Should Driving While Deaf be Banned?

On Apr 6, 10:01*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Dave__67 > said:
>
> >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?
>
> If only your ability to properly edit the text you quote were as good
> as your sarcasm, you'd be in pretty good shape.
>
> Now, perhaps you can explain why it is ILLEGAL for me to drive around
> wearing headphones in most states? Isn't the rationale behind that law
> that the headphones will prevent me from hearing sirens, other
> drivers' horns, etc.? So if it's so dangerous for me to drive when I
> have temporarily deafened myself, why is it A-OK for someone who is
> permanently deaf to drive?
> --
> 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.

First off, very few deaf people are actually absolutely deaf.

Secondly, any observant person can spot emergency vehicles just fine
(I doubt there are many surviving unobservant deaf people), sirens are
more for morons that can't be bothered to know what's going on around
them (or would actually ignore the lights) than for alerting at a
range or around a corner that you can't see around. I think I've even
seen you post on how useless sirens are when you can't actually see
the vehicle.

Thirdly, taking a capability you do have and nullifying it, you'd be
stupid to do it, but unfortunately there are enough stupid people to
make in necessary.

Fourthly- my editing? You're attacking my editing? I should top post,
your head would probably explode.


Dave

On 2010-04-07, Michael Ejercito > wrote:
> 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?

Government would have to license them. Government would control what
rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That
is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place.

To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it.
(yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it,
but what they actually do is different)

On 2010-04-07, Scott in SoCal > wrote:

> And yet what's the problem with nullifying a capability you apparently
> don't need in order to drive?

Why would that be a surprising state of affairs for traffic enforcement?
It's the same law and traffic enforcement combo that lets Judy drive its
beater car around slowly but will ticket someone in a corvette or other
very capable and safe car for doing 50mph on a 45mph 6 lane arterial at
2am with no other traffic present.

z > wrote in
:

> "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.

A noisemaker could be put on them. Same should be done with bikes.

On Apr 7, 5:46*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-04-07, Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 5:34*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>
> >> > 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?
>
> Government would have to license them. Government would control what
> rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That
> is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place.
>
> To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it.
> (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it,
> but what they actually do is different)
Do governments set the rates for charter buses?


Michael

On 2010-04-08, Michael Ejercito > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:46*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-04-07, Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 6, 5:34*am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-04-06, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>
>> >> > 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?
>>
>> Government would have to license them. Government would control what
>> rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That
>> is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place.
>>
>> To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it.
>> (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it,
>> but what they actually do is different)
> Do governments set the rates for charter buses?

I doubt it. But I was discussing transit.

On Apr 7, 10:20*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Dave__67 > said:
>
> >Secondly, any observant person can spot emergency vehicles just fine
>
> Nice dodge. So you're saying the law doesn't matter?
>
> >Thirdly, taking a capability you do have and nullifying it, you'd be
> >stupid to do it, but unfortunately there are enough stupid people to
> >make in necessary.
>
> And yet what's the problem with nullifying a capability you apparently
> don't need in order to drive?
>
> >Fourthly- my editing? You're attacking my editing?
>
> Yes I am, you lazy ****. Take the 2 seconds and trim your quotes.
>
> >I should top post, your head would probably explode.
>
> Naw, I would just PLONK you.
> --
> 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.

What law? the law obviously says it OK to drive while deaf.

Ironically, a deaf person would be breaking the law wearing earphones.

Forgot how to do civil discourse again, I see, you arrogant ****.



Dave

On Apr 7, 7:32*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-04-08,Michael > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 5:46*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-07,Michael > wrote:
> >> > * *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?
>
> >> Government would have to license them. Government would control what
> >> rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That
> >> is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place.
>
> >> To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it.
> >> (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it,
> >> but what they actually do is different)
> > * *Do governments set the rates for charter buses?
>
> I doubt it. But I was discussing transit.
Would a regular bus service between two commercial districts in
Queens and Manhattan count as transit service?


Michael

On 2010-04-08, Michael Ejercito > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 7:32*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-04-08,Michael > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 7, 5:46*am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-04-07,Michael > wrote:
>> >> > * *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?
>>
>> >> Government would have to license them. Government would control what
>> >> rates they could charge. Government would make them not profitable. That
>> >> is if government allowed them to exist and operate in the first place.
>>
>> >> To the government competition is wasteful. It aims to eliminate it.
>> >> (yeah, yeah I know one branch of the party gives lip service it to it,
>> >> but what they actually do is different)
>> > * *Do governments set the rates for charter buses?
>>
>> I doubt it. But I was discussing transit.
> Would a regular bus service between two commercial districts in
> Queens and Manhattan count as transit service?

Not likely.
charter bus to a transit bus is like a limo to a taxi.

Charter buses and limos exist in part to get around the regulations
surrounding transit and taxi operations.

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.

What? Is that actually legal? Where?
Could it have been that only the passenger was deaf?

?

---
outpost7.freeiz.com