doggie said...

Darwin was right, his knockers were wrong. It took time before people relised he was right, same in this case. If the dumb ones get killed off we will have a smarter population ect, not in our time we will have to put up with idiots for the rest of our lives as the goverment wont take resposibilty for it, just the cash from camera fines ect..

I think the subtle difference you are missing is that Darwanism only makes sense in this case if the people that write themselves off haven't had kids. If they have, then what does it matter if they die straight away or live to be 103? This of course is assuming that risk taking behaviour is all inherited too.

You are also assuming that there is no advantage to being a 'risk taker' in today's society. I've never thought about it before, but now I think that maybe there is.

There also appears to be a trend for 'dumber' people to have more kids. How does this fit with your theory?

(No offense to people that have a large number of kids )

FormulaNova said...

doggie said...

Darwins theory of natural selection is at work here I think. The week die and the stronger well get stronger. Or the smart ones live the dumb ones die, its quiet simple really!!

The only problem with your suggestion is that the same people that take high risks with driving might just be the same as those that are taking a lot of risks in other areas and you don't need to be a genius to have kids.

It's not so simple when you look at it. Maybe the 'dumb ones' are having many more kids and will result in a larger 'dumb' population?

Watch the movie Idiocracy, it may be a comedy and light-hearted, but it's what's happening.

D

Yea bit off topic now I think.

D_Meredith79 said...

FormulaNova said...

doggie said...

Darwins theory of natural selection is at work here I think. The week die and the stronger well get stronger. Or the smart ones live the dumb ones die, its quiet simple really!!

The only problem with your suggestion is that the same people that take high risks with driving might just be the same as those that are taking a lot of risks in other areas and you don't need to be a genius to have kids.

It's not so simple when you look at it. Maybe the 'dumb ones' are having many more kids and will result in a larger 'dumb' population?

Watch the movie Idiocracy, it may be a comedy and light-hearted, but it's what's happening.

D

Sadly I have to admit I bought that movie, after not being able to find it at a video shop (and it forms the prime scientific basis for my argument )

It suggests that we are heading towards a dumb society because 'dumb' people are breeding in large numbers. The bit about the smart couple waiting to have kids unfortunately seems to be close to what happens in some societies.

"But it has Electrolytes, they're what plants crave"

D

doggie said...

evlPanda said...

Perhaps you should be made to have a "beginner car" until you are 25ish?

The evidence required for this approach can be provided by any insurance company. It's funny that an insurance company won't risk their money, but we'll risk our kids.

That is the most sesible thing anyone has said in this thread so far!!
Give them those smart cars, they are slow. But dont get hit by a truck in one you wont walk away.......

Shucks

On each generation being dumber than the last: Wasn't it Plato that said that, ooh quite a while back?

On small cars being dangerous: Not any more. You could also argue that the crash speeds will be lower in a smart car.

I remember a Top Gear episode where they put some crash test dummies in a 90's, two tonne, Volvo station wagon and a brand new Renault Clio (or similar, small renault). They simulated a rather nasty head-on collision.

The Renault came out way, way on top. You could have walked out of the Renault and continued to work, sans car of course. You'd have to be cut out, legs and all from the Volvo, if you were still alive.

I found this one too. Go forward to 4:30 for the live human crash test.

Ian K said...

What about making it mandatory to have a gps fitted to every car which can determine the local speed limit. If it is exceeded a siren goes off and the headlights lights flash.

This would 1. Warn bystanders of the danger.
2. Give more ground to peer group pressure.
3. Make speeding unpleasantly noisy.

The system has been used before on trucks somewhere in the world.

The goverment wants to fix the problem but not spend real money on it, like make a stupid ad about speeders with small d!cks, what planet are they on?

evlPanda said...

Perhaps they could throw some money at a scare campaign.

"Your child is n times more likely to die in a car crash than from taking ecstacy."

Funny thing about that, its true.

evlPanda said...

Perhaps they could throw some money at a scare campaign.

"Your child is n times more likely to die in a car crash than from taking ecstacy."

But Muuuuumm... Why can't I take ecstasy? It's safer than driving in the car.....

evlPanda said...

By the way I know how bad that looks, I'm just putting it out there, stirring up some debate!!! I actually know Anna Wood's parents for example. But a fact is a fact, even if many "ecstasy" deaths go unreported.

What does youth + alchohol + car = ?
Also one hoon driver can take out his passengers and anybody else he/she hits.

I still reckon beginner cars are a simple way to reduce the problem.

Don't get me wrong Panda, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. In fact I realise it's true, I'm just saying that the public backlash on that would be massive.

D

doggie said...

D_Meredith79 said...

evlPanda said...

By the way I know how bad that looks, I'm just putting it out there, stirring up some debate!!! I actually know Anna Wood's parents for example. But a fact is a fact, even if many "ecstasy" deaths go unreported.

What does youth + alchohol + car = ?
Also one hoon driver can take out his passengers and anybody else he/she hits.

I still reckon beginner cars are a simple way to reduce the problem.

Don't get me wrong Panda, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. In fact I realise it's true, I'm just saying that the public backlash on that would be massive.

D

But, it would make a great ad

Lets get the Chasers on it, that should be the coup de gras for thier show.

D

kiteboy dave said...



Ok on the car topic, how about this: If you don't want kids racing on the roads, give them somewhere to do it. Invest the money in tracks. Get the car community to organise races, drift comps, etc for weekends. Make wide run-off areas with nothing to hit. Install emergency call points - then leave it open 24/7 so that if they want to race at 2am they can. It's just like with kids on skateboards - if you don't want it on the street, give them somewhere to go that's free, easy and not over-regulated.

The only problem with that is, that it would be legal.

getfunky said...

evlPanda said...

By the way I know how bad that looks, I'm just putting it out there, stirring up some debate!!! I actually know Anna Wood's parents for example. But a fact is a fact, even if many "ecstasy" deaths go unreported.

What does youth + alchohol + car = ?
Also one hoon driver can take out his passengers and anybody else he/she hits.

I still reckon beginner cars are a simple way to reduce the problem.

I am with you Panda. There is no perfect solution but a 17 yr old pimple faced git with 1 month experiance piloting a powerful vehicle is plain stoopid. Everybody accepts this is neccesary for motorbikes so why the resistance to cars - which have far, far more potential for damage?



If there is genuine will to change the licensing or set up of vehicles (as per Ian K's suggestions) then it may be reasonably easy/cheap to do compared to scraping a car load of peeps off the tarmac and all the grief/legal wrangling/fallout that follows.

Agreed but it never happen as the car manufactures have the pollies over a barrel and thats the way it will stay. Sounds like I have given up? Yes I have, as I see it on the road every day......Smart cars would be the way, slow, small ect. P platers should not be alowed to take passengers as well. Its only two years it wont kill them, we hope...................

Most cars have airbags, ABS etc etc. If the consumers demand it then it is a matter of when - not if.

In NSW at least P platers are not allowed to drive powerful turbo cars, V8s and other performance cars. There is a list of prohibited vehicles. Its unlikely P platers will ever be forced to only drive certain low powered cars. Perhaps other states should consider introducing similar laws.


However road deaths will happen when people drive with the wrong attitude. Its pretty difficult to change someone's attitude, especially a teenager who is unlikely to listen those in authority. So until it becomes socially unacceptable to drive in a dangerous manner, like its pretty well socially unacceptable to drink and drive, we will continue to have road deaths.

It would be interesting to know how many people are seriously injured or killed when the vehicle they are travelling in hits a power or telephone pole on the side of the road. I've witnessed a couple of accidents where cars hit poles in wet weather. Why do the poles have to be on the side of the road besides ease of access, and why can't the wires be progressively put underground?