You're too stupid to control what we give you

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by justMe7, Sep 1, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    I really don't understand how this mentality is even allowed to surface. IF you fucks let this happen I'm truly living in a prelude of even bigger problems than I thought.
    Sorry just why is it everyday I read more shit than good. Fuck educating people, let's dictate and impliment limitations. Screw helping people adapt, have access to basic things so they can live more productive lives and prosper with the conciousness they have. Let's just dictate to the little children.

    What the fuck. It's things like this that really make me understand when groups of people ravage their own countries. (and this is seriously not on the list of bad things if you add it to the board of bullshit human control that happens in the world)We're not pets, screw limitors. I hate them on bikes to begin with, you're an individual. If your societies feel that they can only "proctect" you by limiting you, ... yeah good luck with that children.. which btw you're going to seriously fuck up future generations because things are going to get tighter and more restrictive.

    Inform people, and fucking help them out of the shitholes they are stuck in, then they'll care enough to work together for the betterment of themselves and others.
  2. pickwithaustin

    pickwithaustin Staff Alumni

    This sounds like it has a goal of increasing safety and reducing the costs incurred by tax payers. It is a shame that people cannot just follow posted speed limits without having to have controls put into place. :(
  3. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Yeah, that is the point of their suggestion. It is a shame that people speed in certain areas at certain times during certain situations.

    I'm not sure if you think it's a good thing or not from your post, it sounds a bit like your inclind to agree with it?
  4. pickwithaustin

    pickwithaustin Staff Alumni

    I don't like governments having to put such kinds of controls in place... but I understand why they do. We need to always look at root cause and remember that it is those people who violate the speed limits that are the actual issue and if they were not speeding and causing dangers that end up costing us, the tax payers, millions of dollars after accidents... then there would not be the need for these controls at all.
  5. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    There's ways of reaching an obtainable goal, and there's ways of not reaching that goal. It's painfully obvious why they're suggesting it, that's not the issue, the issue is that they feel they have the right to even suggest this, to infringe oo individual freedoms, and most importantly helps to create more of a limp social structure for the public that falls for justificational methods of mass control. All under the guise of saving lives and money. It's not those reasons, we'll eventually boil that same general reason into children, or pregnant single mothers, or elderly, or some distributed money that could have saved a hospital or something. That's not the point, the point is the fact that this is an option for dealing with this issue.
  6. pickwithaustin

    pickwithaustin Staff Alumni

    These types of things are already widely in place.

    Every year I have to have my vehicles all safety inspected. If an item fails, I cannot drive that vehicle until it is brought up to the mandated standard for safety. Every year I have to have an emissions inspection/test. If my vehicles fail, they have to be repaired or taken off the road. One of my trucks drives wonderfully and has low miles and is very well taken care of. It failed the yearly inspection because there was a "check engine" type light lit on the dash. It was a bad sensor causing it... not anything wrong with the vehicle at all, just a tiny little sensor. By the time it was trouble shot and repaired, I had spent over $1500 to two different repair shops who were trying to troubleshoot and repair.

    One could easly ask, what gives them a right to make my vehicles meet their inspection?

    Most consumer vehicles are already speed controlled by the use of a govenor that limits top speed in a car. They have been doing that for years and years now. Perhaps they don't have that in the UK, but in the USA we've had that for what seems forever. That said, if the fastest speed limit in the UK allowable is 70mph, then it shouldn't matter if the cars are set so they cannot exceed that. The only way it should really matter is where someone intends to exceed the legal limit.

    Enforcing that people do not exceed the legal limit is not really infringing upon their freedoms.
  7. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry but your concern is selfish and orientated again around control. Our societies have enjoyed the freedom to take our vehicles at any speed anywhere since they were created. The only reason we obide to speed limits is because the majority of us respect the speed limit that's being displayed because we understand that to go over poses a significant threat to other people. Be it in a residential area, school zone, or motorway. We understand and make the choice to control our vehicles because we are responsibile individuals.

    Sometimes we'll speed a bit here and there, or race down an empty motor way, and that's fine in my opinion. That freedom to make the concious choice that it is safe to do so(in the drivers opinion) should always be there. You just at that point enter into the zone of being picked up by the police for the generic reason of not speeding in that area.

    Again your excuse is that because some peopel who choose to break the law and actually put people in danger, we should be restricting everyone is extreamly insulting when it boils down to it. I honestly believe you are responding in kind from this position just to get a response. But I'll veer to that you really think this is a good idea.

    The thing with inspections is, it's a society accepted stance. It started with cars breaking down from poor parts. It probably started to stop poor production of vehicles and was injected into a annual thing for owned vehicle to help ensure that your vehicle won't break down unexpectidly and cause an accident. That's a precursor, a similar concept but it's a completely different situation because that referes to the stability of the vehicle before use. The same concept of inspections applies in general to gaining your license. Another precursor, once you meet the requirements you can use your vehicle with the rest of society freely. We've only amplified our requirements because of the push from society to enforce protecting our environment, and making sure that we trust the product we're riding so it doesn't break down mid-use. That is the point of insections. This law effectively says you're too stupid, untrustworthy and you will never be able to take your vehicle above a certain speed because we deem it too fast and dangerous to be in use. So instead of having that concensus spread across our society where we take responsibility for our own lives and interact with everyone else responsibily, we are adding saying that the majority of people cannot be trusted on the road, and in as a result we have to restrict speeds so everyone is safe.

    Absolute crap. No one has that right, and that is a backwards step for a progressive society that respects and grows as a collective of individuals who embrace their own ability to influence and move about in this life.

    Gah! Your last example annoys me. Look. Do you not know how they do these things? First they find some company or create some company that makes a device or uses a technique that they want, but know it will never be socially accepted at the time. They generally make it expensive and efficent, using the ploy that the rich and intelligent use them. When in general practice it affects a free standard which is why it couldn't be brought into the mainstream. They get a few idiots to buy them for years until a select group gain a distinctive influence that it actually attracts outside marketing, which inturn causes competitive marking to take notice because an area of their market it taking a liking to this "method/product". Which in turn gets used to justify an assimilation of the concept into the mainstream because the bastardly excuse is "They've been doing that for years". Which is supposed to make people feel like they're behind, that no ones having a problem with it and that it's doing wonders. Did you know if I cut your balls off and took away your ability to chose, and told you what to do there would be no crime?

    Why don't we start doing that? Why don't we take away X principle/freedom doorway to stop Y.
    You don't take away. You educate and stand with a strong society that individually agrees when it is appriopriate to do something, and when it is not.
  8. pickwithaustin

    pickwithaustin Staff Alumni

    I think we are all entitled to our opinions and by taking it to personal remarks I think you're being a bit insulting. I am a tax payer and a person who abides by the laws. I am entitled to feel that rules can be put in place to govern the safety and save the expense of those of us who would be affected by those who abuse the speeds and potentially cause accidents. I will bow out of this discussion because it is becoming personal and insulting.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2013
  9. Ima.robot

    Ima.robot Senior Member

    Disgusting.. just disgusting how governments try to COMPLETELY control every aspect of life. And the stupid general population who lets it happen.
  10. shedhaddock

    shedhaddock Banned Member

    I think the introduction of speed limiters is a good idea. If people want to race a car fast, then become a professional and go on the race tracks. A speed limiter does not impede on our freedom. We can still drive places, we can still go out - they're not talking about taking away our freedoms.

    I wonder, have you ever seen the aftermath of a high speed collision? - I have. And that was caused by a reckless driver, who thought he could handle his car at high speeds.

    I also think you should not be resorting to petty insults simply because someone else has a different opinion on the subject that you do not agree with.

    Also it is not the responsibility of other people to help others to "help them out of the shitholes they are stuck in". A person has to be willing and accept change and want to help themselves before others can help.
  11. Ima.robot

    Ima.robot Senior Member

    Treating society in general like idiots is NOT the solution. Look what happens with parents that limit their kids so much, I seen it happen to a bunch of friends of mine, they start to rebel because they had no freedoms and a lot of them turn fucked up. Not the best example but it shows that putting strict limnits on people DOES NOT WORK. Never has never will. Life will always have accidents, this is such a stupid idea. How about focusing on a better driver training program?

    Fix the cause, not the symptom!!!
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2013
  12. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Right. Again, because people are too ignornat and stupid to control their vehicles that they need regulating. You are missing the point

    Yes, they are horrible, I could go into detail, get a few friends to share their experiences, but again this isn't the point. There are more effective means of educating individuals rather then dictating.

    There was only 1 semi insult so relax there. The last one was a blunt example that you're missing. ..because most people don't see a problem until the end result is in their face.

    And yes your last statement is ridiculous. You've obviously missed my point and decided to probably associate it onto a freeloading concept. We're talking about our government more or less, the freaken cummulation of all that our society is. Mentalities like the one you just suggested will lead the way to greater seperation and issues in our societies. You don't just slam people with methods of living and expect them to accept them. And by all that is sane it is the responsibility of some people to help others, when those people chose those positions. IT takes education, time, help, care, opening peoples eyes to their potential, releasing people from burdens, easing tension in areas, helping people associate and understand other people... the list is almost endless.

    However it goes, but those two statements were side points, all beit they could be phrased better, the last one you should re-read.

    *edit* and Pick I agree your points are valid. But it's not a jusitication to clean sweep impose a restrictive law. To get to a point like that you need your entire culture to see it's such a serious issue that they want it. And to be honest if you ever get to that, a restriction removes a problem to a degree, but it hardly deals with the root causes of it which are the most important aspect.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2013
  13. shedhaddock

    shedhaddock Banned Member

    We do have further driving tuition. And if you complete it, the rewards are lower insurance premiums and the satisfaction of being a safer driver. HOWEVER I must continue to stress the point that a reckless driver will speed regardless of how much tuition he or she has had. It is fun, but that is why there are professional drivers, its their job and they have safety measures in place to aid them. A random person speeding down the highway does not have a roll cage or wearing safety kit or has an ambulance on standby. There are huge differences.

    Also the government does not completely control us. They make a decision based on what is better for the majority. They cannot please everyone. They do not control my thoughts. They do not control what time I get out of bed in the mornings. They do not control the time I spend with friends. I control that. It is my choice.
  14. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Educating means in general to help people care about themselves and the people around them, which in turn helps them respect respectable people when those people share opinions and views. Such as driving fast is stupid and reckless.
    Social decay is the issue, not freaken limitors.(ie a society that feels they have to parent the citizens because they don't give a toss)
  15. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Ill give you a point for your case.

    Vehicles years ago could go 70-80mph max. Now todays vehicles can reach 140mph+ and teenagers can get these.

    Thought I'd add a point for your cases. I know it's a deadly issue. My point is we either endure and see the realistic problem that kids and inexperienced people are abusing their vehicles and not being responsibile for the sheer power they are given. Or we clear cut restrict each and every citizen in our society.

    Obviously something has to be done, but it's not about babying. It's about educating, allowing people to understand their environment, life, situation better. Develop discipline and responsibility...
    Not shafting everyone.
  16. shedhaddock

    shedhaddock Banned Member

    Sorry - I thought you had a strong dislike for limiters on bikes and that you didn't like the idea of possibly having one fitted in the future, because you like speeding down empty motorways sometimes?

    Educating a person to help themselves also does not mean that they will. Also I think the majority of drivers and road users would agree that it is a move to improve safety, and not a dictation. As I have said, we would still have our freedom to go anywhere.
  17. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Nah it was a crude example that some people do. I like being able to reach the limits of my vehicle and having the ability to choose not go that far, not being restricted from reaching it because of a safety net. My bad on the wording.

    Aye, that's always the problem where no matter how much we try to educate, people will do what they want to do. But that's the burden of who and what we are. We have to endure that. The moment we start dictating through this method, we are accepting that we cannot control ourselves and accepting that we need outside influences to such a high degree to solve the issue. It's a very, very bad motion as a society to make, considering how tight things are getting, there are going to be more problems then progression if we keep restricting rather then helping eachother.

    My point is when we have a community that cares, we treat people better. If I care about my neighbourhood, I'll slow down, because I don't want to hit a child, or a dog, or make loud noises, or.. well you know what I mean I hope. I care because I connect with the people around me, and I see it back from them. However if I live in a shit hole, where there is no nature, things are grey, paints stripping, buildings are in decay, drug dealers are rampent, theft rape murder are frequent, social disorder is the norm, cultural clashes are in flux, police intervention is an everyday occourance... I'm not going to care. Someone tells me that something is dangerous I'm not going to listen. I will be resistant to them. A teacher tells me about something, I won't be connected to that flow of information. I won't let it grow and ideas to spawn and nurture with ideas that I protect inside of myself. I won't give a crap about the people outside of my vehicle, I'll care about the inside, how I'm feeling and how fast I'm moving. Probably because it makes that person feel alive and free. Or I'll get behind the wheel when I'm angry and release emotions through the way I interact with my environment proxied through the car. Probably resulting in impatience, weaving in and out between cars, speeding because that feeling increases exponentially, and the more I speed and move, the more I feel in control as I'm releasing or feeling a sensation. That generally is a lack of respect, responsibility and discipline. Or understanding for what the heck is going on. Most motorbikers I know refuse to get on their bikes when they are pissed off, simply because they know it will affect their riding far too much which will put their lives in danger.

    We'll always have accidents as long as people are in control of vehicles, and I agree firmly we need to do something to keep up with the servity of the accidents that are reckless. But a clean sweep is reckless for the evolution of a society, it's insulting to the responsible citizens and to be frank... well nm I'll stop there.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2013
  18. meaningless-vessel

    meaningless-vessel Well-Known Member

    For me, personally, as a non-driver...

    I can see perfectly well why they would want to do this. As a knock on effect, the police wouldn't need to chase people at 100+ mph through reckless driving down a motorway (and i've seen people exceed this figure while I've been a passenger - kinda freaks me out slightly).

    Talk of discipline - that's been going downhill for a long time - a notable point in time I can refer to is the cane in schools being phased out, and since then, there have been a relative minority always pushing boundaries and rebelling.

    Vehicle manufacturers are the root cause in my mind - they allow the vehicles to have a higher than legal speedometer in them. Therefore that is where the problem would lie for all these excess-speed related accidents. Would they limit emergency services too? Or would they be exempt and form a "we can break the law" format?

    But really - if people are good drivers they wouldn't speed anyway - so they wouldn't be as prohibited as you're describing. One thing I did notice was your example on the first page of this thread that speeding down an empty motorway was acceptable. Fact is, that breaks the law. Being illegal would constitute me not agreeing with that particular statement. And - it would eradicate the need for police to have illegal-speed chases across the country through reckless driving - therefore the risk of accidents overall reduces.

    I have had driving lessons - when I was 17 - but I now have no interest in it. I actually took my point of maturity at 17 into consideration - and the change in me between then and now isn't massively apparent, although I do make slightly more sensible choices these days.

    The question I ask last - Do people have a right to choose to break the law, or is this a beneficial way to reduce the number of people who do so when in control of a vehicle?
  19. Butterfly

    Butterfly Resident SF Sims Enthusiast Staff Alumni SF Author SF Supporter

    *Rolls eyes* I wish they would spend millions of pounds/euros on things that are actually extremely important right now. I think this is how a lot of tax payers will feel. Fitting speed limiters to vehicles is not important to me right now, sorting out the health service, mental health service, prisons, education, unemployment IS what is important to tax payers right now so I can see why a lot of people will be pissed off. I also don't think people would mind so much if it came from our OWN government, but taxpayers are sick and tired of the EU telling us if we can fart or not. Who are they to dictate what is best for us in our OWN country?

    Most cars these days are fitted with cruise control anyway and a lot of sensible and economical drivers use, I know I'd use it if my car was fitted with one. People use it because they have the choice to use it, taking away someone's choice to do something just pisses people off, even if it for the greater safety. People do drive at stupidly ridiculous speeds sometimes, but reducing speeds is not gonna stop assholes driving like assholes. Speed is a factor in fatal accidents, but it's driving without due care and attention that causes the lapse in concentration which causes the accident. You can limit the speed of a car to 70mph all you like, but if it collides with another car doing 70mph, the result is still going to be same. Even at 30 and 30, it's still enough to kill someone if it's a head on collision. I don't think it's going to make a massive difference in stopping accidents from happening, and in my opinion, we have far too many other causes that deserve the attention and money at the moment.
  20. Acy

    Acy Mama Bear - TLC, Common Sense Staff Member Safety & Support

    If everyone who drives kept to the posted speed limits, and there were no huge, horrible crashes related to high speed, then speed limiter devices wouldn't be warranted. The problem is that the drivers who do speed excessively and repeatedly are a menace to others. I don't think it's wrong for the government to try to reduce the number of bad crashes - it's a public safety issue. Is it fair in the sense of personal freedoms to fit speed limiters on cars? I think that driving is actually a "privilege," not a freedom. The freedom is how fast we go within the posted speed limit; where we go; what kind of car we drive; which route we take. I guess I see that with "freedoms" and "privileges" come responsibilities. If we cannot be responsible for ourselves and the safety of others, the government steps in.

    Speed limiters are not about every driver being stupid, but more about the statistics that show high speeds frequently end up in crashes with loss of life and severe injuries. Enough drivers speed too often and cause crashes that it is of concern to those who make the laws.

    Better education for drivers might help. However, I think many people overestimate their abilities behind the wheel and don't realize they are a danger to themselves and others. They speed in spite of the posted limits and in spite of knowing that high speeds make collisions worse. So, to address the problem caused by the few who repeated break the speed limits, the government has suggested speed limiters.

    I agree that there are many other issues that governments could and need to be looking at. My cynical side suspects that the bigger issues can't be resolved during one term in office, and if there is no continuity in the planning for other major programs when the next leader is elected, trying to implement big change now that gets dropped by the next leader is viewed as wasted taxpayer money. Perhaps governments look to issues that they can "solve" and that allow them to say, "We did such and such and benefitted society during our last term. Vote for us again. We do good things." Meanwhile, the bigger issues still don't get dealt with. People like immediate results, things that don't mean paying more taxes. Fitting speed limiters on cars could be just such a distraction so the bigger issues don't take the limelight. (And wow is that cynical!)

    Nonetheless, implementing speed limiters would reduce speeding and probably reduce the number of high speed collisions, deaths, and damages from them. Those are good things, regardless of any bad feelings about having them imposed on the public.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.