Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 4, 2011 at 10:01am

The right of the American people to move around and travel within their own country at will is pretty plainly stated by the Founders.  If you don't think that this right transfers to private vehicles, regardless of how they are powered -by horse or by engine, then you are wrong.

 

Driving a team of horses and a carriage is about 10x as dangerous as a modern motor vehicle for everyone involved (drivers, passengers, and pedestrians) and historical records will bear this out (please don't go all wikipedia on me and demand a citation as I'm not your teacher or being paid to do research for you -if you don't believe this then look it up yourself)  Even so, the Founders would have been shocked if anyone suggested that driving a team was not a "right" but instead somehow a "privilage."

 

I hear this BS about X being a privilige and not a right all the time -often when it comes to the new so-called war on terror (war on Freedoms if you ask me) related to flying.  I have heard so many people say that "flying is a privilege and not a right" on the news and in private conversations.  Flying is the modern equivilant of taking a ship across the ocean.  If one were to tell the Founders that taking a ship from point A to point B was a "privilege" and not a right they probably would have been slapped in the face.

 

Yeah, driving is dangerous.  The world is FULL of dangerous things that people do every day and accept the fact that they are somewhat dangerous.  The alternative is a world where the nanny-state mandates every corner be padded, everyone wear a helmet 24/7 and anything with the slightest bit of risk be banned.

 

Let me tell you right now that the world would be a LOT safer place if bicycles were banned.  They ARE dangerous.  Go too far down that slippery slope and you'll find that a push to take all dangerous things out of our lives will not only make us less free but will evnetually get around to banning something YOU love and take for granted.

 

Go ahead and take away someone else's right to freely travel and be mobile because you think that the world would be 1% safer.  You may say that nobody is forcing them to stay in the attic -but what the F else are they supposed to do if they don't have access to public transportation or other alternatives.  The whole country isn't Chicago with the L and a halfway-decent bus system and Metra. Move out to rural IL or even WI and tell me that taking a car away from someone (who might be missing a leg or an arm because they were off fighting an immoral and illegal land war in Asia) just because it'll make the roads 1% safer is not a big deal.

 

Go ahead and continue with the position that the handicapped should have their RIGHT to travel freely in their own country -but you sound stupid doing so and make all bicycle riders look like a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth anti car nutcases and doesn't do us any good when joe average hears it.

 

Gabe said:

iggi. i'm a fascist and a troll. :-)

taking away from the handicapped has also been labeled as evil. that's kinda fun as it means safer traffic. so giving people a safer street is evil. yay!

if we dont agree that driving is difficult and is not a right than the rest of the debate is out the window.

cta and pace must by law serve the handicapped. no one has asked people to live in an attic.

instead they r being asked to recognize personal limitations. something no one in modern society has to do apparently.

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 4, 2011 at 10:36am

I'm wondering why you are targetting driving with physical limb restrictions.  Accident and citation rates for this group are not any greater than the rest of population. 

 

I am personally much more concerned with people who are allowed to continue driving after multiple DUI convictions or drivers who repeatedly cause accidents due to carelessness. 

Driving is difficult and I do think that it should driving privliges should be more difficult to get and maintain, but that doesn't mean groups should be excluded on the basis of opinion.
Gabe said:

iggi. i'm a fascist and a troll. :-)

taking away from the handicapped has also been labeled as evil. that's kinda fun as it means safer traffic. so giving people a safer street is evil. yay!

if we dont agree that driving is difficult and is not a right than the rest of the debate is out the window.

cta and pace must by law serve the handicapped. no one has asked people to live in an attic.

instead they r being asked to recognize personal limitations. something no one in modern society has to do apparently.

Permalink Reply by igz on January 4, 2011 at 10:39am

with some quick research, there apparently is a bit of a movement to clarify the notion of driving as a priviledge or right...

 

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

James Baum said:

The right of the American people to move around and travel within their own country at will is pretty plainly stated by the Founders.  If you don't think that this right transfers to private vehicles, regardless of how they are powered -by horse or by engine, then you are wrong.

 

Driving a team of horses and a carriage is about 10x as dangerous as a modern motor vehicle for everyone involved (drivers, passengers, and pedestrians) and historical records will bear this out (please don't go all wikipedia on me and demand a citation as I'm not your teacher or being paid to do research for you -if you don't believe this then look it up yourself)  Even so, the Founders would have been shocked if anyone suggested that driving a team was not a "right" but instead somehow a "privilage."

 

I hear this BS about X being a privilige and not a right all the time -often when it comes to the new so-called war on terror (war on Freedoms if you ask me) related to flying.  I have heard so many people say that "flying is a privilege and not a right" on the news and in private conversations.  Flying is the modern equivilant of taking a ship across the ocean.  If one were to tell the Founders that taking a ship from point A to point B was a "privilege" and not a right they probably would have been slapped in the face.

 

Yeah, driving is dangerous.  The world is FULL of dangerous things that people do every day and accept the fact that they are somewhat dangerous.  The alternative is a world where the nanny-state mandates every corner be padded, everyone wear a helmet 24/7 and anything with the slightest bit of risk be banned.

 

Let me tell you right now that the world would be a LOT safer place if bicycles were banned.  They ARE dangerous.  Go too far down that slippery slope and you'll find that a push to take all dangerous things out of our lives will not only make us less free but will evnetually get around to banning something YOU love and take for granted.

 

Go ahead and take away someone else's right to freely travel and be mobile because you think that the world would be 1% safer.  You may say that nobody is forcing them to stay in the attic -but what the F else are they supposed to do if they don't have access to public transportation or other alternatives.  The whole country isn't Chicago with the L and a halfway-decent bus system and Metra. Move out to rural IL or even WI and tell me that taking a car away from someone (who might be missing a leg or an arm because they were off fighting an immoral and illegal land war in Asia) just because it'll make the roads 1% safer is not a big deal.

 

Go ahead and continue with the position that the handicapped should have their RIGHT to travel freely in their own country -but you sound stupid doing so and make all bicycle riders look like a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth anti car nutcases and doesn't do us any good when joe average hears it.

 

Gabe said:

iggi. i'm a fascist and a troll. :-)

taking away from the handicapped has also been labeled as evil. that's kinda fun as it means safer traffic. so giving people a safer street is evil. yay!

if we dont agree that driving is difficult and is not a right than the rest of the debate is out the window.

cta and pace must by law serve the handicapped. no one has asked people to live in an attic.

instead they r being asked to recognize personal limitations. something no one in modern society has to do apparently.

Permalink Reply by milesperhour on January 4, 2011 at 6:01pm

Gabe, I am not a medical professional and I am assuming you are not either on the basis that any respectable medical professional would not state that “x” should be not be done without having a thorough knowledge of someone’s medical history. 

Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion, but I will go with the professionals in regards to my mother.  She was treated by both regional and national (if not worldwide) experts in her disease state from Northwestern and Johns Hopkins.  You still don’t know why she tires and what affect that would or would not have on her muscles and reflexes.  Yet you continue to say that it is wrong, even though you are not a medical professional with any real knowledge other than what limited information I have provided here.


Gabe said:

See Milesper, You entered this with the wrong assumption to begin with. You thought I didn't understand the reason for a handicap spot being larger. I really don't care. Really.

 

And your rationale is AMAZING! How does ones ability to walk affect there ability to drive? Muscles. How do reflexes play into this? Your reflexes are tied to the fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fiber that for the example of your mother is going to be more easily tired than than those on a normally functioning person. Nothing magical happens when you get into a car that makes your muscles suddenly rested and better. Your muscles are now tired and operating a 2 ton vehicle. Seems like a great plan. This also addresses your being baffled at the 15 foot walking rule. I don't care if your fat or impaired. If you get tired from a miniscule amount of exertion you DON't get to drive. I don't have ill conceived anything. I'm using common sense and you are ignoring it to suit yourself.

 

And I DO NOT care that i wouldn't be able to tell whether your mom is able or not based on my assessment visually. We shouldn't lower standards on the ability to drive based on your mom's need for accommodation. We shouldn't accommodate people in this regard. A physical impairment means you can't drive. Done.

 

And yeah, yeah, i get it cause you've said it twice. A car can be modified to fit your needs. Shouldn't be done.

 

Driving is NOT a right. You want to continue to treat it as such cause your mom was sick but that doesn't make the argument correct.

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 4, 2011 at 7:55pm

Sorry for the delay, that joyous work thing happens.

 

Iggi, great job on the research! ;-) However, local municipalities make the laws that govern driving more than federal. Based on the constitution we wouldn't need a drivers license, or need to follow speed limits, etc...Would be a fun chat with the cop though. "No Officer I only follow the constitution in regards to travelling laws." Which brings me to James. Flying is not a right. It is a choice. You can choose to take the train across the country and not have to get groped or have to go threw a full body scanner. If you wanna take the big boat to china do so. And you'll never see a TSA agent.

 

It's a fairly simple thing I've laid out. Driving should be done by the most physically capable. I don't see how that is a suspect statement? If driving by itself is dangerous (we're in agreement there I see) than why should we make it more so by allowing people with impairments to operate a 2 ton death machine? And i got a good laugh about bikes being dangerous. Really? When 2 bikes collide i think the odds of death are slightly lower than when 2 cars collide but i may be wrong.

 

And Milesper, Nope no doc here. But based on what you've told me I don't need to know more. The docs you are subscribing to are part of the same "everyone has a right to drive" culture. They don't have the right to drive. And if your mom gets tired from walking....oh wait i spelled that out already.

 

And Liz you are right, idiots keep getting dui's and are allowed to drive. But if we talk to Milesper and James it's cause they have the right too.

 

This brings everything back to the original topic. Technology. We are now creating technology to control the car for the driver because the driver can't be trusted to do so by his or herself? That seems like a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound.

 

Ya know what's fun. We aren't far from the car that will drive itself for the handicapped person.

 

Oh and James, as Iggi or anyone else i ride with will tell you. Above all, I hate rural anything. If you are in Po-dunk nowhere that's your problem. Upside for the rest of us a bad driver there can drive off a bridge and not bother anyone. ;-)

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 5, 2011 at 1:23am

Thank you for that information Howard.   

H3N3 said:

Here's a doc that doesn't subscribe to that alleged culture:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+Michelle+Gittler

She'll write in patient's charts and on their discharge papers that they're not safe to drive.

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 5, 2011 at 3:05am

Sure, should i just post links to the rest of the docs that do subscribe? ;-)

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 5, 2011 at 3:28am

I wish there were more docs like her.

H3N3 said:

Here's a doc that doesn't subscribe to that alleged culture:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+Michelle+Gittler

She'll write in patient's charts and on their discharge papers that they're not safe to drive.

She bike-commutes most of the time from her home on the north side to the near west side.

For shorter trips between hospitals she ties up her skirt.

(She's one of the best physiatrists, too.)

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 5, 2011 at 3:34am

I'd rather there be links to docs that don't respect patient/client confidentiality and will report you to any government agency.  I'm sure I could use this information to make my own medical professional choices as well as pass this information on to other like-minded individuals.

 

I don't care if a doctor I uses rides a bicycle any more than I care about their skin color/ethnicity/sexual preference.  I only want to get what I'm paying for and not support a government rat.

 

Gabe said:

Sure, should i just post links to the rest of the docs that do subscribe? ;-)

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 5, 2011 at 4:29am

i'll show u my winky smiley :-)

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 5, 2011 at 4:40am

While I agree that there are probably some people who are given driving priveleges when they should have restrictions, its unfair to judge the entire group of disabled drivers without evidence that they would be more dangerous than able body drivers.  Persons who drive adapted cars due to physical disability do not have reduced reaction times, the mechanisms that control thier vehicles while slightly different, perform the same function and held to the same safety and manufacturing standards as the mechanisms that control any other vehicle.  No person (able bodied or not) driving a modern car has the full power of the vehicle in thier actual control, there are many instruments, controls and mechanisms that interperet the amount on turns a steering wheel or pressed a brake pedal.  As long as the reaction time of a disable individual with the controls that they are able to us, meets the requirements, there is no reason to deny someone the ability to drive.  Doing so would simply be bigoted.

 

If a person is not able to meet requirements and is able to obtain a license that is an enforcement and curruption issue.   It is a flawed system, but the potential for abuse should not restrtict the ability of an entire group to be granted driving priveledges.

 

Gabe said:

It's a fairly simple thing I've laid out. Driving should be done by the most physically capable. I don't see how that is a suspect statement? If driving by itself is dangerous (we're in agreement there I see) than why should we make it more so by allowing people with impairments to operate a 2 ton death machine? And i got a good laugh about bikes being dangerous. Really? When 2 bikes collide i think the odds of death are slightly lower than when 2 cars collide but i may be wrong.

 

And Milesper, Nope no doc here. But based on what you've told me I don't need to know more. The docs you are subscribing to are part of the same "everyone has a right to drive" culture. They don't have the right to drive. And if your mom gets tired from walking....oh wait i spelled that out already.

 

And Liz you are right, idiots keep getting dui's and are allowed to drive. But if we talk to Milesper and James it's cause they have the right too.

 

This brings everything back to the original topic. Technology. We are now creating technology to control the car for the driver because the driver can't be trusted to do so by his or herself? That seems like a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound.

 

Ya know what's fun. We aren't far from the car that will drive itself for the handicapped person.

 

Permalink Reply by BalloonBiker on January 5, 2011 at 5:24am

By far the most common thing that I see being responsible for endangering me has been people on their cell phones.  While I can't generally tell when people are disabled in any way, I can usually tell when they are talking on their phone.

 

There are so many factors that contribute to unsafe driving.  An able-bodied person can be effected by sickness, drowsiness, distraction, alcohol.  It seems downright vitriolic to direct rage to a smaller subset of the driving population for something that may not even cause harm.

 

Liz is absolutely right in her reasoning about no person being in complete control of modern cars.

 

And doing away with handicapped parking?  Even if there were laws on the books to completely ban those folks from driving, they could still have caretakers drive them and would still require the facilities as passengers.

 

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page