TAKE NOTE: Political Standing.

[A Black Falcon]

Darunia, it's not regulation for the point of regulation, it's regulation for the improvement of the health of the general population! You are an idiot. Or you really wish you could buy beer. Or both.

[Darunia]

It's not that I'm an idiot; it's that your a cock-sucking Canadian liberal. You think that the government should regulate everything---? Fine stay up there, fucking your polar bears and rooting for your loser baseball teams. The purpose of government isn't to regulate, its to provide for a common good--telling the common man what he may and may not do is awful. It's costly and ineffective---every year, how many tens of millions of tax-payers' money is wasted on enforcing moronic laws like this? Just Thursday, the store where I work at got stung by the cops for selling alcohol to an 18-year-old... how many manhours' salaries did it cost for that ridiculous endeavor? Several cops, they paid a cock-sucking back-stabbing teenager, the girl who sold got fired---all of this, to enforce a ridiculous drinking law? Canada doesn't have such a law, yet you dare call me an idiot for complaining about it?

[Dark Lord Neo]

We have drinking laws, some provinces you have to be 18, others you have to be 19(the justification for the provinces where the age is 19 is they want to try to keep it away from school aged children period)
Having the age set at 21 is stupid, when you are considered an adult in all other respects at 18. But you can't really use the old enough to be sent to war excuse, since people who are in the military actually can drink on base if they are over 18.

On the seatbelt thing you could injure people other than just those beside you, if the car rolled you could go all over the vehicle, if your in the back seat in a normal collision you could fly forward and hurt those in the front. So it really doesn't matter where int eh car you are.

[Great Rumbler]

It's no coincidence that alchohol is a major cause of traffic accidents. And wearing a seatbelt should just be common sense.

[-iLluSiON-]

I'm moving to Canada. End of discussion.

[Dark Jaguar]

"Backstabbing"? He did something illegal, it's our DUTY to turn people in for doing stupid stuff like this.

And by the way Darunia, the fact is people keep drinking and driving, so we SHOULD enforce that. Why do you want to LET people drink AND drive? THEY are risking MY life!

And by the way, the government SHOULD be telling us what we can and can't do! Stealing and murdering SHOULD be prevented by the government! You seem to suggest that they shouldn't be getting involved in THAT either! If you are, then good day sir!

[alien space marine]

Having a seat belt is the same as following the traffic laws taking your stops and red lights,Its there for public safety.

If you had to slam the breaks fast it certainly helps to be kept in your seat rather then have to stuggle to keep yourself from being pushed into the steering wheel or other positions, If you were in a accident and you felt the forces inolved like I did you wouldnt be thinking like that, If I didnt fly through the windsheild I could have had a broken nose on the dash board or had a concussion , The seat belt saved my ass.

[Darunia]

It's no coincidence that alchohol is a major cause of traffic accidents. And wearing a seatbelt should just be common sense.

How did this conversation turn to drinking and driving...? I said there shouldn't be a 21-year-old drinking law, which has NOTHING to do with drinking & driving, which is rightfully so illegal. I do wear a seatbelt, and it IS common sense, but it shouldn't be the law. It's one's right to wear it or not---how can you say I have to wear a seat belt for my own good, while at the same time allow abortion, which absolutely kills a beating heart? I don't understand you crazy bastards.

If I remeber Canada decriminalized Pot? OverRegulated? The U.S seems to regulate alot itself perhaps more!I remeber in New York state some dick wanted to put a tax on how much tv people watched.

Dickhead, you completely missed my point---I'M SAYING that America regulates too much, not that Canada does.

And by the way Darunia, the fact is people keep drinking and driving, so we SHOULD enforce that. Why do you want to LET people drink AND drive?

I absolutely don't; drinking and driving SHOULD be illegal---I fucking said: DRINKING AGES SHOULN'T BE SO HIGH, NOT THAT DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWS SHOULDN'T EXIST! Pay attention.

And by the way, the government SHOULD be telling us what we can and can't do! Stealing and murdering SHOULD be prevented by the government! You seem to suggest that they shouldn't be getting involved in THAT either!

WTF are you blabbering about, I never said murder and theft should be legalized, dopey---I said the government shouldn't regulate everything, NOT that the government should regulate NOTHING AT ALL.

[Dark Lord Neo]

You should have to wear a seatbelt because you can still endanger other people when you don't.

ASM, Canada didn't decrimilize pot, Chretien was going to but the bill died when he left office and parliment went on a recess, and then Martin called an election and the bill once again died because that session of parliment came to a close.

[Darunia]

You should have to wear a seatbelt because you can still endanger other people when you don't.

That's just ridiculously stupid; thats like saying no one should be allowed to have gas stoves, because a resulting explosion could kill a hapless pedestrian---its such a ridiculously remote possibility, that its all but IMPOSSIBLE and thus not worth the effort. Who's more likely to get hurt in an accident; the person THROWN through their windshield, or the person in the other car...?

[Dark Lord Neo]

Who's more likely to get hurt in an accident; the person THROWN through their windshield, or the person in the other car...?

It's not the person in the other car who gets hurth when you don't wear a seatbelt, it's the others in your car.
If you're involved in a rollover, wich are fairly common and you don't wear a seatbelt you are likely to roll around the car a bit before you get thrown out the windsheild, injuring the other ocupants of the vehicle

[Dark Jaguar]

Let me put it this way Darunia. The roads are OWNED by the government, so they have hte right to tell you how you should act while on the ROADS. You don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are just driving on street you own yourself :D, how's that, that fair?

[Fittisize]

Wearing seatbelts is the law not only because the government chooses wearing seatbelts to be a law, it's because they save your life. I'm barely 16, and I've already been in two roll-overs (neither time I was the driver, both times it was an SUV at night on a gravel road, and both times the SUV was damaged beyond any repair) and had I not been wearing my seatbelt, I'm not sure what position I'd be in. A wheelchair or ashes, most likely. The worst injury I sustained from the rollovers was a minor concussion from a big-ass speaker that came from the back and hit me on the head. I don't see how anybody can be against something so simple that'll keep you from dying. Of course, I guess that nobody's really making you wear a seatbelt. You can always live life on the edge and not wear one. That is, of course, if you don't mind paying fines and getting demerits if you get caught.

[Dark Lord Neo]

Here you can be ticketed if the pasangers in your car don't have a seatbelt, because it's the drivers responsibility to make sure everyone is safe.

[Dark Jaguar]

While I totally understand Darunia's stance that government shouldn't protect us from ourselves on anything (it can go too far), this is certailny not some huge deal. It's the principle you say? What principle exactly? This is hardly stepping over the line in any sense. They make roads, which they own, not us, and tell us we need to wear seatbelts, WHICH IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD.

However, I have yet to get an answer to this. Why, OH WHY, do school buses still lack seatbelts?!

[Great Rumbler]

Why, OH WHY, do school buses still lack seatbelts?!

I never figured that one out either. Although, there's not as much danger unless you're out in the middle of the aisle.

[Dark Jaguar]

You're kidding right? The front of those seats are just waiting to snap your neck on impact. Kids can easily get VERY hurt being hurled around in those things in a crash, especially with how large a bus is.

[Dark Jaguar]

Well, you're Canadian.

Anyway, let me ask you this Darunia. Do you ALSO have a problem with the law requiring you to drive only on one side of the road, at a certain speed, and for your car to be insured and in working condition?

[nickdaddyg]

My standings:

Abortion: Ultra-conservative. Abortion is the goal of FemiNazis.

Gay Marriage: Ultra-conservative. Go to Canada for that, and stay out.
Affirmative Action: Ultra-conservative. It's reverse racism.

Welfare: conservative. Get these lazy fuckers to work.

Religion: conservative. Allow 10 Commandments anywhere in public

Crime: ultra-conservative. No aquittals please, ACLU. do the crime, do the time.


multiculturalism: ultra-conservativism. Multiculturalism is the tool of revenge for those who failed to make it in the American establishment.

drugs: ultra-conservative. Illegalize them all. If our jails are crowded, get them out of the country.

[Fittisize]

drugs: ultra-conservative. Illegalize them all. If our jails are crowded, get them out of the country.

Precisely. I mean, why bother to deal with your own criminals when somebody else can do it!

[Dark Lord Neo]

Nice sig Fittisize, at least the lower left part

[Fittisize]

I live in the middle of those two cities (almost), so I had to use both.

[Darunia]

Anyway, let me ask you this Darunia. Do you ALSO have a problem with the law requiring you to drive only on one side of the road, at a certain speed, and for your car to be insured and in working condition?


My God--they just don't get it. All I say is that the government regulates too much; rather than argue this, they pretend my stance is "DRUNK DRIVING FOR ALL" and "NO LAWS FOR ANY." To answer your question, yes only one side of the street; speed limits perhaps (but not like they are now, because they're ludicrously low and NO ONE obeys them), and ABSOLUTELY NOT should it be mandatory to have your car insured. That is a SEARINGLY strong point of mine; I pay $135 a month, and for what? For the peace of mind of knowing that if I get in an accident, the insurance company will fight me tooth and nail for any payment? I've paid more in insurance since I got my car than my car is worth. Don't tell me "Oh, but what if..." Car insurance should be absolutely optional. I view it as a conservative-control mechanism...it's to protect the rich, and it drives the poor down. My alternative: If someone is at fault in an accident, and sans insurance, the government should impose a fine. I'd rather pay a one-time fine if I were at fault, then pay some rich asshole insruance company half my paycheck every month FOR NOTHING AT ALL.

[Dark Lord Neo]

The reasong there is insurance rather than a government imposed fine is because the cost of damages in an accident, or injuries is often more than any person can pay. Government run auto insurance plans are the best.

I live in the middle of those two cities (almost), so I had to use both.

You could just use albertagasprices.com and find the price for your own city, instead of worring about gas prices that are about 2 hours away in each direction

[Dark Jaguar]

Speed limits are fine where they are, and "nobody" is a code word meaning "you", isn't it? Look at me, look at me, you really mean "no one SHOULD obey them", right? A lot of people go the speed limit.

And yeesh, the idea is if someone who can't afford to get their car repaired gets in a wreck and the OTHER person is at fault, they can KNOW they will get their car repaired. Otherwise, if someone else is at fault, it's possible the person at fault ALSO can't afford to get it repaired, and you know as well as I that the person who's car just got wrecked CAN'T just wait until the person who's at fault gets the money together. They gotta drive.

[Dark Lord Neo]

I think you should be allowed to not get collision insurance (the kind that replaces your car if you are at fault) because some people's cars are worth less than what they would pay for this, and it's your choice to do that and not get your car replaced. But you should have to have it for damage you do to other vehicals and other people (including others in your own car), I really don't care if you get it to protect yourself, though you are pretty stupid if you don't.

[Fittisize]

You could just use albertagasprices.com and find the price for your own city, instead of worring about gas prices that are about 2 hours away in each direction

But I don't live in a city. The only gas prices on there that are even close to my little town are Edmonton and Calgary (even Red Deer doesn't have any).

As for speed limits, I follow them when I'm driving in town or when I'm in a city (somewhat for the city...) but never on highways, especially four-lane highways, which are really just an inviation to get to wherever you're going real fast. All the highways near me rarely get any traffic, save for the ones going out towards Edmonton and Calgary (which are the only four-lanes) so I disregard nearly every sign when I'm out on the road. All the roads are straight anyways, so there's no real danger.

[Dark Lord Neo]

As for speed limits, I follow them when I'm driving in town or when I'm in a city (somewhat for the city...) but never on highways, especially four-lane highways, which are really just an inviation to get to wherever you're going real fast. All the highways near me rarely get any traffic, save for the ones going out towards Edmonton and Calgary (which are the only four-lanes) so I disregard nearly every sign when I'm out on the road. All the roads are straight anyways, so there's no real danger.

And I use to wonder why the number of fatalities on that highway were so high.

[Fittisize]

,,,

But who can resist the fast lane??

The first time I drove on that highway (alone) I put on the song that they played during the freeway scene of The Matrix Reloaded. I drove pretty fast.

[Darunia]

A lot of people go the speed limit.

Oh---sure; so you nevr exceed 60 on a highway. Suuuure.

[Dark Jaguar]

Ya know, a lot of highways around here have 65-75 speed limits, so no I don't think anyone here could claim that :D, but could still easily to be going the legal limit.

DLN, in the US, not sure about Canada, the minimum requirement IS protection for the other guy.

[Dark Lord Neo]

Ya know, a lot of highways around here have 65-75 speed limits, so no I don't think anyone here could claim that :D, but could still easily to be going the legal limit.

DLN, in the US, not sure about Canada, the minimum requirement IS protection for the other guy.

Ya, the minimum requirement here is for you to have protection for the other guy, and other passengers in your vehicle, I think you have to have around $1 million liability, though most insurance companies won't provide less than $2 million.

The speed limits on highways around here is usually about 100km/h. Though the major highways allow about 110km/h. Not sure how that works out in miles. The major roads in bigger cities usually allow speeds of 80km/h, while the smaller ones are about 50km/h

[Dark Jaguar]

One.... MILLION? HOLY DAMNIT CHRISTMAS! I mean.... that's just ASTRONOMICAL! INSTANT RICH PERSON if ever in an accident rich!

Wait, Canada, Canadian dollars.... never mind :D.

[Dark Lord Neo]

One.... MILLION? HOLY DAMNIT CHRISTMAS! I mean.... that's just ASTRONOMICAL! INSTANT RICH PERSON if ever in an accident rich!

Wait, Canada, Canadian dollars.... never mind :D.

People don't get that much for minor accidents. Just like over there they only get enough to cover the cost of their vehicle or the cost to repari it, and sometimes the cost of renting another vehicle until they have one they can use again. Large sums only come into effect when there is some type of seriouse injury, like someone becoming paralized or being put in a position of needing constant medical care, wich over the rest of their lifetime could easily go over $1 million.

[Great Rumbler]

Oh---sure; so you nevr exceed 60 on a highway. Suuuure.

Alright I have...but only when the sign said 70.

[A Black Falcon]

Most highways are 65... it just drops to 50 or 55 in cities, really, in Maine... and of course in towns is 25, while that goes up in the country to as high as 50.

Though in other states I have noticed that the max highway speed is in many cases lower than 65, that's what it is here...

[Great Rumbler]

Most of the smaller highways around here are 65, but the big interstates are 70.

[Darunia]

Speed limits are only polite suggestions. :nodding:

[Dark Jaguar]

Ya know Darunia, it's that sort of attitude that's to blame for some of my relative's cronic pain. At the least, they ARE alive anyway, but that hardly justifies it.

[Great Rumbler]

When you speed all you're doing is getting to your funeral just a little bit faster...

[Darunia]

Since when am I surrounded by polite old grandparents here? All I hear from you is "comply with the government"; "The government owns us/we must do as it instructs." You're all mindless drone zombies. If the government passed a law banning cars (because all cars are dangerous, don't you know), you'd wholeheartedly support that too. I wash my hands of you people. You're hopeless. :screwy:

[A Black Falcon]

And you are a danger to society, most likely...

[Great Rumbler]

More like common sense.

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeesh Darunia, do you LIKE endangering OTHER PEOPLE, AGAIN?

As I said before, honestly I don't mind if you were the ONLY one your speeding could affect. HOWEVER, your speeding could endanger ME, and YES it IS a viable threat! Car deaths are FAR more frequent than any other method of death you could care to imagine, and just getting one's CAR totalled is STILL enough for me to agree with government regulated speed laws.

YEESH Darunia, the government OWNS the roads! Make a privatly owned highway system, and by all means, do whatever you want with it!

If you REALLY think they made speed laws as some sort of control of people, get a grip on reality. HOW does limiting people to "only" 65~75 MPH controlling us in ANY way, excepting of course ridiculously circuitous and elaborate plans that end in the president being made a cyborg or something. The only explanation that makes ANY sort of sense is that the speed laws were made to PROTECT us, and that's it! Now, they didn't just think "maybe reducing speed will protect", they have EVIDENCE!

Ever heard of something called "reaction speed"? Humans have a limit on how fast they can react to stuff. This limit is unchangeble. No matter how many kung-fu films you watch with people magically dashing around leaving after images, it doesn't change the fact that humans have an internal UNCHANGEBLE reaction speed limit. One can tweak themselves to REACH that limit, or even change themselves to see earlier and earlier signs of somethign happening so the limit isn't as much of an obstacle, but it's still there! http://www.skytran.net/09Safety/03sfty.htm

Next is something I don't even need to source. STuff on the road happens fast, FAST! That is, things can change in the time it takes to simply look at one of the mirrors. It's why cell phones really shouldn't be used when driving, wait for a stop to dial or just don't worry about it. There is often a VERY small lead time of changing events to notice meaning there's no way to train yourself to exceed reaction time but by only a small amount.

Conclusion? Faster you go, harder it is to react to things. It only stands to reason that at a certain speed, reaction to events become completely and totally impossible, TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That is, no amount of driving skill will allow you to react in time, EVER. How many of these events normally occur? Well, drive around town. How many times has someone cut into your lane without signalling, or accidently nearly merged into YOU, or ran a light, or any other number of things. The average by most people I talk to says this happens at least once every two drives.

This means that if you REMOVE speed limits, and people drive as fast as they possibly can, once every two drives, an incident will occur they CANNOT react to. Maybe it wouldn't have resulted in an accident. Some of the events I hear about are ones that very well did not need to be avoided. However, you should be able to easily see that you could run into a pretty nasty accident EVENTUALLY without speed limits. This is pure probability. I have not done the math, but I'd say that while less than 50%, it is still higher than the other chances most people are NOT willing to take in their day to day lives.

This is NOT an issue of "letting the government tell us what to do". You've read the debates, you know we often disagree with government regulations on a lot of stuff, but this is just plain stupid to argue against!

Here's a tip. If you want to make it on time, LEAVE EARLIER! Generally, people who speed are very likely just too irreponsible to simply give themselves adiquate time to get to a place. Enough lead time, and correct me if my logic is somehow flawed here (seriously, I dare ya to), and you WILL get there on time. That's the only reason I can ever think of to speed anyway, and with such a simple and SAFE solution, why bother fighting for higher speed limits? One other thing. If you are thinking "Idiot, some of us have to go from one place to another and don't HAVE enough lead time!", well, if your reason for being at the other place is sound, just EXPLAIN that to the other person. They may not be understanding, but you can happily be in the right, unless... A:, that scheduling conflict was YOUR FAULT, or B:, you didn't even bother calling ahead to tell them there was no way, by ahead I mean the sECOND you had whatever event would cause the conflict scheduled, you shoudl have been able to figure out it would happen then. Oh, if you just got contacted RIGHT AFTER the first event, screw them, it's their fault for alerting you then, it's not your fault for obeying speed limits.

Honestly, can you give ONE good reason for them NOT establishing speed limits? Seriously, I'm asking. Your assertion that we "should have the right to risk our own lives" was defeated by my pointing out you are endagering OTHER people's lives (and I HOPE you agree that doing THAT is wrong, despite what action movies might say), and by also pointing out that it's a FACT you would be endangering their lives, not merely speculation. Your assertion it's "just more government control" is completley unestablished conspiracy theory vs a much more likely explanation that they actually DO care about our safety on the roads, and also it doesn't actually limit our freedom in any way except telling us how to behave on government property.

Honestly, am I wrong here? Is there a flaw in my thinking?

[Great Rumbler]

If the goverment removed speed limits on roads many people would abuse that right and there'd be a lot more accidents than there already are, which is exactly what DJ said. Only condensed...a lot.

[Fittisize]

He just hasn't adjusted from the Autobahn yet.

[Darunia]

YEESH Darunia, the government OWNS the roads!

And whats the government, a private club? I thought that the people owned the government; a government which is ruled by the people---or aren't we any longer even a shadow of a republic or a democracy.

[Dark Jaguar]

By that logic, we should have full access to every single facility that the armed forces use, every single freedom thereof. We should be able to do whatever we want in the white house, or any other government owned property.

What you are suggesting is NOT something the people even WANT! It's what YOU want, and it's for the WORSE!

Did you even BOTHER addressing my points about the OBVIUOS dangers to EVERYONE ELSE on the road?

[Dark Lord Neo]

Well if the government is run by the people and most of the people think their should be speed limits shouldn't their be speed limits?

[Dark Jaguar]

Indeed, great point, but that's not Darunia's current argument. Yes, he did change his argument TO this, but hey.

Admitting that yes, indeed, government should set up laws concerning behavior on their property, the next step will be to point out roads are for our use, and as such blah blah blah, THEN we point that out. That's the way it works.