[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] OT License plates and covers.

[Russ Johnson]

* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-12-11 16:27]:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > Again, I have no problem staying out of the way. Sidewalks work well.
> 
> They're great if you want to go around in circles on one block and travel
> on foot.  I like having more options than that.  Crossing the street
> shouldn't be a life-threatening activity and shouldn't take three minutes.

I've never waited more than a minute to cross a street, even downtown. I
walked several blocks to eat lunch today, and I'll walk several more to
get to the Max station. Actually, two more than I have to, so that I
have a better chance to get a seat. 

> > So you are saying that it should take me over an hour to get to work?
> 
> No, I'm saying that you have chosen your work and home poorly.

Well, as I said, I don't have much choice when it comes to where my
employer chooses to locate. In fact, when I started with this company,
they were a couple of blocks from where they are now. But we've moved
twice in the 5 years I've worked here. 

As for my housing, I believe I would be hard pressed to find housing for
myself and family that is as affordable, inside a 10 mile radius from my
work. As it is, my house is almost 10 miles from work. 

My work provides an All-Zone Tri-Met pass, so that's one benefit to
working here. 

> > There's also a big difference in how those things are paid for. Roads,
> > for the most part, are paid for through registration fees and gas taxes.
> > (http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/pdfs/HowOrRoadsFinanced.pdf)
> 
> You're misreading the document.
> 
> This is a document about the taxes collected specifically for the State
> Highway Fund and how those funds are distributed.  This is not a
> comprehensive document identifying the sources for all road improvement
> funds.
> 
> The State Highway Fund is just one small part of the road-building revenue
> system.

Then why is it named, "How Oregon roads are financed"? By law, state roads 
are paid for with registration and gas taxes. City roads have more
options. 

> > Parks are paid for by the municipality they exist in.
> 
> There are state and national parks as well.  I don't see how this is
> relevant.

There isn't a "pay as you go" system for the parks.

> You wrote that a person who follows the law is not responsible for any
> deaths that might be the result of their actions, didn't you?  That the
> law makes the person innocent of any harm?
> 
> This implies to me that the law is of higher value than human life.  I
> should HOPE that human life is VERY valuable to you and so you must have
> enormous faith in the law to the point of a believed infallibility.

No, it sets a standard by which we are all expected to abide, and if one
person or the other violates those standards, then we can determine who
is at fault. The operator or the large vehicle, or the nit-wit. 

> > So the nit-wit has the right to dance on the train tracks, and make the
> > train wait until the music in his head stops?
> 
> No, he should be killed for that.  He should be run down and squished to
> pieces because he's mentally ill.

If, in fact, that nit-wit is playing on the tracks in such a manner that
the operator of the heavy machine is unable to avoid him, then I'm sorry
for him, but he is still dead due to his own actions. No blame can be
placed at the operators feet, as long as said operator was operating the
large vehicle within the law.

This is basic practice, and how it works. We have rules to follow, and
if you violate those rules, you may be injured or killed. That is the
fault of the person who violates those rules, not the fault of the
operator. 

> In fact, we should have more traps laid out around the city to catch
> people that are too stupid to live.

Good. Darwinism in practice. People will learn to avoid these things, or
we clean up the gene pool. Either way, humanity will be stronger.

> Better yet, let's just release hungry wild animals downtown so those who
> are too stupid or incapable of protecting themselves will die.

Sounds good to me. 

> > > It's true that cars cannot interact with people safely and still
> > > appear practical.
> >
> > In your opinion.
> 
> I think the record shows it's fact.  Automobiles kill many people every
> single day.

Automobiles can't kill. They are inanimate. It's the same with guns.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. However, you can be
exhonerated of wrongdoing as described above. 

> > In your opinion.
> >
> > Opinions vary.
> 
> Yes, but some opinions are supported by fact and others are not.  The fact
> is that automobiles are the most dangerous mode of transport in use today.

That may be true. However, it's what we have, and until we have
something different, we have to deal with it. 

> They kill more people PER USER than any other mode of transport.  And many
> of the people killed by them aren't even using automobiles.

If the operator of those automobiles was at fault, then take away that
privledge from that person. If the person killed was a nit-wit, well,
they needed to think before they stepped off the curb.

> So if you are NOT of the opinion that they are dangerous, you're denying
> reality and out of your gourd.

I'm not denying that automobiles CAN be dangerous. I am ALWAYS watchful
while I'm operating my vehicle. I ride a bike and motorcycle too, so I'm
probably more watchful than the "average" driver. 

I also know, from 24 years of driving, that cars can be operated safely. 

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #9 (Collect all 22)
"There is no knowledge that is not power." - Mortal Kombat Three