quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Most countries have written lots of laws for the purpose of reducing the number of accidental or deliberate deaths and injuries among the general population. Food regulations, work safety laws, traffic safety laws, gun control laws, product safety laws, and pollution laws all come to mind. Even with all of these laws, though, there is still a lot of room for even more legislation that could further reduce the number of accidental and intentional deaths among the general population. Bans on extreme sports; bans on cigarette smoking; bans on drinking outside one's home; (arguably) nationwide bans on guns; bans on driving any non-ambulance, non-police vehicles faster than forty miles an hour. You can probably think of many more, but let's move on to a question. At what point do you consider "public safety" or "death reduction" a good justification for laws? Do you do some kind of cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential inconvenience and oppressiveness of laws against their potential to reduce death and injury? Or what?

if someone wants to conduct activities that harm himself without harming someone else, and that activity may cause death, be my guest and do it (ie., extreme sports, drug use, etc...) If that activity has external costs on the population (health care costs, etc...) we should either deny those people the benefit of imposing external costs on society (deny healthcare, etc...), or if that is not possible, we should recoup the cost from that person.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The basic idea is that the way things are now, people rely on the traffic laws to watch out for them. Take away the laws, and they would have to watch out for themselves. And apparently most people do a decent job of that, at least on European streets.

something tells me that isn't working on madison avenue with buses and taxis whizzing at 50 across all 5 lanes.

I always thought things like traffic lights (not speed limits though, specifically traffic lights) were more created to increase efficiency, not to increase safety

___________________

http://www.youtube.com/mezzir

quote:

Originally posted by mezzir I always thought things like traffic lights (not speed limits though, specifically traffic lights) were more created to increase efficiency, not to increase safety

yeah, but roundabouts are far more efficient than traffic lights.. and safer..

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Interestingly, some towns in Germany and the Netherlands have recently removed their traffic signals and signs, with pretty favorable results, including fewer accidents and fatalities. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space It makes sense if you think about it for a bit: If you take away the usual signals, people will have to concentrate entirely on watching for cars and pedestrians instead of just looking at signs and traffic lights. When people see a green light under the normal system, for example, they tend to just speed on through without even looking side to side to check for people that might be running red lights on the perpendicular road, and tons of accidents happen in exactly that situation. But if they had no light giving them "permission" to stop watching the road, they would have to stay more alert.

___________________
See i'm da best mayne, I deeed it.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 if someone wants to conduct activities that harm himself without harming someone else, and that activity may cause death, be my guest and do it (ie., extreme sports, drug use, etc...) If that activity has external costs on the population (health care costs, etc...) we should either deny those people the benefit of imposing external costs on society (deny healthcare, etc...), or if that is not possible, we should recoup the cost from that person.

Agree with everything there.

Some idiot decided to kayak from Australia to New Zealand last year (equivalent of trying to from say Alaska to Russia). Of course, he didn't make it, then the government spent $50,000 looking for him.

Meanwhile he left a wife and child at home.

No, he was never found, and yes, it's sad, but idiots doing stuff like this should have to pay a bond in case something happens to them.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by T-Soma If you fuck it up affects everyone with a 100 mile radius. You make a stupid point.

If somebody who works in a nuclear power plant messes up, it can also affect a lot of people. Therefore nobody should be allowed to work in a nuclear power plant.

Three cheers for simplistic syllogisms as a basic for public policy!

quote:

Originally posted by ToxicGreenWaste

lol, thats fucked

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If somebody who works in a nuclear power plant messes up, it can also affect a lot of people. Therefore nobody should be allowed to work in a nuclear power plant. Three cheers for simplistic syllogisms as a basic for public policy!

working at a nuclear power plant provides a benefit to society in that energy is provided to the population. how is your building a bomb contributing to society? we are more apt to allow risks when the benefit is spread throughout the population. your bomb provides nothing to the population, so the risk is not warranted.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 we are more apt to allow risks when the benefit is spread throughout the population. your bomb provides nothing to the population, so the risk is not warranted.

I could later sell it to the government for national defense purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Promo Yeah, but what about the guy's Subaru that got hit?* *not meant to be stereotypical, but you all drive Subarus. All of you.

i drive a subaru outback

but im gettin a mazda3 so you're only temporarily right! ...as if that makes a difference

___________________
www.illysounds.com

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Yes. My choice to build a hydrogen bomb doesn't necessarily affect anyone, other than the people I buy the materials from--they get paid.

Is there a law that says you cant build a hydrogen bomb? Also, there's no law that says you cant work in a nuclear power plant because until you actually do something to affect other people, youve done nothing wrong. We're talking past each other because Im speaking about the affective act itself, whereas you're talking about potential.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie Is there a law that says you cant build a hydrogen bomb?

42 USC Chapter 23