The question posed by this headline constitutes a heresy of sorts. An affront to the tenets – the beliefs – of the Safety Cut. It is analogous to Galileo’s E pur si muove – “and yet, it moves!” – which he uttered under his breath after being forced to recant heliocentrism, the observable evidence that the sun rather than the Earth is the center of our solar system.
It is equally observable that using a phone while driving does not – as such – constitute dangerous driving. Just as owning a gun does not – as such – lead to schools being shot up. The dangerous driving arises when a person who cannot safely use a phone while driving does it. Such a person is probably – almost certainly – a dangerous (because unskilled) driver to begin with, even with both hands on the wheel.
This truth gets drowned out by the ululations of hysterics who cannot (or will not) distinguish between that which is harmful and that which they feel is harmful.
This thread runs through so much of American life today that you could make a shirt out of it. A hairshirt. In the space of about 50 years, this country went from being one in which a possibility was not equated with an actuality to one in which a possibility is treated as a certainty. If you’re under 30 and reading this, you probably have no idea – and probably will not believe it – but it used to be legal to drink a beer in your car (while driving your car) on the way home from work. Today, of course, it is illegal for a passenger riding in your car to drink a beer – and the driver can be arrested (if he’s not 21 or older) if a cop sees an empty bottle of beer in his car. Even if the driver has zero alcohol in his system. It does not matter that he isn’t “drunk” or even that he hasn’t been drinking.
All that matters is punishing the driver for what amounts to apostasy.
The religious/dogmatic aspect of this ought to be as obvious as it is off-putting. It is one thing for a believer to believe; that is his business. The Heaven’s Gate people weren’t bothering anyone else. It is another thing for Heaven’s Gate beliefs to become enforceable – and that is what we’re dealing with as regards punishing drivers whose driving hasn’t resulted in harm.
This is, of course, a difficult pill for some to swallow. The ones who have been trained to regard risk – however abstract – as intolerable. Including risk assumed by other people. They are making life a henpecked Hell for people who aren’t members of the cult and aren’t interested in joining up. It’s like being pursued by Hare Krishnas at every turn, Hare Krishnas with guns and the legal power to “ticket” you if you do not dance and sing, too.
The person who is afraid to go for a swim because no lifeguard is present isn’t forced to got a swim when no lifeguard is present. His decision to stay out of the water imposes nothing on others. The insufferability arises when such a person insists it is “dangerous” for anyone to be allowed to swim when there is no lifeguard on duty. The insufferability arises from the implicit presumption that others are stupid, incompetent and reckless and must be restrained for their own good. The same species of insufferability arises in the context of having a beer – or using a phone – while driving, with the added insufferability of the presumption that doing these things constitutes a threat ipso facto to others. It is precisely the same argument used to advance what is styled “gun control,” which of course is not about controlling guns but rather people. Some people. Not the special people. The ones who are exempted from the control; i.e., the same ones who “pull over” people for nothing more than using a phone while driving.
The italics to emphasis what ought to be the determining factor as to whether there is “pulling over.”
If a person has done nothing more than something some other person doesn’t like then the person doing whatever it is ought to be free to keep on doing it, irrespective of how others feel about it.
Once again, it is a difficult pill for late-stage Americans (not all, but many) to swallow. They are the same kinds of people who had Galileo brought before the Inquisition and sought his blood. Nor because he’d done any harm but because they did not like what he was doing.
Because it affronted their beliefs.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
Everything in Oceania is configured for the Lowest Common Denominator. If you happen to be an intelligent, competent, capable person, it doesn’t matter- You’re forced to play by the LCD rules….which usually (and especially when instituted from childhood) results in assuming the characteristics of the LCDs. Play by their rules…become one of them. They’re building a society of incompetent morons, and that is how they’re doing it.
5-second sound-bytes rule the average person’s life:
Don’t text and drive!
Turn Around- Don’t Drown.
Don’t drink and drive. (DOn’t even have alcohol IN your car! Don’t even look at a can of beer!)
Speed kills [Except when the mercenary enforcers do it]
If it’s brown, flush it down. (Well…they’re probably working on that one still).
Complain about the tyranny, and ya see how oblivious the average person is to the concept of actual justice and self-ownership.
“Ya can’t drink and drive! Ya wanna kill someone?!”
“Ya can’t text and drive, stoopit!”
“The radio said turn around, don’t drown…so don’t you DARE try to drive through that 2″ puddle; You’ll kill us all!”
Indeed, Arthur –
Mencken wrote about this LCD stuff 100 years ago and it has gotten much worse than it was in his time. As you say – as he said – this LCD thing makes a competent man furious because it is enraging to be compelled to abide by standards laid down for morons. I like to go for strenuous hikes to clear my head and challenge my body. I sometimes specifically select a very hot day to go for a hike. I fully expect the LCD crowd to close the trails when the temperature exceeds 80 degrees (let alone 90) because it’s “dangerous” for some to be out when it’s that hot.
Hi, Eric,
You mean….I’m only 100 years late in observing this?
It certainly does make me furious; Especially how they take away our own agency to actually think for ourselves, and judge risks and make our own determinations based on our own specific circumstances and abilities.
When I was a kid, we’d go down to the local lake and pick a random deserted spot, and swim and have fun, whenever we wanted. Today? Well….as an adult, you have to be corralled into a little roped-off area with the kiddies, and only when lifeguards are on-duty; And half the time they have signs up saying “No Swimming Due To High Bacteria”.
Oh, excuse me! I’ve swum in that lake thousands of times since I was 6 years old, with no lifeguards or roped-off areas; and without testing the water for “bacteria”, and I’m just fine!
Oh, and you can’t let your kid sit in the car for 45 minutes while you pick-up a few things at the store. And of course, all of your pets and livestock will die if you let them go outside when it’s above 70* or below 55*, because some idiot somewhere once tied his cockapoo out when it was 109*, without water or the ability to go in the shade….
Imagine the younger generation who have all grown up with this shit as life-as-normal. Their ability to assess any risk and make a reasonable determination has been bred out6 of them and replaced by the moronic mantras and sound-bytes that are robotically followed without even a shred of thought…not only in their own lives, but to the point that they’ll call the armed goons if they see a child or a dog sitting in parked car, being perfectly happy; or break the window themselves to “rescue” the “abused” specimen. And of course, the “monster” who would actually dare to use his own mind to dtermine what is “safe” and right under a given circumstance will be speedily kidnapped and caged for having committed such an egregious “crime”.
And remember when we had to “Drive 55 to stay alive”? What ever happened to that? Oh, yeah, they changed to sign to 70 [Thank goodness!] so now that is “safe”. But if you drove 70 when the sign said said 55, it wasn’t…..
If nothing else, this type of stuff alone should be enough to illustrate the absurdity of government. But I guess after decades of propaganda, the majority see government as their protectors for decreeing such nonsense.
SICHERHEIT ERST? Natürlich nicht!
All this mention of air bags and speed cops, and vetoes on boozing and texting-while-driving, brings to mind a school hiking holiday in Bavaria I went on in 1968.
It was quite arduous, especially the trek from Füssen to Garmisch Parten Kirchen.
The track rose from the edges of the town up the southern face of what my geography teacher would have called a glaciated U-shaped valley.
Up and up it went. Narrower and narrower. Peering over the edge gave me the eebie-jeebies. There was no fence that would stop you plummeting over.
What gave me advanced eebie-jeebies, was that every mile or so, on the valley side of the track, were little stone shrines with a tiny plaster Madonna, face turned wistfully heavenwards, a few plastic roses, and a little faded photograph, always of a young pre-teen boy.
The shrines bore the names of the Jungen, wer über den Rand gefallen waren. Just like that.
In Bavaria — in 1968 at least — it seems that you took your life in your own hands. No walls. No fences. If you wanted to climb up, it was on you if you plunged down.
I was alarmed by all this. Did the Bavarians not give a toss? Or was their attitude to SAFETY different from mine?
Texas has a wildly uneven set of standards with regard to touching the sail phone while driving.
Statewide, the law only restricts texting, but local municipalities are free to set tougher standards.
Multiple communities between Austin and San Antonio have “No touching” ordinances, including City of Austin, and I’ve seen the heroes set up shop on bridges above the freeway approaching the city from points south with binoculars, dispatching motorcycle units to chase down scofflaws.
I’ve long believed that the “No touching” standard is about eliminating use of Waze to report mulcting operations more than any concern about public safety from someone distracted by a text.
The fine for the first offense in Austin is $500, more than a “wreckless driving” speeding ticket.
The “No touching” law in Austin seemed to coincide with Ed Bolian breaking the Cannonball record in 2013 with the help of one of the mapping app services which he refused to name.
Why?
It’s a car, not a phone booth. The widespread adoption of the idiot’s constant companion, a cell phone, has led to this asinine infatuation of being in constant contact.
Distracted driving, just like the assholes who “drive” with a damn dog in their lap, head out the window. On my 2 mile commute today, two shitheads crossed the centerline towards me because they were apparently engrossed in a most demanding cell phone conversation that simply could not be had at any other time.
Take a look at the innumerable videos featuring indian (dot, not feather) truck drivers texting/gaming/watching pron just before the fatal (to others)crash – that should be sufficient to convince.
One thing you don’t hear anymore is “give it your full & complete attention”, thanks to that rat bastard billy gates convincing the multitude to buy his crappy software, because it “multi-tasks, just like you”. Muliti tasking is a fraud, your necessary full attention can be in only one area at a time.
Should cops be permitted a pass? Absolutely not, I suspect they are far more likely to be in a crash.
Jim Morrison got it right: “Keep your eyes on the road & your hands upon the wheel”
Here in South Carolina, the infraction is styled distracted driving, and it prohibits holding any hand-held electronic device while driving (using a vehicle’s layered-menu context-sensitive scroll/swipe info/entertainment/navigation/communication/diagnostics/etc. touchscreen is just fine). No texting or talking on a cell phone.
The law specifically exempts cops, naturally.
“Distracted driving” also applies to eating/drinking in the car, applying makeup, etc.
This is enforced at the discretion of the heroes.
Hi Iggy,
I agree dey sail fawns are a curse in many ways. But the issue I was getting at in the article is whether merely using the thing justifies punishing people. I don’t see how it can be justified – in the absence of harm caused. More specifically, I see great danger in letting the idea of might cause harm become the accepted basis for punishing and controlling people. Principles (and precedents) are important. If it’s accepted that a driver can be punished for using a phone – nothing more, just for using it, because some worry that might cause harm – then it follows that people who carry guns might cause harm and that ought to be outlawed also.
I concede that some people will cause harm via their distracted/incompetent driving. What I take issue with is punishing/controlling everyone on account of what some do. Why not just punish those who actually do it – i.e., actually do cause harm?
Eric,
Your point is valid….in my lifetime, which is pretty long at this point, we have gone from a productive, high trust, low time preference culture that saved for the future to a situation where all those traits are actively discouraged. People are encouraged to bear their chains without complaint. We now have our bread and circuses and even long, close friends of mine ask me why I care. The cell phone issue is like the abortion issue….it takes on religious aspects for justification of abrogation of individual rights to choose freely. The solution should never be to give government(s) more power to regulate behavior. As in the abortion issue, government(s) should butt out neither supporting or making ethical choices for individuals…..personally I find the pro-choice crowd to be tedious in their assertion of their “right” to abort a fetus. (I have changed my mind on this BTW), but other than opposing government of Planned Parenthood and its ilk, I would rather err on the side of letting individuals decide. The cell phone issue is deeper in a way because it goes beyond the purvey of driving…..it literally is an addictive product that makes heavy users more controlled and stupider, me included. It’s a one way path to the reward centers of your brain.
Amen, Giuseppe!
I’m a late adopter of dey sail fawn. I got my first one in 2016. I use the damned thing because everyone uses the damned things and – unless you’re ready to go Amish – it is nigh impossible to do without the damned things. That said, I do not like them and I generally leave mine on the kitchen counter unless I need to send a text or make a call. It hasn’t addicted me yet – probably because I grew up long before dey sail fawns came along. It’s a horrible situation for the people who gre up immersed in this “technology.”
If they have any statistically lower rate of wrecks whilst driving ‘recklessly’ (which you and I know is just a meaningless word) it’s because their cars are usually clearly marked and have lights and sirens to demand attention. One could likely achieve the same by simply requiring that if a driver wished to go faster than prevailing traffic they must be easily distinguishable in terms of having all indicators fully operable, perhaps honk their horn, flash headlights, have flashing brake lights to draw attention and things like that when overtaking or accommodating slower traffic.
-Anon
I believe the insurance mafia is behind all these traffic laws. They lobby local and state governments to pass such laws which gives the police the power to ticket so-called violators. A traffic ticket than gives the insurance mafia a reason to increase your rates.
‘hysterics, feel, henpecked.’
Absolutely no connection to female dominance of the zeitgeist, of course.
Hi cobble,
You mean like the Flock CEO Garrett Langley? Ralph Nader? Mark Zuckerberg? Or Eric Schmidt? All guys who get their kicks spying on the rest of us, but use “safety” as an excuse.
Wimpy men have been a burden on history long before women left the kitchen.
Excellent RG, my wife would agree.
Control Freakishness is an equal opportunity occupation 😆
It is Mike. 🙂
It’s good to have your wisdom back RG. Guessing your absence was ‘tax time’
Hi Chris,
Glad to see you still posting. 🙂
Tax time and a few other things. Bought an office/shop instead of paying rent….moving is always fun, said no one ever. 😉
Congrats, big move, we did same 10yrs ago.
We’ve now maxed out our 4K sq/ft building, and are going for 10K+ now.
In deep blue state it’s triple costs and regs, arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
We could to move to greener pastures but then we lose all our great people, which ain’t happening. Pay up the nose so much it’s infruriating.
Hi Chris,
Here in Virginia I didn’t realize how few shops are available. I am sure you have something similar where you live. It is funny though because most places that have a shop (with a home or office space) they sit for months/years for sale because the majority of people don’t want to deal with it. Only business owners (or car guys) would find a shop beneficial. Most people view it as an extra burden with an additional electric and propane bill thrown in.
Congrats on the business growth. I love reading that people are doing well.
We are doing too well. I’d rather not go through the expanding part, but it is what it is. It’s a lesson in true freedom and ownership. We give all power, responsibility, and fruits to our salesman, and they respond in ways you can’t imagine, we can’t stop it.
Private Equity has invaded our industry and bought up most of our competitors.
Based on my studies of PE, they will be in trouble eventually. Part of the reason our people/products are in demand unlike I have ever seen.
“Private Equity has invaded our industry”
Same here in both the HVAC and accounting fields. All I have seen from PE is a diminished product in quality, quantity, workmanship, basically everything except price. The vultures seem to sell off the assets and lay off the employees until all that remains is an empty shell of what was once a strong and thriving organization.
Although, I don’t understand the business owners that sell to PE I am sure the sway of cash is too great to deny.
In my niche industry, we got old, no 40yrs/olds at all. As they got into their 50’s they didn’t plan or build a legacy. So they had little choice but to sell out. PE was the highest bidder, but it looks like a ponzi scheme to me.
We saw the writing on the wall and started hiring 30yr olds and now 20 yr olds. They are our plan and our retirement since we put nothing away, no 401’s, etc…. Every dime went to the biz.
My friend’s ex- wife now works with a chain of veterinarian offices bought out by private equity.
She’s the “Chief People Person”.
What kind of a name is Garret Langley, if not a pseudonym?
Hey RG, it is good to hear from you again. I was wondering where you were, and am glad you are back!
Hi Shadow,
Thank you and I hope life is treating you well. 🙂
I’d agree – wimpy men using safety as an excuse are a problem. But who or what is driving that train? Pretty sure it ain’t guys like me or the other men who hang out here, and it probably ain’t you either. And if you consider half of kids born today are raised in single-mom/broken families, and 90% of kindergarten/primary school teachers are female… I rest my case.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Hi cobble,
In 1950, 75% of all teachers were female. For close to a century now teachers have been predominantly female. Nannies, governesses, etc. taught children for hundreds of years. Were men more available to their family decades ago? Honestly, I would say no. Men worked. They provided. They weren’t home to be a caregiver or to teach the aspects of life. Families have always been ran by women.
What has changed? Are men are more involved in family rearing? I would say, yes. Most large companies provide men 6-8 weeks paternal leave when they welcome a child, vacation pay, sick leave, Dads coaching little league and basketball, toting babies around in backpacks, etc. The fathers of today are more involved in their children’s lives. Dads are more available.
What is the issue? One, I would say government intrusion. Two, the unwillingness of partners to stay together. We have become a throw away society. That is just not cars, appliances, clothing, or food, but relationships as well. There are people that have been married 30, 40, 50 + years. What are they doing that the rest of society is not? What has changed during the last generation that instances like this are rarer and rarer?
What has changed (just my opinion), is that the seeds of feminism back in the 60’s (or so) have taken root, and born bitter fruit. Feminism destroyed families, fathers, and marriages. Women were told to have a career, and if they had babies, they did not need men. Marriage was depicted as being a ball-and-chain for the feminist woman who wanted to be free. Decades later, we have a generation of people who had no fathers, and a generation of aging women who are realizing too little too late the fruit they are now consuming. And yes, the government replacing the father in the home. Why would a feminist need a man when she has the government, and taxpayers to help her? I think fathers are important, and their increasing involvement in their children’s lives. I just wonder if it is the rarity, rather than the norm?
“In 1950, 75% of all teachers were female.”
I looked that up and found exactly one news article which provided no evidence or data to support the claim. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/women-superintendents-few-and-far-between/1999/11
But one thing has changed: in 1950 87% of kids lived in two-biological-parent families. Couple that with a near 100% female-initiated divorce rate for families with children, and look up for yourself what the current situation is for kids. It’s pretty obvious that women, with the help of the state, are destroying the family by eliminating men and dads, for whatever reasons good or bad. There’s no chance that’s going to work out well.
Hi cobble,
My information came from the US census in 1950:
“According to the 1950 federal census, the American teaching population was almost universally three-quarters female. This indicates that approximately 75% of teachers in the United States during that year were women.”
I have been with the same man since I was 16 years of age. Married to him for almost 26 years. I have three sisters who are all still married to their first husbands. My parents have been married for well over 50+ years, my grandparents each made it to 60+ years before each of my grandfathers’ passed. My aunts and uncles (two sets) all approaching 40+ years of wedlock. I am not announcing this to brag. I am writing this to show that not all women push for divorce or even have a reason to divorce.
My husband comes from a family where divorce is all they know. All are on at least Marriage #2 (except him), three on #3, and yes, even another on Marriage #4.
What is the difference between how he and I were raised? Same county, same generation, same school district, even similar religious preferences.
You keep mentioning that this is a woman/man fight. I think you are wrong. It is a class fight.
What is the fundamental difference between my husband’s family and my family? Wealth. I realize a few people may get up in arms about that, but look at the class system. The wealthy rarely divorce. Who is divorcing? The poor and middle classes. What happens in divorce? Assets are split, stolen, destroyed. This makes the poor penniless and the Middle Class destitute. What happens to assets when two people remain married? They grow and are passed onto to the next generation.
We have gotten into this Tug of War that it is man vs women when it is much more elite vs commoner. Is government intervening? Yes. Is feminism being blamed? Yes. But, look where that money is going in a divorce….lawyers, taxes, now split between two parties who raise two families and are more impoverished for it.
What is government’s new take? Don’t marry. Don’t have kids. Just continue to work and pay your taxes. Don’t create wealth. Don’t leave it to the next generation. Leave it to us.
In other automotive news,
TyphoidEeeVee Mary announced higher quarterly profits for GM, but on 4.2% lower volume. Like her counterpart Lightning Jim Farley at Ford, she’s trying to make more money on fewer vehicles. So-o-o-o-o … prices must go up.The sad part is how much higher profits would have been, absent the EeeVee debacle. GM recorded $4.5 billion in EV-related charges so far this year, with the total impact rising to $7.2 billion when non-cash items are included.
‘Sales of the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Blazer EV, and GMC Hummer EV all fell sharply, although GM retained the No. 2 position in the U.S. EV market behind Tesla.’ — ZeroHedge
Being No. 2 behind Tesla in EeeVees is like being the second-largest printer of hundred-dollah bills after the US Treasury — a very dubious distinction!
Where have all the EeeVees gone?
Young girls wrecked them every one.
When will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Pete Seeger, Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
Hi Jim,
Government and fleet vehicles have got to be the end users in these auto sales. Everybody I know is still driving around in a 12 year old vehicle. I don’t know of anyone who is willing to deal with the absorption of tech surveillance or the ridiculous ass pricing.
The whole problem is law enforcement. There is nothing inherently wrong with speeding, or texting, or drinking, or eating, or screwing while driving. Make them illegal if you want, but so long as they are private activities, taking place in the privacy of your vehicle while you exercise your right to be in it. When it becomes a problem, and contributes to a wreck and damage to someone’s property or person, is the only time when the legal system should be involved. And then only to proportionate to the damage incurred.
I can support my local police and know that law enforcement is the enemy. There is no contradiction in this, no cognitive dissonance, no irony, no nothing. Your local police are subject to local control. A local jury can and must intervene when they get uppity, and they must be easy to remove.
Law enforcement is a totalitarian concept, suitable to fascism, communism, democracy, and religious dictatorship. It is the 20th century version of the king’s guard, a standing army used by a ruler to rule a subject people.
They are different things, policing is a necessary evil and law enforcement is a monstrous evil to be fought at every turn, to the death.
The local police are the local arms of a fascist state, regardless of courts and any prevention of local oversight through elections etc. The reason? They receive federal money to.operate. Even local police are trained in IDF policing techniques, which is not very local. The federal money is raised through debt creation.which causes devaluation. We pay the bill in our freedom and our treasure. Burn it all down.
There’s plenty of reasons why we have police. They do have a legitimate job to do. There ate times & situations when you’re really really glad they showed up. There’s also times & situations where they really ought to be stripped of their uniforms, flogged, and then sued into penury.
Who watches the watchers?
Swamp, you are technically correct of course. But this situation is, as most of the folks on this forum know, a recent aberration.
But when you burn it down you had best have a superior solution to replace it with. Or someone else will.
I think Ernie is trying to draw the distinction between peace officers and LEOs.
Conceptually having a neutral 3rd party to deal with disputes is fine. That’s more or less what the Constitutional judicial and sheriff were supposed to be and the original police came about as reaction when loosely organized villages and towns grew into dense cities. You needed someone to keep the peace. When the government was still sort of constrained they had a legitimate moral position to do these things. There’s nothing that says a private arbitration board and security company couldn’t serve the same function amongst neighbors.
What they’ve become now is more akin to the Praetorian Guard, serving to protect the leaders from the hoi polloi. I tend to agree with Ernie in the sense that our society is so deeply flawed and corrupt that you couldn’t actually defund the police without creating a real mess of chaos and crime as a reaction. That’s what the people behind that want. They aren’t trying to get rid of police as some big libertarian push. They want lawlessness and no accountability. They know police, sheriffs and judges who have to be popularly elected and are subject to even the slightly public scrutiny are the enemy of communism.
The “defund the police” crowd want to replace local police with federalized left wing death squads.
One argument I’ve heard for why cops can have an OPEN LAPTOP on their dash is because they’ve been “trained” on how to properly drive with a massive touchpad and keyboard operated screen beside the steering wheel.
OK, so they’ve established that drivers can be trained. So why not train people? Cell phones didn’t exist in the 1950s (although “car” phones did, along with two way radios, albeit not to the near-ubiquity of today), but technology advanced. Driving tests didn’t. If anything driving tests got easier because your test is administered in an automatic with warning sensors, backup cameras and a ton of other “aids” to help the driver maintain situational awareness. So why not add a “certification” for cell phone? Or a “certification” for manual transmission (like CDL drivers do)? I mean, if we’re going to have the panopticon anyway, why not make it useful? Cop sees you driving without a seatbelt and holding your iPhone 24. The facial recognition algorithm pulls up your credential showing that you’re certified to operate without seat belts and have the phone endorsement. Meanwhile, Sally Safety gets pulled over because she’s too stupid to pass the endorsement test.
Hi RK,
That’s sensible and sound. I remember once I got into a discussion with a cop about “speeding.” I pointed out that cops routinely “speed” and are allowed to. His reply? Well, cops are trained. Well, I replied, I have also been trained. I have taken multiple high-performance driving courses (Bondurant, etc.) and so how come I am not allowed to “speed’ as you are?
He didn’t have an answer.
It’s my belief that cops get their rocks off being able to do things you peasants are not allowed to do. Like tote “assault weapons” that are banned for everyone else, speed, drive without a seat belt, use a phone while driving, use a laptop while driving, carry guns everywhere it is prohibited for you mere mortals to carry them, kick in people’s doors, spy on hot women with Flock cameras, manhandle and assault people, etc. etc.
And in 99% of cases be able to shoot people (including unarmed people) and get away with it where YOU would have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing.
And the answer is not “Because we’re trained.” There are a LOT of stupid and incompetent cops and diversity hires and political hires.
The answer is “Because I’m a cop” — and you’re not.
It chafes the fuck out of me because when you see what cops are allowed to do and what you are prohibited from doing, you realize it is no longer a free country and hasn’t been for decades.
This country was founded without cops. In the 1820s free men like Andrew Jackson carried a gun wherever they hell they wanted to carry it and when some dirtbag newspaper guy shit-talked his wife and called her a whore, Jackson challenged him to a duel and shot the bastard dead.
He didn’t go to prison for it… to the contrary he became a militia general and wiped out the British at New Orleans in 1814 and then became president.
There were no capitol cops or Secret Service when he was president… when some nut tried to shoot him on the capitol steps, the gun misfired and Jackson personally beat the hell out of the bastard with his cane.
No cops. Total freedom. That WAS America.
Beautiful. Well said.
“It chafes the fuck out of me because when you see what cops are allowed to do and what you are prohibited from doing, you realize it is no longer a free country and hasn’t been for decades.”
So much evil has come from brainwashing and propaganda. Most people believe “the state has a rightful monopoly on violence”- when the 2nd amendment clearly states otherwise.
And they support “the rule of law” when 98% of those laws are outside of or completely against the constitutional framework all laws need to be legitimate.
Around here there are people who actually put signs in their front yards that read “God Bless Our Police.”
Makes me sick. It’s like Soviet peasants who had a picture of Comrade Stalin prominently displayed on the wall. They lick the very boot that will throw them into gulag at the drop of a hat.
Around here the local chapter of the John Birch Society buys donuts and delivers them to all the various law enforcement agencies in the area.
The question is then would a retired cop be allowed to speed? Or a SCCA member or professional race car driver? What about someone who’s MOS included tactical or defensive driving school? I like the idea of having endorsements, like a CDL. It’s not without a model. I had to either take a class or do a demonstrated proficiency test to get a motorcycle endorsement.
I can tell you as someone who has gone fully through a police academy, we were trained in high speed driving at an airport runway and there was a laptop present during the training. There was absolutely nothing noted or special taught about the laptop and it’s use while driving. In fact, in practice you are often looking at the laptop for license plate returns, driver’s license returns, or call location information while driving. Again, nothing was taught as far as, ‘when youre driving, make sure you look at the laptop for no more than 1/2 second’ or something of that nature. All while tracking your own location mentally as well as working the radio and/or radar while driving. Maybe the squad phone is going off too. The amount of multi tasking is crazy while they want normal people to not even touch a phone. But it’s all lawyer speak. I can say I was trained with a laptop in the car. Not that anything special was actually taught.
Back in the days of car talk on NPR, Bob and Tom used to say “anything that takes your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel is bad “.
Personally, I stick by that axiom. Whether it be fast food, phones, screens, and modern cars, etc
I don’t think I can argue the legality one way or the other though.
Likewise, on arguing the legality. I favor as few laws as possible. I don’t text while driving. But this sounds pretty bad:
‘Texting while driving increases your crash risk by 23 times. This is because it creates a “deadly trifecta” of distraction: visual, manual, and cognitive. Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road for an average of 5 seconds—at 55 mph, that is the equivalent of driving the length of a football field completely blindfolded.’ — Goolag AI
Hi Jim,
Of course. The trick is to maintain situational awareness while multi-tasking. Some can do this; others cannot. Also, general skill is hugely relevant; i.e., a skilled driver has the advantage of skill, which is a compensatory factor. The unskilled are already operating at a low (marginal) level and so they’re already much more likely to cause an “accident.” It seems to me, then, that the thing to so is to deal with the unskilled drivers and leave the others be.
That sounds made up. That 23 x number only applies to the millisecond your eyes are off the road.
How do you quantify that over a long time frame?
Garbage AI.
Why should it be illegal to fuck with a touch screen on your phone but not the touch screen on your dash?
Equally distracting, in my view.
It would be one thing if said cell phone yapper was a good driver to begin with. I do not care, yap away. The problem is, too many are terrible drivers even without the phone glued to the side of their head. But then include the divided, competing attention, and I echo Mark’s sentiments: You go to pass said person, and they are completely oblivious to anything and everything around them. And if that is not bad enough, throw in some snowy, icy road conditions to the mix. That really makes for fun driving in the Winter.
Absolutely, Shadow!
But the thing that chafes for me is being brought down to their level. To be treated presumptively as if I were one of those people. I’m not. Riddick said it best: “I’m not with these people.”
True. And in the end, what it boils down to is personal responsibility, and knowing your limitations. One may be able to talk on the phone while driving with their knees and do fine. Works for me. But you get the ones who can barely drive a straight line trying the same thing, and it gets interesting in a hurry. Perhaps if individual responsibility returned, society would not have the government treating us like we are five year old’s. What is sad, is that this society would rather be nannied and have their hands held, and not have to be responsible for anything. Hence, the saaaaafety crap we are seeing in vehicles.
Indeed, Shadow –
I submit the solution to the putative problem is to hold people responsible for what they do. Not for what they might or because someone else is “concerned.” Accountability when applied every single time has a salutary deterrent effect. As an example to make the point: Imagine if anyone who so much as possessed a gun while committing another crime automatically got sent to prison for 20 years. And anyone who used a gun to commit a crime got life, no possibility of parole. Actually shoot someone (not in self defense, obviously) whether they died or not – and it’s the chair for you, amigo.
I expect “gun crime” would decline to next-to-none.
If the punishment fit the crime, we would have a whole lot less of it.
“I submit the solution to the putative problem is to hold people responsible for what they do. Not for what they might or because someone else is “concerned.”
Except mtf trannies, Right Eric?
Hi Willy,
If a man wants to pretend to be a woman (or the reverse) that’s ok with me. So long as they don’t expect me to pretend – or pay for their procedure!
Fair enough. But why is it always a man?
Hi Willytee,
Well, there’s also Elliot Page. “He” used to be a pretty girl. It’s horrific.
Page is a sad case. I remember Ellen when she played in the movie “Inception” (with Leo Decaprio). She was a pretty gal, and the movie was great. I do not know how SHE expects to get anywhere pretending to be someone she is not, nor will ever be.
Amen, Shadow –
It makes me sad. She is obviously severely mentally ill. This is not her fault and she does not deserve to be mocked for it. That said, I think the doctors who did this to her are Mengele types who ought to be held in contempt.
Ellen Page was Beautiful! It was ‘Their’ Choice. A person takes drugs, Black market, steroids, hormones, I find it hard to blame the dealer. Consumers choice. ‘nough said, I was just curious as to my it’s always the mtf that have folks up in arms.
Hi Willytee,
Yes, she chose. It’s still sad (to me) and I also think that while she had the right to choose, that she is mentally ill.
That doctors who take advantage of mentally ill people are contemptible. Imagine a doctor using his skills to “transition” someone from human into (let’s say) a cat-woman (or cat-man) because the mentally ill person felt they’d been born into the wrong (human) body…
A doctor or doctors cut off her breasts. Probably patched on a “dick” made out of other parts of her. She is now an irreparable a sewn-together thing, a real-life Frankenstein. A science experiment. A monster. It’s worse than Michael Jackson.
I have a hard time arguing the point you are making. No victim, no crime.
However.
When you get behind a glob of traffic snot only to find, when you finally get around it, that it’s being caused by some incompetent boob dickin’ around on their phone, you should be allowed to shoot them. Not kill them, mind you, but at least blow off an appendage.
I agree, Mark!
It’s ultimately about self-policing, if you want to avoid policing. That’s the exasperating thing for those of us who do self-police. I sometimes drive using my knees and – honestly – I am more able to keep the car within its travel lane using my knees than many Clovers are despite both hands on the wheel. I say the dumbing-down and one-size-fits-all’ing has got to be stopped – unless we all want to become Eloi and be eaten by the Morlocks!
If we wish to have a Civilization people need to behave in a civil manner. No amount of GovCo brutality can make a Civilization, it is anathema to the concept. Unless you hold that “From Savagery Springs Civility”.
Indeed, when dueling was prohibited we lost an important civilized avenue for settling disputes.
Pistols for two, coffee for one.
Need to watch Planes, Trains and Automobiles. A Thanksgiving movie. John Candy (RIP) did that stunt brilliantly.
“Youre going the wrong way!”
“He doesn’t even know which way we’re going…”
Great movie.
I had to pull up the clip you guys were talking about. I died laughing watching it, and forgot how funny it was…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M0FfQzSngM
I kind of have a soft spot for a metallic lime green woodgrain paneled k car convertible, because of that movie