Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Laws become appropriate when the actions of one person(s) consistently result in negative impacts on others.
Of course, we're only talking about two kid & Uzi deaths, here...that must be an 'acceptable loss' to preserve your 'liberty', madbolter?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"And yes we can legislate against stupidity, we the people do it all the time. Speed limits are a good example."
STOP INFRINGING ON MY PERSONAL LIBERTIES!!!!!!!!!!111116669999
I WANNA DRIVE AS FAST AS I WANT, WHILE ME & MY KIDS SUCK DOWN YUKON JACK!
Anything less....AND YOU ARE A FASCIST PINKO LIBERAL!!!!!!!1116699
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
that must be an 'acceptable loss' to preserve your 'liberty', madbolter?
That's a poorly worded way of summing up.
In a free society, a certain percentage will be stupid and behave stupidly. Yes, there will be loses. Are those "acceptable?" What does that word even mean?
Incidents like this are sad, but unavoidable; legislation is not going to prevent such things.
Then you refer to "my liberty" as though I am being selfish about liberty.
No, I care about liberty in general... universally speaking. A reduction of liberty in general will not prevent or even reduce stupid.
Legislating to the lowest common denominator serves neither the stupid nor the non-stupid.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
I'm SORRY but that death was completely preventable.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Your loss of 'liberty' due to implementation of speed limits & seatbelts has resulted in thousands fewer deaths on our highways each year.
What a horrible loss of 'liberty' you have sustained.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
And yes we can legislate against stupidity, we the people do it all the time. Speed limits are a good example.
I agree that you've chosen a good example...
to make my point.
I did not say you cannot pass laws. Of course you can PASS them. What I said is that you cannot prevent or even significantly reduce stupidity by passing laws. And I like that you chose speed limits as an example. It's perfect!
I will instantly agree that our speed limits laws ARE legislated to the lowest common denominator. And the effect of such efforts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Look at where the USA ranks on "road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km." Well below most other developed nations, and we have THE superior highway system compared to everybody else except for perhaps Germany (the high-speed highways of which have no speed limit).
We have more vehicle-manufacture regulations, so we have relatively safe vehicles. We have an extensive and generally well-maintained system of roads. AND we have speed limits significantly lower than the roads and vehicles were designed to handle.
Yet, we still have double the rate of fatalities of most European nations.
Colorado has stringent anti-texting laws. Yet I've really watched and kept an impromptu tally: at least 1 in 3 drivers are texting at the point I glance over at them (usually because they are driving stupidly). It is ubiquitous, despite the law. Texting while driving is STUPID, it is illegal, and people are doing it in droves!
A "war on" drunk driving has been a national campaign for decades. It is STUPID, it is illegal, it negligently endangers MANY others, and it is STILL done all the time.
According to: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/alcoholcountries/background_&_intro.htm, their statistics summarized up to 1998 for "alcohol involvement" in people causing fatal crashes show: 38.6% were at .01 or higher, 30% were at .10 or higher. The illegal BAC is .08 or .10, depending on state.
So, despite massive legislation, an "educational" campaign that sweeps the nation, dedicated enforcement, and the demotivator of the sheer selfish STUPIDITY of it, about 40% of people causing a fatal crash had been drinking, and 30% of those causing a fatal crash were over the "legal limit."
HOW does, say, Germany have such a dramatically lower death toll on the highways, when they also have highways that we do not have here that have no speed limit? Trying to make the case that reducing speed reduces traffic fatalities is not borne out by the international data that we have readily at our disposal.
No, instead, the prima facie speed law is all we really need (and all states already have it on the books), and it would put the burden of proof squarely back where it belongs: on prosecutors in a context of "innocent until proven guilty."
When you have an arbitrary, dumbed down, lowest common denominator speed limit system, here is ALL you get as your "net gain" for that project:
* States and municipalities convert their police forces into "highway tax collectors" to supplement revenues.
* Illogical and unjust traffic "courts" are populated by "judges" that are not real judges and are not accountable to the people.
* You can PROVE your case in traffic court and still be "found guilty," and this is the norm rather than the exception.
* In traffic court, you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then you really cannot prove that you are innocent. Your word against the cop guarantees that you will lose, despite the fact that the conflict of interest (in favor of revenue generation) is so apparent that it is flagrant!
* Municipalities encourage fine-paying by reducing "points" on your license if you'll just pay the fine instead of fighting it. You are motivated to do so, because if you try to fight it, you will almost certainly lose anyway, and then you will pay a higher fine and get the full points on your license.
* States and municipalities have a HUGE investment in speed control, with expensive equipment and man-hours devoted to speed enforcement. This investment (and it's ongoing) MUST reap a profit; and profit is what speed enforcement is about.
* People can dutifully drive the posted speed limit except for a tiny, short window of time and be merely unlucky enough to have the brief window "captured" by a radar or laser gun; BAGGED, and pay the fine!
* Speed limits are often illegally posted by municipalities, as they do not comply with state laws in terms of the mandated studies spanning years, etc. Yet, drivers getting bagged by radar or laser never think to check if the posted speed is even a legally posted speed. The few that do research the matter often find that the posted speed was not in compliance with state law. When such people go to court to argue that the posted speed was not even legal, they are told (and this is in fact a quote): "Okay, but if we let this cat out of the bag, we would find speed enforcement virtually impossible across the state. So, yes, the posting itself was illegal, but you still have to obey it. Pay the fine."
* THIS experiment has never been tried, but it would prove the correlation between speed limits and revenue generation.... Every state should pass a law precluding government (state or local) from benefiting from fine revenue. ALL fine revenue must be given to the spectrum of charities chosen by each state. Not even the "overhead" of speed enforcement can be taken out of the fine revenue. NOW see how much effort governments put into speed enforcement.
And it goes on and on.
Show of hands here: How many of you think that speed enforcement in this country is non-arbitrary, fair, judicious, and properly winnable in court in the event that you are falsely charged?
By contrast, EVERY speed limit law could be eliminated except for the prima facie speed law that already exists everywhere. Instead of the prima facie law being relied upon as a sort of "backstop law," it should be the ONLY speed law: You may not drive faster than is safe for your vehicle and the conditions.
That law alone makes it illegal to blast through a school zone with kids present at 50 mph, and any decent prosecutor could win such a case.
That law alone makes it illegal to weave in and out of heavy and slower traffic in an attempt to milk an additional net 5 mph out of the conditions.
And, that law would make it LEGAL to drive 100 mph (or more) in a modern, well-maintained vehicle on a wide-open, virtually deserted, dry, clear highway at 6pm (as often exists in many states).
That law would also distinguish between well-maintained vehicles designed for much higher speeds compared to poorly-maintained vehicles and those not designed for high speed.
That law would also distinguish among drivers. There are demonstrably better and worse trained and capable drivers. But the speed limit laws treat all drivers alike: ALL are treated as untrained, stupid hazards!
Speed limits ARE arbitrary, and they are NOT effective at reducing highway fatalities. There is simply too much OTHER stupidity to go around.
So, this is yet another example of how fine-grained attempts to legislate conditions down to the level of the lowest common denominator actually fail to accomplish the stated purpose. Instead they become revenue-generating scams that DO infringe on the liberties of the general public.
The more fine-grained you try to legislate, the more this effect will emerge.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I'm SORRY but that death was completely preventable.
Yup, but not by a law.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What a horrible loss of 'liberty' you have sustained.
It is indeed horrible, and it's just going more and more downhill as this nation more and more commits itself to being a nanny-state.
Meanwhile, stupid people continue to kill themselves and others in new and amazing ways. And the resulting knee-jerk laws will SLAM the barn door closed after the horses have escaped. And the stupid will console themselves with "Yes, but at least we can prevent more such incidents."
And the legal noose tightens and tightens around our necks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Yeah? Your point? That Germany also has a lot of laws?
Irrelevant.
My point about Germany is that they are not nearly as anal and arbitrary as we are about vehicle speed, and they have half the highway death rate we have (and that's by miles driven, not per capita).
The fact that they have a bunch of other laws doesn't speak to that fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Sorry
Free soloing deaths are very rare, very very rare.
Before a free soloist even leaves the ground he/she already knows the result if you blow it.
We get rope climbing accidents all the time and they are on the rise.
Stupid climbers think all that gear and ropes will do the trick.
The idea is to not fall at all.
Now a days climbers climb until they fall then hang and then continue on.
They also put so much emphasis on climbing grades.
Stupid way to climb ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
if climbing is so dangerous, and becoming more-so
It's not becoming more dangerous.
It's always been dangerous.
The first thing Americans want to do is regulate and control everyone to become robots and sheep.
Americans are crazy stupid fools ....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
So what's changing?
Over trust on equipment and technology .......
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
so what's changing?
What the Smoking Duck said plus more people climbing.
When you take personal responsibility for your actions, like getting yourself down from a climb, you are always more thoughtful.
often says the same thing about Solo climber deaths WTF does solo climbing by mature (more or less) legal aged adults have to do with giving a 9 year old an Uzi with multiple rounds in the magazine?
Who else are they endangering besides Smoking Duck and his merry band of pranksters? And they are ADULTS who are legally responsible for their own actions.
But back to the salient point: I guarantee if you as an adult gave a 9 year old a chalk bag, pointed to Nutcracker, and said "Go for it" you would legally be held accountable for any misfortune that resulted.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
I'm SORRY but that death was completely preventable.
Yup, but not by a law.
Yup our laws say that 9 year olds can shoot an Uzi. Like, if the law said that toddlers could fly F-18's, it wouldn't be anyone's fault if one crashed into Madbolter's house. Just what planes do.
Now, we could CHANGE that law but I like our rights to fly planes and won't budge an inch - even if that means we can't keep toddlers out of the cockpit.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
doesn't matter
because I thought it up, it must be true
the arrogance of ignorant certainty
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Like, if the law said that toddlers could fly F-18's, it wouldn't be anyone's fault if one crashed into Madbolter's house. Just what planes do.
LOL... amazingly cheap shot. And ridiculous as well.
Is your idea REALLY that it's "nobody's fault" if something negligent and stupid is done outside the context of an existing law? Do you REALLY think that we must have a law in place to cover every imaginable sort of stupidity or negligence so that "fault" can be properly assigned?
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Blood alcohol limits and consequences in Germany, from Wikipedia.
Germany: zero for beginners ... as well as drivers making commercial transportation of passengers; 0.03% in conjunction with any other traffic offense or accident; .... penalty for 0.11% is a €500 fine and the drivers licence is withdrawn for at least six months, but usually about one year .); for 0.16% or higher regranting of the licence requires a successful Medical Psychological Assessment.. If someone is caught with more than 0.11% or higher within 10 Years of the last DUI incident with more than 0.05% and he´s found guilty of DUI, it carries a minimum €1.000 fine and a license suspension of at least one year, he has to take and pass successful an MPU and is required to prove to the Court that he has been sober for the last 12 months, before he can get his license back. .
Added to that, Germany's driving test is so difficult that some Germans travel to other EU countries to take driving tests, even to the UK and Ireland whose tests are themselves far, far harder than US tests, yet where driving on the wrong side is easier than passing their domestic test.
I'll absolutely agree with Madbolter that speed limit fines in isolation have become a perverse incentive and now do little to improve safety, but traffic and vehicle regulations as a whole have reduced US road fatalities to their lowest levels since the 1920's, and that's NOT a per-capita or per mile driven figure, that's in raw numbers.
And of course you can legislate against stupidity, as just one simple example, there's no mechanical reason why you can't start a car in drive or reverse gear, but there's a CFR that says car manufacturers must add an interlock to prevent it. Although not technically a law, it has the force of law and is intended not to prosecute offenders, but to prevent injury and death, often of the stupid or their progeny. Think of how many gun analogies you could make with that example.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What makes driving in Germany more safe than here is a combination of the law and culture. You can only pass on the left side. If you see an approaching vehicle, you have to move to the right lane.
And, most importantly, Germans are very obedient.
Yet again, you help me make my point, which was that speed laws are NOT what make the roads safe or not. It IS possible to have virtually no speed limits in a developed society and yet, somehow, amazingly, have people not crashing into each other at ridiculous rates. Exactly my point!
So, as I said, speed limit laws in this country are a perfect example to make my overarching point, which was that you cannot legislate away stupidity and its baleful results. Germans are generally not stupid drivers; we are. Speed laws don't change those fundamental facts. You can make a law to cover everything, and you will not change the fundamental facts.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Think of how many gun analogies you could make with that example.
Wow... we're close to on the same page again, TE.
I totally agree that all sorts of things could be done to improve gun safety. And I personally think that the range and the parents should be at least civilly held accountable for this incident.
What I'm arguing against is the pervasive trend on these threads to "solve by more legislation (preferably at the federal level, of course)."
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
Anyone who take a 9 year-old to a redneck machine gun range should be reported to Child Protective Services.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!