Topic: Right to endanger? (Read 6727 times)
I haven't read this thread but since we're on the topic, has anyone touched on whether it's prudent to let women or Asians drive?
Impairment testing is all well and good. But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?
I agree. There are many other possible causes of impairment including prescription drugs, incapacity due to age and just plain not being skilled at driving. A proper driving test and periodic re-qualification would do wonders for road safety.
Fortunately, this is likely to become moot in what will seem like a surprisingly short period of time. It wont be without its downsides though.
IIRC, there is no speed limit on german highways.
Not all segments allow for unlimited speed. If you think they're discussing freeways like one might find in Los Angeles or the Bay Area of California, then forget it. Furthermore, you will get pulled over for reckless endangerment (see thread title) of others depending on traffic density, weaving, weather, etc.
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.
Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.
The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.
They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?
Impairment testing is all well and good.
Glad you agree. So can we put to rest the whole notion that it's a not a good idea to keep drunks off the road before they kill someone?
Quote
But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?
And how do we test for other temporary causes of impairment, such as a fainting, sleeping or strokes? Better to at least catch drunk drivers because it is detectable. Or do you advocate letting the drunks kill because we can't tell that someone might faint in the next thirty minutes?
Do you not think that sleepiness is detectable in impairment testing? Fainting and strokes are one-time events, and should not be punished, due to their unpredictable nature. But if you're going to punish someone before they harm someone, it should be for the actions which actually endanger people - the reckless driving - regardless of cause.
IIRC, there is no speed limit on german highways.
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.
Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.
The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.
They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?
Impairment testing is all well and good.
Glad you agree. So can we put to rest the whole notion that it's a not a good idea to keep drunks off the road before they kill someone?
Quote
But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?
And how do we test for other temporary causes of impairment, such as a fainting, sleeping or strokes? Better to at least catch drunk drivers because it is detectable. Or do you advocate letting the drunks kill because we can't tell that someone might faint in the next thirty minutes?
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.
Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.
The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.
They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?
Impairment testing is all well and good. But singling out one cause of impairment is rather pointless, isn't it?
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.
Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.
The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.
They are free to walk a line and touch their nose instead. Better that than putting them back on the road and watch them swerve into another lane or run a red light and kill someone. No?
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.
Don't judge the article based solely on the paragraph I quoted. He goes much more in depth than that.
The real question is what should be criminalized: Should it be swerving into other people's lanes, or having an arbitrary (and not necessarily impairing - or worse, far greater than needed to impair) amount of a chemical in your blood? If you're going to punish behavior that endangers others, you should punish the behavior that actually endangers others - regardless of the cause.
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
A little bit disingenuous as quoted as what's being criminalized is not UI but DUI.
There's an oft quoted phrase "Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose". I've always felt a little uncomfortable with this as there are quite a few things that could go wrong that would end up with fist and nose coming into violent contact. It would also be interesting to see what would happen in an ancap society to a person who went around swinging their fist just short of people's noses.
Usually when things seem woolly like this issue, I usually find it means that the argument has not been thought through to first principles and insufficient information about the circumstances have been given. Government laws, for example, usually attempt to treat the circumstances and not the cause and are typically poorly thought out even for that.
A relevant article on the subject:
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
http://lfb.org/blog/the-drunk-driving-question/
Quote
With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not wreckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.
I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?
Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?
If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?
Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?
If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?
The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.
Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).
Do you not see how disgusting this is?
i do not. Please explain why it is disgusting. I simply want to preserve as many peoples rights as possible, that of course includes the rights of people to not be killed by drunk drivers and if possible the rights of people to drive drunk. im not here to judge right and wrong because any statement i may make on the matter would necessarily be my opinion and not objectively valid in any way. If it was not possible to preserve the rights of both people than of course i would lean in the direction of preserving the rights of the person who is not intoxicated but since it is possible to preserve both peoples rights simultaneously i see no reason not to.
of course i am very open to the possibility that i am wrong on this one it certainly isn't something i feel strongly about, its more of an interesting thought experiment to me than anything else.
I find it amusing how everyone ignored my post.
Typically Vne just denotes a structural failure point at or exceeding that speed.
Well, there you go. (thanks, btw) So, aside from the structural limitations of your vehicle, this is the only real speed limit:
Typically Vne just denotes a structural failure point at or exceeding that speed. You can usually exceed Vne in calm, smooth air without incident... but if you hit turbulence you are in for a potential world of hurt as structural load could potentially be exceeded by a wide margin almost instantly and your plane comes apart. All V speeds are unique to a given model of plane, so yes a biplane is different than an F15. For example, a newer model Cessna 170 will have a Vne somewhere around 160 KIAS and an older Cessna 150 will be somewhere around 150 KIAS if I recall. An F15 probably has a Vne around 700 KIAS I would imagine, possibly more. I'm just pulling that out of thin air, but it's got to be around or above mach 1. The space shuttle has a Vne around mach 7 I think (in atmosphere), which is about 4500 KIAS.
There was a dumbass flying back from Tampa I think a couple years ago in a nice new plane and he had his whole family with him. He was traveling around 220 KIAS, right at redline. Being the invincible type, he flew at max speed into a cloud layer and the plane broke up in the air and went crashing to the ground. Bad things happen when you try to break the laws of physics.
There was a dumbass flying back from Tampa I think a couple years ago in a nice new plane and he had his whole family with him. He was traveling around 220 KIAS, right at redline. Being the invincible type, he flew at max speed into a cloud layer and the plane broke up in the air and went crashing to the ground. Bad things happen when you try to break the laws of physics.
Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit. You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)
Interesting.. I know it is a bit off topic, but how can Vne be a flat speed for all altitudes? Or does the number change with altitude? I have experience in supersonic rocket flight characteristics, and we have a similar term called Max-Q, which is dependent on air density. 1000 mph at 5K feet has significantly higher aerodynamic load than 1000 mph at 50K feet.
Vne is calculated against IAS, so it's related to altitude but altitude is functionally irrelevant for calculation purposes as the altimeter handles the conversion factor by default due to air pressure. I'm not sure if this applies as you approach mach 1 or maybe even much sooner. I also suspect (but have no firsthand knowledge) it would depend on what is driving the Vne limit. If it's airframe or prop or something else... well then I suppose the answer would differ.
Would Vne be different for a biplane than it would be for a F-15 at the same altitude? What happens when you exceed Vne? Does the plane shake itself apart? Burst into flame from air friction? Can technology push back Vne for a specific altitude?
I'm not a pilot or aeronautical engineer, so this is all new info. Google failed to bring up any good explanatory links, or I likely wouldn't be asking these questions. Feel free to answer them with such a link.
Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit. You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)
Interesting.. I know it is a bit off topic, but how can Vne be a flat speed for all altitudes? Or does the number change with altitude? I have experience in supersonic rocket flight characteristics, and we have a similar term called Max-Q, which is dependent on air density. 1000 mph at 5K feet has significantly higher aerodynamic load than 1000 mph at 50K feet.
Vne is calculated against IAS, so it's related to altitude but altitude is functionally irrelevant for calculation purposes as the altimeter handles the conversion factor by default due to air pressure. I'm not sure if this applies as you approach mach 1 or maybe even much sooner. I also suspect (but have no firsthand knowledge) it would depend on what is driving the Vne limit. If it's airframe or prop or something else... well then I suppose the answer would differ.
I, personally, don't want to be on the road with every over-confident Fast and Furious fan free-for-all racing their lowered Honda, with a fart can, and blown shocks, thinking it is a supercar
You already are, BAKA. My brother was broadsided during his protected left turn by one of those Fast and Furious fans. Said Fast and Furious fan suffered hardly any punishment nor paid hardly any compensation, when he was this_close to being guilty of homicide. It's called Security and Justice Theater; complete fiction.
In an anarchist society, first thing: his name could/would be spread far and wide so that if you give him a vehicle, you're knowingly giving someone a deadly weapon, someone who has proven they can't be trusted to operate one safely, making YOU a scumbag. Then he and his family would lose everything to pay for his victims' medical bills.
I have to ask, "how would that work?" Could you get affordable insurance if you drove like a maniac? Is insurance against the anarchist's view? If so, how does an anarchist pay for damages? Is there a debtor's prison for anarchists?
These are great questions. I'll answer them in reverse order:
Is there a debtor's prison for anarchists?
No. Detainment might be required for violent offenders who survived their violent encounter and are awaiting an arbitration hearing, but it would be an unnecessary expense for someone who simply owed some money, unless it was a truly tremendous amount, and the debtor had some skill which could earn a great deal of money from captivity.
Is insurance against the anarchist's view?
No, in fact insurance agencies would be a fairly crucial part of the social structure in the AnCap system. Liability insurance already covers this sort of thing. It would just expand to cover more things. If you're liable for something, your insurance company pays the victim's insurance company (who have already paid the victim), and then your premiums go up.
Could you get affordable insurance if you drove like a maniac?
No, probably not, because your premiums would quickly climb through the roof.
Vne is not a speed limit, it's a structural limit. You are free to exceed it at your peril and the FAA doesn't care (until your flaming hole in the ground causes property damage of course, but that's another story.)
Interesting.. I know it is a bit off topic, but how can Vne be a flat speed for all altitudes? Or does the number change with altitude? I have experience in supersonic rocket flight characteristics, and we have a similar term called Max-Q, which is dependent on air density. 1000 mph at 5K feet has significantly higher aerodynamic load than 1000 mph at 50K feet.
Jump to: