| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Galaxeexr8
Status: Offline
Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 151
$poons: 1.40
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
The article states 'continued hoon behaviour' will result in your car being crushed. I am not sure what applies in SA but in WA hoon laws for speeding only apply if you are more than 40km/h over the limit. Hoon behaviour also encompasses burnouts etc.
So I am sure its pretty safe to say you will only get your car crushed if you are continuously caught hooning. If you got 10 speeding fines for less than 10km/h over the limit i don't think you need to be worried.
As for my personal opinion these are great laws and should stay in place. It is not hard to obey the law and there are places you can go where you can legally give your car a bit of a thrash no need to do it in the streets.
As for the argument regarding power limiting cars it is the driver that determines how fast the car goes not the car. I own a 315rwkw FPV Typhoon and I still have all my demerit points. Its not rocket science.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jellyfish
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 5186
$poons: 22.60
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
One can limit cars electronically based on speed alone. However this means of limiting is far more complex than just restricting power output of an engine.
| Shadow Wave wrote: | | I don't normally speed intentionally really, but im not gunna slam the brakes on to drop 10k's soon as I pass the speed limit sign I'll just gently drift down the road slowly slowing down. And I personally don't think that deserves a crushing. |
Well I'm pretty sure you're meant to enact your change in speed on the approach to the sign not after it. While a cop on a bad day might nail you for that I doubt you're going to get your car crushed for it. Normally crushing is the result of being caught street racing or general idiot showboating multiple times. Plus I assume you lose your license before you lose your car.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | I can't believe there are people arguing in here that cars should be limited to 'legal' speeds, but are vehemently against any sort of restriction on their Internet. The ironing is delicious. |
EDIT: God, Jack, get your brain in gear. Ahem. Not that I'm for that either, it strikes me as an implausible system that would be easily rerouted, but how does forcing drivers to stick to a speed limit violate civil liberties considered essential to a western democracy?
I don't think the two are comparable.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MIkes
Status: Offline
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 1761
$poons: 409.00
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | I can't believe there are people arguing in here that cars should be limited to 'legal' speeds, but are vehemently against any sort of restriction on their Internet. The ironing is delicious. |
That's a ridiculously bad analogy Spanca. Internet speed does not kill hundreds each year.
Personally, I like what I've been told they do in Japan - each car by law has a black box fitted with automatically limits its speed to that of the road it's on, informed to the car via GPS. If they want a speed rush then they have to pay for racing laps where the limiter is disabled.
The government in the UK proposes something like every so often but get shouted down by the motoring groups as it will infringe on their right to speed. Knob heads.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fetidchimp
Status: Offline
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 8666
$poons: 60.20
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
This wont happen, as if the banks will let their property be destroyed.....most of these hoon cars are owned by the banks, the end
_________________
kill, kill, kill.....the white man. Kill the white man, kill
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ObsoletE
Status: Offline
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 20357
$poons: 34.20
Location: Perth, WA :: Jubei'Thos
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
tbh, i don't see a great deal wrong with the law, assuming it's based on repeat offenders, and not simply people who might drift over the speed limit accidentally (or in Shadow-Wave's example - wrong though that might still be). however, i do admit that the possibility that this is included in the crushing laws, is a little worrying, especially since this is SA we're talking about, and considering some of the other laws that introduced recently...
also, i'm surprised no one has mentioned that NSW already has this law, kinda. Police there have the power to use repeatedly impounded cars in vehicle crash tests. i don't know that it's ever been enforced though.
that said, i'd rather see power/weight ratio restrictions introduced before this.
_________________
My Play-Asia Affiliate Link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| JackSlack wrote: | EDIT: God, Jack, get your brain in gear. Ahem. Not that I'm for that either, it strikes me as an implausible system that would be easily rerouted, but how does forcing drivers to stick to a speed limit violate civil liberties considered essential to a western democracy?
I don't think the two are comparable. |
| MIkes wrote: | | That's a ridiculously bad analogy Spanca. Internet speed does not kill hundreds each year. |
I'm surprised you can't see the comparison there Jack (and Mike too). On the one hand you're vehemently opposed to any restriction of the Internet, but at the same time you're indifferent to a system that would artificially restrict the use of a privately owned item on public infrastructure to curb the potential for illegal activity. The analogy to Internet filtering, I would have thought, is quite plain.
If you don't speed then it won't affect you, they cry! If you don't look at kiddy porn, then it won't affect you, they cry!
It's not about speeding, nor is it about child pornography or similarly distasteful material. It's about governments introducing laws that are horribly misdirected, laws that inhibit the freedom of individuals and do little to fix the problem that they're supposedly introduced for. Speed doesn't kill, it's stopping suddenly that kills. That can be made worse by speed, but it's the poor driver skills, poor attentiveness and poor conditions that cause accidents. If it was simply speed that killed then by that logic every car on a racetrack should kill its driver due to the increased speed. They don't. What's missing is the worse roads, drivers not paying attention, drivers going too fast for the conditions and drivers going too fast for their own abilities.
Fix the drivers, not the cars. Fix the Internet offenders, not the Internet.
| MIkes wrote: | | Personally, I like what I've been told they do in Japan - each car by law has a black box fitted with automatically limits its speed to that of the road it's on, informed to the car via GPS. If they want a speed rush then they have to pay for racing laps where the limiter is disabled. |
I'm not aware of any such device in Japan, other than the limiter on the new Nissan GT-R. That limits the top speed to 180km/h unless the GPS determines that you're at a pre-approved racetrack, in which case the top speed will be unlocked to considerably more.
| ObsoletE wrote: | | that said, i'd rather see power/weight ratio restrictions introduced before this. |
That reminds me of another example of ridiculous laws, totally misdirected and implemented by politicians who'd rather be seen to be doing their job rather than actually fixing problems. For the last several years we've had laws in NSW that restrict the vehicles that P-platers can drive. It's virtually a blanket ban on cars with turbos, superchargers, and V8s. The problem is that takes zero consideration of the power, or even power:weight. The Sydney Morning Herald did an article about this a couple of weeks ago, highlighting that a P-plater could not drive an Ă¼ber safe Volvo with a turbo 5 cylinder, but could drive a V12 Audi Diesel. Can't drive a Golf GTi, or even a 1.4 litre turbo (the bottom of the range Golf now with less power than a Corolla), but can drive a Golf R32 with considerably more power than both. Stupid laws.
The SMH article.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Spanca, the difference I'm referring to before being, though, that the ability to speed in cars doesn't seem as crucial to the well-being of a democratic society as the freedom to seek information unguided by government censorship.
I think that's why mIkes and are are a bit confused. Sorry, but I'm still standing with him. I don't think the two are comparable at this point.
However!
What I do think would be comparable and, what I think the laws could easily wind up doing, is destroy the car modding culture. That would have some comparison to me, since it starts screwing around with the basic idea of citizens being allowed to do what they want provided they're not endangering others in the process.
Edit: OH! And yes, the P-plater vehicle restrictions are ridiculous. In fact, so is most of the P-plate restrictiveness we've seen of late. It's scapegoating, pure and simple.
Further edit: And yes, this is me being very awkward and fence-sitting on the issue. I usually get nervous around government regulation of individual lives (as opposed to corporate regulation, which I'm more OK with) but the comparison you're making doesn't make me comfortable. I need more persuading here.
For instance:
The underlying issue with the internet filter is the worry that by controlling the flow of information, the government is able to render its critics impotent to oppose it. How is this mirrored by speed controls?
There is also substantial worry that the filters will be misapplied, banning quite innocent and legal behaviors. How do controls to stop cars going over the speed limit compare, unless they accidentally force speeds below the limits?
I'm happy to be persuaded, but right now I ain't seein' it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaTBoY
PALGN Thread Killer
Status: Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 921
$poons: 17.20
Location: Sydney, Au
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
When you look at the effects of a new law you need to look at how it could worst be exploited.
I think this whole argument is missing the point anyway. Most people who would be doing 200km/h on a freeway, or trying to drift around in suburban areas aren't going to be phased by this new law. Why not? because to think about this law and the implication it requires some forward thinking on the driver's part.... which clearly isn't happening.
Education and laws are all good. But there's still going to be retards out there you can't reach. If they weren't likely to hurt other people in the process I'm all for them writing themselves off and hopefully removing some of the chlorine from genepool.
_________________
Worst. Signature. Ever.
My Website
My Flickr
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Infested Jibbs
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 5969
$poons: 1307.90
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | JackSlack wrote: | EDIT: God, Jack, get your brain in gear. Ahem. Not that I'm for that either, it strikes me as an implausible system that would be easily rerouted, but how does forcing drivers to stick to a speed limit violate civil liberties considered essential to a western democracy?
I don't think the two are comparable. |
| MIkes wrote: | | That's a ridiculously bad analogy Spanca. Internet speed does not kill hundreds each year. |
I'm surprised you can't see the comparison there Jack (and Mike too). On the one hand you're vehemently opposed to any restriction of the Internet, but at the same time you're indifferent to a system that would artificially restrict the use of a privately owned item on public infrastructure to curb the potential for illegal activity. The analogy to Internet filtering, I would have thought, is quite plain.
If you don't speed then it won't affect you, they cry! If you don't look at kiddy porn, then it won't affect you, they cry!
It's not about speeding, nor is it about child pornography or similarly distasteful material. It's about governments introducing laws that are horribly misdirected, laws that inhibit the freedom of individuals and do little to fix the problem that they're supposedly introduced for. Speed doesn't kill, it's stopping suddenly that kills. That can be made worse by speed, but it's the poor driver skills, poor attentiveness and poor conditions that cause accidents. If it was simply speed that killed then by that logic every car on a racetrack should kill its driver due to the increased speed. They don't. What's missing is the worse roads, drivers not paying attention, drivers going too fast for the conditions and drivers going too fast for their own abilities.
Fix the drivers, not the cars. Fix the Internet offenders, not the Internet.
| MIkes wrote: | | Personally, I like what I've been told they do in Japan - each car by law has a black box fitted with automatically limits its speed to that of the road it's on, informed to the car via GPS. If they want a speed rush then they have to pay for racing laps where the limiter is disabled. |
I'm not aware of any such device in Japan, other than the limiter on the new Nissan GT-R. That limits the top speed to 180km/h unless the GPS determines that you're at a pre-approved racetrack, in which case the top speed will be unlocked to considerably more.
| ObsoletE wrote: | | that said, i'd rather see power/weight ratio restrictions introduced before this. |
That reminds me of another example of ridiculous laws, totally misdirected and implemented by politicians who'd rather be seen to be doing their job rather than actually fixing problems. For the last several years we've had laws in NSW that restrict the vehicles that P-platers can drive. It's virtually a blanket ban on cars with turbos, superchargers, and V8s. The problem is that takes zero consideration of the power, or even power:weight. The Sydney Morning Herald did an article about this a couple of weeks ago, highlighting that a P-plater could not drive an Ă¼ber safe Volvo with a turbo 5 cylinder, but could drive a V12 Audi Diesel. Can't drive a Golf GTi, or even a 1.4 litre turbo (the bottom of the range Golf now with less power than a Corolla), but can drive a Golf R32 with considerably more power than both. Stupid laws.
The SMH article. |
People are whining about the internet filter because of it's extra baggage restrictions that come free of charge.While i do lament not being able to get my kiddie/horse/fish/staple gun fetish fix(joke..) when the filter is introduced, i AM fuming about the high possibility of having my net speed cut;as if Australia wasn't slow enough already.
Now, if this speeding law introduced some sort of across the board speed limiter to be fitted to all new cars and retrofitted to all existing models, yeah, i'd have a beef with that, big time, but these laws aren't directed at the guy doing 118 on a 110 highway, they're pinpointing the street dickheads who consistently wipe themselves out and their passengers, sometimes others on the road even as occupants of another car or pedestrians.
The car crushing thing too is pretty clever.I mean, most of these hoons love their cars so much, and if it were impounded would scrounge the money to buy it back, and if not, would at least like it to be on sold to someone else...but to see all their sweat and tears reduced to a metal cube.....it might be enough to deter them.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
So government restriction is OK in this instance because driving isn't important to you, as you've said before?
The point I'm making is that on the subject of Internet restriction you seem to take a no compromise position, but here is another instance of unnecessary government restriction and you are willing to give up freedom for no apparent gain.
It's about government regulation and individual autonomy, as you said. I'm not willing to have the government physically restrict the speed that my car can do because they want to pretend it will fix the road toll. It's not about my 'right to speed', it's about my right to have the government stay the **** away from my private stuff when their interference will do no good.
edit: Jibbs, I agree with you, take the car off them by all means, but I have an issue with wasting tens of thousands of dollars worth of car and turning it into scrap. It's the sort of publicity stunt that would appeal to the Today Tonight/A Current Affair crowd, and sadly appealing to that crowd is apparently what politicians think is doing their job. My comment, the one that Jack and Mike responded to about the Internet, was in response to the people on the previous page arguing that we should have some sort of restriction on cars that would make exceeding the speed limit impossible. Their proposalwasn't limited to the hoons but would apparently apply to everyone, and as you said, you'd be opposed to such a ridiculous idea and that's what I'm arguing!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Spanca, I'm seriously trying to understand your position. I'm not trying to be hostile. The questions above are honest, and I'd appreciate answers to them. As MatBoy said, what's the exploitable nature of this policy? (Edit for clarification: Of a hypothetical policy of artificially limiting cars to the speed limit)
Really, I'm wanting to be persuaded here.
EDIT: As an aside, what I would be opposed to is any system that allows the government to track your location via your car for the supposed purpose of preventing speeding/traffic infringements. THAT has near unlimited potential for abuse, and I'd be against it just as fervently.
EDIT AGAIN BECAUSE I CAN'T SHUT UP: And again, I note: I am still opposed to the idea of artificially limiting speed in cars, because (for example) it could shut down a car when a sudden burst of speed might be needed to, say, avoid a crash. It's better to break the law and save a life in an unusual case than to rigidly obey it, and any good system would need to handle that, and I can't see how it could.
I just don't see the comparison to the filter issue, which to me is much more wide ranging, problematic, and worrisome.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Infested Jibbs
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 5969
$poons: 1307.90
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well if thats the case spanca(i cbf reading through 2 pages of back and forth quotes and reqoutes) then i put it to the arguers (arguees?)why not also have all cars fitted with breathalyzers, some sort of scanning machine that scans your licence and makes sure it current, and a built in taser that shoots you point blank in the face that can be remotely activated by pursuing police?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Speaking on a ideological level, rather than a practical one (ALL the proposals have practical hurdles that I think are insurmountable):
I have nothing against the breathalyzer idea.
I'd find the license scanner worrisome on privacy issues, since it would presumably leave a log that could be later used by police, and is thus subject to potential abuse.
I'd DEFINITELY find the taser issue subject to abuse by police, and ergo worrisome.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
He need to cut the ego.
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 1762
$poons: 722.80
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Their proposalwasn't limited to the hoons but would apparently apply to everyone, and as you said, you'd be opposed to such a ridiculous idea and that's what I'm arguing! |
To clarify my position as it wasn't clear: I was actually talking about the 'repeat offenders' mentioned in the article. As a punishment instead of crushing the cars they should just put a limit on how fast they can drive. Rereading my posts I didn't make that clear at all so sorry about that.
As for freedom, we don't have freedom. I wish people would stop bandying this word about as if it actually means something.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | I can't believe there are people arguing in here that cars should be limited to 'legal' speeds, but are vehemently against any sort of restriction on their Internet. The ironing is delicious. |
| JackSlack wrote: | | I am still opposed to the idea of artificially limiting speed in cars |
I'm not sure how you're struggling to understand what I was/am arguing, when you say you believe the same thing. I merely pointed out the irony of people actively proposing the idea of overbearing and unnecessary government control of one aspect of individual autonomy, but so adamant opposing that ideology when it comes to another. At the end of the day, they're both about unnecessary government control yet people on the previous page were arguing the polar opposite of what they had in other threads. You nor MIkes had posted in this thread before that point so I obviously wasn't referring to either of you. In fact, you're now stating you're against artificially limiting speed in cars so I'm not sure what you're fussing about as there's no contradiction or irony if that's your viewpoint (although it has changed somewhat through this thread...)!
| Infested Jibbs wrote: | | Well if thats the case spanca(i cbf reading through 2 pages of back and forth quotes and reqoutes) then i put it to the arguers (arguees?)why not also have all cars fitted with breathalyzers, some sort of scanning machine that scans your licence and makes sure it current, and a built in taser that shoots you point blank in the face that can be remotely activated by pursuing police? |
That's exactly the sort of **** that I was arguing against. I just don't understand why people can be so incensed by the government proposal to restrict their Internet, but then use the Internet to say "hey government, come and take control of my car!"
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | That's exactly the sort of **** that I was arguing against. I just don't understand why people can be so incensed by the government proposal to restrict their Internet, but then use the Internet to say "hey government, come and take control of my car!" |
Because, as I have stated multiple times, the internet filters issue touches on a whole range of civil liberties concerns that the speed controller wouldn't. Concerns about censorship, freedom of information, etc. It's not about an abstract ideal of government control over lives. It's about a wider application of policies that could dramatically affect society.
If you disagree, and you think speed controllers could have similar wide-ranging concerns, or if you think I'm mistaken and the internet filter is not nearly as problematic as I make it out to be, then fair enough. I'm prepared to debate those issues. But just because I'm opposed to one form of government interference doesn't mean I'm opposed to all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
He need to cut the ego.
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 1762
$poons: 722.80
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I think the main difference between the Internet filtering and limiting speeding is this:
- I don't have the freedom to go over the speed limit.
- I do have the freedom to look at a 'how to graffiti' video on Youtube.
Now I'm not allowed to graffiti, but what the Internet filter is doing is restricting me from even accessing information that I'm freely allowed to access. Kiddie porn, get rid of it. But clearly that isn't the only information the Government is intent on controlling. Like someone mentioned earlier, the Government can dictate the information we are allowed to access. So potentially if they don't want us to see information that could harm them, they simply block it ala Tiananmen square massacre. I guess the biggest difference is limiting the speed of cars isn't to the Government's advantage, where as the Internet filtering is. Instead of controlling one aspect that they already control, they control everything we see. And let's not even mention the issues of speed and quirks with the filter...
Yes, both points are about 'government control', but the comparison is not as black and white as you are making it out to be.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Exactly, Ego.
Were it possible on some incredible feat of technical engineering to immediately swoop down on all kiddie porn, blocking it from the internet, while somehow navigating the issues of classification and artistic merit, without slowing down the internet, was completely transparent, and somehow being able to be implemented in a way that had no possible way for the government to exploit...
I'd be all over that. Implement away.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaTBoY
PALGN Thread Killer
Status: Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 921
$poons: 17.20
Location: Sydney, Au
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
The RTA are "Investigating" limiting vehicle speeds as we speak. They're about one year into a trial using a bunch of cars around wollongong with gps and speed zones programmed in. It hard limits the speed to what the local speed is. They've also been talking to european companies who are trying to get this technology out there.
Look up the SAFETY1 program.
I can't stress how against this I am. I'm pretty confident that something like this would never be accepted by the public (Well not in the near future, but hey... we're paying 'gREEN TAX" now so who knows.
As Jack said, what if you need to blast it to avoid a truck with a blown tyre? Or you need to race to hospital. There are so many situations that could come up on the roads.
What if the system malfunctions?
For the record to, I'm probably what most people would consider a car guy. I have an Evo 7 which is pretty damn quick, having said that I'm responsible on the road, If I feel like fanging the car i go to the track or to a closed road. My job is centred around road safety.
I only bring this up because I'm sensing that some people here are just assuming that if someone has a fast car, they're automatically a hoon and a wanker on the road. Which is SOOOOOO not true.
That generalization is just like saying all gamers are really fat. All boxers are violent rapists and anyone under 16 needs to say "LOL" at least 8 times a day.. ok the last bit might be true.
_________________
Worst. Signature. Ever.
My Website
My Flickr
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I'm still puzzled by why you're arguing about this when you've said you don't support the idea of artificially limiting the speed of cars. If you truly believe that, then why? If you can answer that you'll probably find the answers to your other questions.
Censorship, freedom of information and other civil liberties are all about the freedom of the individual from government; that's what the words "civil liberties" mean! A government coming in and artificially controlling the speed of an individual's car is a restriction, an unnecessary restriction, upon the freedom of the individual. Speeding for the sake of it, as part of a 'hoon' culture is not to be condoned, but there are instances where it is necessary to maintain safe driving (overtaking dangerous/slow drivers, or the example you pointed out above). Do you seriously not see the irony in people arguing for government restriction of private autonomy in one thread, but fiercely arguing against it in another?
edit: ok Jack, I now understand from your latest post that you aren't against the philosophy of Internet filtering, you're just against the technical implementation of it that's proposed and the theoretical potential for it to change in scope. On a philosophical level, the two areas of government restriction have little difference. Given that the post that set you off, so to speak, was not directed at you I'm not sure why this has gone on so long.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pom013
Status: Offline
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 1125
$poons: 235.00
Location: Wagga Wagga
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
Speed limiters are already mandatory in all heavy vehicles and they are very easy to disable. You just have to extend the wires to the dash and have a switch installed so you can turn it off/on like any of the cars other electronics radio/fan/lights etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaTBoY
PALGN Thread Killer
Status: Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 921
$poons: 17.20
Location: Sydney, Au
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
For the record again... I'm against both the technical and philosophy of the internet filtering and limiting cars, and controlling what people do and have access to.
Read 1984
_________________
Worst. Signature. Ever.
My Website
My Flickr
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackSlack
Status: Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 1175
$poons: 244.60
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | edit: ok Jack, I now understand from your latest post that you aren't against the philosophy of Internet filtering, you're just against the technical implementation of it that's proposed and the theoretical potential for it to change in scope. On a philosophical level, the two areas of government restriction have little difference. Given that the post that set you off, so to speak, was not directed at you I'm not sure why this has gone on so long. |
I was a bit worried about that post, yeah. What I was trying to do with that post was underpin the philosophical problems I have with the notion a bit better, showing the issues there. Really, this is kind of where the two areas of concern (practical and ideological) blur a little, so I apologize if I sound a little confused here.
OK. I am not philosophically opposed to any government intervention in society. Speed limits themselves are a government intervention of that sort. And I'm fine with them. (Actually, heck, here's a good stumper: I'm more philosophically opposed to speed limits -- although I'm still not very opposed -- than I am to artificial limiters. Why? Because I could see how speed limits could be deliberately manipulated to encourage speeding and thus arrests as a way to raise revenue. I think that's in the realms of 'unlikely', but...)
The interventions I am seriously opposed to, however, are those which allow the government to shield itself from criticism, hide abuses of its power, and basically give it a chance to do even worse things. This is the source of my opposition to the internet filtering; while it claims it will only censor naughty things (and copyright infringements, so it's already showing mission creep) it's not hard to see how it could expand, furthermore, the lines between moral censorship and political censorship can be blurry. 4chan is a horrible internet cesspit, but it's also the home of anonymous, which is a political organisation. One I deplore as well, but in addition to illegal hacking and harassment, they've also used 4chan to organise legitimate political protests of scientology. Where's the line here?
So, back to speeding controls. To my mind, they're in the former camp. And seriously? I have very little philosophical problem with them. We don't have any right to speed. (Ego will point out we don't have a stated right to freedom of information either, which is true, but the point stands only a little wobblier for it.) We do have an expectation that we should be allowed to protect our loved ones, such as (yes) rushing them to a hospital, and a limiter could infringe upon that right. That's a fair point. Perhaps I am guilty of being too black and white with this.
But it is, to my mind, a minor one. Simply put, speed limiters lack all the horror marks of the net filters. They're not exploitable in the same way. They don't work to the government's advantage. The risk of mission creep is minimal by comparison, at least at first glance.
I think the essential difference is this: Your ideological standpoint is to keep the government out of your life. Mine is to keep the government under surveilance. We're both philosophically opposed to the net filters, but for different reasons. As such, we're in different camps regarding the speed-limiter idea philosophically.
PRACTICALLY, as you've noted, we're of a mind. It doesn't work because it fails to acknowledge exceptions to the rule.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fly
Status: Offline
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 1774
$poons: 250.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | I'm still puzzled by why you're arguing about this when you've said you don't support the idea of artificially limiting the speed of cars. If you truly believe that, then why? If you can answer that you'll probably find the answers to your other questions. |
To understand the arguments and specifics of any practical or ideological change, one must inherently understand both sides of the change in question so as to limit the amount of negative effects when enforced.
While one may not agree with the premise of limiting something, so too may they be seeking understanding on why something must be limited from differing viewpoints so as to further strengthen their own stance or adapt their plan to include safeguards against.
Case and point in that while they share the common conception of restricting freedoms of the individual or blanket banning individuals they carry different outcomes through direct application, they are handled differently (police as opposed to government) and the base design is far removed from any comparison. However with such "cries" for freedoms one could then work around such things with physical limitations, such as Jibb's quirk with the taser. If hoods were closed and the engines were only available upon service (warnings tied into the hood being unlocked or "master keys" distributed to mechanics for unlocking) and drivers had a "test" to perform before driving, the choice would still remain for individuals to drive lawfully or be denied unlawfully.
Of course, this can be contravened, but the inherent remnant of choice remains. With the comparison to the Internet Filter, there is not even a remnant of choice in any outcome on the table.
| Quote: | | Censorship, freedom of information and other civil liberties are all about the freedom of the individual from government; that's what the words "civil liberties" mean! A government coming in and artificially controlling the speed of an individual's car is a restriction, an unnecessary restriction, upon the freedom of the individual. Speeding for the sake of it, as part of a 'hoon' culture is not to be condoned, but there are instances where it is necessary to maintain safe driving (overtaking dangerous/slow drivers, or the example you pointed out above). Do you seriously not see the irony in people arguing for government restriction of private autonomy in one thread, but fiercely arguing against it in another? |
It's entirely impractical in practice, you'd much rather Jurassic park with cars on rails traveling on X speed and then "screw this I'm going off road!" than trying to limit each car individually through production. but the inherent concept is that the internet is inherently a place to learn, converse and enjoy and all the onus is on the individual to then produce good or bad results. The internet itself cannot damage anything.
With vehicles, they are their own body which, regardless of user input, can severely damage or cause death to more than one individual. Add this to the fact that we already have many opinions of "oh but I break the law a little, but that's ok because..." or law already being adhered to on the roads and you are simply then searching for options to remove people knowingly and willingly breaking the law.
It's the same premise in what the filter is designed for; to weed out illegal elements, applied in simply the same forceful manner practically. (which will never work really) The question then becomes, if possible, how to make it work or alternate solutions which achieve the same outcomes.
it is fact that current status quo is simply not working as the death toll is remaining steady and there are still thousands upon thousands of cases of illegal driving across the country each year. While improbable and practically abhorrent, it would be a poor government / police / person to dismiss without properly ascertaining value.
Of course, when you get into zealot phase then you have problems.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
