TOO FAR. Go back to your homeland to pull this sh!t.
02-17-2008, 12:07 PM
#21
Going over an arbitrary speed limit that is usually set for reasons other than safety
is rarely the primary cause of an accident. It may be a contributing one, but usually not the main reason. Statistics and reports are very misleading on this, as they frequently lump all sorts of other behaviours into this catagory.
"Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph."<ul><li><a href="http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/">http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/</a</li></ul>
"Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph."<ul><li><a href="http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/">http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/</a</li></ul>
02-17-2008, 01:39 PM
#24
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to see his point though...
Emergency rooms are littered with victims of questionable choices. People take far greater risks, for less legitimate reasons than this man. Why should I pay the medical costs for someone who thinks climbing a cliff without the aid of safety ropes, or racing a mountain bike down a hill would be a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon?
I'm not a big fan of religion as a rule, but, if the current laws entitle him, then we shouldn't be mad at him, but rather the law makers we ourselves voted in.
Koz.
I'm not a big fan of religion as a rule, but, if the current laws entitle him, then we shouldn't be mad at him, but rather the law makers we ourselves voted in.
Koz.
02-17-2008, 02:34 PM
#27
There is some truth. On the other hand, people who make questionable choices
often face criticism for choices, and sometimes bills (helicoptor rescues, ambulance rides, etc). They may also face legal action, should their actions impact another person.
To what point should other non-worshippers pay for somebody to express their religious "freedom"? At what point does it restrict the freedoms of others in other non-religious ways, when medical costs must be borne by all?
When I was quite small, we recited the Lord's Prayer and sang God Save the Queen in (Canadian) public school every morning. One could say it was expressing a certain religious freedom for some members of the class. If kids didn't want to take part, they just sat it out. It didn't cost anyone penny, yet it was stopped out of concern for others who did not share the same beliefs. Help! I was being opressed when they took that away! ;-)
What is the concern to me, is that everybody is being asked to subsidize a religion. I thought government was meant to be secular. Stupid people in general are the cost of running a society. Under-writing dangerous practices based on religious conviction doesn't sound secular.
Many drugs are considered illegal, given the harmful effects they have on the user. The cost to society is considerable. What if somebody makes this religion? Does that mean they are being opressed? More on topic on a car forum, you might as well start a religion that does not believe in obtaining driver's licenses or car insurance. Let the non-believers sort it out;-)
To what point should other non-worshippers pay for somebody to express their religious "freedom"? At what point does it restrict the freedoms of others in other non-religious ways, when medical costs must be borne by all?
When I was quite small, we recited the Lord's Prayer and sang God Save the Queen in (Canadian) public school every morning. One could say it was expressing a certain religious freedom for some members of the class. If kids didn't want to take part, they just sat it out. It didn't cost anyone penny, yet it was stopped out of concern for others who did not share the same beliefs. Help! I was being opressed when they took that away! ;-)
What is the concern to me, is that everybody is being asked to subsidize a religion. I thought government was meant to be secular. Stupid people in general are the cost of running a society. Under-writing dangerous practices based on religious conviction doesn't sound secular.
Many drugs are considered illegal, given the harmful effects they have on the user. The cost to society is considerable. What if somebody makes this religion? Does that mean they are being opressed? More on topic on a car forum, you might as well start a religion that does not believe in obtaining driver's licenses or car insurance. Let the non-believers sort it out;-)
02-17-2008, 04:04 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really interesting thread
I can't really maintain a purely objective and unbiased standpoint on the issue.
- I'm a Sikh, and though I don't wear a turban many of my family members do.
- I drive a motorcycle and understand the importance of wearing head protection.
- I'm in the hospitals enough to see where at least some of our healthcare dollars end up, with healthcare costs appearing to be a major point in this debate
I'm really surprised at the responses in this thread from some of the forum members. I understand none of the profanity or harsh comments are directed at me, but as a sikh I do get a strange feeling of being singled out or picked on by reading them. Some of the responses here are offensive, and I think people should exercise more sensitivity and compassion when discussing such issues. Let me reiterate that I am not religious, I just believe this kind of understanding should be extended to all other people.
Our healthcare system collectively absorbs 'extra' costs for the personal choices of others each and every day, from the Jehovah's witness that cannot receive blood products to the comatose IV drug abuser that sits in the ICU for over 30 days on life support until the plug is pulled. Every day. Every where. Others choices, extra costs from your tax dollars. (Just examples, not comparing the two)
And putting things into perspective, the number of sikhs who ride motorcycles who wear turbans and will get into accidents is likely quite small. Our energy/frustration/anger towards this issue should be proportional to the size of the problem.
I cannot deny that it would be a strange situation if I was legally bound to wear a helmet whereas my uncle wasn't. It creates lots of grey areas, issues best addressed in court.
I certainly disagree that anyone should be sent anywhere on any boat. We all got here somehow.
Aman
- I'm a Sikh, and though I don't wear a turban many of my family members do.
- I drive a motorcycle and understand the importance of wearing head protection.
- I'm in the hospitals enough to see where at least some of our healthcare dollars end up, with healthcare costs appearing to be a major point in this debate
I'm really surprised at the responses in this thread from some of the forum members. I understand none of the profanity or harsh comments are directed at me, but as a sikh I do get a strange feeling of being singled out or picked on by reading them. Some of the responses here are offensive, and I think people should exercise more sensitivity and compassion when discussing such issues. Let me reiterate that I am not religious, I just believe this kind of understanding should be extended to all other people.
Our healthcare system collectively absorbs 'extra' costs for the personal choices of others each and every day, from the Jehovah's witness that cannot receive blood products to the comatose IV drug abuser that sits in the ICU for over 30 days on life support until the plug is pulled. Every day. Every where. Others choices, extra costs from your tax dollars. (Just examples, not comparing the two)
And putting things into perspective, the number of sikhs who ride motorcycles who wear turbans and will get into accidents is likely quite small. Our energy/frustration/anger towards this issue should be proportional to the size of the problem.
I cannot deny that it would be a strange situation if I was legally bound to wear a helmet whereas my uncle wasn't. It creates lots of grey areas, issues best addressed in court.
I certainly disagree that anyone should be sent anywhere on any boat. We all got here somehow.
Aman