Hybrid Car Noise Bill to Protect Pedestrians

[DickWilson]

Now Mark, lets not confuse the politicians with the facts. They really don't like to be confronted with them, ruins their concentration on screwing their constituents.[]

dick wilson

[mgeary]

I forgot. It's not about the facts, logic, or common sense. It's about whether or not I can get re-elected. Silly me.[8D]

Aloha! ;-)

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mgeary

I don't know how somebody can claim that there's a problem.

---

Poke your eyes out and come back next year and tell us if you still feel the same way.

[mgeary]

Ouch. And wow.[xx(]

I guess you're saying I'd support the needless legislation if I poked my eyes out, because then I couldn't read it, is that it?[:o)]

Aloha! ;-)

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mgeary

Ouch. And wow.[xx(]

I guess you're saying I'd support the needless legislation if I poked my eyes out, because then I couldn't read it, is that it?[:o)]

Aloha! ;-)

---

Probably the same thinking that made people see nothing wrong with Kalaupapa

[Guest]

B.O. -

Fill me in on the Six degrees of Separation that I seem to be missing here.

Kalaupapa and Hybrid owners and Politicians?

Hey Mgeary...

If you poke your eyes out and run for office... it wouldn't be the first politician that was blinded by reality. [:0]

-------
Rally For the Plan

[mgeary]

AHAHAHA That's good, Damon.

Bob, I don't see the connection to Kalaupapa, either. Are you saying I'm wishing to remove a problem by creating an isolated enclave on a remote island? I don't get it.

You've posted on and off through this whole thread, so you're obviously aware of where I'm coming from. To restate: I'm not insensitive to the blind, at all. If there's a legitimate problem with hybrid cars striking blind pedestrians, I'd gladly support some form of regulatory approach to solve that problem. I'm not sticking my head in the sand about this issue, just asking for clarity before our legislatures apply one more governmental regulation. Seat belts are a good regulation, IMHO, that were mandated in the late 1960's, I believe, but there was solid data to support the safety benefits of seat belts BEFORE the regulations were applied.

I'm simply wondering why the legislatures of Hawai'i, MD, AZ, and perhaps others, are attempting to create legislation targeting a problem which may not even exist. I'm all for good legislation to solve problems, but I'm also all for accuracy. The heavy hand of the government should be aimed with precision, not arbitrarily used to swat at perceptions, intuition, or common sense. The perceptions, intuitions, and common sense should be justified by concrete data. That's all.

And have a wonderful day. I am.[]

Aloha! ;-)

[oink]

It gives them something to do so that they can appear constructive, while avoiding the unpleasant task of addressing serious issues.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Bob Orts]

If the government passes a regulation requiring certain cars to install a small $5 device that makes a slight sound to aid blind people in hearing the vehicle, what impact will it have on you? Will you die? Will your taxes go up? Will you be killed on the street? Will it cause you to fall down in agony? Will it make you barf? Will your hair fall out? Will it cause you to have a premature ejaculation? Will you go deaf? What harm will befall you? What part of this harms you in anyway?

If you want to know who’s behind this, think real hard:
Who benefits the most by government setting a safety standard to be followed instead of someone guessing what to do?
The blind?
The advocacy groups for the blind?
The driver?
The public?
Liability attorneys?
The manufactures of the products?

[mgeary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Orts

...what impact will it have on you?...

---

No, Bob, none of the dramatic things that you ask about will happen. The only thing that will happen is the cost of the device will be added to the vehicle. If you do a little research, you can find after-market equipment being proposed for this purpose, but it costs a lot more than $5. Think in the hundreds of dollars range. Perhaps if it was only $5 I wouldn't think it was such a big deal, but I don't think you can get a plastic replacement cup-holder for $5 on a new car, much less a safety item.

Regardless of the cost, which I believe you underestimate, there's an underlying issue of good governance. If the attitude that, "It's only $5" were to govern how we enact legislation, I bet there'd be lots of little $5 trinkets mandated by law to adorn our cars, our houses, and our workplaces. Manufacturers and vendors and their lobbyists are very good at finding out what those kinds of lower limits are, and marketing the "need" for their products to legislatures.

So let me ask a hypothetical: if I get the idea in my head that red and green cars are somehow dangerous to those with red-green color blindness, should we ban red and green cars? Or should we perhaps study whether or not people with red-green colorblindness actually are endangered BEFORE we enact legislation banning red and green cars?

As a general hypothetical, should our laws bear some relationship to the world which we actually live in, or is it the right thing to do to pass whatever law a special interest group wants, just because it wants the law?

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no grudge to bear against people with red-green colorblindness. That particular disability was selected for no good reason other than I couldn't think of another piece of silliness to compare to the (as-yet) undocumented threat to blind pedestrians by hybrid cars.[8D]

Aloha! ;-)