Repeat DUI driver kills cyclist, gets 6 years

[1JohnFoster]

... most of the terrible things government can do are still better, because it's a broad collaboration, than the terrible things that happen when terrible people are allowed to do whatever they want.

That's quotable, kind of a corollary of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

"And most of the great things people do in government are only possible because of the great things people are free to do outside of government."

Why _do_ so many socialists focus solely on violence and negatives? Why not spend as much time celebrating the great socialist accomplishments, like Sunder just did?

Lest you catch up this gift too hastily Izits, why are so many libertarians so glibly self-righteous and as single sided in their interpretation of everything as socialists?

 

[Izits]

Australia is a long way from a free market economy. We tax reasonably heavily (about median in the OECD) and return free education and health care.

Switzerland is also known as a socialist state - they almost implemented universal basic income, except they were concerned about floods of economic refugees trying to claim it.

Switzerland is well known as a relatively free market. In fact it's ranked #4 in the world on the Heritige.org Economic Freedom Index.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

You're probably confused on the matter because Switzerland has many socialist social policies, but it's market policies are among the freest in the world. You'll notice Australia is ranked #5 in the world.

Under a pure free market, there are likely to be many intelligent people whose parents could not afford to pay for that education, so the pool of available talent is diminished. I would have to pay more for those rare skills, and the overall economy is missing out on people who are capable, but never had the opportunity to learn the skills. Arguably, you could have the employer pay for those skills, but if every contract is voluntary, then indenturing someone to pay for 16 years of education is starting to sound a little scarily like slavery.

Under a pure socialist market, few would be bothered investing the time to do it, because there is no financial reward.

Under a hybrid model, the government pays for, or heavily subsidises the education, and people choose a career path by ability, interest and market demand. Now free market forces will push up and down the prices of labour according to supply and demand. Win win for everyone.

I'll credit you for attempting to present a reasoned, logical argument here. However, education is one of the most clear cut cases of things the government should NOT be involved in.

Here's the error in your logic. $100 worth of free market school is worth $100 of education. $100 of government school is worth about $1 of education. 99% of the money is wasted or misused or misdirected at the teacher's union. Tell us Sunder, what incentive does a government paid teacher have to educate my children? If my children do not learn, does the teacher get fired? No. Does the teacher take a pay cut? No. Government schools, like all government programs have zero incentive to actually do anything well. The only thing they have an incentive to do is increase taxation and corruption. This is why government schools do such an abhorrent bad job of "educating".

Free market schools have every incentive to provide the best education they can because parents have the choice to move their child to a different school instead. Government takes away this choice and so government schools have no incentive at all to do what the parents want. The logic is undeniable. There is no case at all for government school.

 

[Izits]

Of course they exchanged something of value, entertainment.

I have participated in a lot of sports in my life. In all but one I have not exchanged value with anyone; I just enjoy playing.

When you play either a team sport or a competitive sport, that's a market transaction. I assume you played these sports alone, since you "just enjoy playing". Or more likely you made a point of showing up exactly when others did to make it more fun for you. That fun is the exchange of value.


This frivolous sports comment is a perfect meta-example of the validity of the rest of your comments.

 

[Izits]

Lest you catch up this gift too hastily Izits, why are so many libertarians so glibly self-righteous and as single sided in their interpretation of everything as socialists?

A fair question. The libertarians probably appear self-righteous because they speak with the confidence of having sound logic and historical examples as the basis for each of their ideals. In contrast, socialists usually have no real idea why they support the concepts that they do. They repeat what their friends say, or what they heard in a Bernie Sanders speech, or what they saw on the fake-news CNN. They aren't standing on logic so they just waffle on, certain that what their parent or teacher or priest told them must be correct.

 

[Chalo]

Izits will figure it out when he grows up. Hopefully by then we'll have a leftist government looking out for regular people like us.

 

[billvon]

I have participated in a lot of sports in my life. In all but one I have not exchanged value with anyone; I just enjoy playing.

I assume you played these sports alone, since you "just enjoy playing". Or more likely you made a point of showing up exactly when others did to make it more fun for you. That fun is the exchange of value.

Yep. Mountain biking - do it myself. Flying - 90% myself. Climbing - more than 50% myself.

This frivolous sports comment is a perfect meta-example of the validity of the rest of your comments.

Uh . .. have you ever actually played any sports? Or just sat in your mom's basement posting on the Internet about sports?

 

[Izits]

Witness above how both liberals speak, with insults and mockery.

There is no logic to liberal policy, except where it serves the elites to make us all penniless slaves. Liberals have no understanding of what they promote so they can never really put forth a sound argument. That is why this grade school rhetoric is all you get from them. (watch, a liberal will respond to this using nothing but rhetoric, no attempt to discuss actual topics)

There are two kinds of liberals. The elite liberals at the top who understand liberal policy and benefit from how much it hurts everyone else. And then there's the people at the bottom, often called "useful idiots", who don't understand economics or history and just repeat what they read in their leftist newspaper.


Here are a few immutable properties of socialism:

)Socialism requires violence to implement, a free market prohibits violence.
)Socialism requires the establishment of elites to arbitrarily rule over the commoners.
)Socialism creates violence backed monopolies by design, a free market never forms harmful monopolies.
)The government power required of socialism breeds corruption while a free market has no government power to corrupt.
)Government has no incentive to be efficient or cost effective or responsive.
)Socialism takes away people's incentive to work.
)Governments squander natural resources while free markets protect them.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to make a rational argument in opposition to any one of these points. Take driverless cars, you'll find that the people who support forcing driverless cars on society are generally always liberals. Because it represents a reduction of freedom, and liberal policy always opposes freedom. You can easily predict a liberal's position on something, just find the side of the issue that takes away freedom instead of safeguarding it.


Everything that is bad about society comes from liberal policy. The federal reserve, racial division, taxation, closed public lands, building regulations, elimination of countries. Liberals promote violence, hate, rape culture and racism.

Everything you own basically comes from freedom and free markets. Your air conditioner, your smartphone, your house, your computer, your clothes. No matter where you look around you, all the evidence points the same way. Freedom creates prosperity and wealth, liberalism/government/slavery creates poverty, misery and desolation.

 

[billvon]

There is no logic to liberal policy, except where it serves the elites to make us all penniless slaves. Liberals have no understanding of what they promote so they can never really put forth a sound argument. That is why this grade school rhetoric is all you get from them.

There are two kinds of liberals. The elite liberals at the top who understand liberal policy and benefit from how much it huts everyone else. And then there's the people at the bottom, often called "useful idiots", who don't understand economics or history and just repeat what they read in their leftist newspaper. . . . .

Everything that is bad about society comes from liberal policy. The federal reserve, racial division, taxation, closed public lands, building regulations, elimination of countries. Liberals promote violence, hate, rape culture and racism.

Everything you own basically comes from freedom and free markets. Your air conditioner, your smartphone, your house, your computer, your clothes. No matter where you look around you, all the evidence points the same way. Freedom creates prosperity and wealth, liberalism/government/slavery creates poverty, misery and desolation.

A most excellent unhinged rant! Now wipe all that spittle off your monitor and please continue, using the very systems you despise to do so.

 

[cal3thousand]

It's the roads. The city simply has no incentive to make the roads safe for drivers or bicycle riders or anyone else. The cars are not the problem.

You're right....cars aren't the problem. It's the drivers that are the problem. More specifically, it's the callous and careless ones that do not understand the possible consequences of their actions. This guy was drunk. There's no blaming that on anyone but the a**hole himself. Government can't and shouldn't be the ones to prevent this. They can only clean up the mess and show others what the clean up will entail so they may learn from the idiot.

But some people insist the government should handle it be responsible when it's citizens cannot or care not.

 

[billvon]

Cars aren't the problem. It's the drivers that are the problem. More specifically, it's the callous and careless ones that do not understand the possible consequences of their actions. This guy was drunk.

Agreed. However, an equally irresponsible guy on a bike is less of a risk - so the vehicle used matters a bit.

There's no blaming that on anyone but the a**hole himself.

Definitely agreed there.

Government can't and shouldn't be the ones to prevent this. They can only clean up the mess and show others what the clean up will entail so they may learn from the idiot.

Government has, in the past, worked to prevent this - and it has made a difference. DUI laws have greatly reduced the incidence of drunk driving accidents and deaths. They can't prevent it 100% of course.

But some people insist the government should handle it be responsible when it's citizens cannot or care not.

I insist the government pass good laws to penalize criminals.

 

[cal3thousand]

Witness above how both liberals speak, with insults and mockery.

There is no logic to liberal policy, except where it serves the elites to make us all penniless slaves. Liberals have no understanding of what they promote so they can never really put forth a sound argument. That is why this grade school rhetoric is all you get from them. (watch, a liberal will respond to this using nothing but rhetoric, no attempt to discuss actual topics)

There are two kinds of liberals. The elite liberals at the top who understand liberal policy and benefit from how much it hurts everyone else. And then there's the people at the bottom, often called "useful idiots", who don't understand economics or history and just repeat what they read in their leftist newspaper.


Here are a few immutable properties of socialism:

)Socialism requires violence to implement, a free market prohibits violence.
)Socialism requires the establishment of elites to arbitrarily rule over the commoners.
)Socialism creates violence backed monopolies by design, a free market never forms harmful monopolies.
)The government power required of socialism breeds corruption while a free market has no government power to corrupt.
)Government has no incentive to be efficient or cost effective or responsive.
)Socialism takes away people's incentive to work.
)Governments squander natural resources while free markets protect them.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to make a rational argument in opposition to any one of these points. Take driverless cars, you'll find that the people who support forcing driverless cars on society are generally always liberals. Because it represents a reduction of freedom, and liberal policy always opposes freedom. You can easily predict a liberal's position on something, just find the side of the issue that takes away freedom instead of safeguarding it.


Everything that is bad about society comes from liberal policy. The federal reserve, racial division, taxation, closed public lands, building regulations, elimination of countries. Liberals promote violence, hate, rape culture and racism.

Everything you own basically comes from freedom and free markets. Your air conditioner, your smartphone, your house, your computer, your clothes. No matter where you look around you, all the evidence points the same way. Freedom creates prosperity and wealth, liberalism/government/slavery creates poverty, misery and desolation.

I don't even know where to begin with this post... You need to quit, as you even contradict yourself on many occasions. Somehow this stands out to me the most: 'a free market prohibits violence'. Whose posterior did you pull that one out of?

 

[cal3thousand]

Cars aren't the problem. It's the drivers that are the problem. More specifically, it's the callous and careless ones that do not understand the possible consequences of their actions. This guy was drunk.

Agreed. However, an equally irresponsible guy on a bike is less of a risk - so the vehicle used matters a bit.

There's no blaming that on anyone but the a**hole himself.

Definitely agreed there.

Government can't and shouldn't be the ones to prevent this. They can only clean up the mess and show others what the clean up will entail so they may learn from the idiot.

Government has, in the past, worked to prevent this - and it has made a difference. DUI laws have greatly reduced the incidence of drunk driving accidents and deaths. They can't prevent it 100% of course.

But some people insist the government should handle it be responsible when it's citizens cannot or care not.

I insist the government pass good laws to penalize criminals.

Same here. I insist on good laws too, but that still doesn't prevent the accident. It tries to reduce the occurrence by forcing consequences for irresponsibility. The only prevention is for drivers to be more careful and respectful of the lives they affect, especially when drunk. But drunk driving still occurs. Does that mean the penalty is not high enough or does it mean that our tolerance for these things is sufficiently low?

 

[Chalo]

30,000 to 50,000 Americans dead per year, every year, for as long as I've been alive, suggests that people simply can't be trusted to drive. It's not worth it. Punishment and sanctions don't work, impunity sure as hell doesn't work.

Getting callous incompetent lazy turds out from behind the wheel will work better. Autonomous cars give us a sliver of hope.

 

[Ianhill]

30,000 to 50,000 Americans dead per year, every year, for as long as I've been alive, suggests that people simply can't be trusted to drive. It's not worth it. Punishment and sanctions don't work, impunity sure as hell doesn't work.

Getting callous incompetent lazy turds out from behind the wheel will work better. Autonomous cars give us a sliver of hope.

The manufacturers have a 5 level plan for autonomy in 2019 uk will get its first level 3 cars and the problem with these cars are that errors can occur so a human must be ready to take control at all times but a human doing nothing quickly becomes complacent so we need to give them something to do ? We need to keep the brain stimulated enough to be ready to engage driving at any moment so I say just let them steer ut keep the autonomy aspect there to take control of the human at anytime the computer spots a fault as computers are much better at watching over data in standby.
To cut it short we need level 4 and 5 cars that can operate fully independent in a design area and level 5 to be able to adapt to any driving condition such as France vs uk etc.

 

[Izits]

Forcing people to stop driving their cars isn't the answer. The real problem is the government roads. We need to shrink the government and sell off the road network to private individuals who will then have an incentive to finally make the roads safe. The government simply has no incentive to make them safe and so they are not safe.

This solution has the benefit of reducing violence and taxation instead of increasing it.

 

[Chalo]

That's hogwash. The roads don't kill thousands a month; the roads don't turn cars over in the middle of straight open freeways; the roads don't run over pedestrians and cyclists because they "didn't see them". The roads don't drive while texting, or eating, or smoking, or fooling around with the radio, or yelling at kids in the back seat. The roads don't get mad at each other for being in front, or trying to merge, or going slower than the road wants to go.

You're a single-issue thinker. And your only thought is a mistaken one.

 

[Ianhill]

One good thing we got is manufacturing giants are joining forces rather than fighting eachother so nvidia is class leading in the data crunching with the new drive px combined cpu gpu platform while Samsung is offering new isocell camera tech for amazing HDR coverage and excellent low light performance and more rugged than the sensors used today at that point latency will be low enough then to outperform me on almost all situations.
I do believe our right to drive in at least city areas will be eroded over time and eventually cars will be raced around tracks and even then there will be strict safety issues just as we see today.

 

[JoeAverage]

I can tell you that I won't be "car sharing" any car that I buy. Dang, I hardly like offering rides to people. Do you remember the school bus way back when? People cut the seats, drew on the seats, tossed trash into the floor, etc.

I've given rides to well adjusted people over the years who think they need to slam a door with all their might to get it to latch. Others are content to fiddle with the door switches while riding down the road slowly burning up my window motor. I have a couple coworkers that I refuse to ride with if I can discretely help it b/c their cars are literally dirtier than the trashcan near my office.

I dated one lady years ago who could not and would not pick a steady state speed. The entire time she was driving her car it was either accelerating or decelerating. And she complained about the car constantly breaking, the transmission humming, CV axle joints popping, etc.

Pothole? What pothole.

I've had people do things like this to my brand new car!

No, I won't be sharing b/c I spent $XX thousands of dollars on a car that I'll be washing and vacuuming this weekend and nobody seems to take care of their stuff. I'm not obsessive about these things but I do try to make them last.

I don't expect anything to change much in the USA b/c we bicyclists are in the minority at least in my state. Even if we get really vocal about bike paths nothing will change - not here where I live. The gov't wants to worry about bombs and bullets, fighter jets and far away problems. Maybe those problems would go away if our military wasn't there aggravating the regional politics? Had the military stayed out of Iraq - the middle east would have continued on its way until the people who lived there wanted to make change happen which they were clearly capable of doing.

Rather than the biggest military in the history of Earth, i think I'd rather see free or reduced cost medical insurance for my fellow citizens. And some bike paths separated from the cars.

if we can't get past issues like this I don't see how we'll get past massive automation of various jobs in the first world. Drivers -gone. Doctors = IBM watson. Factory jobs = left to half a dozen technicians per factory. Automated agriculture equipment. Office personnel reduced to 1/3 or less of their 1980s numbers.

How exactly does capitalism function if everyone with an IQ below 120 is replaced by a computer?

 

[craneplaneguy]

I'll add for Chalo the car hater...... I hope you grow all your food and make all your own beer. If you buy it at a store it was brought in by truck, and that truck driver drove his car to his terminal. Point being we are hopelessly entangled with the petroleum/car culture, It doesn't matter or change anything if you only have a bike. I'm all for your thinking and feelings on the subject however, good luck with it, just don't expect me to sell my car and move into town, or sell my airplane, and move into town. Or move into town, period. Living in the boonies is energy intensive, but I drive a plug in Prius and have a big grid tied power system that makes more power then what I use, so I don't stay up at night agonizing over the fate of the world and it's addiction to oil. It's totally out of my control. Read " The Prize", a best selling book a while back on oil and how we are intertwined with it. It will either make your even more vociferous in your hatred of the car culture, or make you relax as nothing you do will help or change one little thing. Being a vegan, is one thing that helps a fair bit I'm told, less over all energy intensive then eating meat, don't really know about that but I've been one for 45 years, so that and my zero energy usage (sort of kind of) gives me enough carbon credits to fly my plane around to camp out in beautiful remote areas and then e mountain bike ride, or at least I think it does, same difference. Plus I recycle all my beer cans

 

[craneplaneguy]

http://idahostatejournal.com/news/local/one-bicyclist-killed-in-collision-with-vehicle-another-critically-injured/article_0fcfefa2-836a-5323-8634-f5ae01c7142a.html

Besides the dead cyclist, the injured one is paralyzed for life. The driver had 16 previous violations, and she just got sentenced to 6 months, suspended, something like that, a slap on the wrist anyway, what she needs is a punch in the head.

 

[billvon]

That's hogwash. The roads don't kill thousands a month; the roads don't turn cars over in the middle of straight open freeways; the roads don't run over pedestrians and cyclists because they "didn't see them". The roads don't drive while texting, or eating, or smoking, or fooling around with the radio, or yelling at kids in the back seat. The roads don't get mad at each other for being in front, or trying to merge, or going slower than the road wants to go.

Cars don't do any of that either. Drivers do.

 

[Chalo]

That's hogwash. The roads don't kill thousands a month; the roads don't turn cars over in the middle of straight open freeways; the roads don't run over pedestrians and cyclists because they "didn't see them". The roads don't drive while texting, or eating, or smoking, or fooling around with the radio, or yelling at kids in the back seat. The roads don't get mad at each other for being in front, or trying to merge, or going slower than the road wants to go.

Cars don't do any of that either. Drivers do.

Exactly. Which is why we first need to get drivers out of cars. Why tolerate a proven faulty guidance system in a deadly machine?

Then we'll be able to assess cars on their merits, without people feeling their personal identities and destinies attached to these community-destroying machines. When it's just one more way to get around, folks won't be so pathological about clinging to a failed model.

 

[Ianhill]

The safest option would be to first implement a watch over system on the human then with further testing and development then pish driverless cars for those who want it and maybe in high density areas but for my general commute I'll never give up driving it's not a chaw to me I enjoy it.

The person first computer second option does not really change to much as for cost saving with in busness so it's not the direction they take it tells me that this is not a safety driven exercise it's more of a tactical move to try and push your private car from yourself into an enterprise money making scheme takinh on oublic transport while in the uk the goverment push a high portion of uk citezens into renting with little chance of owning a home and a life of debt.

What should be of great concern is what happens to people jobs or benefits when all this automation has taken over and only highly skilled people are employed, Since the 80's a universal credit has been thrown around but that's for a different topic or the reader to research and anaylize.

 

[Izits]

There's simply no getting around the fact that the government has no incentive to make the roads safe or efficient or cost effective or anything else. Blaming drivers, who are just the people, is completely absurd. It's like blaming the people for getting sick from bad food the government hands out to them.

 

[Chalo]

Cars don't drive themselves. Neither do roads. Neither one can be inattentive. They can't behave negligently. They can't behave aggressively. They can't attack someone, then lie about it being an accident. They can't speed. They can't be drunk or drugged. They can't feel entitled. They don't misinterpret traffic laws or right-of-way in their favor. They can't decide that their text conversation is worth more than the lives and well-being of others.

How it is that you think roads, of all things, could possibly be to blame for car drivers being assholes, is a bit of mental acrobatics I don't even want to understand. But I see what you're doing there: trying to make the real world fit your bogus, unworkable political philosophy, when really it's the philosophy that doesn't work in the real world, nor even make consistent sense in theory.