Physically/Mentally Impaired Driving (was "Outsourcing Self Control")

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 6, 2011 at 10:27am

Well said.

And as Gabe pointed out earlier, there is no proper research data available showing that disabled individuals are worse drivers. Once that data becomes available we can have a conversation about changing the situation, but until then, equaling disabled individuals to bad drivers is premature.

 

 

Jack said:

My actual point is that a handicap doesn't mean slower reaction speed and can have nothing to do with driving the actual car, but the mobility after they get out of the car. So the act of driving isn't hampered by a handicap, the foot travel afterward is.  This leads to closer parking spaces.  Kind of like letting the little old lady grab the first seat on the train.  She walked there and can sit anywhere, but why not be a good person and give up your seat?  Gabe, I am not trying to vilify you.  I think your ideas about poor drivers are warrented, but not due to a physical handicap.  Poor drivers are distracted drivers or those who don't have the smarts to follow traffic laws in the first place by choice. 

 

Gabe said:

Minh, that is the most astute observation made yet. Well done! ;-) (this is said with no sarcasm i know it's hard to tell in the internet) It's really very impressive. ;-)

 

Howie, I can be found on Marauders let's ride around and talk shit and fall down at the end. ;-)

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on January 6, 2011 at 10:52am

I was reading this thread yesterday and wanted to comment.  But I resisted what seemed to be the lure of a trolling, baited hook.  Then later on that night, I read the following from Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone:

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on January 6, 2011 at 8:27pm

Good stuff.  But there's a whole 'nuther level at play here that goes beyond the lack of non-pixelated cues/social pressure . . . for one, people often don't know much about the person they're communicating with. They don't know what the other person's goals are or even for what purpose they may be participating in the discussion (in contrast to the "experiment" in the posted excerpt.) They don't have a way to tell for sure whether the other party is genuinely interested in the discussion, or is working toward some other end (e.g. purposely trying to "jam" the medium, trying to fill some internal void with no stake in the outcome or the effect on the medium, trying to have and win a good fight simply for the sport of it).

In short, it's not safe to assume that "building goodwill and trust" something the participants are really interested in. But if they are, I agree that a face-to-face meeting is the most expedient way to get there-- it's not like we're spread out across the globe.

Mark Kenseth said:

I was reading this thread yesterday and wanted to comment.  But I resisted what seemed to be the lure of a trolling, baited hook.  Then later on that night, I read the following from Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone:

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 6, 2011 at 8:38pm

I remember Putnam being interviewed by Robert Siegel on NPR a few years back and the book sounded like something I'd like to read someday but never followed up on it.  I just put it on my amazon wish list  Thanks!

 

I hate to sound like a wiki-weiner asking about a "citation needed" but I am very interested in the study that he cites with notation 96.  Could you pass that information on?

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on January 6, 2011 at 9:35pm

You're right, H.  It's not safe to assume, but the goodwill and trust are something that helps in whatever point one is trying to make, and there are a lot of people trying to make different points.  Chapter 9 is interesting: "Against the Tide? Small Groups, Social Movements, and the Net."  Putnam concludes that the internet is great for sharing information, but the internet (in the year 2000) "will not automatically offset the decline in more conventional forms of social capital, but that it has that potential." 

And I hope people who bring up issues in the forum do meet in public, like you suggest.

H3N3 said:

Good stuff.  But there's a whole 'nuther level at play here that goes beyond the lack of non-pixelated cues/social pressure . . . for one, people often don't know much about the person they're communicating with. They don't know what the other person's goals are or even for what purpose they may be participating in the discussion (in contrast to the "experiment" in the posted excerpt.) They don't have a way to tell for sure whether the other party is genuinely interested in the discussion, or is working toward some other end (e.g. purposely trying to "jam" the medium, trying to fill some internal void with no stake in the outcome or the effect on the medium, trying to have and win a good fight simply for the sport of it).

In short, it's not safe to assume that "building goodwill and trust" something the participants are really interested in. But if they are, I agree that a face-to-face meeting is the most expedient way to get there-- it's not like we're spread out across the globe.

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on January 6, 2011 at 9:46pm

I've never heard of a Wiki-weiner (or whiner).  Is there an explanation on Wiki? :)

Btw...the founder, co-founder, or volunteer of Wiki was on Jon Stewart the other night.

James Baum said:

I hate to sound like a wiki-weiner asking about a "citation needed" but I am very interested in the study that he cites with notation 96.  Could you pass that information on?

Permalink Reply by S on January 6, 2011 at 10:41pm

The wiki-weiner think is probably a reference to the annoying tendency for some wikipedia editors and readers to add a citation tag to various statements in articles requesting a citation to back up the assertion.

Mark Kenseth said:

I've never heard of a Wiki-weiner (or whiner).  Is there an explanation on Wiki? :)

Btw...the founder, co-founder, or volunteer of Wiki was on Jon Stewart the other night.

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 7, 2011 at 12:37am

Well this was fun and all but no one is gonna come around to another persons perspective. And we wonder why the gov't doesn't do much. Happily I can say, in regards to Marks post, I'm the same jerk in person that I am online. I just smile more. ;-)

 

Anyway, you won't get an accurate study on handicapped drivers because it's pretty unlikely a cop is going to give one a ticket.  When it comes to parking spots the police don't usually question abuse for the very reason posted earlier by milesper, they can't visually tell if the person is handicapped and that has lawsuit written all over it.

 

And even if the cop was in the right, even for a moving violation, you are still giving a ticket to a person with a handicap. Bad publicity, could make the cop feel bad, etc...They don't do it. (i've seen cops unwilling to give an old person a ticket. That's the being a nice guy argument out the window)

 

So without that you won't get any kinda reliable documentation.

 

Anywho, see ya on the roads and rides. ;-)

Permalink Reply by Davo on January 7, 2011 at 9:43am

"I'm the same jerk in person that I am online. I just smile more. ;-)"

 

You must smile 24/7 then cuz most of your posts contain at least 2 ;)'s

 

;P

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 7, 2011 at 12:53pm

it's true davo i'm a jerk 24/7 and i smile almost as much.

my wifey has told me i smile in my sleep. :-)

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 7, 2011 at 1:06pm

I'm a jerk too, because I have closely-held positions about how the world works that often offend other's religious opinions about the same. Unfortunately my opinions are as often as not far outside the majority or mainstream thought.

 

Oh well, in my world it's not OK to force others to think/act/look like them just because the way they are thinking/acting/looking offends their religious sensibilities about subject X.  There are a bunch of things I don't like -but I don't think they should be banned or regulated out of existence. 

 

"Forget conservative or liberal, Tory or Labor; there are only two types of people in the world, those who would control the actions of others, and those who have no such desire" - Robert A. Heinlein

Gabe said:

it's true davo i'm a jerk 24/7 and i smile almost as much.

my wifey has told me i smile in my sleep. :-)

Permalink Reply by Vilda on January 7, 2011 at 1:37pm

i'm not gonna get into politics. :-) seems counter-productive at this point.

Howard can we change the name of this thread to "Jerks Confess (was 2 other things)"? :-)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page