From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:54:30 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <PETONIC.92Nov13172654@daisy.hal.com> petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.140820.24408@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>They should, AND the gov't shouldn't be making it easier for them to
>>pay less attention.
>
>Wake up, Brendan.  Get real.  Have you never been in an accident?
>Have you never lost concentration for a second or two while driving?
>Aren't you glad that it was on a straight road?   If inattentiveness
>is punished by death, I'd hate to think what you dole out for disagreeing
>with you.

Sure, I flipped over the handlebars of my bike at UT, broke my
collarbone and had a concussion.  I learned from that accident - I'm a
lot more careful than I used to be.  If UT had covered the ground with
Smurf balls so that I never got hurt, would that have taught me the
same lesson?

You seem to be saying that people get on 2222, a road known to require
more attention than others and people DON'T pay this extra attention
required to what they're doing AND therefor they should be protected
from their actions?


>>What's the deal with the accident numbers on 2222?  I mean, the road
>>has been there for ages, it's not like it up added some curves in it
>>some night to screw with unsuspecting drivers.
>
>Because it's a perpetual taker of lives and it doesn't have to be.

Again, the road has been there for years - it hasn't changed and has
has been pointed out, it's not leaping up and crushing people who
wander by.  Lives are being "taken" because stupid people are driving
beyond their abilities or their vehicle's abilities.


>>If people are stupid enough to get themselves killed on a road as
>>simple 2222, so be it.  If they do it before they procreate, natural
>>selection kicks in and we have fewer stupid genes passed on.
>
>*That* is the stupidest argument that I've ever heard.    I've heard
>it used against helmet laws, and that kind of makes sense, since helmet
>laws restrict the rider from making choices that *only* endanger that
>rider.  2222 endangers a lot of people, it's not the same.

*People* on 2222 endanger other, not 2222.


>Oh yeah, Brendan...  Do you remember about a month back, someone posted
>that they lost their wife in an accident on 2222 caused by a wreckless
>driver.  Would you be calling that man's wife stupid and hope that she
>didn't procreate?

Yes, and you might have seen my followup to my article in which I
acknowledged that he has a point.  The question then becomes, if the
deaths on 2222 are not limited to those being stupid, hell, even if we
had one fatal accident a day on it, shouldn't the option of beefing up
enforcement of traffic laws on 2222 be examined first, before rushing
out and spending millions?  What is with this compulsion of yours to
spend millions of scarce tax dollars on something which might not be
needed?

Also, I don't want to live in a world in which I am protected from
everything and everyone.  If I have the choice between walking down 6th
street and potentially getting mugged, or walking down 6th street and
being assured of not getting mugged BUT putting up with a massive
police presence or intrusion on my life, I'd opt for the former.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.