Should Driving While Deaf be Banned?

I was driving behind a car today where it appeared both the driver and
passenger were deaf. They were using that sign language crap and i
realized that meant the driver had to take his hands off the wheel to
"talk" and take his eyes off the road to "listen".

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:45:57 -0500, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill
Kids" > wrote:

>I was driving behind a car today where it appeared both the driver and
>passenger were deaf. They were using that sign language crap and i
>realized that meant the driver had to take his hands off the wheel to
>"talk" and take his eyes off the road to "listen".

A ****load of folks around here appear to be blind but that hasn't
stopped them from driving.




"If con is the opposite of pro then is congress the opposite of progress?"

Scott in SoCal > wrote in
:


>
> This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not
> merely a privilege. People who can't hear, people who have no use of
> their legs (and thus have to use their hands to operate steering
> wheel, throttle, brake, and transmission), and so on are all given
> licenses without a second thought. This is because our public transit
> system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to
> drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for
> the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or
> daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation;
> perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our
> public transit infrastructure.

The problem is NOT lack of public transport. It's our ready acceptance of
"accidents". If anyone found at fault in a fatal crash got a mandatory 20+
sentence in the can, then everyone, including the deaf, would drive
carefully.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > wrote in
.70:

> I was driving behind a car today where it appeared both the driver and
> passenger were deaf. They were using that sign language crap and i
> realized that meant the driver had to take his hands off the wheel to
> "talk" and take his eyes off the road to "listen".

We should ban electric cars because blind people can't hear them coming.
It's a bitch to step out into an intersection with one of those things
coming I guess.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > wrote in
.70:

> Scott in SoCal > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>> This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not
>> merely a privilege. People who can't hear, people who have no use of
>> their legs (and thus have to use their hands to operate steering
>> wheel, throttle, brake, and transmission), and so on are all given
>> licenses without a second thought. This is because our public transit
>> system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to
>> drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare
>> for the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR
>> wife or daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL
>> conversation; perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more
>> dollars on our public transit infrastructure.
>
> The problem is NOT lack of public transport. It's our ready acceptance
> of "accidents". If anyone found at fault in a fatal crash got a
> mandatory 20+ sentence in the can, then everyone, including the deaf,
> would drive carefully.
>

There is no public transport here. It's 16 miles to the nearest small
market, 60 miles round trip to the nearest real supermarket. Hell a lot
of people don't even have electricity yet in the boonies of Oregon.

So even with a horse it's a long assed ride for supplies.

On Apr 6, 1:00*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, First.Post
> > said:
>
> >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:45:57 -0500, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill
> >Kids" > wrote:
>
> >>I was driving behind a car today where it appeared both the driver and
> >>passenger were deaf. They were using that *sign language crap and i
> >>realized that meant the driver had to take his hands off the wheel to
> >>"talk" and take his eyes off the road to "listen".
>
> >A ****load of folks around here appear to be blind but that hasn't
> >stopped them from driving.
>
> This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not
> merely a privilege. People who can't hear, people who have no use of
> their legs (and thus have to use their hands to operate steering
> wheel, throttle, brake, and transmission), and so on are all given
> licenses without a second thought. This is because our public transit
> system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to
> drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for
> the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or
> daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation;
> perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our
> public transit infrastructure.
> --
> The MFFY Litmus Test:
> If your maneuver forces another driver WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
> to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY.

Yes, we all know what a huge problem deaf drivers are.

Do you pick items from a list or do you make this stuff up as you go?


Dave

On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal > wrote:

> This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not
> merely a privilege.

Because it isn't a privilege. We've been conditioned to believe it is,
but it isn't. As a privilege it's a wedge to force us to waive our
rights.

> People who can't hear, people who have no use of
> their legs (and thus have to use their hands to operate steering
> wheel, throttle, brake, and transmission), and so on are all given
> licenses without a second thought.

So? I really don't care how someone operates their vehicle and I've
seen drivers who didn't have the use of their legs drive far better than
the average 'able-bodied' american. If they always need both hands to
control the vehicle they won't be able to talk on the cell phone while
driving.

> This is because our public transit
> system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to
> drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for
> the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or
> daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation;
> perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our
> public transit infrastructure.

Why would you expect a completely socialist transportation structure to
be better than a semi-socialist one?

What is now 'public' transportation used to be private for-profit
companies. These companies used government to protect their markets and
government in turn demanded to control the price of the services. This
seemed good at first, but the companies got lazy, government demanded
more for less, and they eventually became government owned. Health-care
is going the same route btw.

In article >, z wrote:
>"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > wrote in
. 3.70:
>
>> I was driving behind a car today where it appeared both the driver and
>> passenger were deaf. They were using that sign language crap and i
>> realized that meant the driver had to take his hands off the wheel to
>> "talk" and take his eyes off the road to "listen".
>
>We should ban electric cars because blind people can't hear them coming.

No.

>It's a bitch to step out into an intersection with one of those things
>coming I guess.

Yes.

There are serious proposals on the table to require that some sort
of noise be added to hybrids/electrics so they can be heard.



--
TJH

tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:45:57 -0500, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill
Kids" > wrote:

>I was driving behind a car today where it appeared both the driver and
>passenger were deaf. They were using that sign language crap and i
>realized that meant the driver had to take his hands off the wheel to
>"talk" and take his eyes off the road to "listen".

We allow driving while deranged - of which you are a prime example -
so driving while deaf is not problem for me.

--
Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend foams like a Bartlo
(and spelling or gramatical errors are left as is):

"Hey - necromancer is a criminal coddler. BTW the article
says 4X and then it says the BAC was .187 which doesn't
make much sense. Not that it matters. Drunk drivers who
kill should get life wo parole."

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/rqvtg
Message

On Apr 6, 5:34*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>
> > This just goes to show you that driving is a de facto "right" - not
> > merely a privilege.
>
> Because it isn't a privilege. We've been conditioned to believe it is,
> but it isn't. As a privilege it's a wedge to force us to waive our
> rights.
>
> > People who can't hear, people who have no use of
> > their legs (and thus have to use their hands to operate steering
> > wheel, throttle, brake, and transmission), and so on are all given
> > licenses without a second thought.
>
> So? *I really don't care how someone operates their vehicle and I've
> seen drivers who didn't have the use of their legs drive far better than
> the average 'able-bodied' american. If they always need both hands to
> control the vehicle they won't be able to talk on the cell phone while
> driving.
>
> > This is because our public transit
> > system sucks big donkey wanks and if we didn't allow these people to
> > drive they'd be unable to travel to a job, leaving them on welfare for
> > the rest of their lives. Which is all well and good until YOUR wife or
> > daughter gets crashed into by a driver having an ASL conversation;
> > perhaps then you might wish we had spent a few more dollars on our
> > public transit infrastructure.
>
> Why would you expect a completely socialist transportation structure to
> be better than a semi-socialist one?
>
> What is now 'public' transportation used to be private for-profit
> companies. These companies used government to protect their markets and
> government in turn demanded to control the price of the services. This
> seemed good at first, but the companies got lazy, government demanded
> more for less, and they eventually became government owned. Health-care
> is going the same route btw.
Is there any reason why afor=proft corporation can not buy a fleet
of buses and use them to compete with public buses for intra-city
travel?


Michael