywhere along the street. It is only jaywalking if you are in the crosswalk against the traffic light.

Doug
__________________
1992 LS Touring (6/91) - Currently undergoing a five speed swap
Black over Claret with spoiler; 235,000 miles; Mods: 2002 Legacy 5 speed, ACT Pressure Plate, Excedy Clutch, Short Throw Shifter, Aussie Powerchip
1992 LS Touring (6/91)
Black over Claret with 2.5" setback spoiler; 202,000 miles; Mods: B&M Cooler
1994 LSi (4/93)
Bordeaux Pearl; 198,000 miles; Mods: Weight reduction.

1969 Mustang GT Convertible
1970 Mustang Convertible
2000 Ford Excursion
Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua.

My Locker
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-19-2004, 04:03 PM
mark10t
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For much of my driving (in the SVX) I would blame the glare of many of the SUV's, etc. on my being so low to the ground. Then I drove my father-in-law's old F150 pickup (much higher seating, of course) and STILL encountered an awful lot of headlight glare. I'm so tired of 'misdirected' lighting....... (including all those dimbulbs driving around with their 'foglights' on ALL the time...... )

I wanted better lighting on the SVX- the mod'ed Cool Blue 9005's seem to be the best resolution for our 'low' beams. ( .....and I'm careful to make sure they are properly aimed.)

I also needed some lighting improvements on my 'new' '94 Legacy Touring Wagon and finally found something that I'm happy with- some 90/100w H4's (clear- not those hideous dark blue tinted 'white' bulbs that lose half of their light output to filtering) CAREFULLY aimed. I can finally see as well as in my wife's new Freelander.

-Mark
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-19-2004, 10:26 PM
UberRoo's Avatar
UberRoo UberRoo is offline
SVX Appeal
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound, Washington
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally posted by mohrds
No, that doesn't sound like fun, but what you are advocating is the other extreme: near anarchy. You seriously think it would be a good idea to leave things up to discretion? Soooooo much potential for abuse. Not everyone is a lawyer and some are very naive, ready to believe anything the officer says. Even if the fine is, say, sexual favours. You don't think that wouldn't happen?
I don't think there's any getting around an arbitrator. Someone will have discretion. Currently, the laws relating to headlights allows an officer to decide if the lights produce too much glare. (RCW 46.37.230) Regarding people being naive, tough luck. That's the cost of being stupid. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. (Any judge will tell you that.) Anarchy doesn't work and I know it, but we already have plenty of government so I don't think there's any risk of that.


Quote:

Yes. I do. Have you no regard for environmental concerns whatsoever? These mandates are necessary to keep the millions of older vehicles on our roads from becoming mass polluters. The drivers of said vehicles otherwise don't care as long as they have their cheap wheels, but environmental responsibility is far more important in the long run than somebody's selfish desires for cheap transportation. Can't afford to drive clean? Then you shouldn't be driving.
When was the last time you enjoyed driving behind someone in a car so badly in need of a tuneup that you had to inhale a black and blue plume of smog?
Those people are so few and far between that legislating them is really quite pointless. Moreover, I've no doubt we already have a law prohibiting such an ill-maintained vehicle. Some further research into environmental controls is still in order. If you're worried about the environment, sell your car and get a bike. I'm not worried about it. We could start a whole new debate regarding the environment, which I don't mind, but it's off topic so let's not.


Quote:

No you didn't, but leaving all laws to discretion is a bad, bad, bad idea, and will actually lead to more problems than well-worded new laws that actually protect the interests of the citizens while more carefully targeting offenders.
I haven't seen a revision of a law that actually achieves this. Instead of favoring the interests of citizens, it would be easier to simply make the laws more restrictive and easier to enforce - which is how things work now and is of course what will actually happen if things come to pass.


Quote:

Well, congratulations, you are more sensible than a lot of people then, but others are not. The laws are there, at least partially, to protect those not smart enough to figure out that helmets and seatbelts are life-saving devices. The other reason, of course, is to generate revenue from the foolish.
Protecting stupid people from themselves is not how I want my tax dollars spent. The revenue collected from law violations is never enough to compensate for the expense of enforcing them. What I might favor is a law that encouraged (but does not require) people to jaywalk, ride without helmets and go swimming after a big meal. Hopefully they'll remove themselves from the gene pool before they have a chance to contaminate it. You can thank me later.


Quote:

How about the not-so-lousy ones? Like against murder? assault? embezzlement? conflict of interest? collusion (corporate price-fixing)? child abuse? toxic waste dumping? My friend, there are many, many things, horrible things, that people would do were there not laws to prohibit them from committing these acts. Do not forget: not everyone has the good sense that you or I do about these things.
I am willing to accept some new laws on a case by case basis, but all the laws you mentioned are old laws. While I don't think we should just repeal all laws, a good portion of them could be trimmed down, particularly the ones that address personal freedoms. All the laws you cite, by their very nature, have no relevance to personal freedoms.


Quote:

Me either. Laws can be done in a way such that they are not bloated and without relying on the dangerous and corruption prone "officer's discretion" clause. How many kids do you think get pulled over just because they are kids living within the letter of the law, if not within its spirit, as the officer sees it at the time? Now THAT's Big Brother for you.
Hahahaha! Laws can be written in an efficient and fair manner when hell freezes over. ...but seriously, very few laws are well-written and I don't think it's realistic that we can write perfect laws that require no discretion on anyone's part.


Quote:

You'd better believe there are some. Of course that depends on what you mean by recent. At least in Canada, and some of the less backward states, there are. Like laws protecting gay and lesbians from human rights abuses while allowing them the same status as all the other homosapiens on the planet.
Regardless of my opinion on the subject, this is more of a moral issue than an ethical issue, largely because religion plays a significant role in this debate and there are a great many people who feel very differently about this subject. I cannot speak for everyone. I think another example would be better suited. We do have a handful of really good laws, (the first ten constitutional amendments come to mind; ) but as we run out of good laws, we start coming up with bad ones. Recently there seems to be an increasing frenzy to micromanage society using the legal system. At this accelerating rate, we're going to paralyze ourselves with laws unless, (or when,) the system gets a major overhaul.

"The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble ... there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness." --- Mark Twain


Quote:

Yes, you really are. You are soooo concerned for your precious rights that you have no concern for the rights of others not to have their freedoms infringed upon by people being stupid. I'll explain shortly.
Damn right I'm concerned for my rights, and they are very precious. Someday we'll all be wearing helmets in our cars and remembering the time when nobody ever even considered such a thing. Someday we'll all be wearing seatbelts in our cars and remembering the time when nobody ever even considered such a thing. Oh wait! That's already happened. If you want to have any rights left, you'd better start getting concerned now.

"The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." --- The Supreme Court of the United States of America, from the decision on the Communications Decency Act. (I think this applies to all freedoms.)


Quote:

To try and improve things, naturally. Even if it doesn't always work out that way. If we never did that, we'd still live in a world where slavery is commonplace, jews would likely be extinct, and many would be uneducated because you wouldn't be forced to send your kids to school, instead you'd be allowed to keep them on the farm, have as many as you like, and use them for virtual slave labour. All the kids would know is whatever their parents had them to do... where's the freedom in that? Sounds suspiciously like communist USSR...
No, regulating the bejezus out of everything, prohibiting as much as possible, and forcing everyone to conform to a strict set of laws sounds like communist USSR. If you don't want a separation of classes, you're just SOL. There's just no getting around that.


Quote:

I'm going to assume that you know that jay walking is an old law and that this is not connected to your previous statement about new laws...
Many dogs have worse judgement than your dog apparently. Many people have worse judgement than your dog has.
Gee, that really sucks for them. I hope that when they learn how not to cross the street, they don't learn with my car. (But you can bet pedestrians would wisen-up considerably if they knew they didn't own the road.)


Quote:

That may be true but in that case, the law helps to protect the liability, at least somewhat, for the person that hits the jay walker with their car. The person was driving the speed limit, obeying all the rules of the road, when some jackass decides to excercise their freedom to use their bad judgement whenever they want, and jumps out in front of the car. Who is at fault here? Were it not for the jaywalking law, the fault would point to the driver of the car, when in fact (s)he has done nothing wrong.
You are absolutely right, but this reinforces my point. Because we have a stupid law that gives pedestrians right-of-way, we have another stupid law to Band-Aid the problem by forbidding jaywalking. Streets are for cars! We don't pave them for foot-traffic, or bicycles, or little old ladies who left their boy scout at home. If somebody gets hit by a car, and the collision occurred between fog lines, the driver should not be at fault. If the public as a whole really cared about bicyclists, we would have wider shoulders - but we don't, and we don't. Roads are for cars. If you're not driving one, STAY OFF OF IT!


Quote:

As I have said, not everyone has judgement and perception as keen as yours. Laws must be made for the lowest-common-denominator or they become inherently unfair, tokens of an elitist society. Is that what you are? An elitist?
By your definition, (and maybe by my own,) yes, I am. Should we require that everyone wear safety goggles because a mentally retarded person might poke themselves in the eye? Where do you draw the line? Who is mentally retarded and who is just stupid? Again, where do we draw the line? If we considered people who can't cross the street on their own as being mentally retarded, would we still have a jay-walking law? Probably not. Stupidity is painful. If you do something stupid, you could get hurt, or *gasp* even die. Stupid people be warned! Maybe the law should require that we all stay home because it's too dangerous for some of us. ...dang, someone might get hurt at home. Maybe we should all stay in bed. No, that's dangerous too. Shoot, just being alive is too dangerous. Being alive should be illegal! No? What, you don't care that someone might leave their house and get strangled by their passive seatbelt? Should everyone be allowed to strangle themselves with their seatbelts?


Quote:

Besides, can you imagine how chaotic urban thoroghfares would be if you had a hundred crackerjacks crossing the road indiscriminately, not at every intersection, but through them? Or all along the road? Roads and sidewalks are an infrastructure. Emphasis on structure which means that they are designed to do something, that being, conduct both pedestrian and vehicular traffic in an efficient and safe manner. There is nothing efficient or safe about chaos. Just ask my friend who visited Jakarta recently.
I think I'd get a big roo-bar and drive much faster. People would quickly learn how to cross the street safely - or else…


Quote:

Bicyclists wear helmets because they are technically driving a vehicle and are therefore subject to the same laws as a motorcycle. Cars have room to build in safety equipment, whereas bicycles and motorcycles do not.
Not in my state. Bicycle helmet laws are city ordinances, and they apply specifically to bikes - but that isn't the point. I should be allowed to drive a car that has no seatbelts, no airbags, no bumpers, no roll bar, no brakes, and a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel. (Just imagine how carefully I'd drive.) Manufacturers would provide these parts as options, and would probably include them as standard equipment, but I shouldn't be forced to have them.


Quote:

Likewise, pedestrians will never be required to use a helmet. Cars will simply be made safer for pedestrian impacts. This is occurring in europe already. While I tend to disagree with this as an extreme, other such measures have already come to pass, in the form of softer front and rear bumpers, which while they hurt freedom of styling at first, are a good thing in the long run. Designers will always find a way to meet the standard while improving the way things look.

The idea is not to make people in cars wear helmets, but rather to make the cars safer from the inside. You will probably never see a law requiring passengers in a car to wear a helmet. That would be like admitting defeat on the airbags, etc. front. You have to look at the way things are going. To make an extrapolation like you just did is absurd. If 50% of fatalities were caused by head trauma, why do you think then that so much is going into side-curtain airbags for your head?

You might never see that law because the majority of people would complain that is messes up their hair (and makes it hard to talk on a cell-phone.) You don't see the majority of people complain about motorcycle helmets because the majority of people don't ride motorcycles. If you ask most motorcyclists, they're against helmet laws. Head trauma is a huge factor in automobile injuries and that's precisely why every auto racing sport requires the use of a helmet. So far, no other technology compares to a helmet, and by a great margin. Gaining acceptance of an automobile helmet law would take some time. If we whittle away our freedoms slowly, nobody notices. If we move in huge steps, people complain.

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." --- Lyle Myhr

Just because the law doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it isn't important. Just because it only takes away a very small amount of freedom doesn't mean it won't set a dangerous precedent to removing much more. Playing with matches is still playing with fire.


Quote:

If everyone was like you, content to simply stay where we are in terms of safety, we would never make any advances. How many fatalities are 'acceptable'? People do imagine a better world, where fatalities ARE cut in half, so they mandate (there's that word again) automakers to implement safety features like airbags and seatbelts. Don't forget, many people are not as sensible as you. How many do you think would volunteer to pay extra for seatbelts and airbags? More importantly, how many wouldn't. That's why these things start off as optional, 'luxury' equipment, then become mandatory on all vehicles.
We would make advances, but mandating them is not necessary, and certainly not appropriate. (At least at an individual level. Regulating manufacturers is not an issue of personal freedoms, but I do think it draws an uncomfortably close parallel to personal freedom that overzealous regulation would be very unwise.) I would like to encourage people to not purchase safety devices. If anyone values their safety, they have the option to ensure it, but there is no good reason to require it. Rather than halving fatalities, I'd like to double them. The beauty of accidents is that stupid people are usually the ones who bear the brunt of them. There is some tragedy in the fact that occasionally other people suffer, but I think our safety policies tend to upset this balance. I would think a more natural equilibrium would show a huge bias of injury towards the deserving party.


Quote:

So you see, that laws are not a blatant attempt to rob you of your precious 'freedoms' but an attempt to protect everyone else's freedoms from the lowest common denominator. Or would you prefer wild-west justice? That is what 'officer's discretion' amounts to in the end, and THAT would be a scary world. Would you like Freedom Fries with that? *shudder*
So we should completely remove all personal accountability, especially for stupid people? I don't advocate wild west justice, but I think making idiocy illegal is the most asinine idea ever conceived. Natural selection should be given free reign. I'm fed up with the dumbing down of America. Encouraging stupidity is one thing, but some of these laws border on mandating it.

---
I appreciate this debate.
---

"Cyberspace, in its present condition, has a lot in common with the 19th century west. It is vast, unmapped, culturally and legally ambiguous, verbally terse (unless you happen to be a court stenographer), hard to get around in, and up for grabs. Large institutions already claim to own the place, but most of the actual natives are solitary and independent, sometimes to the point of sociopathy. It is, of course, a perfect breeding ground for both outlaws and new ideas about liberty." --- John Perry Barlow
__________________
1994 LSi, Laguna Blue SVX Appeal
1992 LS-L, Ebony Pearl SVX-Rated
UberLocker

Last edited by UberRoo; 05-19-2004 at 11:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-20-2004, 08:01 PM
Ron Mummert Ron Mummert is offline
Invisible avatar
Alcyone Gold Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Shawsville, VA (Formally Ellicott City, MD)
Posts: 3,797
Send a message via AIM to Ron Mummert Send a message via Yahoo to Ron Mummert
Cool

Wow!!! Roo & Nemesis have certainly captured this thread & elevated rhetoric to higher level. I didn't notice one, "you're a freakin' moron"! either. Good work gentlemen.

The topic? Oh.... I remember winding through many a dark & stormy night with nothing but big round sealed beam headlights, one probably burned out, & here I am, still alive to brag on it.
Mmmmmmm.... sealed beams...four choices - High-beam or low-beam round, high-beam or low beam square. What'd they cost.... 3-4 bucks at K-Mart? In & out of the bulb aisle in ten seconds. NOW!!!! Go to the little plastic digital box.... Press 1. for English, 2. for Espanol. Press > to continue. 20 minutes & 20 bucks later I (hopefully) got a bulb that fits, but I can't touch because fingerprints will void the warranty. Opps...forgot to buy the gourmet plastic lens polish kit. 10 more bucks.

A doofus backs into your sealed beam & breaks it. Another 4 bucks & 30 seconds. A doofus backs into your "crystal projector lamp gatling gun array". Five hunnert bucks & we haven't gotten to the so-called bumper yet. A three-year old Civic is now declared a total in a parallel parking mishap.

Screw it! I'm gonna' climb up on a bar stool now. Where's my safety helmet?

Carry on. Ron.
__________________
Good s**t happened. 69 was worth the wait.

'92 stock semi-pristine ebony - 160K
'96 Grand Caravan - 240K
'01 Miata SE - 79K
'07 Chrysler Pacifica - 60k - future money pit.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-20-2004, 10:41 PM
UberRoo's Avatar
UberRoo UberRoo is offline
SVX Appeal
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound, Washington
Posts: 843
Debates are no fun once they become uncivilized.

The low cost and standardization of sealed-beam headlights is pretty cool. Unfortunately, even the highest quality ones still produce an unfocused beam. I rather like the color of the light they produce, but getting it where you want it can be challenging. One major downside of sealed-beam lights is that the face of the lens is square with oncoming debris. Any small rock that gets kicked up by a tire will break the lens. Lights that angle back will deflect rocks rather than try to absorb them, (which glass just doesn't do very well.) Amazingly, they do frequently function for a quite a while even with big rock dings and water in the bottom. On the Sylvania bulbs, the little glass stem that holds the filaments tends to break off. I haven't found an explanation for this. Vibration or sudden cooling seem like the only possible causes. Wagner and GE don't have this problem.

There are five major sizes I know of. Large round, small round, large rectangle, small rectangle, and a subsize rectangle which is as wide as the small one, but not as high.

Sylvania bulbs don't last very long but are usually cheaper by about ten percent. Wagner or GE are both pretty good, with GE being the least expensive.

Regular sealed beam bulbs are 35 low, 45 high. These are somewhat uncommon because most people find them too dim. The most common seems to be 45/55, but 45/65 and 55/65 are fairly easy to find. The large sizes are sometimes available in 55/75, and seem to be focused better. Generally speaking, small reflectors, such as those found in HIDs and fog lights, tend to have difficulty creating a quality beam pattern and to oncoming traffic appear very bright. Larger reflectors consistently produce a more useful beam and appear less intense to people looking directly at them.

I buy the small 55/65 GE lights for one of my cars, but they cost about $14 apiece, as opposed to the 45/55 Sylvania bulbs which are about $5 each. I have seven sealed-beam headlights, which I use for rallying. With the shock and vibration they don't last very long. Sometimes I turn on both high and low filaments simultaneously and this shortens their life-span tremendously.

I've seen assemblies to replace sealed-beam lights with a special lens and reflector housing that accepts the replaceable filaments like modern cars use. I don't know if the quality of their reflectors is any better as I've never had an opportunity to use one. The potential is there. I'm consistently amazed that the round light on the front of my motorcycle can produce a perfect, square beam that surpasses virtually any pair of lights on a car. I think just about all motorcycles have these fantastic assemblies, and have had them for decades. (Mine is over twenty years old!)
__________________
1994 LSi, Laguna Blue SVX Appeal
1992 LS-L, Ebony Pearl SVX-Rated
UberLocker

Last edited by UberRoo; 05-20-2004 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122