INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Parts on May 28, 2010, 08:57:54 PM
-
Passed one today on the way home today, your thoughts?
I feel they are no more than fishing expectations they get little done and just give the cops a reason to look in your car. They are a waste of money and before you say anything about all the violations they catch most are lights that or out and seat belts. I hate to see MY money wasted in a way that violates my rights as a citizen. BTW they have seat belt ones here too
-
They just want to fill their quota, as we say here.
It's some $500 or so driving without a seat belt here. Ridiculous, since all Swedes pay their health care with their taxes.
And we have to keep the dimmed headlights on all the time.
Another brilliant Swedish law, that is pretty new, says that the authorities can't set a higher speed limit on one part of a road if they don't set a lower one at another part at the same time. :duh:
-
They just want to fill their quota, as we say here.
It's some $500 or so driving without a seat belt here. Ridiculous, since all Swedes pay their health care with their taxes.
And we have to keep the dimmed headlights on all the time.
Another brilliant Swedish law, that is pretty new, says that the authorities can't set a higher speed limit on one part of a road if they don't set a lower one at another part at the same time. :duh:
It's $174 for seat belts here
No high beams? What do you do on country roads and to piss off those ahead of you?
-
They just want to fill their quota, as we say here.
It's some $500 or so driving without a seat belt here. Ridiculous, since all Swedes pay their health care with their taxes.
And we have to keep the dimmed headlights on all the time.
Another brilliant Swedish law, that is pretty new, says that the authorities can't set a higher speed limit on one part of a road if they don't set a lower one at another part at the same time. :duh:
It's $174 for seat belts here
No high beams? What do you do on country roads and to piss off those ahead of you?
They hurl :viking: fireworks out of the car windows!
-
Having had an alcoholic for a father I'm all for checkpoints. He had at least one accident drunk and thankfully only hurt himself. Stupid cop thought the broken leg was punishment enough and didn't test him for alcohol.
-
They just want to fill their quota, as we say here.
It's some $500 or so driving without a seat belt here. Ridiculous, since all Swedes pay their health care with their taxes.
And we have to keep the dimmed headlights on all the time.
Another brilliant Swedish law, that is pretty new, says that the authorities can't set a higher speed limit on one part of a road if they don't set a lower one at another part at the same time. :duh:
It's $174 for seat belts here
No high beams? What do you do on country roads and to piss off those ahead of you?
Oh, no no, we have to have the head lights on 24/7, though we have to have them dimmed in broad daylight.
-
When they set them up near nightclubs and bars etc at night, fair enough. But when they use then to check warrants etc, fuck you pig!
-
They just want to fill their quota, as we say here.
It's some $500 or so driving without a seat belt here. Ridiculous, since all Swedes pay their health care with their taxes.
And we have to keep the dimmed headlights on all the time.
Another brilliant Swedish law, that is pretty new, says that the authorities can't set a higher speed limit on one part of a road if they don't set a lower one at another part at the same time. :duh:
It's $174 for seat belts here
No high beams? What do you do on country roads and to piss off those ahead of you?
Oh, no no, we have to have the head lights on 24/7, though we have to have them dimmed in broad daylight.
Which helps avoid a few accidents but does not have any real downsides. It's a non-issue. Why you'd piss and moan about something like that is beyond me.
And it is a well-established fact that seatbelts save lives.
-
They just want to fill their quota, as we say here.
It's some $500 or so driving without a seat belt here. Ridiculous, since all Swedes pay their health care with their taxes.
And we have to keep the dimmed headlights on all the time.
Another brilliant Swedish law, that is pretty new, says that the authorities can't set a higher speed limit on one part of a road if they don't set a lower one at another part at the same time. :duh:
It's $174 for seat belts here
No high beams? What do you do on country roads and to piss off those ahead of you?
Oh, no no, we have to have the head lights on 24/7, though we have to have them dimmed in broad daylight.
We call those daytime running light we don't have to have them but all new cars do. I thought you meant highbeams. I could care less about day time lights mine go on and off on there own
-
When they set them up near nightclubs and bars etc at night, fair enough. But when they use then to check warrants etc, fuck you pig!
This was in the middle of a main road not near the bars or anything. Almost all the people who get tickets are not for DUI just other stuff they like to bust balls about. I was glad my wife was driving I always get stopped and the fact that I am always anxious is a very bad thing
-
When they set them up near nightclubs and bars etc at night, fair enough. But when they use then to check warrants etc, fuck you pig!
This was in the middle of a main road not near the bars or anything. Almost all the people who get tickets are not for DUI just other stuff they like to bust balls about. I was glad my wife was driving I always get stopped and the fact that I am always anxious is a very bad thing
I could be hauling a carload of bibles & 3 nuns and still look guilty of something.
Then again, if they knew me and that was the case they would KNOW I was up to something, heathen that I am. :laugh:
-
They hurl :viking: fireworks out of the car windows!
Last summer, a New Hampshire statie gave me a $250 ticket for flicking a cigarette butt out the window during a rainstorm. He got out of his car in the pouring rain to give me the ticket which cited me for littering and "causing a wildfire hazard".
-
Which helps avoid a few accidents but does not have any real downsides. It's a non-issue. Why you'd piss and moan about something like that is beyond me.
It's non of their business. They could fine the few idiots who don't know when to have the lights on or not, but no, they do as they always do: punish the 98-99% of people who know how to do something properly in beforehand by forcing them to follow an idiotic law.
And it is a well-established fact that seatbelts save lives.
It's even less of their business. They don't own my life.
And besides, the lives "saved" are often lives as cripples. Without a seat belt they would simply have died.
-
Jack holes who drink and drive deserve to get caught.
-
Which helps avoid a few accidents but does not have any real downsides. It's a non-issue. Why you'd piss and moan about something like that is beyond me.
It's non of their business. They could fine the few idiots who don't know when to have the lights on or not, but no, they do as they always do: punish the 98-99% of people who know how to do something properly in beforehand by forcing them to follow an idiotic law.
Those dimmed lights help others see the vehicle just a tad earlier, which sometimes is enough to avoid an accident. I think I drive a lot more than you do and have a lot of personal experience in this case, while you only want to piss and moan on principle.
I ask again: why bother when there are no downsides other than you believing it's about personal integrity?
And it is a well-established fact that seatbelts save lives.
It's even less of their business. They don't own my life.
And besides, the lives "saved" are often lives as cripples. Without a seat belt they would simply have died.
I beg to differ. Seatbelts have saved quite a few lives, and helped avoid more serious accidents on occasion. As I said, you just like to piss and moan.
-
Jack holes who drink and drive deserve to get caught.
Yes, they do deserve to get caught.
-
Those dimmed lights help others see the vehicle just a tad earlier, which sometimes is enough to avoid an accident. I think I drive a lot more than you do and have a lot of personal experience in this case, while you only want to piss and moan on principle.
I ask again: why bother when there are no downsides other than you believing it's about personal integrity?
It is about personal integrity, that's exactly why.
And since I live in the countryside I drive at least some thousand kms a year.
I beg to differ. Seatbelts have saved quite a few lives, and helped avoid more serious accidents on occasion. As I said, you just like to piss and moan.
And you have control issues and think that you have more control yourself if the state controls you, which is completely wrong.
You never read the Lysander Spooner page that I linked to, of course?
It's my body and since it's a civil right to get hospital care here, I should not have to wear a seat belt. They don't force fat people to lose weight or smokers to quit to save resorurces, so why humiliating people by forcing them to wear seat belts? It's actually more likely that I would be in favour of seat belts if they were voluntarily to wear. The mere fact that some idiots play God and decide that I shall wear them makes me feel outraged.
-
In the first case, your so-called personal integrity could get someone killed. Those dimmed lights don't cause you any loss of any civil rights but they do help others to spot you a little earlier. Now, you might think that it doesn't matter but it does. I drive around 30,000 km a year, Lit, and I'm quite used to people thinking it's cool to drive without them but it's really not. I don't worry a lot for my own sake but I know for a fact that an eyesight that is deemed good enough for a license can be bad enough for an accident to happen, IF that person isn't allowed those extra seconds.
I know; the docs could pull their licenses, but In that case you'd be robbing them of their legal right to drive a car, in which case it would be about personal integrity.
In the latter case, it's not about the state at all. I know for a fact that seatbelts help save lives, including, sometimes, those of people who accept this but encounter a car whose driver ignores them. Have you any idea of how much money Volvo puts into researching this?
I know; it's your body, but could you please get rid of the body in a way that doesn't have to include others?
-
Most people dying from traffic accidents are probably not killed by the body of a driver or front seat passenger being thrown through the windscreen.
And the whole concept of forcing people to do things for their own good is wrong. Anyone believing in their own cause shouldn't feel a need to force people to do what they want them to do.
Read Spooner, he is very enlightening.
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
-
They don't force fat people to lose weight or smokers to quit to save resorurces, so why humiliating people by forcing them to wear seat belts?
No one is forced to wear seat belts, just like no one is forced to drive the speed limit. Smoking and drinking have sin taxes, and the fines and insurance increases involved with unsafe driving are like that. Although from a libertarian point of view, you have a good point. Drinking and speeding endangers others, while seat belt use doesn't.
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
-
When they set them up near nightclubs and bars etc at night, fair enough. But when they use then to check warrants etc, fuck you pig!
This was in the middle of a main road not near the bars or anything. Almost all the people who get tickets are not for DUI just other stuff they like to bust balls about. I was glad my wife was driving I always get stopped and the fact that I am always anxious is a very bad thing
The last roadblock I was caught in was when I was driving at midnight to buy the last Harry Potter book that had just been released.
It was a major road with no bars anywhere around, too. The policeman questioned me about why I was out so late at night and where I was going. I told him that I was going to buy the new Harry Potter book and he asked me if I was going to Barnes and Noble. I said no, I was going to Borders Books and Music (which is the bookstore that was actually on this road, not Barnes and Noble). I told him that my husband calls it Barnes and Noble sometimes too.
-
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
That's sort of a really nice thing to say.
-
I agree drunk drivers should be caught but the road blocks are a waste of resources and time. They catch few drunks and are basically a publicity exercise.Mostly it's just a way for the cops to give people a hard time and poke around in their cars. Like I said I am the very nervous type and am run through the hoops at every police/security type thing I go to as being nervous means you must be hiding something
-
Natural nerves aside, even if the police give the whole run down, it doesn't matter if someone looks like they're hiding something when they're not.
Edit: Not sure about the waste of time thing. Don't really encounter them that often. Guess it could be.
-
Natural nerves aside, even if the police give the whole run down, it doesn't matter if someone looks like they're hiding something when they're not.
Edit: Not sure about the waste of time thing. Don't really encounter them that often. Guess it could be.
To me it does I won't be the same for days going on about it till my wife just can't take it. I have also been threatened with arrest for being uncooperative as I have a hard time controlling what I say at times. In general if they just put the extra officers out on patrol looking for drunks they would catch more
-
Once was on the interstate and saw a sign for narcotics checkpoint ahead, or something like that. The sign was right before an exit, which looked clear, and the road sloped so the view ahead was blocked. On the other side of the exit, the on ramp was full of police cars and vans, but they could only be seen after passing the exit. Pretty slick.
-
Once was on the interstate and saw a sign for narcotics checkpoint ahead, or something like that. The sign was right before an exit, which looked clear, and the road sloped so the view ahead was blocked. On the other side of the exit, the on ramp was full of police cars and vans, but they could only be seen after passing the exit. Pretty slick.
If they had the sign right before the exit, then the place they would really want to watch would be the exit, since anyone who had narcotics in their car would try to turn off there.
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
So which parts of my posts do you not understand?
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
So which parts of my posts do you not understand?
Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.
Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you. Otherwise you might as well ban tooth picks, since they can actually be used for picking peoples' eyes out. Not that that happens often, but it's quite possible and has most probably happened on a few occasions.
In fact, surveilling all internet users and all phone calls abroad was "justified" with the "argument" that some of all internet users and people making phone calls to other countries might be terrorists, remember? Same twisted thinking. Treat everyone as if they were criminals, because some of them are. Never mind that 99.99% are not or that the Western main principle of justice since the Romans was that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. ::)
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
So which parts of my posts do you not understand?
Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.
Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you.
You've lost me as to how it matters that you do or do not wear a seatbelt? In theory, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, sure, it's your own personal choice, and boo hoo, it sucks that you will get a ticket if you don't wear one.
By the same token, why should some public coroner clean your spilled, and very dead guts up by the road?
I could look at it in a very harsh way Lit and say it would be a saving of public money since you've been on welfare for a while?
Maybe they should give you a ticket FOR wearing a seatbelt to preserve your life, which the public funds anyway?
-
If you were thrown from a car in an accident because you were not wearing seatbelts, saying no one but yourself would be hurt is incorrect. What about your mother? What about your family and friends? Wouldn't they be hurt with the loss of you?
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
So which parts of my posts do you not understand?
Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.
Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you.
You've lost me as to how it matters that you do or do not wear a seatbelt? In theory, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, sure, it's your own personal choice, and boo hoo, it sucks that you will get a ticket if you don't wear one.
By the same token, why should some public coroner clean your spilled, and very dead guts up by the road?
I could look at it in a very harsh way Lit and say it would be a saving of public money since you've been on welfare for a while?
Maybe they should give you a ticket FOR wearing a seatbelt to preserve your life, which the public funds anyway?
It's not welfare in Sweden, it's a disability pension, and it is my right to recieve it. My parents pay more in tax every year than I get in disability, btw.
-
If you were thrown from a car in an accident because you were not wearing seatbelts, saying no one but yourself would be hurt is incorrect. What about your mother? What about your family and friends? Wouldn't they be hurt with the loss of you?
I have no obligation not to hurt others' feeelings. It's not nice but it's a fact.
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
So which parts of my posts do you not understand?
Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.
Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you.
You've lost me as to how it matters that you do or do not wear a seatbelt? In theory, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, sure, it's your own personal choice, and boo hoo, it sucks that you will get a ticket if you don't wear one.
By the same token, why should some public coroner clean your spilled, and very dead guts up by the road?
I could look at it in a very harsh way Lit and say it would be a saving of public money since you've been on welfare for a while?
Maybe they should give you a ticket FOR wearing a seatbelt to preserve your life, which the public funds anyway?
It's not welfare in Sweden, it's a disability pension, and it is my right to recieve it. My parents pay more in tax every year than I get in disability, btw.
Just applying your fuzzy logic. So, you have no obligation to not hurt your parents feelings if you were killed, but on the other hand, it's ok for you to receive a 'pension' that is less than what they pay in tax? You've lost me.
The country has no obligation to fund your life. So maybe you should just be thankful for living in a country that affords you that benefit and stop whinging about wearing a fucking seatbelt?
-
:orly:
-
It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.
I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.
So which parts of my posts do you not understand?
Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.
And what if wearing your seatbelt would give you another fraction of a second, used to turn that wheel one last time?
We were also talking about dimmed lights. Please address how those violate your personal freedoms.
Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you. Otherwise you might as well ban tooth picks, since they can actually be used for picking peoples' eyes out. Not that that happens often, but it's quite possible and has most probably happened on a few occasions.
In fact, surveilling all internet users and all phone calls abroad was "justified" with the "argument" that some of all internet users and people making phone calls to other countries might be terrorists, remember? Same twisted thinking. Treat everyone as if they were criminals, because some of them are. Never mind that 99.99% are not or that the Western main principle of justice since the Romans was that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. ::)
Aside from the fact that we weren't talking about toothpicks or internet surveillance, and aside from the fact that the logic is not the same, AT ALL, I suppose we could talk about those things, too, but then we'd be more in agreement and where's the fun in that?
-
If they had the sign right before the exit, then the place they would really want to watch would be the exit, since anyone who had narcotics in their car would try to turn off there.
Maybe that wasn't clear. They were on the exit, just on the other side of the slope.
-
I have no obligation not to hurt others' feeelings. It's not nice but it's a fact.
Oh. Guess you meant physical harm before. That's different.
-
And what if wearing your seatbelt would give you another fraction of a second, used to turn that wheel one last time?
If I was to kill myself in a road "acident" I would of course drive into the front of a truck or into a rock, not into an ordinary car. So it wouldn't matter anyway.
We were also talking about dimmed lights. Please address how those violate your personal freedoms.
Because by forcing me to do so, they lump me together with the morons who don't know when the lights should be on, like when there is no sunshine or in dusk or dawn. They declare the majority idiots based on what a few percents or less are doing.
Aside from the fact that we weren't talking about toothpicks or internet surveillance, and aside from the fact that the logic is not the same, AT ALL, I suppose we could talk about those things, too, but then we'd be more in agreement and where's the fun in that?
:laugh:
-
You know, I really can't be arsed to continue this argument. :P
-
"If I was to kill myself in a road "acident" I would of course drive into the front of a truck or into a rock, not into an ordinary car. So it wouldn't matter anyway"
There's something in the US called "suicide by cop." It's when you force the police to shoot to defend themselves or others. It's usually done by cowards who can't kill themselves or who don't want to go to prison after committing horrific crimes. I understand that cops usually suffer a lot of mental anguish over this. I imagine the truck driver you pull in front of to kill yourself would also suffer anguish over your action.
Besides even trying to kill yourself this way isn't foolproof. Not all high-speed or truck/auto accidents are fatal. Look at the guy that was disabled when Hulk Hogan's kid crashed the car. I don't know whether seat belts were involved or not, but he's severely and probably permanently disabled.
-
I see Lit's point that a government becomes a kind of nanny state when they try to legislate common sense such as making laws forcing people to use headlights in bright sunlight or making laws regulating things that hurt only the person himself, for example, wearing seatbelts in cars or wearing helmets while riding bicycles or motorcycles.
We have a headlight law here which dictates that headlights be used half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset and whenever weather conditions dictate using windshield wipers and I think that law makes sense because those are the conditions under which headlights can either help the driver see or help other drivers see them. I see no point in requiring they be used at noon on a bright and sunny day.
-
I see Lit's point that a government becomes a kind of nanny state when they try to legislate common sense such as making laws forcing people to use headlights in bright sunlight or making laws regulating things that hurt only the person himself, for example, wearing seatbelts in cars or wearing helmets while riding bicycles or motorcycles.
We have a headlight law here which dictates that headlights be used half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset and whenever weather conditions dictate using windshield wipers and I think that law makes sense because those are the conditions under which headlights can either help the driver see or help other drivers see them. I see no point in requiring they be used at noon on a bright and sunny day.
My point is that people forget. Their eyes adapt to the light or the relative lack of it, and they forget to use the headlights. I'd much rather have them on all the time than have that fraction of a second less to avoid the danger.
It's not about nannying (even though the Swedish government does that too, and it's a real pain), it's about safety. I disagree with a lot of what they write laws about but this, to me, is pretty obvious.
-
Know someone with a car that the lights are automatically on all the time, so there's no thought involved. That's fine.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
-
Know someone with a car that the lights are automatically on all the time, so there's no thought involved. That's fine.
All new cars in Europe are that way. I can still turn my lights off completely on my 1995 Volvo, but then I don't use the regular lights button but a tiny litte "screw" that I turn with a small screwdriver.
-
Know someone with a car that the lights are automatically on all the time, so there's no thought involved. That's fine.
All new cars in Europe are that way. I can still turn my lights off completely on my 1995 Volvo, but then I don't use the regular lights button but a tiny litte "screw" that I turn with a small screwdriver.
Right there I can see a problem for someone like me, who would lose that small screwdriver within five minutes of the last use! :laugh:
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
-
Ah yes. Seatbelts. I specifically bought a 1973 Dodge Charger SE because you couldn't start the car unless the seatbelts were buckled. See the above post about alcoholic father who if he was going to drive my car I was going to make sure he was securely buckled in so that if he had an accident with my car I could kill him.
-
Ah yes. Seatbelts. I specifically bought a 1973 Dodge Charger SE because you couldn't start the car unless the seatbelts were buckled. See the above post about alcoholic father who if he was going to drive my car I was going to make sure he was securely buckled in so that if he had an accident with my car I could kill him.
My brother won a 1973 Caprice and it had alarms that wouldn't stop unless you buckled up my other brother quickly disabled it :orly:
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
In Sweden they were standard very early but didn't become compulsory to use before the 1970's and just in the front seat to start with. It wasn't compulsory to use seatbelts in the backseat here until 1985 or something.
It's like gun laws. Freedoms are taken away gradually, so that people won't oppose it very much.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
Yes, I do remember that. I spent my childhood going to places without a seatbelt.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
In Sweden they were standard very early but didn't become compulsory to use before the 1970's and just in the front seat to start with. It wasn't compulsory to use seatbelts in the backseat here until 1985 or something.
It's like gun laws. Freedoms are taken away gradually, so that people won't oppose it very much.
::)
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
Yes, I do remember that. I spent my childhood going to places without a seatbelt.
When I was old enough to understand about seat belts, I always wore mine even if I was the only person in the car wearing one.
-
The very thing I oppose, as I usually do, is that it's compulsory. I have no problems wearing seatbelts in a plane.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
Yes, I do remember that. I spent my childhood going to places without a seatbelt.
When I was old enough to understand about seat belts, I always wore mine even if I was the only person in the car wearing one.
There weren't any installed in the back seat of our car.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
In Sweden they were standard very early but didn't become compulsory to use before the 1970's and just in the front seat to start with. It wasn't compulsory to use seatbelts in the backseat here until 1985 or something.
It's like gun laws. Freedoms are taken away gradually, so that people won't oppose it very much.
Awww the olden days.
When my Granddad just went to the city hall to pick up his driverslicence. Not only for a sedan, also for truck driving, bus driving and all. He had every licence you could think of. And he never had to do a test for it. (OK, after he got 75 he did need a medical test for every renewal)
The olden days, when there were hardly cars, so, hardly crashes.
There is a direct link between amount of cars on the roads, and the speed they can develop on the one side, and the obligation to wear seat-belts on the other side.
Yes, when I was young, cars had no seatbelts. In my street, there were hardly people with a car. Only those who needed one for work had one. Now, many households have more than one car. And cars go a lot faster too. Much more chance that there will be collisions, and also more chance that it will be hard collisions.
-
Awww the olden days.
When my Granddad just went to the city hall to pick up his driverslicence. Not only for a sedan, also for truck driving, bus driving and all. He had every licence you could think of. And he never had to do a test for it. (OK, after he got 75 he did need a medical test for every renewal)
The olden days, when there were hardly cars, so, hardly crashes.
There is a direct link between amount of cars on the roads, and the speed they can develop on the one side, and the obligation to wear seat-belts on the other side.
Yes, when I was young, cars had no seatbelts. In my street, there were hardly people with a car. Only those who needed one for work had one. Now, many households have more than one car. And cars go a lot faster too. Much more chance that there will be collisions, and also more chance that it will be hard collisions.
When my parents were young, you could get a license for a motorcycle here just by swearing on your honour that you had one before when applying for your car license.
My granddad got his car license simply by driving up the steepest street in town in winter. Grandpa was :viking:
-
It'd be funny if someone were to go on a spree killing the cops that hide out at DUI checkpoints.
-
It'd be funny if someone were to go on a spree killing the cops that hide out at DUI checkpoints.
No it wouldn't
-
It'd be funny if someone were to go on a spree killing the cops that hide out at DUI checkpoints.
No it wouldn't
Then the drunk drivers would roam free, so they can get in accidents with people and cause death and mayhem. It would be funny to me at least, maybe not to you, but it is not like your sense of humor matters to me in the slightest.
-
:viking:
And killing cops is just so right. 8)
-
Passed one today on the way home today, your thoughts?
I feel they are no more than fishing expectations they get little done and just give the cops a reason to look in your car. They are a waste of money and before you say anything about all the violations they catch most are lights that or out and seat belts. I hate to see MY money wasted in a way that violates my rights as a citizen. BTW they have seat belt ones here too
QFT. If you can drive through a checkpoint you're not drunk.
-
That's the case with my car. It's a good thing.
Me too I don't miss turning them on and off. It's such a simple thing to put on a car don't know why all cars don't have it
It's baffling.
Remember when seatbelts were optional, rather than standard? (I don't, but my mother mentioned it.) :chin:
In Sweden they were standard very early but didn't become compulsory to use before the 1970's and just in the front seat to start with. It wasn't compulsory to use seatbelts in the backseat here until 1985 or something.
It's like gun laws. Freedoms are taken away gradually, so that people won't oppose it very much.
::)
"Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen."--George Orwell
-
I'm not worried about guns. I'm worried about the people who might use them.
-
"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - Mark Twain
-
It'd be funny if someone were to go on a spree killing the cops that hide out at DUI checkpoints.
I thought of doing that at one point.
It would serve them right for setting up Police State, Monetary shake down points.
-
It'd be funny if someone were to go on a spree killing the cops that hide out at DUI checkpoints.
I thought of doing that at one point.
It would serve them right for setting up Police State, Monetary shake down points.
Someone misses the attention
-
I miss giving Pappy attention too. :zoinks:
-
Having had an alcoholic for a father who sometimes drove drunk, but only had one accident while under the influence, I heartily approve of DUI checkpoints. He and everyone else on the road was damn lucky it was a one-car accident, but I still am mad the cops didn't test him. He probably pulled the "I'm an auxiliary policeman" routine on them. He did bang up his leg bad enough that he was in surgery and a cast for quite a while.
-
I approve of them, but not when they set them up 200 yards from your liquor establishment. Since this not only targets the patrons but also reflects back on the establishment.
Maybe I'm bias since SO has a bar. But let me tell you how hard "visibly intoxicated" can be.
You have patrons come in and you have no idea if they came from home or if they hit the other 2 bars in town before they got there. I've seen people "visibly intoxicated" after two drinks, I've seen career drinkers that appear right as rain after 10+, but that would probably still fail a breathalyzer.
Fortunately for others "visibly intoxicated" usually gets you a ride home from his establishment, since he is dealing with all locals...a drunk driver killing himself or taking others with him is just not tragic it's extremely detrimental to your business when people come back and try to sue you, and in today's world they will.
Even if that drunk got drunk before he came there...that was the last place he was. "You refused to serve him...but you let him drive home."
You don't just run a bar, you run a babysitting service also.
-
I miss giving Pappy attention too. :zoinks:
Your attention blows around like the wind. Furry harlot. :hahaha: :trollface:
-
I approve of them, but not when they set them up 200 yards from your liquor establishment. Since this not only targets the patrons but also reflects back on the establishment.
Maybe I'm bias since SO has a bar. But let me tell you how hard "visibly intoxicated" can be.
You have patrons come in and you have no idea if they came from home or if they hit the other 2 bars in town before they got there. I've seen people "visibly intoxicated" after two drinks, I've seen career drinkers that appear right as rain after 10+, but that would probably still fail a breathalyzer.
Fortunately for others "visibly intoxicated" usually gets you a ride home from his establishment, since he is dealing with all locals...a drunk driver killing himself or taking others with him is just not tragic it's extremely detrimental to your business when people come back and try to sue you, and in today's world they will.
Even if that drunk got drunk before he came there...that was the last place he was. "You refused to serve him...but you let him drive home."
You don't just run a bar, you run a babysitting service also.
:GA:
Surely it can't be the barman's responsibility?
-
One of my work friends used to serve alcohol at a previous job, and had to take
the TIPS class to learn when to shut patrons off. Then when she did so, they
complained and her boss blamed her. Stupid drunks. Even stupider boss. :fp:
-
I approve of them, but not when they set them up 200 yards from your liquor establishment. Since this not only targets the patrons but also reflects back on the establishment.
Maybe I'm bias since SO has a bar. But let me tell you how hard "visibly intoxicated" can be.
You have patrons come in and you have no idea if they came from home or if they hit the other 2 bars in town before they got there. I've seen people "visibly intoxicated" after two drinks, I've seen career drinkers that appear right as rain after 10+, but that would probably still fail a breathalyzer.
Fortunately for others "visibly intoxicated" usually gets you a ride home from his establishment, since he is dealing with all locals...a drunk driver killing himself or taking others with him is just not tragic it's extremely detrimental to your business when people come back and try to sue you, and in today's world they will.
Even if that drunk got drunk before he came there...that was the last place he was. "You refused to serve him...but you let him drive home."
You don't just run a bar, you run a babysitting service also.
:GA:
Surely it can't be the barman's responsibility?
One drunk driver, one un-knowledgeable, new, or "I don't care" bartender, one tragic accident...the family comes back and sues the owner...and you lose it all. I've seen it happen.
This is why most bars are now corporations. Because when/or if you get sued, they now sue the corporation...and you don't lose your entire business, your house, and your car.
...and finding good bartenders for when you can't be there ...that won't drink behind the bar so that you lose your license, or serve their shit faced friends after hours...or better yet, are looking for a convenient way to peddle their own wares and support their habit.
Let's just say 95% of all monkeys want to work in a banana factory.
-
I approve of them, but not when they set them up 200 yards from your liquor establishment. Since this not only targets the patrons but also reflects back on the establishment.
Maybe I'm bias since SO has a bar. But let me tell you how hard "visibly intoxicated" can be.
You have patrons come in and you have no idea if they came from home or if they hit the other 2 bars in town before they got there. I've seen people "visibly intoxicated" after two drinks, I've seen career drinkers that appear right as rain after 10+, but that would probably still fail a breathalyzer.
Fortunately for others "visibly intoxicated" usually gets you a ride home from his establishment, since he is dealing with all locals...a drunk driver killing himself or taking others with him is just not tragic it's extremely detrimental to your business when people come back and try to sue you, and in today's world they will.
Even if that drunk got drunk before he came there...that was the last place he was. "You refused to serve him...but you let him drive home."
You don't just run a bar, you run a babysitting service also.
:GA:
Surely it can't be the barman's responsibility?
One drunk driver, one un-knowledgeable, new, or "I don't care" bartender, one tragic accident...the family comes back and sues the owner...and you lose it all. I've seen it happen.
This is why most bars are now corporations. Because when/or if you get sued, they now sue the corporation...and you don't lose your entire business, your house, and your car.
...and finding good bartenders for when you can't be there ...that won't drink behind the bar so that you lose your license, or serve their shit faced friends after hours...or better yet, are looking for a convenient way to peddle their own wares and support their habit.
Let's just say 95% of all monkeys want to work in a banana factory.
You live in a bizarre country. :-\
-
You live in a bizarre country. :-\
Definitely.
And some of the inhabitants are even more bizarre. ;)
-
Dram shop liability laws have been around since the end of prohibition. You can purchase insurance to cover yourself, and should if a bar or liquor store owner.
-
You live in a bizarre country. :-\
Definitely.
And some of the inhabitants are even more bizarre. ;)
Present company excluded? :zoinks:
-
You live in a bizarre country. :-\
Definitely.
And some of the inhabitants are even more bizarre. ;)
Present company excluded? :zoinks:
Nope. I'm a "special" bizarre case. :zoinks: