Suzuki Samurai was Re: [geeks] SPARC proprietary (waaaay

[Dan Duncan]

As I recall, 'Kurt Huhn' wrote:
> > > Why? so that the next time someone slams on their brakes so they
> > > don't hit a rabbit crossing the road, and you can't stop in time or
> > > otherwise avoid it, and the bozo that you hit claims that you caused
> > > some back injury that prevents him from working and living the rest
> > > of his life normally, you can get jail time?  No thanks.  More power
> > > behind traffic laws allow for far more abuse of them.
> > 
> > Stop endangering the rest of us by following so closely and you
> > won't have to worry, will you?
> 
> Non sequitor.

How so?   You're clearly aware that the rear driver is at fault,
thus the jail time, so why shouldn't he increase his following distance?

> Some vehicles stop *way* more quickly than others, and a variety of
> reasons could prevent you from stopping in time.  

Primarily following too closely.  If you're behind a vehicle that
stops more quickly than yours, you need to INCREASE your following
distance.  The burden is on YOU, as the following driver.  YOU will
get the ticket.  

> The person slamming on their brakes to avoid the tree-rat needs to be
> taken out back and beaten mercilessly.  They're a danger to everyone
> behind them because a) they think a squirrel is more important the
> safety of themselves and anyone behind them, and b) that had no idea
> anyone was behind them and might hit them if they slammed on their
> brakes.

While it's not a good idea for the front driver to brake too quickly, 
especially if there's a moron on their tail, the rear driver will most 
likely be found at fault and likely ticketed for FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY.

> > A bad driver is a bad driver no matter what they are driving, but they
> > amplify their risk to ME by driving a big vehicle.   I'd like to see 
> > repeat bad drivers suffer successive limits in vehicle size until
> > they either shape up or enjoy their mopeds.
> 
> Er...no.  While you might find that idea great, 99.99% of the rest of
> the folks in this country would no more take to that idea than they
> would a 50% federal income tax.
> 
> The long and the short of it is that you can't limit people's freedom to
> choose in that fashion. 

Umm.. we CAN limit people's freedom in exactly that fashion.

I'm not pre-limiting their freedom.  I'm suggesting a reduction in vehicle
size as part of their SENTENCE for causing a traffic collision.  Freedom
can be limited, but only by due process.  Being convicted of a crime in
a court of law can indeed legally limit someone's freedom and a prior
history of causin traffic collisions is a HUGE factor in determining
future driving risk.  Ask any insurance company.

> It simply isn't feasable, not at this point in
> time, at least not in the USA.  You might get away with that in some
> European contries where a Ford Contour (er, Mondeo, sorry) is a
> "full size" vehicle.  But that would *only* be because nobody drives
> anything as large as an Excursion and the grand bulk of people see no
> need for a vehicle that large anyway.  How the frig would it fit down
> those narrow streets anyway?

> > People who drive 15 passenger vans often do so professionally and 
> > I haven't noticed any greater tendency to cause accidents.  This
> > is NOT true for SUVs.  In my experience.  YMMV.
> 
> Not *really*.  At least not if you watch the media.  According to
> various prime-time magazine shows (dateline, 20/20) here in the states,
> a 15 passenger van is a deadly threat to passengers, driver, and
> surrounding vehicles.

You mean the same shows that use explosives to stage footage "proving"
fire risks?  No thanks.  I'll stick with hard data, like insurance
companies use, based on ACTUAL events.

> A lot of 15 passenger vans are used
> non-professionally - that is, the driver has not been specifically
> trained in piloting that vehicle.  Such as the ones used as campus
> shuttles, church buses, by people carting around huge familys, etc.

They are far less common than SUVs.

> I'm not saying that 15-passenger vans are dangerous, but the media
> certainly would have you think so.
> 
> Anyway, where was I going with this...oh yeah!  If you're believing some
> statistic that SUVs are dangerous, or drivers of SUVs are dangerous,
> you've been led down a very wrong path.  Any car is dangerous, and
> you're driving a Honda Civic, and you get hit by a bad driver in a Honda
> Civic - you'll still get injured.  Yes physics plays a small part in
> *how* injured, but in this litiguous society, that matters not.

And if you get hit by an SUV while you're in a Honda Civic, you'll get
even more injured.  IF a driver proves they can't handle an SUV
(or a vehicle of any size) I propose we downgrade them to a smaller
vehicle to reduce their damage potential.  They have to EARN the
downgrade.  I don't propose we impose it on them in advance.  I 
would like to see license classes with a little more granularity.

-DanD

-- 
#  Dan Duncan (kd4igw)  dand at pcisys.net  http://pcisys.net/~dand
# If a person offend you and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional 
# or not, do not resort to extreme measures. Simply watch your chance and hit 
# him with a brick.  -Mark Twain