Idiots

I kind of agree with PMKeates tbh. With everyone driving at 5-10mph and nothing to do but stay in third and keep it straight there's time to have a natter.
 
Everyone breaks the law, just some break the law more than others.

I really don't give a **** about the law - I make my own judgements, thanks :p
 
West said:
I don't.

I think it's the single most arrogant and stupid thing you can do whilst driving.
Click to expand...

Yea but you never were in touch with reality :p Think of all the arrogant and stupid things you can do whilst driving. Is using a telephone REALLY the worst?
 
blaze of glory said:
What a wonderful attitude.

I can see from reading back through your posts that your driving record and the law support this.
Click to expand...
Yup, it does. In reality most people have the same attitude without realising it. You're either generally with or against the law morally. Those who are locked up are generally against, those who are "free" are generally with. There's some differences of opinion at the edges and that becomes fines etc.

I don't go through life thinking "oh, this is illegal" or "sure, that's legal", I make decisions based on the real consequences of an action. Sitting in a lengthy traffic jam on the phone is fine. The law's an ass, and I don't live my life by the direction of an ass!
 
I think the fact of the matter is that, whatever we think of our abilities, statistics prove how dangerous mobile phone usage is.
 
West said:
I don't.

I think it's the single most arrogant and stupid thing you can do whilst driving.
Click to expand...

Nah, thats masturbating with one hand, holding a pint of stella in the other steering with your knees whilst holding your mobile phone between your shoulder and your ear.
 
Doran said:
I think the fact of the matter is that, whatever we think of our abilities, statistics prove how dangerous mobile phone usage is.
Click to expand...
In certain conditions, true, it's very dangerous. In others it has no effect. The ONLY reason the law is as strict as it is, is to make a point. Everybody knows that the chances of an accident occuring while stationary, just because you're on the phone, are literally nil. The "law" has lumped all phone usage while driving together. It's banned the safe because of the dangerous. It's like putting in a speed limit of 20 on a 50 road, because you will crash at 150 on it.
 
Last edited:
But like every law, it is about balance. A balance between realism and idealism.

If the law was that we can only drive at 5mph, it would be very likely there would never be a fatality. But it would be so unrealisitic that it would defeat the point of cars.

Blanket banning mobile phones, conversely, has no real negative effect - only the positive benefit of reducing crashes. Therefore, the balance is heavily weighted on the side of idealism, because in this case the idealism is achievable.
 
Doran said:
But like every law, it is about balance. A balance between realism and idealism.

If the law was that we can only drive at 5mph, it would be very likely there would never be a fatality. But it would be so unrealisitic that it would defeat the point of cars.

Blanket banning mobile phones, conversely, has no real negative effect - only the positive benefit of reducing crashes. Therefore, the balance is heavily weighted on the side of idealism, because in this case the idealism is achievable.
Click to expand...

Is you Gandeeee?
 
Doran said:
But like every law, it is about balance. A balance between realism and idealism.

If the law was that we can only drive at 5mph, it would be very likely there would never be a fatality. But it would be so unrealisitic that it would defeat the point of cars.

Blanket banning mobile phones, conversely, has no real negative effect - only the positive benefit of reducing crashes. Therefore, the balance is heavily weighted on the side of idealism, because in this case the idealism is achievable.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, at what point does the idealism become intrusive? Where do you draw the line between no real negative effects, and a part of the cumulative negative effect that certain laws have on people's lives?

Let's look at smoking. I am not "a smoker". I am not addicted. I do not buy items or substances to smoke. However, I enjoy smoking, whatever substance it happens to be. Ocassionally, I may choose to do this. Society would see the blanket banning of smoking as a benefit to itself with no real negative effects but, you know what, how about that I want to do it?

This is what grates on me. It's rarely the individual law itself, but it's the collection of them all eroding away on every single person's little likes and desires, until we're all just the same, doing the same "safe" approved things. Going about our daily lives repeating the same boring acts that degrade the spirit of our own existence, a spirit of innovation, unconventionality and passion, as we each play our part as a cog in a great big machine of nothingness until we die and matter not to the universe.
 
[TW]Fox;13413436 said:
Yea but you never were in touch with reality :p Think of all the arrogant and stupid things you can do whilst driving. Is using a telephone REALLY the worst?
Click to expand...

Not really. I do see your point but I digress...

Yes. It is, simply because you can't be giving your 100% attention whilst driving and having a conversaion.. ok it may not be on the lines of DIC.. but at least you have the mental capacity not to answer the phone/text while driving, where as most idiots that are ****** and get in their car don't.
 
Kermit said:
Really? :rolleyes:
You obviously don't smoke which is fair enough and wp etc. but your convoluted & exaggerated explanation of how to light a cig in a car is laughable.
Click to expand...

It's easier to answer a mobile phone call than it is so set fire to some sort of stupid stick full of rolled up crap designed in the days when nobody knew any better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom