Sporting Events FAQ, Liveblog, and BANGERS - Page 2619 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

Actually RAIDS might be onto something. An incremental punishment system could work. Something like a moving violation for .05-08 (equivalent to a speeding ticket), a low level DUI from .08-.12 (more serious ticket and points on the license), a misdemeanor DUI from .12-18 (higher fine, community service, and a year probation), and felony DUI at .18+ (a year in jail) would be a solid system. Parentheses would be my proposed max sentences with the min sentences being the max for the tier below. Multiple offenses of the low level DUI or higher would face higher punishments. Anyone causing an accident at a low level DUI or higher would automaitcally be bumped to the felony level with a 5 year sentence as the max if there were no deaths and no max for one that causes someone's death.

Makes too much sense to ever be implemented though.

I don't have a problem with a sliding scale, but penalties should be heavier than this imo.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:29 PM

#65453

CalledDownLight

Toonces the Posting Bot

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 88,413

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludacris

I don't have a problem with a sliding scale, but penalties should be heavier than this imo.

how much heavier? I mean, the people who cause accidents will already be penalized more heavily and all we want to do is not have people cause accidents.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:29 PM

#65454

STA654

Here's some straight talk

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 21,072

Driverless cars are gonna take tons of lobbying to make legal for non-experimental use. Who's gonna do it? Automakers would earn the same revenue on a normal car as they would on a driverless, so it won't be them. MADD and their ilk might, but I doubt it. A lot of people in these groups don't like people drinking, period. Driverless cars make it easier for people to drink outside of their home.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:31 PM

#65455

CalledDownLight

Toonces the Posting Bot

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 88,413

Driverless cars are further away than das boot and google think. They'll be here by the time our kids (those of us who aren't old already) are old enough to drive...maybe.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:32 PM

#65456

Das Boot

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 20,196

I don't think they're super close to being commonplace or anything like that (though I'd expect Google to know more than either of us about it.) They're just the only thing that approximates an acceptable solution.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:32 PM

#65457

Krayz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 47,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledDownLight

Driverless cars are further away than das boot and google think. They'll be here by the time our kids (those of us who aren't old already) are old enough to drive...maybe.

except that they already exist.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:33 PM

#65458

ludacris

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 12,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledDownLight

how much heavier? I mean, the people who cause accidents will already be penalized more heavily and all we want to do is not have people cause accidents.

They are too results oriented. So a .05 that causes an accident is equally or more severely punished than a .25 that doesn't?

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:33 PM

#65459

sportsjefe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,693

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krayz

except that they already exist.

'existing' and 'every car in america being one' is, needless to say, a sizable gap.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:33 PM

#65460

CalledDownLight

Toonces the Posting Bot

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 88,413

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krayz

except that they already exist.

except they aren't making the roads safer because they aren't legal, for sale to the general public at a reasonable price, or mass produced.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:34 PM

#65461

Ray Horton

banned

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 26,879

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludacris

They are too results oriented. So a .05 that causes an accident is equally or more severely punished than a .25 that doesn't?

.05 drivers are less likely to cause accidents than .25. That's not being results-oriented, it's punishing more dangerous behavior more severely.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:34 PM

#65462

CalledDownLight

Toonces the Posting Bot

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 88,413

Quote:

Originally Posted by Das Boot

2017, during the beginning of my first term?

thought you were 23, bro? 1st term of what?

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:36 PM

#65463

sportsjefe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,693

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledDownLight

thought you were 23, bro? 1st term of what?

i think you can become a house member at 25...

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:36 PM

#65464

STA654

Here's some straight talk

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 21,072

If driverless cars became normal, would speed limits go up?

nobody strictly obeys them. If most people did then it would result in time losses for all commuters, and only marginal safety gains.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:37 PM

#65465

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Driverless cars are legal in California, Nevada and Florida according to a quick google check

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:37 PM

#65466

STA654

Here's some straight talk

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 21,072

experimental/testing purposes only

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:37 PM

#65467

CalledDownLight

Toonces the Posting Bot

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 88,413

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludacris

They are too results oriented. So a .05 that causes an accident is equally or more severely punished than a .25 that doesn't?

sure. If you don't want to be results oriented then we should change attempted murder to the same thing as murder and manslaughter shouldn't even be a crime. We should also not punish people who cause wrecks because they didn't pay attention since the people who don't cause wrecks when not paying attention aren't even noticed or measurable.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:37 PM

#65468

Das Boot

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 20,196

four years is a lot of time for **** to change, gonna get my boy obama to pull some strings

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:39 PM

#65469

Ray Horton

banned

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 26,879

Quote:

Originally Posted by Das Boot

four years is a lot of time for **** to change, gonna get my boy obama to pull some strings

James O'Keefe ITT

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:40 PM

#65470

CalledDownLight

Toonces the Posting Bot

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 88,413

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsjefe

i think you can become a house member at 25...

but will he have enough sway to change some laws?

Quote:

Originally Posted by STA654

If driverless cars became normal, would speed limits go up?

nobody strictly obeys them. If most people did then it would result in time losses for all commuters, and only marginal safety gains.

I would think so

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudd

Driverless cars are legal in California, Nevada and Florida according to a quick google check

Quote:

Originally Posted by STA654

experimental/testing purposes only

this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:44 PM

#65471

Krayz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 47,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsjefe

'existing' and 'every car in america being one' is, needless to say, a sizable gap.

Which wasn't his post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledDownLight

except they aren't making the roads safer because they aren't legal, for sale to the general public at a reasonable price, or mass produced.

Yes but the tech exists. It's just a matter of time. There really isn't any real opposition to it afaict and it's technologically possible given the wiki article linked quotes 300k crashless miles. There's no way this thing doesn't happen. It's just sensors + navigation computer which is ez game price wise.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:46 PM

#65472

ludacris

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 12,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Horton

.05 drivers are less likely to cause accidents than .25. That's not being results-oriented, it's punishing more dangerous behavior more severely.

I was talking about his penalties for accidents vs penalties for those pulled over, of which there is a severe discrepency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledDownLight

sure. If you don't want to be results oriented then we should change attempted murder to the same thing as murder

I agree with this. If you shoot someone in the head and they manage to survive, you should be punished with the same severity as if they had died. Intent>results.

Quote:

and manslaughter shouldn't even be a crime.

Manslaughter is often due to negligence.

Quote:

We should also not punish people who cause wrecks because they didn't pay attention since the people who don't cause wrecks when not paying attention aren't even noticed or measurable.

Now you're going off the reservation.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:46 PM

#65473

Zimmer4141

Wet

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 33,692

I remember I was eating dinner with 7 other people who were all friends, I had only known most of them for a few months.

6 out of the 7 people said they didn't think driverless cars were safe enough to trust.

7 out of the 7 said there was at least 1 other person at the table who they would not drive with because it was too unsafe.

This is gonna take so long to get through legislators, and to get approved by the general public. People only think of car accidents in terms of how many they've seen or been in, not how many happen per mile driven. I would buy a driverless car tonight if it was legalized right now.

Quote

05-15-2013 , 04:46 PM

#65474

STA654

Here's some straight talk

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 21,072

some jurisdictions are relient upon traffic tickets for revenue. so there may be push-back against driverless cars at the state and local level for that reason.