nanny state wants cameras

WilberM3 wrote: thank god government is there to make us not hurt ourselves! :rolleyes: how is it govt's role to determine if your chosen vehicle is 'too big' though? that last statement you added goes back to the correct argument of where's the proper training so we can rely on ourselves first?

There isn't proper training, that's the problem. So since we are too dumb to buy what we actually need or what we can actually handle, we have to have laws to protect the rest of us.

And god forbid the gov't told us that what we want is too big, even if it really is. The printers couldn't keep up with the demand for Obama portraits with Hitler mustaches.

so if the problem is a lack of proper training as you say, why dont we solve that rather than overmandate EVERY 'SAFETY' item to save us from ourselves, which in the end simply produces a better idiot yet costs more to everyone else who doesnt need or want it? i'll choose to drive what i like and pay attention for inattentive morons on the road thank you.

i think i'm gonna go look for a deuce and a half on CL.

"Everybody" drives what they like, that is what America is about. Isn't it?

So infringe on peoples "right" to drive what they want...or...impose safety restrictions to keep the rest of us alive so that you can drive what you want.

Any ideas on how we can have our cake and eat it too?

Seatbelts, airbags, helmets, crumple zones, pedesrtrian safe front ends, daytime running lights,padded dashboards, laminated windshields, collapsable steering columns...All those happened because of "big gov't". I have a feeling that everyone on this forum knows somebody who has benefitted from at least one of these mandates.

There isn't proper training, that's the problem.

There certainly is. Unfortunately - it IS optional.

How much sense would it make to incorporate better training into the license program than to mandate every attempt to idiot proof the automobile?

Datsun1500 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: How much sense would it make to incorporate better training into the license program than to mandate every attempt to idiot proof the automobile?

So having procedures to get on an airplane is interference but having procedures to get a license is OK?

It is perfectly acceptable to ask drivers to demonstrate an ability to DRIVE before giving them a license to do so in the same way as you expect the pilot to be able to FLY the plane.

Last I checked - there were no special skills required to be a passenger unless you were seated in an exit row.

BTW.... TSA thread that-away ---------------->

I bet the average teenager in Finland could outdrive 99% of American adults on the road. They have to demonstrate true car control before they get a license. Here they don't even make you parallel park for the license test anymore.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

This me too.

Cone_Junky wrote: I bet the average teenager in Finland could outdrive 99% of American adults on the road. They have to demonstrate true car control before they get a license. Here they don't even make you parallel park for the license test anymore.

I almost failed that part of the test. Not because I couldn't park the car.. I did a perfect job.. but because I used one hand on the wheel while twisting around to see where the car was going.

See, with backup cameras, we won't have to worry about that anymore. Plus, some new cars can park themselves.. soon we can just hit "pull out" and it will back itself out of the driveway, and be ready for us

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: It is perfectly acceptable to ask drivers to demonstrate an ability to DRIVE before giving them a license to do so in the same way as you expect the pilot to be able to FLY the plane. Last I checked - there were no special skills required to be a passenger unless you were seated in an exit row.

quoted for truth

Datsun1500 wrote: The same people yelling about the TSA would be yelling that the Gov't is hindering their "right" to drive....

2 points...

A). driving is a privilege, and its something you actively participate in. In order to be competent in your participation, adequate skills are required. No different than you needing to be trained in your profession or to bake a cake. Training makes for less errors. Train better, err less.

2). I would have ZERO issues with the TSA's policies if they werent thinly veiled schemes to sell scanners. If the TSAs actions were capable of preventing the kinds of attempted attacks that the US has seen in the last decade, then I would be more tolerant of some minimum wage goon grabbing a fistfull of my sausage. But given that they have been fairly open that neither the shoe nor the underwear bomber wouldve been caught with their protocol, I have less than hearty faith in their ability. Scan less, scheme less, infringe less, profile more. kthnxbai