RANT: BAD Laws and Rhyming

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Gurm
No. ROFL.

It's punishable as a felony.

In some places, it carries the ... wait for it ... death sentence.

- Gurm

Attempted suicide is almost never prosecuted though.. the prisons would be full of 13yo girls with stringy dyed-black hair who got crazy with a razor blade or too many aspirin.

[Marshmallowman]

hmmm..

Okay here in OZ, the cops will pull you over and fine you for not waring a seat belt...It has been law for more than 20 years...

But we have a decent public health system so preventing idiots from being in minced in traffic accidents is fine by me, we would pay in the end anyway.

Stopping peple form driving at 0.08 is great, when a somone who has tired and had a few drinks(and is .08) and drives into your lane and smash you and your family you may realise that the law is a good thing..We actually have a lower limit of 0.05 but that just gets you a fine.


Bah......Here is another thing we are "FORCED" to do , ALL Australians have to vote in elections..ALL, if you don't you get fined(religous or health reasons permitting). So we don't have the Freedom to not vote, but we at least know that in our non land of the free every one actual has a say on who is elelected.

You have do let go some frivoulus "freedom's", to keep the important things free, like freedom from injury by others exerciseing their freedoms.

[Sasq]

Yup, Australia has something like a 95% voter turnout, where here in Japan there is something like 43% (if your lucky).

And actually in Oz we still have the freedom not to vote, (there is a blank form (/dev/null) vote bin) but we do need to turn up to the polling station and have our names ticked off)

Actually I think its a good thing, as it makes the parties actually try to sell themselves to the whole population as opposed to only those that are likely to turn up on voting day.

That said, I'm no longer on the electoral roll. - bit hard to vote from 8000km+ away

Dan

[agallag]

That said, I'm no longer on the electoral roll. - bit hard to vote from 8000km+ away

We have an ozzie working with us here, he's lived here for many years, and he still has to mail in his ballot. Way more than 8000km too. How'd you get off the list?

[Sasq]

I called the electrol office. As I no longer have an Australian address, the nice man posted me an address confirmation form about a week after I left.

The owner of the property - friends actually - posted it back as not at this address, location unknown.

As I don't own property in oz, and I have not fixed address to track me down to. I can't vote for my Local member of parlament as I don't have a 'Local' member. Hence my name has been removed.

Dan

[KvHagedorn]

I think the requirement to vote is an excellent idea, and indicative that Australia still retains the spirit of a democracy, rather than a government where no one cares because the corporations and interest groups are the only ones who get heard anyway.

[GuchiGuh]

I don't Vote
but I think its cuse am only a Resident via a visa.

mwahahah Jonny go down next time!

[The PIT]

Re: Re: Re: RANT: BAD Laws and Rhyming

Originally posted by Gurm
Zero, as a driver. I don't drive hung over any more than I drive drunk.

- Gurm

100% sure on that ????


I know a lot people that walk to the pub but don't hesitate to jump in the car the next morning. The thought never crosses their mind.

[Nowhere]

Here there is a requirement of wearing seatbelts - and I think the cop will pull you over for not doing that (but perhaps if you're lucky you'll only get the reminder). Don't know actually, because I always wear them. I think it's stupid not to do it - such a simple thing and makes you A LOT safer during accident.
Limit for alcohol is 0.02 (and it's a crime, not a trespass). You'll say awfully low, but I think it's a good thing. Look, some have said already that drunk people have limited reasoning abilities. And now just think, who won't drive a car (or drive less likely)? Somebody who said to himself "I'm not driving" after two beers (way over limit here), even if he will drink a lot more? Or somedoby who, for example, wanted to drink alcohol to the 0.07 level (to be able to drive safe in the light of law), but at that point he changed his mind. At 0.07 he has already much more limited reasoning abilities than the first one.
Most probably the first one will not change already made decision.
But when it comes to the second one...you're not so certain what his decision will be.

[The PIT]

A lot also depends how much you're used to it.
One pint has a greater effect on a non drinker than someone that drinks twenty a night for example.

[Gurm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RANT: BAD Laws and Rhyming

Originally posted by The PIT
100% sure on that ????


I know a lot people that walk to the pub but don't hesitate to jump in the car the next morning. The thought never crosses their mind.

Yup. If I have enough for my body to have NOT processed it by morning, I don't drive... 'cuz I'm still drunk.

Two pints? Sure. Five? No problem. A DOZEN? Umm... still drunk by morning, sorry.

- Gurm

[VJ]

Re: RANT: BAD Laws and Rhyming

Originally posted by Gurm
The fact that seatbelts "save lives" is moot when you consider that FORCING people to wear them is HIGHLY dubious. I am firmly opposed to ANY law that purports to protect me from myself. If I want to wear no helmet and a bathing suit while riding a motorcycle... so be it.

If I want to skydive, nobody tries to stop me or tether me to the plane. LOTS OF PEOPLE die each year jumping from planes, but nobody is trying to outlaw it.

What business is it of the government's if I choose to drive without a seatbelt? None.

Do I ever? Hell no. I always wear my belt. But I REALLY dislike being "forced" to.

Hmyes... But what if you in an accident you are seriously injured. If there is a decent health system / social security, all the tax payers pay for you not wearing the seatbelt and now requiring additional medical care...

I recently heard one of Aston Martins designers complaining about the fact that their current models could be the last elegant one. Main reason is that the car manufacturers can be held responsible (in the US) for injuries in accidents, even when the passengers were not wearing seatbelts. So, in order to provide better protection, they wouldn't be able to mount a flat-sloping (don't know the right term) windshield. Furthermore, they need a higher bonnet (hood) for protecting pedestrians in accidents. To overcome the latter, they are now actually researching a bonnet that jumps up a couple of cm in an impact, as to prevent anyone falling on it to be hurt by hard components under the bonnet.

I would agree on that it is no-ones business whether you wear your seatbelt or not; but it in the long run someone is always the (financial) victim (tax payers, car companies, ...). All these things combined, I think people should have the moral responsibility to wear their seatbelt (if not for themselves, for other people's expenses).

(btw, here in Belgium, it is mandatory to wear a seatbelt, fines for not wearing it can occur; alcohol limit is at 0.02 and non-handsfree phone use is forbidden)


Jörg

[KRSESQ]

I look at seatbelt use, speed laws, etc. as a game more than anything else. I once got pulled for speeding in my Camaro while taking my son to school. Instead of ranting and raving about it, I just told the kid, "well, I bet that the cops wouldn't catch me speeding and I lost and now I have to pay the fine. My bad."

Likewise, a couple of years ago I let my speed creep up to 65 mph so I could make it to the top of a particularely long hill in our area (driving my old Pontiac 1000 at the time). I got pulled and explained to the officer that if I hadn't done so, by the time I reached the top of the hill I'd be doing 30 at best. Then he asked "and why aren't you buckled up?" The best excuse I could come up with was "old habits die hard."

He let the speed slide, but wrote me up for no seatbelt. Since then I've been a lot more diligent about buckling up.

My slightly long-winded point is that by viewing it as a game between me and the cops, it saves me a lot of anger and aggrevation when I get nailed for minor violations. Much healthier outlook, I think.

Kevin

[Gurm]

I think it's absurd that car manufacturers can be held responsible for YOUR carelessness. It's yet another example of our ridiculously litigious society.

Additionally, there IS NO SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE IN THE UNITED STATES.

And if you AREN'T wearing your seatbelt, your insurance company can refuse to pay.

So it's a STUPID law.

- Gurm

[KRSESQ]

I think it's absurd that car manufacturers can be held responsible for YOUR carelessness. It's yet another example of our ridiculously litigious society.

Agreed. In fact it's patently absurd that ANY manufacturer should be held responsible for the illegal/irresponsible use of their product. Next the RIAA will be suing Dell because Dell computers can be used for illegal music trading.

(There. I had to go open my big mouth.)

And if you AREN'T wearing your seatbelt, your insurance company can refuse to pay.

Damn, ain't that the s**ts.

So it's a STUPID law.

Agreed, with reservations, since whether it's stupid or not is highly subjective.

I just don't worry about it anymore, maybe because as I've gotten older I've learned to choose my battles a LOT more carefully.

Kevin