# Jaywalking is kind of a stupid law.



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 24, 2015)

If the road is clear to cross then why have an officer pass a ticket? I know, it's a stupid rule but it still isn't a very good one, imo. During the time the officer's spending passing a ticket to a jaywalker he/she could've taken care of a real crime.

Btw, I've always crossed the roads around UK, Spain, Portugal, France and other European countries and never had a problem doing so.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jul 24, 2015)

Who's gonna give you a ticket if there's no one around though?


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 24, 2015)

You can have a tea party in the middle of the road in rush hour here in Coventry and the local police won't even google how to give a fuck.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 24, 2015)

In the small city my university is in: Lincoln, all roads are virtually empty by about 10:30 pm until near 6
I could fall asleep in the road and possibly wake up unharmed.

(England btw)


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 24, 2015)

Blaze163 said:


> You can have a tea party in the middle of the road in rush hour here in Coventry and the local police won't even google how to give a fuck.


That's the good thing about European countries. Police isn't doing this bs here, while in US.. they do. x_x


----------



## MegaAce™ (Jul 24, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> That's the good thing about European countries. Police isn't doing this bs here, while in US.. they do. x_x



Tho the German police will do stuff too.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jul 24, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> That's the good thing about European countries. Police isn't doing this bs here, while in US.. they do. x_x


I'm not familiar with streets in other countries, but major metropolitan areas, even the suburbs of them, will have tons of cars going pretty much 24/7. I under the hyperbole from the people in the UK, but where I live, even in the middle of the night, there are cars going. Jaywalking is just dangerous, plain and simple. Have you ever been hit by a car? I have (I wasn't at fault, of course, some drunk bitch was) and it's not a pleasant experience.

Anyways, if you're stupid enough to jaywalk in front of a police officer, then you deserve a ticket. The fact that the officer saw you means that the streets weren't clear, or they were parked right next to you or in your view across the street. Either way, it's a stupid move.


----------



## Depravo (Jul 24, 2015)

Thwart them by only crossing at designated crossing areas. FUK DA MAN!


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 24, 2015)

Yeah the US has some odd laws and approaches to "safety"*, or at least an approach that could be classified as schizophrenic. I always forget about jaywalking when I am over there, though it is perhaps not as bad as forgetting to look left first when crossing tram lines in Amsterdam, and it does get me odd looks/reminded by my relatives.

*the absolute oddest one for me is the dislike some seem to show for wearing seatbelts. Absolutely mind boggling to me and most people I speak to about it.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 24, 2015)

MegaAce™ said:


> Tho the German police will do stuff too.



Well, that's unneeded.



Pedeadstrian said:


> I'm not familiar with streets in other countries, but major metropolitan areas, even the suburbs of them, will have tons of cars going pretty much 24/7. I under the hyperbole from the people in the UK, but where I live, even in the middle of the night, there are cars going. Jaywalking is just dangerous, plain and simple. Have you ever been hit by a car? I have (I wasn't at fault, of course, some drunk bitch was) and it's not a pleasant experience.
> 
> Anyways, if you're stupid enough to jaywalk in front of a police officer, then you deserve a ticket. The fact that the officer saw you means that the streets weren't clear, or they were parked right next to you or in your view across the street. Either way, it's a stupid move.



Whenever I see a car, bus, truck, tractor or whatever I let it pass first, look both sides and then cross. I'm not some crazy guy in a rush to cross the street knowingly of the risks. 



FAST6191 said:


> Yeah the US has some odd laws and approaches to "safety"*, or at least an approach that could be classified as schizophrenic. I always forget about jaywalking when I am over there, though it is perhaps not as bad as forgetting to look left first when crossing tram lines in Amsterdam, and it does get me odd looks/reminded by my relatives.
> 
> *the absolute oddest one for me is the dislike some seem to show for wearing seatbelts. Absolutely mind boggling to me and most people I speak to about it.



Even though train tracks are highly controlled I tend to look both sides so I'm absolutely sure there's not a train in sight.


----------



## Sheimi (Jul 24, 2015)

People jaywalk over here all the time. It's gonna be your fault if you get hit by a car.



FAST6191 said:


> the absolute oddest one for me is the dislike some seem to show for wearing seatbelts. Absolutely mind boggling to me and most people I speak to about it.


I see this too much. Wish people would wear their seatbelts.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 24, 2015)

Sheimi said:


> People jaywalk over here all the time. It's gonna be your fault if you get hit by a car.
> 
> 
> I see this too much. Wish people would wear their seatbelts.



I know a store owner who drives without his seatbelt but if only that was the only issue. He's a menace to other drivers and just pretty much everyone surrounding him because he seems to be mentally dysfunctional and can't keep a precise eye on the road ahead.

I'll never take a ride with him again 'cause I was afraid he'd crash us both.


----------



## RustInPeace (Jul 24, 2015)

I don't jaywalk, but I did once because my dog was too strong to redirect. No traffic at the time, so it was fine. I also did it as a kid, only once I think, and it was one of those things where you're with friends and you feel like breaking the law a bit. No police came or anything. With the shit police officers do in this country, I'm surprised it hasn't covered every city in the States. Mine over here aren't nationally known, so to speak. At least not yet. The beef I have with them is that they took my two external hard drives, laptop, and a desktop over as "evidence" when it had nothing to do with the crime in question. They didn't even take the power cords, I still have them. It's been almost 3 years, and I've contacted them before and never really got a proper response on whether or not I'll get the items back.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 24, 2015)

Daily reminder that a law is an opinion with a gun.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 25, 2015)

Most laws and bylaws these days are just to generate revenue. The police are turning into another source of income.

Probably the dumbest around here (no idea if it's elsewhere) is being fined about $170 for not wearing a seatbelt. Completely retarded. If someone wants to risk their life at no real danger to anyone else, let them. Such a cash grab.

though i've never seen or heard of anyone fined for jaywalking (I mean i've heard of the law, just never it being imposed). I guess it depends how starved the police department is in that particular city.


----------



## VinsCool (Jul 25, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Most laws and bylaws these days are just to generate revenue. The police are turning into another source of income.
> 
> Probably the dumbest around here (no idea if it's elsewhere) is being fined about $170 for not wearing a seatbelt. Completely retarded. If someone wants to risk their life at no real danger to anyone else, let them. Such a cash grab.
> 
> though i've never seen or heard of anyone fined for jaywalking (I mean i've heard of the law, just never it being imposed). I guess it depends how starved the police department is in that particular city.


I have to agree with you, stupid cashgrab law everywhere I go, especially in big cities.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Most laws and bylaws these days are just to generate revenue. The police are turning into another source of income.
> 
> Probably the dumbest around here (no idea if it's elsewhere) is being fined about $170 for not wearing a seatbelt. Completely retarded. If someone wants to risk their life at no real danger to anyone else, let them. Such a cash grab.
> 
> though i've never seen or heard of anyone fined for jaywalking (I mean i've heard of the law, just never it being imposed). I guess it depends how starved the police department is in that particular city.



I genuinely do not get the dislike of seatbelts thing that various North Americans have going on. Then again at least in the US the guns, no sex and no booze thing would feed back into that schizophrenic thing I was one about earlier.

Also you are a risk to others in the vehicle and seatbelt bruises vs a particularly good example of Newton's first law involving squishy faces and bodies does rather increase the medical costs faced by either the insurance company or the taxpayer depending upon where you find yourself, to say nothing of the unpleasantness of having to scrape/squirt the remains out of the vehicle.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2015)

I've become very stingy when it comes to jaywalking when I was a child, and with good reason - I was jaywalking when a car I didn't see coming _hit me and sent me flying_. Mistake - should've waited for the green light. By the time I regained consciousness, I was surrounded by strangers and my father was came shortly to pick me up from the pavement, sick with worry. Not only I've flown a considerable distance, I've also been out for a substantial amount of time, or so I presume, as the place where I lived was on the other end of the street. I have little recollection of what happened, I don't even remember being hit, I just remember waking up. I've since moved to the UK and here _nobody_ gives a flying duck and jaywalks non stop, so I seem far too careful to everyone around here.


FAST6191 said:


> I genuinely do not get the dislike of seatbelts thing that various North Americans have going on. Then again at least in the US the guns, no sex and no booze thing would feed back into that schizophrenic thing I was one about earlier.
> 
> Also you are a risk to others in the vehicle and seatbelt bruises vs a particularly good example of Newton's first law involving squishy faces and bodies does rather increase the medical costs faced by either the insurance company or the taxpayer depending upon where you find yourself, to say nothing of the unpleasantness of having to scrape/squirt the remains out of the vehicle.


I'm an opponent of mandatory seatbelt use simply because I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as they do not create a hazard for others, even if it puts them in harm's way. Since not wearing a seatbelt only works to the driver's own detriment and possible demise in the event of an accident, it should be exclusively the driver's business whether he/she wear it or not. The same applies to motorcycle helmets - the helmet only protects the driver, not others, so it should be the driver's choice whether to wear it or not. Naturally both would have to be reflected in the level of insurance the driver pays - not using safety measures does equal a higher probability of death or injury, but nevertheless it should be an option available to the driver. As for other people in your vehicle, they all have free will and can make an educated decision on whether or not they want to be passengers of a driver who's not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt - simple.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 25, 2015)

As someone who has walked most places their entire life, you get real tired of dealing with designated crossing points real quick. There are some places I've walked where there weren't sidewalks and I just walked in the middle of the road listening for traffic from behind, and watching for it from the front. There are some roads where I refuse to jaywalk, of course. I'm not into playing a game of real life Frogger across a busy highway like some people seem to be willing to do. At the same time, I've learned to be careful, and what it takes to make the most convenient moves for myself without greatly inconveniencing others. I've goofed a few times and have nearly gotten hit, but thankfully it hasn't been too often.

Funnily enough, the closest I've come to being hit was when I was crossing while the lights were in my favor. The walk symbol was up for me to go, and somebody thought they could round the corner faster than I could take two steps off the curb. They weren't correct, but lucky for both of us, I paid attention and pulled back before taking that second step so that they barely avoided connecting with me. That is the one time I've flipped a car the bird, and boy did they deserve more.

A small story as well: last year my roommate and I were returning to our dorm room after doing some shopping. We decided to jaywalk across the street from the parking lot, as we always did because the closest legal crossing was about a block away from the building entrance. As we're crossing (it was completely open), a cop that had passed us before we stepped off the curb actually did a u-turn at the nearest intersection, turned back around, and the last we saw of him, he had parked in front of our dorm building and was getting out of his car. All we can figure was that he was going to ticket us for jaywalking since he clearly wasn't in emergency mode and we were the only ones that did anything noticeably illegal. Thankfully, we were able to duck into a side door, go up a few floors to our room, and never heard anything more about it. I would have been so pissed if my first ticket for anything was because I jaywalked just because a cop needed to fill their quota.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 25, 2015)

Did you go to the doctor, Foxi4?

I understand freedom, but safety needs to enter the picture too and I think seat belts and jaywalking, at least on a busy road, fits that. Fine prices are a whole different matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2015)

KingVamp said:


> Did you go to the doctor, Foxi4?
> 
> I understand freedom, but safety needs to enter the picture too and I think seat belts and jaywalking, at least on a busy road, fits that. Fine prices are a whole different matter.


The doctor? I've spent at least a week in hospital, I had hematoma under the skin of my arm and some other complications popped up during my stay which necessitated a saline drip and a strict diet. Nothing too serious, mind you - I wasn't bed-ridden and I didn't break any bones. I was very young back then, I quickly sprang back into shape.

I wouldn't equate jaywalking to not wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt puts you and only you in danger, and only if you find yourself in an accident. Meanwhile, jaywalking is essentially creating an obstruction in the middle of the road - it doesn't just put you in harm's way, it's effectively putting the drivers at risk as well since it's the drivers who have to react to said unexpected obstacle.


----------



## Par39 (Jul 25, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Most laws and bylaws these days are just to generate revenue. The police are turning into another source of income.
> 
> Probably the dumbest around here (no idea if it's elsewhere) is being fined about $170 for not wearing a seatbelt. Completely retarded. If someone wants to risk their life at no real danger to anyone else, let them. Such a cash grab.
> 
> though i've never seen or heard of anyone fined for jaywalking (I mean i've heard of the law, just never it being imposed). I guess it depends how starved the police department is in that particular city.


Well, if the people on the backseat of a car don't wear their seatbelts, they're risking the people in front when they get thrown into the back of their seat D: ...unless police only cares about the driver wearing a seatbelt over there.


----------



## BobDoleOwndU (Jul 25, 2015)

Jaywalking both is and isn't a stupid law.

If you pay attention, make sure the way is clear and cross the road, nobody comes to any harm, and the person gets across the road faster. Everybody wins.

The issue comes in when people don't pay attention. Not thinking to look, somebody steps out, gets hit by a car and dies. Now, police have to come in to do an investigation, insurance companies get involved and worst of all, somebody lost their life. It all turns into a big mess, and this is pretty much why there's a law.

Admittedly, I jaywalk all the time. I always make sure the way is clear though, and if there's a lot of traffic, I'll just go to the nearest street lights and cross there. Ironically, while I've never come close to being hit while jaywalking, while crossing at street lights (where I'd have the right of way) I've had to sprint out of the way of cars turning before; nearly being run over is not a fun way to start the day. XD


----------



## EthanObi (Jul 25, 2015)

Par39 said:


> Well, if the people on the backseat of a car don't wear their seatbelts, they're risking the people in front when they get thrown into the back of their seat D: ...unless police only cares about the driver wearing a seatbelt over there.


The issue is the fine goes to the driver, regardless of WHO isn't wearing a seatbelt, you also don't have to wreck to be fined.
on the $170 ticket if you're caught or get hit jaywalking... the ticket is more of a means to discourage you, not really a punishment, if you get hit, you'll be paying a lot more than $170 in medical bills, IF you live! be smart, not arrogant, pedestrian deaths are more common than motorist deaths, http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Remember, people aren't always smart, people always look out for themselves, but in doing so, they fail to realize people do exist around them, shit happens, mostly because assclowns don't follow laws, you can't always guarantee someone isn't going to hit you, you can have a clear road one second, and the next be splattered on a pickup trucks front...


----------



## Par39 (Jul 25, 2015)

Kyouhei said:


> The issue is the fine goes to the driver, regardless of WHO isn't wearing a seatbelt, you also don't have to wreck to be fined.
> on the $170 ticket if you're caught or get hit jaywalking... the ticket is more of a means to discourage you, not really a punishment, if you get hit, you'll be paying a lot more than $170 in medical bills, IF you live! be smart, not arrogant, pedestrian deaths are more common than motorist deaths, http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Remember, people aren't always smart, people always look out for themselves, but in doing so, they fail to realize people do exist around them, shit happens, mostly because assclowns don't follow laws, you can't always guarantee someone isn't going to hit you, you can have a clear road one second, and the next be splattered on a pickup trucks front...


Huh, here, as long as the people in the car are over 15 years old, the one who isn't wearing a seatbelt gets the fine. If under 15, it's either the driver,  or the kid's legal guardian if they are in the car, who gets fined.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2015)

Par39 said:


> Well, *if the people on the backseat of a car don't wear their seatbelts, they're risking the people in front* when they get thrown into the back of their seat D: ...unless police only cares about the driver wearing a seatbelt over there.


The driver is in charge of the vehicle, he/she can ask the passengers to wear a seatbelt and refuse to drive if they don't. It's ultimately the driver's decision and his/her responsibility, but the nanny state takes that decision away from drivers and decides for them.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 25, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Should've waited for the green light.


Even when the green light is on for the pedestrians you can never be too careful with lousy drivers out there so regardless of being green, I always make sure to look both ways so no asshole's coming at full speed. I recall a couple years back when a motorcycle almost crashed into me and I was in front of a store's window so it wasn't my fault or anyone but his and the other driver (guess he tried to avoid smashing into the vehicle in the front).

People that can't abide the laws of driving responsibly shouldn't be allowed to be driving anything. Not even a tractor.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 25, 2015)

Par39 said:


> Huh, here, as long as the people in the car are over 15 years old, the one who isn't wearing a seatbelt gets the fine. If under 15, it's either the driver,  or the kid's legal guardian if they are in the car, who gets fined.



Yeah that's how it works over here.
Though when my dad and I got pulled over, the officer was nice enough to only fine my dad and told me to help pay it. But he could've nailed both of us.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 25, 2015)

I still want to say to an officer "why don't you get a real job?"
Fucking police, spend yer time and taxpayers money on fetching criminals instead of people crossing roads, or driving a tad to fast, or other "minor offences"


----------



## Zerousen (Jul 25, 2015)

DinohScene said:


> I still want to say to an officer "why don't you get a real job?"
> Fucking police, spend yer time and taxpayers money on fetching criminals instead of people crossing roads, or driving a tad to fast, or other "minor offences"


Gotta remember that most cops are people too, they're just doing what they're told to do whether they like it or not.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 25, 2015)

I see some dumbass jaywalking only yards away from a crosswalk, or jaywalking with a baby in a stroller, I want to splatter their brains on the road.  The only thing that stops me is thinking of the animals eating the roadkill and getting run over themselves.  Poor animals don't deserve that.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Jul 25, 2015)

If there's a sign that says no Jaywalking then its ok to pass a ticket.
But, if there's no sign that say so, then you can do it. Iirc we have a rule here that if the zebra crossing is too much away from you, you can cross the street legally(?)


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2015)

DinohScene said:


> I still want to say to an officer "why don't you get a real job?"
> Fucking police, spend yer time and taxpayers money on fetching criminals instead of people crossing roads, or driving a tad to fast, or other "minor offences"



To be fair when your job is "traffic police" you kind of are tasked with catching people driving like a bellend. Certainly there is an aspect of quotas and revenue generation at play in places but I dare say most people suffer more aggravation from people driving like a bellend than they do from cat burgling ID theft drug dealing hacker hitmen.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 25, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> To be fair when your job is "traffic police" you kind of are tasked with catching people driving like a bellend. Certainly there is an aspect of quotas and revenue generation at play in places but I dare say most people suffer more aggravation from people driving like a bellend than they do from cat burgling ID theft drug dealing hacker hitmen.



Get fined for driving 2 km above the speed limit on a 100km/h road.
In the meantime, someone prolly got stabbed to death whilst this wanker writes out a fine.
That's what I call a complete waste of police power.

It's cases like that which I say they should fetch criminals.

People that drive like loonies and go 30 above max speed then yes.
Or people that drive like their in Forza Horizon in the city.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 25, 2015)

Sheimi said:


> People jaywalk over here all the time. It's gonna be your fault if you get hit by a car.
> I see this too much. Wish people would wear their seatbelts.



Some people are dumb enough to think it looks "uncool" or "unfashionable" to wear seat belts, which is BS. I'm sorry, but I'd rather look like an idiot by wearing one than get in an accident without it on and actually end up being one for the rest of my life.  As for those who jaywalk, if you get hit by a car, it's your own damn fault, federal and state laws don't exempt people from being hit by cars that have the legal right of way. Though there are some excellent candidates for the Darwin Awards.


----------



## Veho (Jul 25, 2015)

DinohScene said:


> Get fined for driving 2 km above the speed limit on a 100km/h road.
> In the meantime, someone prolly got stabbed to death whilst this wanker writes out a fine.
> That's what I call a complete waste of police power.
> 
> It's cases like that which I say they should fetch criminals.


Traffic police wouldn't be catching murderers anyway. 

Their job is to deter irresponsible cretins from endangering themselves and others. 

And the speed limit tolerance is 10% in most of Europe so "2 km/h above the limit on a 100 km/h road" wouldn't earn you a fine in the first place. You're exaggerating.


----------



## Deleted member 359653 (Jul 25, 2015)

_deleted_


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 25, 2015)

foolalay said:


> I think becoming a projectile, especially if ejected from the car, counts as being dangerous to others. It also makes it more likely for even a small accident to become fatal, causing emotional and legal trauma for the other people involved.


That's terrible and well-within the driver's competence. It's the driver who should make the choice whether or not he or she will allow his or her passengers travel without seatbelts in his or her vehicle. Smoking and drinking alcohol is also detrimental to health, but I'll sooner see a cactus grow on my hand than I'll let others make decisions regarding my health for me. The government is not a nanny - it's not within its jurisdiction to decide what's good for me and what isn't. If as a driver I'm willing to let my passengers travel without seatbelts, it's my responsibility because it's me who's willingly giving them a lift. If something happens to me while they do so, it was my choice exclusively. Not wearing a seatbelt does not cause any danger to other drivers, let's not pretend that it does.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jul 25, 2015)

Seat belt laws are in effect due to the high risk of fatality in high speed collisions. You are not doing any harm to anyone but yourself. You're also being stubborn, and stupid not to wear a seat belt. Griping about a law that gives no control to the government other than keeping you alive a bit longer so that you can keep paying taxes is a bit much. As for who gets the ticket, if everyone in the car is over 18. In Colorado, the people without belts are the ones getting the tickets, not the driver specifically.As for speeding. You get about a 5Mph leeway in the states. And jaywalking? I haven't seen someone get a jaywalking ticket since highschool. :-P


----------



## goober (Jul 25, 2015)

People have been ejected from cars across multiple lanes and opposing traffic. People have been ejected into other cars and killed backseat passengers that way. Of course, the main purpose of the law is about personal safety and passenger safety in the same car but being ejected from a car can cause collateral damage and HAS caused collateral damage, regardless of how rare it may be. 

I'm sick of the mindless dogma that people like to perpetuate about a "nanny government". Safety laws generally become law because of precedence. For seat belt laws you need only look at the statistics of before and after and news clippings from the 60s up to the 80s. And yes its in the government's interest that idiots don't die en masse because of preventable incidents. Oh no! my "personal liberty" is at stake because of these common sense safety laws! How dare they further regulate how I drive my vehicle when everything about it, including how it's built, the roads it drives on, is already regulated! HOW DARE THEY!

Oh please... Real nanny government threats are spying on citizens and setting up surveillance networks anywhere and everywhere in the name of "safety". Having laws on how to operate potentially dangerous vehicle situations is not about having a Nanny State.


----------



## Digital.One.Entity (Jul 25, 2015)

And who's this a$$hole Jay that went and fucked it up for everyone by doing it in the first place ?




I always picture a live action Frogger game with them darting back in forth between lanes trying to make it across.....Stupid when the Crosswalk is like 10 feet away


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

You all seem to be getting the wrong impression - I'm not a proponent of not wearing seatbelts. Safety first is a good rule to live by and I recognize the importance of wearing a seatbelt, I would never drive without one. What I have a problem with is imposing laws that are supposed to keep us safe from ourselves - that's an issue. If someone makes a choice not to take safety measures, that's his or her choice and nobody else's business. What private individuals do regarding their life should only be up to them - I don't need the government telling me to do this or that in order to be safe, I'm a self-sufficient human being capable of my own choices.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Jul 26, 2015)

Love the Canadian police here in Toronto. Once I jaywalked across my school to pickup a cup of coffee at McDonalds for a teacher of mine and there was a police car I didn't notice. When I came back out, he was waiting for me but he was pretty calm about it. Said its cool but I gotta be careful and all..


----------



## Armadillo (Jul 26, 2015)

Could do with it London. People here practically throw themselves in front of cars to get across the road. Better rule would be if you are not on a crossing, you are fair game.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 26, 2015)

Relevant (thanks Vipera for this one)


Funny


Thematically relevant backing track (well the title kind of fits)


----------



## mightymuffy (Jul 26, 2015)

Wiicube you live in the UK too, why the fukk are you asking this question?  

Zebra crossings piss me off, both when I'm driving and walking: if I'm walking I'll try my best to cross before getting to the zebra, and if I'm driving and the other side hasn't stopped I'll fukkin speed up at a zebra, open the window and give the person waiting to cross the fingers as I pass, "this is the UK ya soft bitch, run the gauntlet and cross the road properly!!" 
....Not really!! Feel like doing though sometimes! Actually remember a bloke with 2 crutches, about 50 feet from a crossing, trying to cross the road with both his crutches off the pavement and on the yellow lines.... now for THAT I wound my window down: "No fukkin wonder you're banged up pulling tricks like that ya stupid cnut!!" - me? Road rage? Never..... and it made my 10 year old sons day listening to that mouthful (bad parent...)

Getting stupidly pissed and walking up the hard shoulder of the M6, northbound, at 3am, and thinking it was the pavement - now THAT'S what I'd call jay walking.... how I didn't end up in the clanger that night I'll never know...


----------



## Veho (Jul 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I recognize the importance of wearing a seatbelt, I would never drive without one.


So the law makes no difference for you and you're just complaining for complaining's sake. 



Foxi4 said:


> What private individuals do regarding their life should only be up to them


It has already been stated that a human head flying through the windshield can impact more than just the head's original owner. If nothing else, scraping your bits off of the tarmac is a hassle and costs money and could stand preventing. 



Foxi4 said:


> I don't need the government telling me to do this or that in order to be safe, I'm a self-sufficient human being capable of my own choices.


Good for you. But a lot of people aren't, and defending other people's "right" to be dangerous fucktards, while noble, is not a valid argument. 

Either you wear a seatbelt and the law makes no difference to you, or you don't and need laws to save you _and, more importantly, others_ from your own idiocy. Either way there is no real reason to complain about it other than pure whining.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 26, 2015)

Armadillo said:


> Could do with it London. People here practically throw themselves in front of cars to get across the road. Better rule would be if you are not on a crossing, you are fair game.



They could start by Oxford Circus. 



FAST6191 said:


> Relevant (thanks Vipera for this one)
> 
> 
> Funny
> ...




Video 1 - Those annoying rats should've just been run over, after all, they were asking. Pretend the camera's on and go at it. lol
Video 2 - It's funny? Okay.



mightymuffy said:


> Wiicube you live in the UK too, why the fukk are you asking this question?
> 
> Zebra crossings piss me off, both when I'm driving and walking: if I'm walking I'll try my best to cross before getting to the zebra, and if I'm driving and the other side hasn't stopped I'll fukkin speed up at a zebra, open the window and give the person waiting to cross the fingers as I pass, "this is the UK ya soft bitch, run the gauntlet and cross the road properly!!"
> ....Not really!! Feel like doing though sometimes! Actually remember a bloke with 2 crutches, about 50 feet from a crossing, trying to cross the road with both his crutches off the pavement and on the yellow lines.... now for THAT I wound my window down: "No fukkin wonder you're banged up pulling tricks like that ya stupid cnut!!" - me? Road rage? Never..... and it made my 10 year old sons day listening to that mouthful (bad parent...)
> ...



People who carelessly walk into trouble are one thing and those who are patient, now that's another. I personally don't give a toss if some jackass runs into the traffic and gets himself injured as it's his own damn fault.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

Veho said:


> So the law makes no difference for you and you're just complaining for complaining's sake.
> 
> It has already been stated that a human head flying through the windshield can impact more than just the head's original owner. If nothing else, scraping your bits off of the tarmac is a hassle and costs money and could stand preventing.
> 
> ...


I'm complaining because the law is not just. I'd very much like to see at least one documented case of a passenger flying out of a car and harming someone - that'd be a great read. You're free to think what you want about this, I don't need mommy government making sure that I'm safe from myself. If something causes no harm, it should not be prohibited. Your point about "making a mess" is moot in the context of a *traffic accident*, glass will be scattered everywhere anyways.


----------



## mightymuffy (Jul 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I'd very much like to see at least one documented case of a passenger flying out of a car and harming someone - that'd be a great read.



 - You're a sick lad Foxi luv, very sick..., but if you do the homework you'll accept the fact that could happen.... More to the point, say you're a taxi driver in a regular car, have 4 customers, tell them to put on their seatbelts, then the one sat directly behind you in the back either fakes it or silently takes it off... THEN you're in a crash at speed... You smash that car into a wall at 40mph, what's going to happen to the passenger behind you who's not wearing a seltbelt, taking into account he's of regular size/build? We don't need a degree in a science to figure that one out: you, Mr taxi driver, will be dead. If you're lucky. Of course your missus and the rest of your family won't give an arse about your death, coz we don't need mommy government making sure you're safe from the customer behind you.....


----------



## Kayot (Jul 26, 2015)

I think a lot of you are missing the point. The reason there are jay-walking laws has little to do with money making. I can't even begin to count the number of time someone (especially minorities) will jump out into the road and start this slow walk while looking at me with this, "What are you going to do about it." look. If one manages to jump out and actually does get hit, then we have a very real possibility of a riot since it was obviously racism and not a matter of physics.

It's the same with safety belt laws. Here in the U.S. we have this apparent epidemic of people trying to make a living by lawsuit. Lawsuits are handled in civil court which is anything but. If someone dies, say a kid, their family can sue the other driver, even if it wasn't their fault. The crazy part is the win ratio is clearly in the favour of the person who lost someone because in America, we root for the underdog. On top of that, it's clearly a bad idea to not wear one. Safety belts save lives. Yes, there is that one in a million case where it had the opposite effect, but that is a one in a million. Err on the side of cation.

The main reason those laws are on the books is so the police can avoid liability. Heck, they still get sued anyway. "Why didn't you stop my boy from jumping onto the interstate and performing a holiday rendition of Ben Crosby for the fifth time! I'm suing!", which never seems to hit the media, only the previous four times he was arrested and how both unjustified and obviously police state it was. The lack of an officer in the fifth case doesn't matter. There is a reason VIKI reinterpreted the three laws.

I have never been given a ticket for jay-walking and I have done it in front of the police. I keep a constant lookout and I don't cross ten feet away from a cross walk. I also run when there is any traffic. I always wear my safety belt since it holds me in place during high gravity force turns. Hell, it feels comfortable. I refuse to drive anyone who doesn't wear it since I'm the one who will get sued if they die. Probably by their loved ones. Also possibly by their family that hates them, but sees an opportunity for some quick cash.

Don't even get me started on drunk drivers. Drink at home, or take the bus. Some people forget that driving is a privilege, not a right.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 26, 2015)

Black-Ice said:


> In the small city my university is in: Lincoln, all roads are virtually empty by about 10:30 pm until near 6
> I could fall asleep in the road and possibly wake up unharmed.
> 
> (England btw)



I actually grew up in Lincolnshire until I was about 10. If you ever find yourself passing through Heckington for any reason, that little village that time forgot is my old stomping grounds  You can indeed pay basically no attention to the roads there, unless my old primary school teacher is still alive and driving. Dozy cow came steaming down the road about mach four and nearly ran me over once, and then to add insult to injury she has the gall to demand an apology off me in class the next day, like her brazen disrespect for the traffic laws is somehow my fault.


----------



## Reecey (Jul 26, 2015)

Blaze163 said:


> You can have a tea party in the middle of the road in rush hour here in Coventry and the local police won't even google how to give a fuck.


You could have a gang bang in the middle of the road, drugs, firearms, the lot in West Midlands/B-O-T and no one would give a fuck!!! The police would be too scared to stop it in case a drive by happened, gang related!  in fact the police are probably joining in! Actually the chief of DS squad is usually getting fucked by the top boy!, mention no names! Bev, oops that wasn't my fault someones hacked my account and written that!, bastards!!!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

mightymuffy said:


> - You're a sick lad Foxi luv, very sick..., but if you do the homework you'll accept the fact that could happen.... More to the point, say you're a taxi driver in a regular car, have 4 customers, tell them to put on their seatbelts, then the one sat directly behind you in the back either fakes it or silently takes it off... THEN you're in a crash at speed... You smash that car into a wall at 40mph, what's going to happen to the passenger behind you who's not wearing a seltbelt, taking into account he's of regular size/build? We don't need a degree in a science to figure that one out: you, Mr taxi driver, will be dead. If you're lucky. Of course your missus and the rest of your family won't give an arse about your death, coz we don't need mommy government making sure you're safe from the customer behind you.....


You missed the part where I said it's the driver's choice to allow the passenger to sit without a seatbelt - a taxi driver can simply refuse to serve a customer like that for his own safety, it's his vehicle and his rules. The whole flying out of the seat theory falls apart when you add motorcycles into the equation - no seatbelts on those, let's ban'em, in case of an accident a motorcyclist is just a speeding flesh-bullet encased in a helmet. Get f*cked lol, seatbelts are only a safety measure for passengers of one particular vehicle, they don't make a difference for other drivers.


----------



## Foxchild (Jul 26, 2015)

Know what's dumber than jaywalking laws?  Breaking jaywalking laws in sight of an officer  

I wear a seatbelt myself, but agree that making it a law (for adults at least) is stupid, since the risk you take is your own.  However, considering the "it's all about the money" reality, I could see insurance companies refusing to pay for injuries of those who choose not to wear them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> Know what's dumber than jaywalking laws?  Breaking jaywalking laws in sight of an officer
> 
> I wear a seatbelt myself, but agree that making it a law (for adults at least) is stupid, since the risk you take is your own.  However, considering the "it's all about the money" reality, I could see insurance companies refusing to pay for injuries of those who choose not to wear them.


As they rightfuly should because it is dangerous. Similarly I would require anti-vaxxers to pay an additional "stupid fee" when it comes to insurance.


----------



## Veho (Jul 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm complaining because the law is not just.


Is it acting against your health and well-being? Is it causing you undue financial expense? What inalienable human right is it encroaching on? 



Foxi4 said:


> I'd very much like to see at least one documented case of a passenger flying out of a car and harming someone - that'd be a great read.


I can PM you some videos if you're interested. I can't post them here because they are very much against the rules. And yes, bodies flying 50 meters away from the crash site and into oncoming traffic isn't exactly harmless for anyone involved. 



Foxi4 said:


> I don't need mommy government making sure that I'm safe from myself.


Good for you. But a lot of people aren't, and need to be saved from themselves, because despite your adolescent "natural selection" philosophy there is no reason someone should die just because they're going through the period of tryhard edgelord irresponsible idiocy most people go through before they grow up. But sentimental twaddle aside:  people not wearing seatbelts are a very real danger to others and that is not a choice they are qualified to, or have any right to make. Defending other people's "right" to be dangerous fucktards, while noble, is not a valid argument.



Foxi4 said:


> Your point about "making a mess" is moot in the context of a *traffic accident*, glass will be scattered everywhere anyways.


Biological waste needs to be washed off with disinfectants and other chemical agents. But I concede the point, I was just being facetious. Let's instead focus on the fact that not wearing a seatbelt is demonstrably dangerous to yourself and others, and that endangering others isn't a "right".


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

Veho said:


> Is it acting against your health and well-being? Is it causing you undue financial expense? What inalienable human right is it encroaching on?
> 
> I can PM you some videos if you're interested. I can't post them here because they are very much against the rules. And yes, bodies flying 50 meters away from the crash site and into oncoming traffic isn't exactly harmless for anyone involved.
> 
> ...


I on the other hand maintain that it's only dangerous to the idiot as a speeding flesh bullet is likely to splatter upon impact without causing harm to "oncoming traffic", that "traffic" being engaged in the collision anyways. As for being tryhard and edgy, if a driver wasn't taught how to behave safely, maybe he or she shouldn't be on the road. As for encroaching on rights, people should absolutely have the right to do whatever stupid shit they want as long as they do not endanger others by doing so, and I maintain that they don't. As I've mentioned earlier, judging by your adamant stance on the matter motorcycles shouldn't be street legal and people should get fined for every object in their car that isn't strapped on or nailed to a surface because god forbid my phone turns into a speeding bullet during a collision.


----------



## Veho (Jul 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I on the other hand maintain that it's only dangerous to the idiot as a speeding flesh bullet is likely to splatter upon impact without causing harm to "oncoming traffic", that "traffic" being engaged in the collision anyways.


I did mention the 50 meter radius, which brings the body into the area that wouldn't normally be involved in the collision. Would you like to see the video in question? Are you claiming that having a body land in a lane that would have avoided the pileup (or on someone's windshield) wouldn't lead to further accidents or exacerbate the situation in any way? 



Foxi4 said:


> As for being tryhard and edgy, if a driver wasn't taught how to behave safely, maybe he or she shouldn't be on the road.


Oh, definitely, definitely, but there are many people who shouldn't be on the road and the only thing that's keeping them from being a very real danger to everyone is the fact they want to avoid paying fines. If "teaching people how to behave safely" was enough to ensure people don't behave like morons, there would be no need for any traffic laws or regulations. The problem is that people don't ignore the safety advice because they haven't heard it. It's not like they've never seen a PSA on traffic safety. Most people need to be forced to behave responsibly, we have speed limits, traffic regulation, and yes, seatbelt laws. 



Foxi4 said:


> people should absolutely have the right to do whatever stupid shit they want as long as they do not endanger others by doing so, and I maintain that they don't.


And you are demonstrably wrong. 



Foxi4 said:


> As I've mentioned earlier, judging by your adamant stance on the matter motorcycles shouldn't be street legal and people should get fined for every object in their car that isn't strapped on or nailed to a surface because god forbid my phone turns into a speeding bullet during a collision.


If you can't tell the difference in size (and impact) between a mobile phone and a 200lb object, maybe you really shouldn't be allowed to drive. 

And let's not reduce the argument to absurdity. By your irresponsible stance all traffic regulations should be abolished and everyone should be allowed to do whatever retarded shit they want on the road. Let's not attack strawmen here. 

I'm not opposed to motorcycles, however I do support the motorcycle helmet laws, yet another "draconian" measure by the dreaded "nanny state". They save lives.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

Veho said:


> I did mention the 50 meter radius, which brings the body into the area that wouldn't normally be involved in the collision. Would you like to see the video in question? Are you claiming that having a body land in a lane that would have avoided the pileup (or on someone's windshield) wouldn't lead to further accidents or exacerbate the situation in any way?
> 
> Oh, definitely, definitely, but there are many people who shouldn't be on the road and the only thing that's keeping them from being a very real danger to everyone is the fact they want to avoid paying fines. If "teaching people how to behave safely" was enough to ensure people don't behave like morons, there would be no need for any traffic laws or regulations. The problem is that people don't ignore the safety advice because they haven't heard it. It's not like they've never seen a PSA on traffic safety. Most people need to be forced to behave responsibly, we have speed limits, traffic regulation, and yes, seatbelt laws.
> 
> ...


Fine, let's say that in some accidents bodies can be thrown long distance and let's pretend that it's only an issue with cars and not motorcycles, fair enough, but helmets? Other than the driver's, whose lives are they saving? Now you're just overexaggerating.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jul 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Fine, let's say that in some accidents bodies can be thrown long distance, fair enough, but helmets? Other than the driver's, whose lives are they saving? Now you're just overexaggerating.


You were the one saying laws that only protect oneself are pointless, not him. I'm guessing "They save lives" refers to the drivers themselves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 26, 2015)

Pedeadstrian said:


> You were the one saying laws that only protect oneself are pointless, not him. I'm guessing "They save lives" refers to the drivers themselves.


Fair enough, if that's the case, I agree. Just to be painfuly clear, I own a helmet myself, I just don't see a reason to make wearing one mandatory, unless to improve the rider's capacity to see (damn insects and rain), however some would probably prefer goggles (to their own demise). I'm merely a proponent of freedom of choice, including the freedom to make catastrophic mistakes.


----------



## Veho (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Fine, let's say that in some accidents bodies can be thrown long distance, fair enough, but helmets? Other than the driver's, whose lives are they saving?


Is that not enough? I'll just quote my previous post: there is no reason someone should die just because they're going through the period of believing they are invincible most people go through before they grow up. The symptoms of which include refusing to wear a helmet because "it will never happen to me".


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> Is that not enough? I'll just quote my previous post: there is no reason someone should die just because they're going through the period of believing they are invincible most people go through before they grow up. The symptoms of which include refusing to wear a helmet because "it will never happen to me".


Why do you feel obligated to make choices for others? What gives you the authority to decide what's best for others? Drivers are adults - if they're allowed to join the army and get shot up by ISIS because they "feel invincible" then f*ck me, they can make a decision regarding helmets.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Fair enough, if that's the case, I agree. Just to be painfuly clear, I own a helmet myself, I just don't see a reason to make wearing one mandatory, unless to improve the rider's capacity to see (damn insects and rain), however some would probably prefer goggles (to their own demise). I'm merely a proponent of freedom of choice, including the freedom to make catastrophic mistakes.


And you're entitled to that belief, but try thinking about it this way. Not everyone is mentally sound. Some people may get so angry, depressed, or whatnot that their logic goes out the window, and there are some people with mental conditions that makes this happen often, if not all the time. To take it to the extreme, think about a person who commits suicide. Your freedom of choice, including the freedom to make catastrophic mistakes, spits in the face of anyone who committed suicide, survived suicide, and/or their families.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Pedeadstrian said:


> And you're entitled to that belief, but try thinking about it this way. Not everyone is mentally sound. Some people may get so angry, depressed, or whatnot that their logic goes out the window, and there are some people with mental conditions that makes this happen often, if not all the time. To take it to the extreme, think about a person who commits suicide. Your freedom of choice, including the freedom to make catastrophic mistakes, spits in the face of anyone who committed suicide, survived suicide, and/or their families.


Excuse me, what does suicide have to do with this? You're comparing the freedom to choose to end your life (which you should be free to make by the way, preferably after consultation with a psychologist in case it's a "phase") with something that's currently illegal, I don't see the connection. Are you implying that survivors of attempted suicide regret their actions much like survivors of accidents? Regret comes with most mistakes, that's a poor connection. Explain your point in more detail.


----------



## Veho (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Why do you feel obligated to make choices for others? What gives you the authority to decide what's best for others? Drivers are adults - if they're allowed to join the army and get shot up by ISIS because they "feel invincible" then f*ck me, helmets aren't the thing you should be focusing on.


Soldiers get helmets too. 

People with impaired judgement are generally given a legal guardian who makes decisions ("choices") for them for their own good. There is plenty of precedent for making decisions for others when it is obvious they are incapable of making them on their own. And there can be no question that the judgement of anyone choosing to drive a motorcycle without a helmet is severely impaired.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> Soldiers get helmets too.
> 
> People with impaired judgement are generally given a legal guardian who makes decisions ("choices") for them for their own good. There is plenty of precedent for making decisions for others when it is obvious they are incapable of making them on their own. And there can be no question that the judgement of anyone choosing to drive a motorcycle without a helmet is severely impaired.


So is the decision to join the army at a young age, yet you're not advocating for those young boys and girls with impaired judgement who sign up, often before they even reach drinking age. You need to be 21 in order to drink in the U.S. for instance, you only need to be 18 to join the army. Enemy bullets, mortar fire and bombs? Okay. Riding without a helmet? No way, you're too young and inexperienced to make an educated decision.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Excuse me, what does suicide have to do with this? You're comparing the freedom to choose to end your life (which you should be free to make by the way, preferably after consultation with a psychologist in case it's a "phase") with something that's currently illegal, I don't see the connection. Are you implying that survivors of attempted suicide regret their actions much like survivors of accidents? Regret comes with most mistakes, that's a poor connection. Explain your point in more detail.


Hmm... apparently suicide isn't a crime in California, only helping someone commit suicide is. Be that as it may, what I'm saying is that there are times where people are not in their right mind (whether it's a "phase" or not), and letting people do any dangerous thing they want in the name of "freedom" is, well, dangerous. Obviously I'm not saying suicide and jaywalking/not wearing a seatbelt are equal.

It's funny that there are helmet laws, but no laws against suicide. According to the law, if you wanna jump off a bridge, go ahead, but god forbid you ride a motorcycle to the bridge without a helmet.


----------



## Veho (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Riding without a helmet? No way, you're too young and inexperienced to make an educated decision.


A decision to ride without a helmet is not an educated one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> A decision to ride without a helmet is not an educated one.


You're avoiding the argument, so I'll ask directly - is it or is it not hypocritical to expect a mature decision regarding enlisting in the army from an 18-year-old, but treating a 21-year-old like a child who has to be told to wear a helmet and buckle up? That's all I'm expecting from you, I don't think I'm asking for much.


----------



## Veho (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> You're avoiding the argument, so I'll ask directly - is it or is it not hypocritical to expect a mature decision regarding enlisting in the army from an 18-year-old, but treating a 21-year-old like a child who has to be told to wear a helmet and buckle up? That's all I'm expecting from you, I don't think I'm asking for much.


Your premise (a very large assumption indeed) is that I support people of that age joining the army. Since I have never claimed anything of the sort, the premise is flawed from the start. 

And yes, anyone of that age not buckling up (in a car) or wearing a helmet (on a motorcycle) is a child who needs to be told what to do.


----------



## StriderVM (Jul 27, 2015)

Disclaimer : I only read the beginning text, ie the TC's thoughts.

I kind of disagree with your assumption, to be direct, no one really wants to get hit by a car while walking in the road, but these things happen quite a lot, especially on highways (Where some drivers think is a race track), that's why on these road(s) there are alternative ways to cross it like overpasses, and thus possible jaywalking fines when you go thru the road. Everyone obeying those jaywalking laws in theory would save lives.

So sometimes knowledge or common sense are not enough and it can cause accidents so sometimes these laws are needed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> Your premise (a very large assumption indeed) is that I support people of that age joining the army. Since I have never claimed anything of the sort, the premise is flawed from the start.
> 
> And yes, anyone of that age not buckling up (in a car) or wearing a helmet (on a motorcycle) is a child who needs to be told what to do.


I asked for a simple declaration regarding a double-standard, but seeing that you're unwilling to provide a concrete answer, there's no point in going on. I choose not to treat adults like children who need to be told what to do. Maybe I'm idealist like that or a libertarian, but I choose to believe in giving people choices rather than legislating personal matters.


----------



## Veho (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I asked for a simple declaration regarding a double-standard, but seeing that you're unwilling to provide a concrete answer, there's no point in going on.


This was a discussion about a specific piece of traffic safety regulation, and you are trying to introduce unrelated issues. The point of a "double standard" you're trying to make has no bearing on the discussion. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact one law is unfair doesn't excuse the other. In the US, people can join the Army at age 16. Being admitted into the Army doesn't make you an adult. It doesn't mean you're responsible, it doesn't mean you have the faintest idea what the fuck you are doing. 

And I choose to treat "adults" like children if they insist on behaving like children.


----------



## Vipera (Jul 27, 2015)

Ok then, let's make everyone crossing the road whenever they please.

You'll die in Milan. Either hit by a car or hit by the driver you just scared to death. Some roads are VERY large and if you walk in an unsigned point you are going to put yourself at risk. Allow it to everyone and all the car traffic won't be higher than 20 miles per hour because every driver must be careful for pedestrians everywhere because durr that law was stupid.

Also, wear your goddamn helmet when on a motorcycle. There is enough queue at the hospital without even more dickheads getting a red code because they were feeling God.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> This was a discussion about a specific piece of traffic safety regulation, and you are trying to introduce unrelated issues. The point of a "double standard" you're trying to make has no bearing on the discussion. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact one law is unfair doesn't excuse the other. In the US, people can join the Army at age 16. Being admitted into the Army doesn't make you an adult. It doesn't mean you're responsible, it doesn't mean you have the faintest idea what the fuck you are doing. And I choose to treat "adults" like children if they insist on behaving like children.


Fair enough, I just wanted to know your stance - I'm glad that you think (I presume?) that 16-year-olds shouldn't be sent off to a desert with a rifle and basic training in order to kill and inevitably get mentally scarred, sometimes disfigured, crippled and even killed. As for treating adults like kids, we'll have to agree to disagree here - I embrace the right to make mistakes and do things I might regret later on in life. I suppose I enjoy knowing that I'm responsible for myself without a guardian angel with a notepad and tickets always looking out for me lest I do something stupid.



Vipera said:


> Ok then, let's make everyone crossing the road whenever they please.
> 
> You'll die in Milan. Either hit by a car or hit by the driver you just scared to death. Some roads are VERY large and if you walk in an unsigned point you are going to put yourself at risk. Allow it to everyone and all the car traffic won't be higher than 20 miles per hour because every driver must be careful for pedestrians everywhere because durr that law was stupid.
> 
> Also, wear your goddamn helmet when on a motorcycle. There is enough queue at the hospital without even more dickheads getting a red code because they were feeling God.


Jaywalking is a no-no simply because you're obstructing the road where you don't belong, that's correct. As for queues in hospitals, motorcyclists pay the same taxes and the same insurence as everybody else, they deserve as much service as the rest of the queue.


----------



## Vipera (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Jaywalking is a no-no simply because you're obstructing the road where you don't belong, that's correct. As for queues in hospitals, motorcyclists pay the same taxes and the same insurence as everybody else, they deserve as much service as the rest of the queue.


If your accident could've been avoided with something simple like a helmet then no, you deserve to either wait longer or pay an extra (like a fine. A stupidity fine). I'm glad when my tax money help people with serious illnesses, or victims of accidents, or research. I'm not amused when the money my government takes forcefully are used to help a dipsgit who that day didn't wear a safety helmet because his hair were too pretty. I get it, everyone make mistakes. But there's a reason why you are allowed to make certain mistakes and some not: the first ones might be too rare or not as dangerous.


----------



## Veho (Jul 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I embrace the right to make mistakes and do things I might regret later on in life.


Even if the consequence of these mistakes may be not having a "later" to regret them in?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> Even if the consequence of these mistakes may be not having a "later" to regret them in?


Even then. Where I live there's a saying, it goes: "everyone is the blacksmith of their own fate" and I believe in that principle strongly. If I have an accident that happens due to my own negligence, I have nobody to blame but myself - I should've taken better measures in ensuring that it doesn't happen. Maybe I expect too much of others, expect them to be responsible for themselves in a day and age when burning yourself with an obviously hot coffee is grounds for a lawsuit, but I choose to present reasons why wearing a seatbelt and a helmet is important rather than put the helmet on someone or strap that someone into their seat for "their own good". I expect adults to be adults. If, as an adult, you are told that 9 out of 10 accidents end in death when you're not wearing a helmet and only 4 out of 10 when you do and you *still* choose not to wear it, godspeed and good luck - society did its part, the consequences are yours, you were informed.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 27, 2015)

StriderVM said:


> Disclaimer : I only read the beginning text, ie the TC's thoughts.
> 
> I kind of disagree with your assumption, to be direct, no one really wants to get hit by a car while walking in the road, but these things happen quite a lot, especially on highways (Where some drivers think is a race track), that's why on these road(s) there are alternative ways to cross it like overpasses, and thus possible jaywalking fines when you go thru the road. Everyone obeying those jaywalking laws in theory would save lives.
> 
> So sometimes knowledge or common sense are not enough and it can cause accidents so sometimes these laws are needed.



Even passing through the crosswalks isn't necessarily safe until the driver(s) have stopped their cars otherwise they could be heading to run over the pedestrians, which has happen over time and still does.


----------



## StriderVM (Jul 27, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Even passing through the crosswalks isn't necessarily safe until the driver(s) have stopped their cars otherwise they could be heading to run over the pedestrians, which has happen over time and still does.



Of course, but using that argument is like saying since seatbelts doesn't save people everytime we should just stop using them. And I have actually heard people arguing this. Just as great as "I'm gonna get dirty anyway, so why take a bath anymore?" 



Foxi4 said:


> Even then. Where I live there's a saying, it goes: "everyone is the blacksmith of their own fate" and I believe in that principle strongly. If I have an accident that happens due to my own negligence, I have nobody to blame but myself - I should've taken better measures in ensuring that it doesn't happen. Maybe I expect too much of others, expect them to be responsible for themselves in a day and age when burning yourself with an obviously hot coffee is grounds for a lawsuit, but I choose to present reasons why wearing a seatbelt and a helmet is important rather than put the helmet on someone or strap that someone into their seat for "their own good". I expect adults to be adults. If, as an adult, you are told that 9 out of 10 accidents end in death when you're not wearing a helmet and only 4 out of 10 when you do and you *still* choose not to wear it, godspeed and good luck - society did its part, the consequences are yours, you were informed.



My only issue with this is "How about the innocent people who have been forged by your own blacksmithing?" They did not request you to smith something for them..... Accidents usually involve two parties, either two fools, or a perpetrator and a victim.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 27, 2015)

StriderVM said:


> My only issue with this is "How about the innocent people who have been forged by your own blacksmithing?" They did not request you to smith something for them..... Accidents usually involve two parties, either two fools, or a perpetrator and a victim.


Not wearing a seatbelt does not decrease your capacity to drive, I fail to see your point. I sincerely doubt there's been a single car crash in history caused by not wearing a seatbelt.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 27, 2015)

StriderVM said:


> Of course, but using that argument is like saying since seatbelts doesn't save people everytime we should just stop using them. And I have actually heard people arguing this. Just as great as "I'm gonna get dirty anyway, so why take a bath anymore?"
> 
> 
> 
> My only issue with this is "How about the innocent people who have been forged by your own blacksmithing?" They did not request you to smith something for them..... Accidents usually involve two parties, either two fools, or a perpetrator and a victim.


If people don't want to wear seatbelts they shouldn't however, for those under 18 they need just in case they come jumping to the front.

Anyway, I use seatbelt all the time (although I use public transport way more often) so wearing it has become normal to me.


----------



## Kayot (Jul 28, 2015)

I don't think military recruiters should be allowed in schools. I lost a good friend who was pressured into joining. By lost I mean he's now sitting in a hospital and doesn't respond to outside stimulus.

I wish children couldn't take out school loans and that school loans where still bankrupt-able. And private loans didn't exist.

In regards to crosswalks, remember that a green light (walk signal) says you can go, NOT that it is safe to go.

When I was in highschool, I played on the football team for about a month (before I found out that only established legacy families got to play, explaining the losing record my school had) and I can tell you, a 200+ lbs person moving at 5-7mph hurts like hell. I can only imagine having a 200+ lbs person slam into my windshield at 50+ mph. I'm sure he/she is going through it, cell phone with half a text message and all. I guess its fine since they didn't look stupid wearing their safety belt and since they are the blacksmiths of their own lives, shame my life could end once again because of someone elses bad decision.

I don't mind people doing what ever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt others. And not that bullcrap about hurt feelings, I mean physically like in stolen goods and attempted physical harm. Words are words, and just sounds. Letting them offend you is ridiculous.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jul 28, 2015)

NakedFaerie said:


> Pedestrian crossings are there for a reason idiot. Jaywalking is there for that exact same reason. If you cross at the crossing its safer as you most likely wont get hit by a car. If you cross anywhere else you have a chance to get hit by a car. The jaywalking fine is a fine for you being an idiot and crossing where its not safe.
> Where I am they said last year there were about 600+ deaths from idiots not using the crossing and getting hit by cars in the city alone. The jaywalking fine is towards those idiots.
> Just use the crossing and live and save some money.


Crosswalks aren't necessarily any safer because if you start moving the car coming by might not stop and there's another crash, so even in times like this it's not always the best. Gotta wait till they stop completely or when it's empty.

By the way, I don't think you said the word `idiot` enough times yet.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jul 29, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Crosswalks aren't necessarily any safer because if you start moving the car coming by might not stop and there's another crash, so even in times like this it's not always the best. Gotta wait till they stop completely or when it's empty.
> 
> By the way, I don't think you said the word `idiot` enough times yet.


Crosswalks are absolutely _safer_, they just aren't invulnerability zones. Anyone who crosses at a crosswalk without looking is as much of an idiot as crossing in the middle of the road. It's impossible to tell if that car going really fast in the turn lane is going to stop where they should, stop halfway past the line (which happens oh so often), or not stop at all. You don't want to turn into a pedeadstrian, after all.


----------



## DJPlace (Jul 29, 2015)

i almost got hit by a car (car was backing out for no reason) i was  not paying heed to what the hell was going on. the person saw me. i'm like WTF? so i just walked away.


----------

