Gross Negligence, Incompetence, Stupidity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: John_Corey


"I am in favor of a mandatory competency test that driver's license holders would have to take regularly, for example every 5 years. This test would include an eye exam, a cognitive test, and a physician's document stating physical and mental condition and impairments, and listing prescription medications."


You tell me who will be conducting these "cognitive" and "mental" evaluations and we'll move forward from there. Otherwise all I'm reading is a bunch of misunderstanding or purposeful misrepresentation of what I was saying.

Notice I never said that you said anything about future cars being tethered, only made the point that even they will have their accidents as well. The point being that a perfectly safe mass transit system doesn't exist, and may never exist.

As to rights, I merely suggest that you back up and look at the bigger picture. While you paint my comments as if they are centered around driving and that sole priviledge. You miss my point that your willingness to hang the 85 year olds out to dry, wont be stopped with them...or with driving.

The thin end of a wedge you accept and propose, as just and righteous.....well it's just a tool waiting to be turned and used against YOU.


Hi LS2JSTS,

When you get your annual medical checkup, your doctor could give or deny you a pass that you have to show when renewing your licence.

I don't know why you bring up mass transit in this thread.

It is not about hanging 85 year olds out to dry, as you call it. It's about everyone having to meet minimum requirements in order to maintain a driver's license. This is not an unreasonable suggestion.

I am aware that under my proposition I may not be allowed to drive any longer at some point. Hopefully my brain would not turn to Swiss cheese before I recognize my impairment and voluntarily get out from behind the wheel.

Cheers,
-J
 
Originally Posted By: John_Corey
Hi Gary,

You may want to stop lumping all and everything into one pot. There are mistakes that one must not make when operating a vehicle. It's very simple, really. Here are three examples:

-driver cannot tell gas from brake
-driver heads into oncoming traffic in absence of instantly adverse conditions
-driver operates vehicle despite known impairment that affects safely operating the vehicle

Cheers,
-J

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Purity codes


I beg your pardon?

I doubt that your disposition stops there. I'm sure that driving is just the most apparent tip of the iceberg.
grin2.gif
wink.gif
wink.gif


Again, let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone. You're perfectly accepting of your totally harmless (so far and conveniently self defined) negligence as "normal" ..while taking exception to the fringe extreme things that can occur at random.

You've self proclaimed yourself the chancellor of driving "purity codes". What's next on your hierarchy of selective "filtering" in your "final solution" to our traffic woes?

You merely keep "finely defining" your conditions to always keep the rhetorical ball in your court.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: John_Corey
Hi Gary,

You may want to stop lumping all and everything into one pot. There are mistakes that one must not make when operating a vehicle. It's very simple, really. Here are three examples:

-driver cannot tell gas from brake
-driver heads into oncoming traffic in absence of instantly adverse conditions
-driver operates vehicle despite known impairment that affects safely operating the vehicle

Cheers,
-J

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Purity codes


I beg your pardon?

I doubt that your disposition stops there. I'm sure that driving is just the most apparent tip of the iceberg.
grin2.gif
wink.gif
wink.gif


Again, let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone. You're perfectly accepting of your totally harmless (so far and conveniently self defined) negligence as "normal" ..while taking exception to the fringe extreme things that can occur at random.

You've self proclaimed yourself the chancellor of driving "purity codes". What's next on your hierarchy of selective "filtering" in your "final solution" to our traffic woes?

You merely keep "finely defining" your conditions to always keep the rhetorical ball in your court.




Hi Gary,

Instead of resorting to an ad hominem by speculating on my disosition, you may want to ask yourself why you so quickly excuse the worst driving errors. Also, you claim I excuse all my own driving errors, yet you yourself excuse them all, regardless of their severity. You consider your ultra-forgiving attitude as proper, while my desire to get dangerous drivers off the road is in your view misguided.

That I have proclaimed myself the "chancellor of driving purity codes" is an outright lie. Your use of the expression "final solution" is insulting due to its connotations and implication as to how you regard me.

You accuse me of defining conditions to keep the rhetorical ball in my court. Your style of arguing is based on deconstructing the person you argue with. Sadly, this probably makes you feel like you are winning. Please drag other people down to your preferred gutter level.

I reiterate: Anyone who makes a driving error serious enough should lose his license. I am not proposing a new concept. There already are infractions that result in driver's license removal, which may be a temporary license suspension, or a permanent one. The lawmakers have recognized that not all infractions are unavoidable and on the same level of insignificance as Gary would have you believe.

Eight driving infractions that will result in loss of your license:

1. Not having proof your vehicle is insured
2. Driving while intoxicated
3. Driving under the influence of drugs
4. Driving with a suspended drivers license
5. Reckless driving
6. Point accumulation
7. Involved in an accident without bodily injury liability insurance
8. Multiple speeding tickets

Reckless driving already covers incompetent and or grossly negligent operation of a vehicle. Gary, I wonder if you believe that reckless driving should be removed from this list of infractions that will result in loss of the driving privilege.

Cheers,
-J
 
Quote:
Instead of resorting to an ad hominem by speculating on my disosition, you may want to ask yourself why you so quickly excuse the worst driving errors.


Who said that I was excusing anything? I took exception to you excusing yourself. You can insert the blah-blah stuff in my response if you desire.

Everyone feels that they're perfectly centered ..even if their view appears totally lopsided, one sided, or self centered and self serving to others.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Instead of resorting to an ad hominem by speculating on my disosition, you may want to ask yourself why you so quickly excuse the worst driving errors.


Who said that I was excusing anything? I took exception to you excusing yourself. You can insert the blah-blah stuff in my response if you desire.

Everyone feels that they're perfectly centered ..even if they're view appears totally lopsided or one sided to others.


Hi Gary,

There I was arguing for getting unsafe drivers off the road, while you were merely arguing against me as a person. Doing this seem pathological to me, but could be simply troll behavior.

Your obsession with trying to deconstruct the person you are arguing with is befuddling. Should you not rather dispute the other person's arguments instead, or don't you really have any good points to make? It seems to me that discussing any topic with you may be utterly pointless, because you may never argue the topic, but only attack the other person.

Please show me where I am excusing myself.

Cheers,
-J
 
Quote:
Please show me where I am excusing myself.


You're still driving while admitting being defective.



I think you're not competent to drive since you er on occasion. While you have yet to cause a fatality, it is but one cost in the commission of your driver errors. I've determined that the society would be better off without such imperfection as yours on the road.

Please don't make me get sanctioning involved to remove you from the road while you're totally capable of willfully doing this yourself.

Are you going to do the sensible thing and stop driving?

So be it. It is my edict. Oh, and my errors are only 30% of yours ..and that's allowed under article 409-AB3 of Gary's purity in driving code.


..but that's it for me. You can have the last word
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think you're not competent to drive since you er on occasion. While you have yet to cause a fatality, it is but one cost in the commission of your driver errors. I've determined that the society would be better off without such imperfection as yours on the road.


Hi Gary,

Once again, you come up with fantastic ways of attacking me by invoking my future crimes.

Removing a person's driving privilege must never be based on possible future infractions. Instead, a driver who HAS COMMITTED an infraction must suffer the appropriate consequences.

I do not expect you to dispute the point I am making. Instead, I believe you will proceed in habitual fashion.

Cheers,
-J
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Please show me where I am excusing myself.


You're still driving while admitting being defective.


Hi Gary,

I do not appreciate your method of argumentation, which aims to irritate. You are actually not interested in arguing points, you are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing.

Cheers,
-J
 
Dear moderator,

I ask that you lock this thread. Not only has Gary decided to not argue the topic but me as a person instead, but other posters are not commenting any longer on the topic. Clearly, this thread has run its course.

Gary may also want to stop burning all bridges, since right now I am still willing to give him a chance to redeem himself for his poor behavior.

Cheers,
-J
 
Originally Posted By: John_Corey


Removing a person's driving privilege must never be based on possible future infractions. Instead, a driver who HAS COMMITTED an infraction must suffer the appropriate consequences.





I'm not sure how this statement of yours squares with your earlier posted views on the subject.

What prescription drugs would neccesitate preemptively revoking someones license?
What mental and or physical shortcomings would justify the same?

Doesnt your prior posting on this topic neccesarily imply a preemptive apparatus to deny driving privledges to some among us before the fact? If not, why are you bothering to collect personal prescription and mental health data on licensed drivers?
You seem to say punish based on actions, yet you typed earlier that you whole heartedly support preemptive measures to deny privledges to those who may have done nothing offensive to anyone up to that point.
 
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: John_Corey


Removing a person's driving privilege must never be based on possible future infractions. Instead, a driver who HAS COMMITTED an infraction must suffer the appropriate consequences.





I'm not sure how this statement of yours squares with your earlier posted views on the subject.


Hi LS2JSTS,

I suppose you are reading things into what I posted.

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
What prescription drugs would neccesitate preemptively revoking someones license?
What mental and or physical shortcomings would justify the same?

Medications that affect a person's abilities to operate vehicles and machinery say so in the included directions. Not all of them are prescription medicines. Even an over-the-counter drug like a histamine may impair a person severely. Doctors will warn their patients to not drive when prescribing them medication. Some people are permanently on medication that impairs their ability to drive. Should they be driving anyway?

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Doesnt your prior posting on this topic neccesarily imply a preemptive apparatus to deny driving privledges to some among us before the fact?

If by "before the fact" you mean that someone does not pass his driving test, yes, they should not receive their license until they are qualified to operate a vehicle. If by "before the fact" you mean people who are due to physical or mental impairment incapable of safely operating a vehicle, then yes, they should be denied a driving permit.

Quote:
If not, why are you bothering to collect personal prescription and mental health data on licensed drivers?

The data needs to be available at the time the person applies for a license the first time. Please do not tell me a blind person will actually receive a driver's license.

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
You seem to say punish based on actions, yet you typed earlier that you whole heartedly support preemptive measures to deny privledges to those who may have done nothing offensive to anyone up to that point.

You are confusing two issues:

1. Getting a license by showing that one is qualified and capable to operate a vehicle safely.

2. Committing, as a licensed driver, an error or infraction that warrants suspension of the license.

I am not proposing anything other than what already is in place.

Cheers,
-J
 
john corey -- you have some interesting posts here.a couple of points to ponder -
gary is hardly attacking you.you had better develop a thicker skin if you want to lock horns with , arguably, the finest debater on the board.
from sun tzu -- if your opponent is angry, irritate him.it would be wise to remember that.
you state that you do not like his method of argumentation. then put him, or any other member, for that matter, on ignore.
calling on a mod to lock the thread, under these petty circumstances, is childish.it equates to taking your ball and bat, and going home, because one is not playing the way that you wish.
it would be wise to learn the posting styles of the regulars, BEFORE initiating in heated debate.a little respect goes a long way. gary is a veteran of many years, and you are a veteran of ALMOST 1 month.
i mean no disrespect, and look forward to seeing your future posts. have a good night.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not meaning to be nasty, but some practice with the quote function would make this thread much more interesting.

Highlighting blocks of text within quotes makes comprehension difficult, and correct quoted responses nigh on impossible.


1) blue is too close to black that I am not going to even bother reading anymore.

2) color instead of quote makes it hard to tell who is quoted and who is replied.


I gave up.
 
How do you then rule out the other impairment factors that occur on a day to day basis ?

People with something on their mind ? relationship bust-up ? fatigue ?

I can name a couple of instances where my driving was seriously impaired. Once I worked a 29 hour shift, and my mental reactions were probably 3 seconds behind the action. Another when our 18 month old boy broke his arm, and needed specialist repair in Sydney, my reactions were OK, but my mind was nowhere near the vehicle, or it's spacial location.

And there's NO public transport option available.

Once an old person in this district loses their mobility, they become non-people, and fade out.
 
Originally Posted By: John_Corey

The data needs to be available at the time the person applies for a license the first time. Please do not tell me a blind person will actually receive a driver's license.


You are confusing two issues:

I am not proposing anything other than what already is in place.

Cheers,
-J


What does a blind man have to do with you wanting to keep medical cognitive, mental, physical and prescription records and tie them to a persons drivers license? Are you saying that it is currently typical for a blind person to have a license? Talk about a straw man. There are already mechanisms in place that prevent those that are obviously, shall we say, challenged.....you most certainly ARE proposing going well beyond what is already established.

Now if you want to talk implementing educational systems that are far and above what we currently have, then I'm right there with you. But don't slowly back away from what you previously posted and act as if I'm confused.....I'm done.
 
Originally Posted By: yeti
john corey -- you have some interesting posts here.a couple of points to ponder -
gary is hardly attacking you.you had better develop a thicker skin if you want to lock horns with , arguably, the finest debater on the board.
from sun tzu -- if your opponent is angry, irritate him.it would be wise to remember that.
you state that you do not like his method of argumentation. then put him, or any other member, for that matter, on ignore.
calling on a mod to lock the thread, under these petty circumstances, is childish.it equates to taking your ball and bat, and going home, because one is not playing the way that you wish.
it would be wise to learn the posting styles of the regulars, BEFORE initiating in heated debate.a little respect goes a long way. gary is a veteran of many years, and you are a veteran of ALMOST 1 month.
i mean no disrespect, and look forward to seeing your future posts. have a good night.


Hi yeti,

The "arguably, finest debater on the board" has in this thread admitted he was not arguing against my points. Instead he admitted to doing this: "I took exception to you excusing yourself." Arguing against the person rather than the fact is NOT a sign of fine debate.

It is nice that you have Gary's back and call me childish while he talks about me wanting to put "purity codes" and a "final solution: into place. Those are the words of Gary, the fine debater.

Cheers,
-J
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
How do you then rule out the other impairment factors that occur on a day to day basis ?

People with something on their mind ? relationship bust-up ? fatigue ?

I can name a couple of instances where my driving was seriously impaired. Once I worked a 29 hour shift, and my mental reactions were probably 3 seconds behind the action. Another when our 18 month old boy broke his arm, and needed specialist repair in Sydney, my reactions were OK, but my mind was nowhere near the vehicle, or it's spacial location.

And there's NO public transport option available.

Once an old person in this district loses their mobility, they become non-people, and fade out.


Hi Shannow,

Why does it gave to be "all or nothing"?

Where do I say that a person must not personally responsible enough to know when not to drive? For example, I have pulled over and taken a nap when I have felt a nap was necessary. I have listened to my dentist and not driven back home after a root canal treatment that required a strong analgesic.

As for old people losing their mobility, this usually means that they cannot WALK anymore. It is the lack of any physical exercise that often wears an old person completely down.

Cheers,
-J
 
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: John_Corey

The data needs to be available at the time the person applies for a license the first time. Please do not tell me a blind person will actually receive a driver's license.


You are confusing two issues:

I am not proposing anything other than what already is in place.

Cheers,
-J


What does a blind man have to do with you wanting to keep medical cognitive, mental, physical and prescription records and tie them to a persons drivers license? Are you saying that it is currently typical for a blind person to have a license? Talk about a straw man. There are already mechanisms in place that prevent those that are obviously, shall we say, challenged.....you most certainly ARE proposing going well beyond what is already established.

Now if you want to talk implementing educational systems that are far and above what we currently have, then I'm right there with you. But don't slowly back away from what you previously posted and act as if I'm confused.....I'm done.



Hi LS2JSTS,

I mentioned the blind person, because there already is a mechanism in place that keeps an impaired person from getting a driver's license, if this impairment is severe enough to effect a person's driving ability.

There are conditions that the layman cannot recognize. If a person who is, for example, on a psychotropic drug to combat extreme depression, he may very well not be able to operate a vehicle safely. Do you suggest that everybody simply should have to rely on this person voluntarily not driving? The same goes for many other medications. What about a narcoleptic person? I seriously hope none of them apply successfully for a license. What about epileptics? There simply are conditions that may make safe operation for a vehicle impossible. Right now, if you get a license renewed, your physical condition is judged only by your eyesight, and maybe not even that if you are allowed to renew your license by mail. Somebody could easily develop a mental disorder or other impairment, which may well be discovered only after an "accident."

Cheers,
-J
 
John, I think I understand the intent of your wishes. But, your desire to impose zero tolerance laws based on isolated incidents (what % of traffic fatalities are from wrong way incidents) seems over board to me and somewhat of a "knee jerk" reaction. Where do you draw the line?

Quote:
There are conditions that the layman cannot recognize. There simply are conditions that may make safe operation for a vehicle impossible.


Would your zero tolerance legislation apply to road conditions...fog, rain, ice, snow? As evidenced by the large number of accidents during inclement weather, should the government mandate "snow days" whenever driving conditions fail to meet certain conditions? Everyone stay home from work and school? Again, where do you draw the line?

Again, I think you have some legitimate concerns. But, your zero tolerance attitude seems a bit over the top.
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
John, I think I understand the intent of your wishes. But, your desire to impose zero tolerance laws based on isolated incidents (what % of traffic fatalities are from wrong way incidents) seems over board to me and somewhat of a "knee jerk" reaction. Where do you draw the line?

Quote:
There are conditions that the layman cannot recognize. There simply are conditions that may make safe operation for a vehicle impossible.


Would your zero tolerance legislation apply to road conditions...fog, rain, ice, snow? As evidenced by the large number of accidents during inclement weather, should the government mandate "snow days" whenever driving conditions fail to meet certain conditions? Everyone stay home from work and school? Again, where do you draw the line?

Again, I think you have some legitimate concerns. But, your zero tolerance attitude seems a bit over the top.


Hi doitmyself,

Please revaluate who exactly in this thread is displaying violent and knee-jerk reactions!

Do you believe drivers should be allowed to obtain a driver's license if they have an impairment, like a medical condition, that affects their safe operation of a vehicle? This is a yes or no question.

You are misquoting me by taking two things that I said out of context and displaying them in one quote. When I said,"There are conditions that the layman cannot recognize," I was talking about the people at the DMV not being able to tell if you are diabetic who may go into shock while driving, or if you are an epileptic who may have a seizure at the sight of brake lights. When I said, "There simply are conditions that may make safe operation for a vehicle impossible," I was talking about driving conditions.

The law already covers inclement driving conditions and the responsibility of the driver to adjust to those conditions. If you go 80 on a snow-covered road, you will most certainly pay dearly for that stupidity, whether or not you cause an accident, just as long as you get caught.

I forgot to mention I am all in favor of mandatory drug tests as part of the procedure of obtaining and maintaining a driver's license.

I asked the moderators to close this thread because I found not replying to posts difficult. However, at this point, with the thread still open, I will ignore further replies, because it is my weekend.

Cheers,
-J
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom