CyberianKnight hates the Evidence rule

[CyberianKnight]

I completly fail to see at least in THIS country why you would need a car with any ability to go faster then say 140 KPH (110 KPM with some exceptions in the NT). It gives you 30 KMH over the speed limit which is really all you could realisticly need to overtake someone who might be doing a small fraction under the limit or something.

Takes less time cruising at 140+ to get from A to B than 110.

We also have far too many cars with acceleration power WAY out of where you need it to be. The ability to go from 0 to 100 in ten seconds is NOT a constitutionaly protected right over here, but people cry on like it is. Frankly I think people who have only been driving for a few years SHOULDN'T be allowed to drive certian types of cars, period.

0-100 in ten seconds is considered slow and in a car that has that type of performance, good luck should you need to accelerate quick enough out of danger or take a gap in busy traffic.

I am seriously sick to death of P plate wearing (as in first second or third year on a licence) WRX's screaming from a standing start to 70 in a 50 zone from a red light just to show they can to everyone around them they can. They walk in, get their licence by driving oh so sedatly, then after getting the new plastic they'll fucking go and do burnouts on the way home.

That last part is a bit of a generalisation don't you think?

It really is a case of taking it on a country by country basis. In Australia, I completly fail to see any need for cars that can do 200KPH or accelerate like something that should be on a race track, ESPECIALY in the hands of young hotheads without experience. What people forget when they start screaming 'IT'S MY RIGHT TO BUY WHATEVER CAR I WANT' is that THEY are not the ONLY people on the road. When you drive, you drive for everyone else on the road.

You don't drive FOR them, you drive AMONGST them. I personally prefer to drive AWAY from them

I also fail to see why the potentiality of something bothers you so much when in reality that potential is rarely used and when it IS used, accidents are relatively rare as a result of the abuse of that potential i.e wrong place, wrong time, wrong conditions etc.

There's also a point I'd like to make regarding experience. I'd wager that a keen young driver who approaches the skill of driving as though it is something to excel at (car control, reading traffic, understanding the laws of physics to a practical degree in relations to automotive mechanics etc) and possesses a little bit of self discipline, is a far better driver than the average 40+ person who merely see's driving as a chore to get from A to B. Difference? One actively LEARNS from the experience, analysises it and improves his skills whereas the other doesn't give a toss.

[Darth Wong]

0-100 in ten seconds is considered slow and in a car that has that type of performance, good luck should you need to accelerate quick enough out of danger or take a gap in busy traffic.

Show me police officers testifying about the numbers of accidents which occur because a car has insufficient accelerative capabilities. I guarantee you it's much less than the number of accidents which occur because of reckless driving.

There's also a point I'd like to make regarding experience. I'd wager that a keen young driver who approaches the skill of driving as though it is something to excel at (car control, reading traffic, understanding the laws of physics to a practical degree in relations to automotive mechanics etc) and possesses a little bit of self discipline, is a far better driver than the average 40+ person who merely see's driving as a chore to get from A to B. Difference? One actively LEARNS from the experience, analysises it and improves his skills whereas the other doesn't give a toss.

Nice theory. Too bad it's completely blown away by the facts, in which young drivers have an absurdly high accident rate. The fact is that by far the biggest problem with driving safety is not technical proficiency, but attitude.

[CyberianKnight]

just because we don't need something is no reason to outlaw it.

Nice strawman, asshole. As if that's the only reason, and the traffic fatalities and injuries have no bearing on this discussion.

That's not a strawman, thats the lynchpin of the thinking that is being displayed by in this thread, which is 'if its not necessary and poses SOME risk at some level, it should be banned.'

Following that line of logic, swearing of any sort is unnecessary and should be outlawed. Anal sex is unnecessary and poses extra risks of STD infections which in turn costs the medical system more and everyone else foots the bill etc

The list can go on here, at the end of the day, you'll end up with and I hate to say it, a nanny state whereby you're only allowed to do something as opposed to I can do anything unless told otherwise. There's a fundamental difference in mindset and flow through effect on society there. One is freedom, the other is legalistic authoritarianism. I wonder which is which.

[Darth Wong]

just because we don't need something is no reason to outlaw it.

Nice strawman, asshole. As if that's the only reason, and the traffic fatalities and injuries have no bearing on this discussion.

That's not a strawman, thats the lynchpin of the thinking that is being displayed by in this thread, which is 'if its not necessary and poses SOME risk at some level, it should be banned.'

No it's not, retard. Look at what he fucking wrote. He said that the reason was that it was not necessary, full stop. The reason is the harm.

Following that line of logic, swearing of any sort is unnecessary and should be outlawed. Anal sex is unnecessary and poses extra risks of STD infections which in turn costs the medical system more and everyone else foots the bill etc

Freedom of speech and sexual privacy are rights, dipshit. Speeding is not, nor is any particular feature on automobiles, which must be licensed by the government to be operated on public roads.

The list can go on here, at the end of the day, you'll end up with and I hate to say it, a nanny state whereby you're only allowed to do something as opposed to I can do anything unless told otherwise. There's a fundamental difference in mindset and flow through effect on society there. One is freedom, the other is legalistic authoritarianism. I wonder which is which.

Oh no, I'm against FREEDOM! Take your hand off your virginal penis and grow the fuck up. Cars are heavily regulated because you do NOT have freedom on the road; you have to abide by a shitload of rules because human lives are more important than your puerile self-absorbed bullshit.

[CyberianKnight]

Show me police officers testifying about the numbers of accidents which occur because a car has insufficient accelerative capabilities. I guarantee you it's much less than the number of accidents which occur because of reckless driving.

You don't hear them because most are AVOIDED in the first place DUE to the car's accelerative capabilities dimwit.

Nice theory. Too bad it's completely blown away by the facts, in which young drivers have an absurdly high accident rate. The fact is that by far the biggest problem with driving safety is not technical proficiency, but attitude.

Absurdly high? What is 'absurdly high'? Also, nice strawman, I referred to a SPECIFIC example of a young driver to illustrate the overemphasis on raw experience. It also encompassed more than simply technical proficiency. You should perhaps cool your horses next time and READ the post in its entirety before galloping in on your high horse.

[Darth Wong]

Show me police officers testifying about the numbers of accidents which occur because a car has insufficient accelerative capabilities. I guarantee you it's much less than the number of accidents which occur because of reckless driving.

You don't hear them because most are AVOIDED in the first place DUE to the car's accelerative capabilities dimwit.

I'm talking about the number of accidents caused by INSUFFICIENT acceleration, you fucking retard.

Nice theory. Too bad it's completely blown away by the facts, in which young drivers have an absurdly high accident rate. The fact is that by far the biggest problem with driving safety is not technical proficiency, but attitude.

Absurdly high? What is 'absurdly high'?

You honestly think kiddie insurance rates are high for no reason?

Also, nice strawman, I referred to a SPECIFIC example of a young driver to illustrate the overemphasis on raw experience. It also encompassed more than simply technical proficiency. You should perhaps cool your horses next time and READ the post in its entirety before galloping in on your high horse.

Maybe you should take your own advice, shithead. You completely reversed the meaning of my first paragraph, and then ignored the fact that your specific example is hypothetical and in no way supported as a common circumstance by the data.

Seriously, how old are you? Your retarded assumptions about harm caused by swearing or anal sex indicate a blithering idiot virgin to me, and I'm not seeing much contradiction of this assessment so far.

[CyberianKnight]

No it's not, retard. Look at what he fucking wrote. He said that the reason was that it was not necessary, full stop. The reason is the harm.

Wow for a middle aged professional, you ARE pretty crap at comprehension. He didn't say that a speed limiter or other sanction was unnecessary, he was addressing the idea that if ANYTHING was deemed unnecessary and caused a risk of harm, then it should be banned as a worrying one.

Freedom of speech and sexual privacy are rights, dipshit.

So if its a 'right' then the consequences be damned because its a right.
Same as if god said its right, then it MUST be right because god said so.

Of all the people on this forum, I least expected that kind of shitty logic from you Mike.

Speeding is not, nor is any particular feature on automobiles, which must be licensed by the government to be operated on public roads.

So you'd concede that should driving at any speed you deem to be safe be enshrined as a legal right, you'd have no problems then? Because by implication of your above statement on 'rights' the act being a right completely shields it from any implications or consequential harm and as such cannot be outlawed or interferred with.

Oh no, I'm against FREEDOM! Take your hand off your virginal penis and grow the fuck up. Cars are heavily regulated because you do NOT have freedom on the road; you have to abide by a shitload of rules because human lives are more important than your puerile self-absorbed bullshit.

Whose being self-absorbed? The one who always comes down to pontificate half cocked opinions and uses insults to inflate his false sense of intellectual gravitas that originated from a series of engineering and physics based analyses of fictional weapon systems pitch against one another? Sounds like you amigo.

[Darth Wong]

No it's not, retard. Look at what he fucking wrote. He said that the reason was that it was not necessary, full stop. The reason is the harm.

Wow for a middle aged professional, you ARE pretty crap at comprehension. He didn't say that a speed limiter or other sanction was unnecessary, he was addressing the idea that if ANYTHING was deemed unnecessary and caused a risk of harm, then it should be banned as a worrying one.

Read the sentence, fucktard. He said nothing about harm.

Freedom of speech and sexual privacy are rights, dipshit.

So if its a 'right' then the consequences be damned because its a right.
Same as if god said its right, then it MUST be right because god said so.

What consequences, shithead? Swearing causes harm? Anal sex causes harm? You have no evidence whatsoever for this bullshit.

Of all the people on this forum, I least expected that kind of shitty logic from you Mike.

Your ability to assess logic is sorely lacking, so I will take that comment as seriously as it deserves, which is to say not at all.

So you'd concede that should driving at any speed you deem to be safe be enshrined as a legal right, you'd have no problems then? Because by implication of your above statement on 'rights' the act being a right completely shields it from any implications or consequential harm and as such cannot be outlawed or interferred with.

First prove your bullshit claim that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving by killing hundreds or thousands of people a year, moron. One of the reasons that things become rights is that they have a POSITIVE effect on society, not a negative one. You can't just arbitrarily declare something a right.

Oh no, I'm against FREEDOM! Take your hand off your virginal penis and grow the fuck up. Cars are heavily regulated because you do NOT have freedom on the road; you have to abide by a shitload of rules because human lives are more important than your puerile self-absorbed bullshit.

Whose being self-absorbed? The one who always comes down to pontificate half cocked opinions and uses insults to inflate his false sense of intellectual gravitas that originated from a series of engineering and physics based analyses of fictional weapon systems pitch against one another? Sounds like you amigo.

Interesting how you didn't even ATTEMPT to answer the point, instead choosing to go for the ad-hominem. Answer the point about cars NOT being a venue for "freedom", fucktard. I won't ask twice.

[CyberianKnight]

I'm talking about the number of accidents caused by INSUFFICIENT acceleration, you fucking retard.

They'd be put down as 'unable to take evasive action' or 'attempted to take evasive action but failed' But once again, accidents AVOIDED go unreported and I witness a LOT of close calls everyday in busy traffic. Half of them are avoided because the other driver, not the driver at fault, was able to evade quickly enough.

You honestly think kiddie insurance rates are high for no reason?

That statement proves nothing Mike. Try harder. This time with your head out of your ass and your dick out of your wife's when posting.

your specific example is hypothetical and in no way supported as a common circumstance by the data.

Thats the idea. Damn you're slow. The SPECIFIC example, note the term SPECIFIC and not COMMON, can you see the difference here Mike? Still with us Mike? First you challenged my specific hypothetical theory. Then you try to invalidate it by saying its not 'common' when in fact I was not trying to prove that because one guy can do it, then everyone else can. I was merely providing a specific example whereby the common perception of accumulated raw experience always makes a better driver when in fact it does not. Proof? You yourself said most NA drivers are shitty and that German drivers take their driving a lot more seriously (someone else might have said the latter, can't be fucked checking really, its just a web forum)

[Darth Wong]

They'd be put down as 'unable to take evasive action' or 'attempted to take evasive action but failed' But once again, accidents AVOIDED go unreported and I witness a LOT of close calls everyday in busy traffic. Half of them are avoided because the other driver, not the driver at fault, was able to evade quickly enough.

In other words, you haven't a shred of evidence for this claim other than your personal anecdotal "evidence". And I noticed you ignored the fact that you were caught TOTALLY misrepresenting the argument in your last post.

That statement proves nothing Mike. Try harder. This time with your head out of your ass and your dick out of your wife's when posting.

Fine, dipshit (as if insurance company actuaries just pull figures out of their asses):

-14% of all deaths due to motor vehicle accidents are teen drivers.

-Most teen driver deaths due to motor vehicle accidents occur on weekends 53% of the time.

-Teen drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents had a youth passenger in automobile 45% of the time. More facts below.

- Of teen drivers fatally injured in automobiles, more than 1/3 were speed related accidents.

- Teen lifestyle of staying up late make teen drivers a high risk to have an automobile accident due to drowsiness.

- More than any age group, teens are likely to be involved in a single vehicle crash.

- On the basis of current population trends, there will be 23% more 16-20- year-old drivers on the road in 2010 than there are today -- 26.1 million.

- This age group makes up 7% of licensed drivers, but suffers 14% of fatalities and 20% of all reported accidents.

Link. Unlike you, I don't spout claims unless I know in advance that there's evidence to back me up. And unlike you, I don't ignore empirical evidence in my worldview.

your specific example is hypothetical and in no way supported as a common circumstance by the data.

Thats the idea. Damn you're slow. The SPECIFIC example, note the term SPECIFIC and not COMMON, can you see the difference here Mike?

Yes, you fucking retard, and this discussion is about DRIVING AND SOCIETY, not one imaginary hypothetical. See the difference here, retard?

Still with us Mike? First you challenged my specific hypothetical theory. Then you try to invalidate it by saying its not 'common' when in fact I was not trying to prove that because one guy can do it, then everyone else can. I was merely providing a specific example whereby the common perception of accumulated raw experience always makes a better driver when in fact it does not. Proof? You yourself said most NA drivers are shitty and that German drivers take their driving a lot more seriously (someone else might have said the latter, can't be fucked checking really, its just a web forum)

In other words, you were trying to change the subject of discussion to a blatant strawman since NO ONE here claimed that 100% of older drivers are better than 100% of younger drivers. Do you understand the concept of social trends and correlations, as opposed to blanket rules? At this point you must be either a fucking retard for not knowing the difference, or a blatant liar for trying to change the subject so transparently.

[CyberianKnight]

Read the sentence, fucktard. He said nothing about harm.

Even better.

What consequences, shithead? Swearing causes harm? Anal sex causes harm? You have no evidence whatsoever for this bullshit.

I was addressing a COMMON thing there Mike, not a specific case. You tend to mix them a lot. But if you'd like, I'm sure you can google up the increased risks of the transmission of STDs through anal sex. STDs that have to be treated at the public's expense. That's millions of dollars better spent elsewhere and seriously, do I need to spell them out for you or is your brain THAT dead? People do stupid things and in a western society we all foot the bill if we have nationally subsidised or free health system. That's where the harm is caused because its monetary resources better spent elsewhere.

First prove your bullshit claim that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving by killing hundreds or thousands of people a year, moron.

Don't have to. YOU have to prove that a LEGAL right = a provebial act of god as in it can lead to no wrong.

One of the reasons that things become rights is that they have a POSITIVE effect on society, not a negative one. You can't just arbitrarily declare something a right.

Is that what I'm doing? I merely posed 'should it become a right, you'd have no problems' I'm establishing whether you care more about the real world or the legal ivory tower.

Interesting how you didn't even ATTEMPT to answer the point, instead choosing to go for the ad-hominem. Answer the point about cars NOT being a venue for "freedom", fucktard. I won't ask twice.

So on your last point, if its not an avenue of freedom then it SHOULD be heavily regulated or be open to it? Thats a rather narrow view of what freedom is. I dare say that driving IS a freedom as it is an avenue to exercise the freedom of movement that facilitates the freedom to congregate, form unions, obtain essential food and supplies etc.

BTW I take it that you DO know whose being the self-absorbed one? (hint, take a look in the mirror)

[Darth Wong]

Even better.

Interesting way of conceding the point, moron. If he said nothing about harm, then your claim that he DID say it is quite wrong, isn't it?

What consequences, shithead? Swearing causes harm? Anal sex causes harm? You have no evidence whatsoever for this bullshit.

I was addressing a COMMON thing there Mike, not a specific case. You tend to mix them a lot. But if you'd like, I'm sure you can google up the increased risks of the transmission of STDs through anal sex. STDs that have to be treated at the public's expense. That's millions of dollars better spent elsewhere and seriously, do I need to spell them out for you or is your brain THAT dead? People do stupid things and in a western society we all foot the bill if we have nationally subsidised or free health system. That's where the harm is caused because its monetary resources better spent elsewhere.

Point 1 for Mr. Stupid: You are making the claim, therefore YOU have to provide the evidence.

Point 2 for Mr. Stupid: Reckless driving kills OTHER PEOPLE, not just yourself. Society frowns much more on people who harm others, as opposed to themselves.

First prove your bullshit claim that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving by killing hundreds or thousands of people a year, moron.

Don't have to. YOU have to prove that a LEGAL right = a provebial act of god as in it can lead to no wrong.

Your habit of relying on strawman distortions grows more tiresome by the minute.

One of the reasons that things become rights is that they have a POSITIVE effect on society, not a negative one. You can't just arbitrarily declare something a right.

Is that what I'm doing? I merely posed 'should it become a right, you'd have no problems' I'm establishing whether you care more about the real world or the legal ivory tower.

What part of the above paragraph did you not understand, you idiot? Things are declared "rights" because it is deemed that society is better off with those rights in place. How is that not "real world", moron?

Interesting how you didn't even ATTEMPT to answer the point, instead choosing to go for the ad-hominem. Answer the point about cars NOT being a venue for "freedom", fucktard. I won't ask twice.

So on your last point, if its not an avenue of freedom then it SHOULD be heavily regulated or be open to it?

Of course it should be open to regulation if some compelling social interest can be demonstrated, you childish pseudo-libertarian wanker.

Thats a rather narrow view of what freedom is. I dare say that driving IS a freedom as it is an avenue to exercise the freedom of movement that facilitates the freedom to congregate, form unions, obtain essential food and supplies etc.

Bullshit. You are on public streets, risking the lives of other members of society. Society therefore has an interest and a reasonable argument to restrict your driving activities with rules.

BTW I take it that you DO know whose being the self-absorbed one? (hint, take a look in the mirror)

This from the idiot who can't produce a shred of empirical evidence to support your claims, who tries to equate harm to oneself with harm to others, who thinks that insurance company actuarial science does not constitute evidence, and who thinks that driving on public roads should not be regulated. All because you think the safety of others is less important than your own enjoyment of the driving experience. You can accuse me of self-absorption all day, but you are demonstrating self-absorption with your behaviour.

[Anguirus]

I'm sure you can google up the increased risks of the transmission of STDs through anal sex. STDs that have to be treated at the public's expense.

Darth Wong's doing an awfully thorough job tearing you to bloody rags, but I have to address this because my eyes just about bugged out. Not only are you now ignoring your "swearing causes harm" point, but are you seriously suggesting that the "increased risk of STDs through anal sex" (which you have no source for, "google it yourself" doesn't count as research, you idiot) in any way compares to the medical bills and deaths caused by reckless driving?

Your WHOLE argument depends on this point, because the law has a responsibility to protect people. Anal sex may cause a miniscule amount of harm in a few cases and, in general, quite a bit of pleasure (or so I'm told ) when done in private. Swearing causing genuine harm? Ha. Irresponsible driving? The government needs to regulate that, because it kills a fuckton of people every year, and the visceral satisfaction of speeding to a few individuals is as nothing compared with any significant saving of lives.

Whether or not enforced speed-limiters in cars should exist could be argued by competent people. But sweet Jesus you're a moron. And you are certainly playing with fire when you tell the owner of this board that you don't have to prove your claims.

[CyberianKnight]

In other words, you haven't a shred of evidence for this claim other than your personal anecdotal "evidence". And I noticed you ignored the fact that you were caught TOTALLY misrepresenting the argument in your last post.

HA! Your original question in regards to how many accidents were caused due to a 'lack of acceleration' is just about as relevant as a question on accidents caused due to a lack of a radio in the car when it would be put down as 'driver fell asleep' or 'driver lost concentration' things that something as simple as a radio can help mitigate by stimulating the brain.

-14% of all deaths due to motor vehicle accidents are teen drivers.

-Most teen driver deaths due to motor vehicle accidents occur on weekends 53% of the time.

-Teen drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents had a youth passenger in automobile 45% of the time. More facts below.

- Of teen drivers fatally injured in automobiles, more than 1/3 were speed related accidents.

- Teen lifestyle of staying up late make teen drivers a high risk to have an automobile accident due to drowsiness.

- More than any age group, teens are likely to be involved in a single vehicle crash.

- On the basis of current population trends, there will be 23% more 16-20- year-old drivers on the road in 2010 than there are today -- 26.1 million.

- This age group makes up 7% of licensed drivers, but suffers 14% of fatalities and 20% of all reported accidents.

Link. Unlike you, I don't spout claims unless I know in advance that there's evidence to back me up. And unlike you, I don't ignore empirical evidence in my worldview.

- The earth was rotating at 100% of the time of all road deaths

- The car was moving in 100% of the time of all road deaths

- Mike Wong was alive when those statistics were taken

I can go on, but those raw statistics mean shit all without contextualisation. Examples;

- What cars are teen drivers likely to be able to afford and drive? A late model car with a 5 star safety rating with good brakes or a shitbox? Not covered, at all now is it? Then you'd nab me for not having evidence otherwise when such data is not collected.

- So if you have a teen passenger in the car at the time of the accident, it'll be better to have TWO teen DRIVERS instead because that'll be statistically logical.

- Define speed related. Well SOMEONE had to be moving.

- 7% of drivers but 14% of deaths. What do you expect from a bunch of noobs Mike?

Yes, you fucking retard, and this discussion is about DRIVING AND SOCIETY, not one imaginary hypothetical. See the difference here, retard?

I was addressing ONE point within this 'driving and society' discussion. Understand THAT? Or are we all supposed to rant and rave in broad strokes interspersed with insults like a good mature, accomplished adult such as your astute self Mr Wong?

In other words, you were trying to change the subject of discussion to a blatant strawman since NO ONE here claimed that 100% of older drivers are better than 100% of younger drivers.

As I said, I was addressing a specific POINT within the discussion. You on the other hand wanted to make that the central point of contention in order to shoot the entire thing down. Nice try but no dice.

[CyberianKnight]

Point 1 for Mr. Stupid: You are making the claim, therefore YOU have to provide the evidence.

I wasn't making a claim. I was using a hypothetical example to illustrate the moronic nature of your core stance in regards to the nature of rights.

Your habit of relying on strawman distortions grows more tiresome by the minute.

If you're in denial that your core position is nothing but a distortion, then just put your head back between your legs or in the sand.

What part of the above paragraph did you not understand, you idiot? Things are declared "rights" because it is deemed that society is better off with those rights in place. How is that not "real world", moron?

And I wasn't declaring a right.

Bullshit. You are on public streets, risking the lives of other members of society. Society therefore has an interest and a reasonable argument to restrict your driving activities with rules.

So the right to travel is bullshit? Right.. Answering the wrong points with the right answers.

BTW I take it that you DO know whose being the self-absorbed one? (hint, take a look in the mirror)

This from the idiot who can't produce a shred of empirical evidence to support your claims, who tries to equate harm to oneself with harm to others

Wasting public monies on fixing your cock itch IS harming others. Through the collective wallet. Oh wait, its a right... and the circle begins anew.

who thinks that insurance company actuarial science does not constitute evidence

Insurance companies also have a profit motive behind their 'sciences' in setting premiums. Its no longer objective. That's not science. Oh and btw you merely mentioned premiums off the cuff.

and who thinks that driving on public roads should not be regulated.

Now THATS a strawman.

All because you think the safety of others is less important than your own enjoyment of the driving experience.

Strawman. Not once have I said that my enjoyment of the driving experience is more important than the safety of others.

[Darth Wong]

HA! Your original question in regards to how many accidents were caused due to a 'lack of acceleration' is just about as relevant as a question on accidents caused due to a lack of a radio in the car when it would be put down as 'driver fell asleep' or 'driver lost concentration' things that something as simple as a radio can help mitigate by stimulating the brain.

How is it irrelevant to your own fucking claim, you lying little shit? You claimed that 0-100 km/h in 10 seconds was dangerously slow. You have not produced a shred of evidence to back up this claim, and the fact that it had no real relevance to the generl subject of the thread is YOUR responsibility for bringing it up, not mine for demanding evidence.

- The earth was rotating at 100% of the time of all road deaths

- The car was moving in 100% of the time of all road deaths

- Mike Wong was alive when those statistics were taken

I can go on, but those raw statistics mean shit all without contextualisation.

This is how you respond to evidence showing that teen drivers are almost THREE TIMES as likely to be involved in accidents? Vague bullshit about "contextualisation"? You asked for evidence that teens have a higher accident rate. I provided it. Now you're just trying to move the goalposts, as per the consistently dishonest debate method you've been using throughout this ridiculous escapade of yours.

Examples;

- What cars are teen drivers likely to be able to afford and drive? A late model car with a 5 star safety rating with good brakes or a shitbox? Not covered, at all now is it? Then you'd nab me for not having evidence otherwise when such data is not collected.

So you think that driving older cars can somehow account for TRIPLE the accident rate? I grow tired of asking for evidence and hearing vague made-up bullshit in response. You will either provide EVIDENCE of your claims or you will concede them. We have a rule in place about providing evidence when challenged; I have done so, and you have not.

- So if you have a teen passenger in the car at the time of the accident, it'll be better to have TWO teen DRIVERS instead because that'll be statistically logical.

- Define speed related. Well SOMEONE had to be moving.

- 7% of drivers but 14% of deaths. What do you expect from a bunch of noobs Mike?

How does any of this evasive bullshit refute the point? Teens are the most dangerous driving group, despite your imaginary bullshit to the contrary.

Yes, you fucking retard, and this discussion is about DRIVING AND SOCIETY, not one imaginary hypothetical. See the difference here, retard?

I was addressing ONE point within this 'driving and society' discussion. Understand THAT? Or are we all supposed to rant and rave in broad strokes interspersed with insults like a good mature, accomplished adult such as your astute self Mr Wong?[/quote]
When we're talking about society, we are SUPPOSED to argue in broad strokes, you fucking moron. And complaining about insults when you have been consistently relying on strawman distortions and refusals to provide evidence is pretty goddamned weak, especially in a venue where the former is allowed by the clearly posted rules and the latter is not.

In other words, you were trying to change the subject of discussion to a blatant strawman since NO ONE here claimed that 100% of older drivers are better than 100% of younger drivers.

As I said, I was addressing a specific POINT within the discussion.

And what point was that, fucktard? Who was saying that any given INDIVIDUAL older driver is guaranteed to be safer than any individual younger driver, rather than speaking of broad social trends? For the second fucking time, this is a strawman distortion.

You on the other hand wanted to make that the central point of contention in order to shoot the entire thing down. Nice try but no dice.

The central point of contention is your utter failure to address the points being made. You deny that teens are more dangerous drivers in general, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. You claim that driving safety is more about technical skill than attitude, and you refuse to provide even a shred of evidence to back this up. You claim that swearing and anal sex are somehow analogous to reckless driving, once again without a shred of evidence that either of them causes any significant harm at all. You ignore the distinction between self-harm and harm to others. You think that driving should not be regulated even though it occurs on public streets and involves public safety. And after all of this, you think that I need to focus on a particular point of contention in order to shoot down your argument? Your argument is so full of holes it looks like a fucking sieve.

[CyberianKnight]

Your WHOLE argument depends on this point, because the law has a responsibility to protect people.

No it doesn't (in regards to my 'whole' argument that is) I was critiquing his legalistic logic on what should and should not be which he is trying to find ways to back peddle on.

Whether or not enforced speed-limiters in cars should exist could be argued by competent people. But sweet Jesus you're a moron. And you are certainly playing with fire when you tell the owner of this board that you don't have to prove your claims.

So what if he's the owner of these forums? I threw up hypotheticals to test his stance, they're by no means concrete claims that I have any need of or intention to back up.

Have a good night.

[Darth Wong]

I wasn't making a claim. I was using a hypothetical example to illustrate the moronic nature of your core stance in regards to the nature of rights.

Wrong, you lying asshole. You claimed that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving. Now either provide the fucking evidence or admit you were wrong. I grow tired of asking you to back up your claims only to be faced with more evasive bullshit. I won't ask again.

Your habit of relying on strawman distortions grows more tiresome by the minute.

If you're in denial that your core position is nothing but a distortion, then just put your head back between your legs or in the sand.

Do you even know what it means when someone accuses you of strawman distortions, moron?

What part of the above paragraph did you not understand, you idiot? Things are declared "rights" because it is deemed that society is better off with those rights in place. How is that not "real world", moron?

And I wasn't declaring a right.

Do you hope people aren't reading the previous posts? You tried to pretend that I would ignore consequentialism once something was declared a "right". I replied that rights are defined based on their benefit to society. Your non-answer only indicates that you have no real case but don't want to admit error.

Bullshit. You are on public streets, risking the lives of other members of society. Society therefore has an interest and a reasonable argument to restrict your driving activities with rules.

So the right to travel is bullshit? Right.. Answering the wrong points with the right answers.

This doesn't even answer the point at all, as any astute reader can see for himself.

This from the idiot who can't produce a shred of empirical evidence to support your claims, who tries to equate harm to oneself with harm to others

Wasting public monies on fixing your cock itch IS harming others. Through the collective wallet. Oh wait, its a right... and the circle begins anew.

Once again, this response does not refute the point at all, as any astute reader will see for himself.

who thinks that insurance company actuarial science does not constitute evidence

Insurance companies also have a profit motive behind their 'sciences' in setting premiums. Its no longer objective. That's not science. Oh and btw you merely mentioned premiums off the cuff.

You're a fucking moron; insurance companies' profit motive means that they will NOT fuck around with their actuarial science because the accuracy of their methods has a direct impact on their bottom line.

and who thinks that driving on public roads should not be regulated.

Now THATS a strawman.

Oh really? You said "if its not an avenue of freedom then it SHOULD be heavily regulated or be open to it? Thats a rather narrow view of what freedom is."

All because you think the safety of others is less important than your own enjoyment of the driving experience.

Strawman. Not once have I said that my enjoyment of the driving experience is more important than the safety of others.

I leave it to the readers to look at your previous posts and judge that for themselves.

[Darth Wong]

OK, since you seem to have trouble understanding the rules, I'll make this simple. You claimed that significant numbers of people avoid accidents thanks to high accelerative abilities, and you even claimed that cars which can't do 0-100 in less than 10 seconds are unsafe. You have provided NO EVIDENCE of this claim. You have also claimed that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving for the purpose of safety legislation, by arguing that anal sex causes "millions" in health-care costs, once again without providing ANY evidence that this is actually happening rather than being a nice theory. And finally, you claim that there is some "contextualisation" which I have failed to account for and which nullifies the staggering 300% correlation between teens and accidents, yet again with NO EVIDENCE.

You WILL either provide the evidence to support these claims or concede that you're pulling them out of your ass. The rules regarding unevidenced claims in debates are quite clear and have been posted for a long time.

[CyberianKnight]

You claimed that significant numbers of people avoid accidents thanks to high accelerative abilities

All I can offer is anecdotal evidence on that particular claim. No data is collected if no accident occurs. Yet you haven't provided a line of reasoning as to how better accelerative abilities does not or cannot or even rarely lead to accident avoidance.

All you have countered with is a loaded question stating 'Show me police officers testifying about the numbers of accidents which occur because a car has insufficient accelerative capabilities. I guarantee you it's much less than the number of accidents which occur because of reckless driving.'

A) Accelerative capabilities help mitigate someone else's mistake by allowing you to take effective evasive action. A lack of it, does not 'cause' accidents, it merely gives you less options in the face of one. The relation to accidents is a preventive one, not a causal one.

B) Accelerative capabilities are not synonimous with reckless driving

you even claimed that cars which can't do 0-100 in less than 10 seconds are unsafe.

I said '0-100 in ten seconds is considered slow and in a car that has that type of performance, good luck should you need to accelerate quick enough out of danger or take a gap in busy traffic.'

Where did I say it was unsafe? All my statement implied was that you have less options should a dangerous situation arise. Don't put words in my mouth. If in doubt, clarify.

You have provided NO EVIDENCE of this claim.

I made no such broad and bold claim. See above.

You have also claimed that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving for the purpose of safety legislation, by arguing that anal sex causes "millions" in health-care costs, once again without providing ANY evidence that this is actually happening rather than being a nice theory.

At no point did I offer them as analogous for the purpose of safety legislation. I posed them as examples to test whether or not the basis for you objections are fundametnally founded upon a legalist stance as you referred to them as rights and thus cannot be interferred with even IF they caused harm directly, or otherwise.

And finally, you claim that there is some "contextualisation" which I have failed to account for and which nullifies the staggering 300% correlation between teens and accidents, yet again with NO EVIDENCE.

The contextualisation error has been clearly illustrated. The statistic correlation is meaningless as it leaves out too many factors as I've outlined already. What cars do teens drive? Safe late model cars or shit boxes? They die more often because of what? Unsafe cars or unsafe driving or a combination of both?

The original point was your view that teen accident rates are 'absurdly high' in general when I was outlining a specific example that isn't covered by the statistics.

You claimed the cause of this 'absurdly high' accident rate to be attitude.
Did you back that up? No. None of the statistics say that.

[Darth Wong]

All I can offer is anecdotal evidence on that particular claim.

In other words, no evidence at all, fucktard. This is where you're supposed to concede that you have no case. What part of the rules do you not understand?

No data is collected if no accident occurs. Yet you haven't provided a line of reasoning as to how better accelerative abilities does not or cannot or even rarely lead to accident avoidance.

All you have countered with is a loaded question stating 'Show me police officers testifying about the numbers of accidents which occur because a car has insufficient accelerative capabilities. I guarantee you it's much less than the number of accidents which occur because of reckless driving.'

A) Accelerative capabilities help mitigate someone else's mistake by allowing you to take effective evasive action. A lack of it, does not 'cause' accidents, it merely gives you less options in the face of one. The relation to accidents is a preventive one, not a causal one.

B) Accelerative capabilities are not synonimous with reckless driving

More airy-fairy handwaving bullshit. The top causes listed by traffic experts are things like distraction, drunkenness, aggressive driving, and drowsiness. Insufficient automotive accelerative performance is a fucking non-factor, not mentioned on any NHTSA, insurance industry, or police report about traffic accidents as a major factor in national accident statistics, and I have had enough of your hand-waving bullshit. Either provide EVIDENCE of your claim or concede right fucking now, fucktard.

I said '0-100 in ten seconds is considered slow and in a car that has that type of performance, good luck should you need to accelerate quick enough out of danger or take a gap in busy traffic.'

Where did I say it was unsafe? All my statement implied was that you have less options should a dangerous situation arise. Don't put words in my mouth. If in doubt, clarify.

You just did above in this very post, moron. You claimed that superior performance in a car should prevent accidents on a significant scale.

You have also claimed that swearing and anal sex are analogous to reckless driving for the purpose of safety legislation, by arguing that anal sex causes "millions" in health-care costs, once again without providing ANY evidence that this is actually happening rather than being a nice theory.

At no point did I offer them as analogous for the purpose of safety legislation. I posed them as examples to test whether or not the basis for you objections are fundametnally founded upon a legalist stance as you referred to them as rights and thus cannot be interferred with even IF they caused harm directly, or otherwise.

More bullshit; at no point did I state that those rights (or any rights) are absolute regardless of social harm, you blithering idiot. And this evasive bullshit does NOT eliminate your requirement to produce evidence to support those claims when challenged. Once more, you will either provide EVIDENCE in your next post or concede the point. We have rules precisely because we do not tolerate the kind of handwaving no-evidence bullshit that you're trying to pull right now.

And finally, you claim that there is some "contextualisation" which I have failed to account for and which nullifies the staggering 300% correlation between teens and accidents, yet again with NO EVIDENCE.

The contextualisation error has been clearly illustrated.

You're full of shit; unless you can demonstrate that these appeals to uncertainty of yours are large enough to overwhelm such a HUGE correlation, you're just talking out of your ass. You sound like the fucking tobacco executives who tried to dismiss cigarette and cancer correlations by pointing out that it could be socio-economic class, despite the enormity of the correlation.

The statistic correlation is meaningless as it leaves out too many factors as I've outlined already. What cars do teens drive? Safe late model cars or shit boxes? They die more often because of what? Unsafe cars or unsafe driving or a combination of both?

This excuse relies upon yet ANOTHER of your bullshit claims: that a significant fraction of accidents (in this case, enough to account for a TRIPLING of the accident rate) are caused by cars of insufficient performance or quality. You have provided no evidence for that claim either, asshole.

The original point was your view that teen accident rates are 'absurdly high' in general when I was outlining a specific example that isn't covered by the statistics.

That's not a "view"; that's a fact, which you have done absolutely NOTHING to refute.

You claimed the cause of this 'absurdly high' accident rate to be attitude.

Did you back that up? No. None of the statistics say that.

Bullshit. The statistics show quite clearly that it's attitude. More than half of teen driving fatalities occur on the weekend. More than a third of them involve speeding. If this is not attitude, then what the fuck is it?

I have given you far more chances than you deserve, asshole. You have repeatedly flouted the board's evidence rule, acting as though you can continue making claims without providing a shred of evidence to back them up, and then even more offensively, acting as though my claims are inferior to yours even though I have provided numbers and a verifiable source while you have provided neither. My patience has run out. You have five fucking minutes to respond with something other than your usual "I don't have to provide evidence" and "Your evidence doesn't count because of imaginary huge factors which I pulled out of my ass and have no numbers for" bullshit.

[AdmiralKanos]

Your five minutes is up, shithead. And that was quite frankly several more chances than you deserved. Your outright refusal to provide even a single link, number or any other shred of objective data to back up any of your bullshit was only made more offensive by the high-handed manner in which you pretended your arguments were superior despite this glaring lack of objective support. That last post of mine almost 10 hours ago was pretty obviously an ultimatum, but you chose to ignore it with more of your evasive bullshit.

You obviously figured you could rattle me by insulting me, but I've been insulted by far better than you, and at the end of the day I still provide evidence to back up my claims when challenged, as per the rules. You don't. And so ...

[Dalton]

*sweeps up*