Re: Three teens crash to death at 83mph

These kids were on their way to buy some grapefuit. But because of the accident, some grapefruit went unsold and thus affected the price since now there were more grapefuit available on the market than there would have been had the kids bought some.

Sheesh! Must I spell everything out for you?!

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - Don't question authority. It doesn't know either.

--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS:

--== Give performance reviews of your boss:

And if you are involved where it is not your fault your car can be your best witness. I think with my driving habits I would like to have it available.

Maybe we should outlaw surveillance TV in stores too so if you hold up the place the tape can't be used against you.

That's not a very accurate analogy as you don't own the store but you do own the car.

Another free market success story. ;)

A pox on all of you.... s*it happens, and all that, this has been happening to callow youth since the wheel was invented..

teen angel

Every issue brought up here is overblown... though I aint in favor of tattle- tale boxes, that's the least of anyone's worry when you look at the big picture... until the E-Check scans for highest speed recorded and cops issue tickets on the spot.

Nomen Nescio opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com:

I find it easier to wear a ski mask when I rob stores. This way I don't have to worry about my rights being violated when I'm knocking over some joint. ;)

This thread reminds me of a member of a state legislature trying to get a law passed that would not allow cities to put out "Radar in use" signs when in fact there were none. Those signs were making people obey the law (speed limits) when they didn't have to.

Operating a motor vehicle is not a right, it's a privilege. A "black box" that records drive input is not a violation of privacy. It is in the best interest of the public to have accurate information about the driver's actions at the time of an accident. If you don't like it, don't drive. My habits are such that I don't worry about "black boxes"...I stay within the law. Those teens are dead because the driver was breaking the law. Now at least, the parents will not be able to sue the state for building a faulty road, the vehicle manufacturer for building an unsafe vehicle or the other car(s) involved for causing an accident. We all win in this case.

I suggest that you take a look at the newest AutoWeek, they have a decent sized article in it and some of the manufacturers stances. DaimlerChrysler and Toyota/Lexus are starting to use them while GM and Ford already do. Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, BMW, and Porsche all don't use them. "We don't want to put our customers in the position of having their own car testify against them." Gordon Keil (NA BMW spokesman). "Porsche customers traditionally value the sense of indepence that driving can provide. Therefore, we believe they would be opposed to Porsche equipping its cars with devices capable of monitoring their movements."

I guess I know what my next car is going to be coming from, BMW or Porsche.

No, it's a right. If I pass the test and obey the law, is there anything they can do to stop me from driving? No. That makes it a right. Just like the right to vote. As long as I obey the law (no felonies, am 18 or older) I get to vote.

Just because a bunch of people yell "It's a privilege" long enough does not change the fact that it's actually a right.

Or it is your position that voting is also a privilege? Or that speech is a privilege?

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - ...and Adam asked, "What's a Headache?"

--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS:

--== Give performance reviews of your boss:

Lighthope,

Man, did you just show how little you actually know about the difference between a priviledge and a RIGHT. Ever hear of the US Constitution Bill of Rights? Um, lets see. Maybe you're right. I just can't remember. Can you show me where it says we have the RIGHT to drive? I'll have to look into that. Yes, your license CAN be revoked even though you never break the law. Ever seen a blind person drive? Did they break the law by becoming blind or handicapped? My sister had her license revoked because she became epileptic and had a siezure at home one night. Did she break the law? No, she merely no longer met the requirements to keep the priviledge. If it were a RIGHT, then you would not require a test or a license. That is the difference between a RIGHT and a priviledge. If I knew you as a friend and you respected the rules of my home, you would have the priviledge of being able to come inside. I can revoke that priviledge if I wanted and for any reason, or no reason at all. If it were a RIGHT, then you could have acces to my home at any time you wanted and I could do nothing about it. Similiarly, the STATE allows you to earn a drivers license. Which can be revoked for any reason or no reason if the STATE so chooses. It's important for people to understand thier RIGHTS. Also, it's important that people understand what is not a right.

I think you would have trouble arguing that in a court of law.

Privilege:

1. A right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of persons (meets all requirement for possession of a drivers license)
2. an official grand or a special right or immunity, under certain conditions (As long as your license is not revoked)

Right:

1. In accordance with what is good proper and moral.
2. That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principals.
3. That which is in accord with fact, reason, etc.

Actually, yes. If you fail to renew your license, you will be ticketed. Accepting the requirement of a license makes driving a privilege. Constitutionally, we all have the 'right' to operate an automobile on public highways without a license. By voluntarily obtaining a license you give up that constitutional 'right' and accept a state administered 'privilege'. This has been tested and won in courts of law, but I'm not enough of an activist to try it myself.