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

[Kurt Huhn]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:28:32 -0600 (MDT)
Dan Duncan wrote:

<oops, premature send>

> 
> 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.  
> 

And if you do that, and then you *still* rear-end someone due to
equipment failure, you sneeze, a blind corner, distraction?  

I don't know how to say this any more clear:
A squirrel is not important enough to slam on your brakes.

Which is my original point.  Further than that, I'm digressing from my
argument.


> 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.
> 

You can thank your insurance company for this, and their lobbying to get
this passed as law *in some jurisdictions*.  The goal was to get
something of a default judgement in a situation where accident scene
forensics might be difficult or impossible.

I maintain that judgements like this are similar to "some guns are
used by evil people, therefore all gun owners are evil".  The reasoning
is the same.

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

You can try, but how far will you get?

> 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.
> 

See how far that actually goes.  Without a *huge* lobbying effort, and
without an enormous amount of public support, you'll get nowehere. 
think about that for a minute.  How far do you truly believe you'd get? 
Never mind the logisitical nightmare of tracking vehicle buyers,
drivers, and restricting their purchases/rentals/whatever.

Nope, not gonna happen.

> 
> 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.
> 

My point was to show how flawed the media is.  That is all.

> 
> 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.
> 

Nope.  Not gonna happen.  Not in the US.  Not today, not for the
foreseeable future.

-- 
Kurt                   I've been searching for the holy grail 
kurt at k-huhn.com        I found out it's for sale
                       And it's going to the highest bidder
                                    -- Neil Anderson