An opinion of the US from outside

[moolooman]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10700730

You may or may not be interested in this. I thought I would throw it out out there for fodder.

What I can tell you that there is a whole bunch of people at home aswell who are up to their eyeballs in it due to carefree spending.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26runners.html

Sorry, I just have to put this here. For the states involved...WTF?

[SirDickusBacillus]

Why WTF? Im not sure I understand your surprise.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

The government has to step in? Seriously? Why not just let natural selection take it's course. In all seriousness, how about public education, better parenting public awareness. No we need to restrict your freedoms MORE!

I run constantly on busy sidewalks with earphones. (in the evening) constantly keeping my eyes focused on traffic, and side streets any potential place to get nailed by a car.

[SirDickusBacillus]

This isnt an issue of severing more freedoms (I know that is technically what its doing), but this is really about protecting drivers from the resulting lawsuits. Natural selection does take its course whether or not there is a law. Law is manmade. What would changing public education do? Why is it even brought up? I would be rightly pissed off if schools paid a teacher to tell the students to not wear earphones while running. Better parenting? Really? Really? Public Awareness is just what this is. An attempt to make the public aware that they can get in trouble for wearing earbuds while running.


If anything comes from this it will be, as always, a misinterpretation by the law enforcement. They generally misprioritize infractions.

In where ever you are from, if a jogger was hit by a car because they decided to run out in the road without looking, would the driver be sued for family damages?

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

In where ever you are from, if a jogger was hit by a car because they decided to run out in the road without looking, would the driver be sued for family damages?

Every case is probably different. Was the driver following the rules of the road when it happend. Were there any witnesses? Usually try to establish fault.

Are you saying such laws are needed to protect drivers?

What about a responsible citizen who maybe forced to take his ear phones out?

This should be a war on "irresponsible behavior" almost as winable as a "war on terror" not earphones and pedestrians.

There are a few instances where hearing a car coming from behind could save you, sure. But only when you decide not to pay attention. There is something else called...look before you "run out in the road without looking." Usually done with or without earphones.

[SirDickusBacillus]

Such laws, in the USA, are often needed to protect people from civil suits. The cash gets racked up and there are more than enough greedy pricks to go after them. This is coming as a response to a law banning drivers from talking or texting on a cell phone. Of course, not everyone needs the rule to be in place, but have you seen or been to the US? Its not a place where the laws follow logic. Even without a law on earphones, I guarantee that there has been more than one person already who has been forced to take out their earbuds while jogging or biking. Cops have done `moral` policing since they were created. Laws like this are created to protect the growing numbers of stupid MEXTing people (in the eyes of the lawmakers). Why not make a little cash at the same time?

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Even without a law on earphones, I guarantee that there has been more than one person already who has been forced to take out their earbuds while jogging or biking. Cops have done `moral` policing since they were created. Laws like this are created to protect the growing numbers of stupid MEXTing people (in the eyes of the lawmakers). Why not make a little cash at the same time?

Well said. But it does have a big impact on the freedoms of the "law-bringers" when dealing with non "stupid people" right?

I love this quote from Mr. Kruger

“This is not government interference,” he said. “This is more like saying, ‘You’re doing something that could be detrimental to yourself and others around you.’ ”

Yeah why don't you "start saying You're doing something that could be detrimental to yourself and others." when running with scissors. Dropping a loaded gun on the ground. Putting your tongue on a frozen steel pole. Getting drunk and walking home at night (probably huge numbers of pedestrian fatilities there) How about alcohol in general Mr. Kruger, wanna go down that street again?

[SirDickusBacillus]

Well said. But it does have a big impact on the freedoms of the "law-bringers" when dealing with non "stupid people" right?

Not quite so sure what this means. Whare are the `law-bringers` fram?

His comment should mare be focused on the fact about being a danger to those around them. There are many laws already against the things you mentioned. The running with scissors and frozen pole are possibly the oldest from your list and therefore have been engrained in our minds through evolution. It also doesnt pose much of a threat to those around you when the scissors are pointed inward and when they are pointed outward they are considered a weapon while running at other people. I dont know of anyway to injure others when sticking your tongue to a frozen pole. I really cant think of too many laws that are designed to protect an individual from themselves. There is the Baker Act which incarcerates a person when they are violent toward themselves or others (either in thought or action). There is... well thats all I can think of now.

[GETAK]

There are also helmet and seatbelt laws (directed toward adults, not children).

[moolooman]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52763822147

[SirDickusBacillus]

Good example. I forgot about seatbelt laws. My state doesnt have helmet laws for adults.

I would liken this to a seatbelt law though. Unless a driver is doing something else wrong, I have never heard of them being ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. Of course this goes back to the abuse of force by cops who pull people over because they are suspicious and say its because of their seatbelt. This wouldnt change anything for pedestrians though, because they are already stopped whenever.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

by moolooman on Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:09 pm
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52763822147

nice find bro

[SirDickusBacillus]

Im curious to see where evolution will put people who spend a lot of time liking things on Facebook.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Unfortunately, they are making headway in this pre-fab, overly P.C (politically correct), hyper sensitive, money talks, advertizing dependent, materialistic, ego feeding, self absorbed, digitally dominated western world we call home. They are a product of the disaster we are creating for ourselves.

[moolooman]

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

(Teachers think I've lost it. Can't stop grining and laughing to myself...nice mooloo)

[SirDickusBacillus]

Unfortunately, they are making headway in this pre-fab, overly P.C (politically correct), hyper sensitive, money talks, advertizing dependent, materialistic, ego feeding, self absorbed, digitally dominated western world we call home. They are a product of the disaster we are creating for ourselves.

I agree with this, but what makes it just the digital age that acts as described. Im not so sure its a disaster either. I believe in chaos.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I think it is just easier to find other like minded hipsters and dorks. (just talking out my ass) Not too much against the digital age....it's just the vehicle.

[SirDickusBacillus]

I guess it may be easier to associate with like minded people or turn one thought into a social mind, but I dont think the attitudes you expressed apply only to our current situation.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Wanna fight about it?

[moolooman]

I am absolutely sure that you guys will have seen this, but I thought I would pop Leeroy Jenkins up on the off chance you hadn`t.
Seemed relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

LEEROY -MA- JENKINS!!!!

[moolooman]

MEXTing classic

[SirDickusBacillus]

So because I dont agree it means I want to LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYYY JJJEEEAAAANNNNKINS!

about it? Why you gotta say something and not discuss it?

[sonofobed]

Well at least I got chicken.

[SirDickusBacillus]

Ah shit nah. You got chicken?!

[sonofobed]

My question though, is why would Rich want to fight with Sir Dick?

And just to say, why not put a law out there to make it punishable for pedestrians to blindly run into traffic without any regard for their responsibility?

And I would hardly blame facebook users for all of the problems with today's society.

[GETAK]

Well it must already be illegal to run blindly into traffic. That's why there are lights, crosswalks and jaywalking, whatever the MEXT that is.

Hey what do you guys think about the illegalization of smoking in the car?

Does your opinion change if a child is in there?

How about banning smoking in public buildings, like Mr. Donuts and Komeda?

[moolooman]

Smoking is banned in all public buildings in New Zealand. It is also banned in sports stadiums. Suits me fine. I was a smoker for 15 years, but not anymore so it suits me down to the ground.