Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 62728	2005-10-17 10:33:00	Sick of people smoking near public walk ways	Eric (378)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
397213	2005-10-20 19:56:00	Yes I am out of the target age; 31. Driving there’s no argument really kids under 20 just don’t have the head on their shoulders to be trusted, this is a broad statement but you have to put a limit somewhere. I didn’t say people couldn’t be trusted to choose correctly; just they don’t have the life experience to make an informed decision, or the body to handle it. I get pissed off I cannot retire and collect the pension, this to you would be age discrimination, why can’t I retire at 31?! As for people wanting to do something more because it’s illegal may be so in some cases but not in others, some people do want to be good. You must have some laws in place.	Rob99 (151)
397214	2005-10-20 20:10:00	just they don’t have the life experience to make an informed decision, or the body to handle it.One only gains experience by risking mistakes - at any age. It doesn't take alot of "body" to drive a car, so i really don't get that one. Sure there are exceptions, like my 1985 truck with no power assisted anything :cool: , small or weak people just can't drive it properly, but generally if someones able to walk, they are more than physicaly developed enough to drive a "normal" vehicle. And since when were people in their late teens lacking the body to turn a steering wheel any more than those of us who are older? I'm really confused about that point!	personthingy (1670)
397215	2005-10-20 20:14:00	One only gains experience by risking mistakes - at any age. It doesn't take alot of "body" to drive a car, so i really don't get that one. Sure there are exceptions, like my 1985 truck with no power assisted anything :cool: , small or weak people just can't drive it properly, but generally if someones able to walk, they are more than physicaly developed enough to drive a "normal" vehicle. And since when were people in their late teens lacking the body to turn a steering wheel any more than those of us who are older? I'm really confused about that point! Lots of people would say that any 1985 truck on the road is dangerous regardless of the age of the driver.	JJJJJ (528)
397216	2005-10-20 20:43:00	As for people wanting to do something more because it’s illegal may be so in some cases but not in others, some people do want to be good. You must have some laws in place.Certainly we must have some laws in place, however where those laws are only there to restrict what is essentually what we do to ourselves, then they tend to get ignored, and this tends only to serve to further lower respect for the law in general. I don't believe police attention should be diverted from real crime to stopping someone from doing something that essentually may only be harming themselves. Yes, i am ignoring the second-hand smoke issue here. This is a completely different issue as second-hand smoke effects the unwilling. I'm also ignoring the public health cost issue, but only to keep things simple. Lots of people would say that any 1985 truck on the road is dangerous regardless of the age of the driver. I suppose thats what HT licences are about, and yes, in therie someone with a full licence who'd only ever driven big trucks with power assisted everything could make a real cockup of driving mine or a similar vehicle that actually needs some strenth and size to drive. The pedals and soforth are definatly designed for someone 6 foot. I have a friend who drives her own housetruck well, but cannot change gear in mine without graunching it because she cant push the clutch fully owing to her smaller size. I am careful who i let drive it, my freind, allthough a very capable driver, is not allowed. I think (hope) this is an issue where common sense prevails, and we don't need to have licences based on the size of the driver and the vehicles they can therefore drive. I'd also argue that a 1985 truck can't go fast enough to be as dangerous as a modern one. Please don't have my new home taken from me before i even move into it!	personthingy (1670)
397217	2005-10-20 21:03:00	You have an interesting argument, but you have to have a law/draw the line somewhere. E.g. rid alcohol laws; when packing lunch for your 5 year old you ask “What do you want to drink water or juice?” they answer “na dad, I’ll just have a can of beer”, you say “I don’t think that’s a good idea” they say “yes it is, and I want one” so you sent your 5 year old off to school with a beer for lunch. After all it’s not illegal. Police attention should always be focused at crime that causes the most harm. One only gains experience by risking mistakes - at any age. Indeed this is true: I could drive my mums auto at age 11 Smoking, drugs and alcohol, I could have taken this up at 7 Shooting a gun…maybe age 9 Betting on the nags age 4 By age 15 I would have been broke, made mum and dad broke, had serious drug and alcohol problems, smokers cough, or even be in jail for shooting someone.	Rob99 (151)
397218	2005-10-20 21:42:00	so you sent your 5 year old off to school with a beer for lunch. After all it’s not illegal.Somehow i think that if "Dad" was that stupid, then no law would stop him. Consider the mothers who've used a drop of whiskey to help a baby sleep. (that one really urks me) but as long as people can live in denial that there is any wrong doing it can and will happen. Its education that makes the biggest difference, law only ensures people don't do it openly. Police attention should always be focused at crime that causes the most harm.Agreed I could drive my mums auto at age 11 Smoking, drugs and alcohol, I could have taken this up at 7 Shooting a gun…maybe age 9 Betting on the nags age 4 By age 15 I would have been broke, made mum and dad broke, had serious drug and alcohol problems, smokers cough, or even be in jail for shooting someone.I assume your parents would have prevented this. Such intervention was parental responcibility, not legal intervention. The laws wouldn't make a scrap of difference as there was no policeman living in your house. On some farms the kids learn to drive long before they can take a vehicle on the road. This generally assures that when they do, they are less accident prone. It also allows them to drive sooner, get jobs, earn, contribute, that sort of thing. Drugs? sure you could at anyage, if they were provided, if your parents were stupid enough, again, the law does not prevent this. I used to associate with growers who often had pounds of pot, but they never got their kids stoned. When the kids were older it was nessesary to accept them making their own choices. Again, parental responcibility, not the law is what makes the early choices here. The same applies to drugs like alcohol and tabacco. Only a fool would encourage their kids to smoke. There are fools, and the law won't notice till its too late. Shooting a gun? Same thing. From my time in the country where guns are not uncommon, i saw responcible parent teach kids to be responcible with guns. They knew that guns were for killing things, not "bang bang good fun". They knew this because the saw these things first hand. Sometimes kids went hunting with dad, sometimes Dad would let them have a shot. I have no idea of the legalitys here, but again, would it make any difference? Betting on the nags? Same argument, however, at 4 you could be stopped as it directly involves interaction with others outside of your family and peers, but you are unlikely to be literate enough to fill the forms. (I've never done it, i assume you have to write something somewhere to bet) The reason you didn't do these things is because (i assume) you had responcible parents, if you didn't you may well have. It has little to do with law.	personthingy (1670)
397219	2005-10-20 22:02:00	I think (hope) this is an issue where common sense prevails, and we don't need to have licences based on the size of the driver and the vehicles they can therefore drive. I'd also argue that a 1985 truck can't go fast enough to be as dangerous as a modern one. Please don't have my new home taken from me before i even move into it! Sorry,didn't realise it was a house truck. I was picturing you hauling about 40 ton of logs with an old 1985 truck. Even so I used to do a lot of curseing when I got stuck behind those and caravans etc.	JJJJJ (528)
397220	2005-10-20 22:09:00	Second hand smoke! BAH! Too much publicity . It's just something else to complain about. What would you do if nobody smoked and you couldn't complain. Probably say BO caused something , and then you'rd want a law to make everybody bathe twice a day. I've as much right as you to walk down the street. If I , or you, find we don't like the smells then stay home and perhaps put in a few fans to keep objectionable odours out	JJJJJ (528)
397221	2005-10-21 06:41:00	I can fully understand people being peeved at 2nd hand smoke, it's dirty, filthy disgusting activity and, yes I smoke . I've given up a few times, it's easy eh! Problem is, it's much too easy to start again or, in other words I've never truly left it behind . The say for the majority of people, tobacco is just about as addictive as you can get . The problem with it is that, it is not only addictive but a powerful habit, that for some people, maybe me, is insurmountable . My father kicked smoking like turning off a tap in his mid 50's . He's in his 80's now and still enjoys the smell, but has kicked the habit, if not the addiction entirely . My father in law, couldn't give up his cigs, despite dying of cancer and emphysema, having a heart condition and diabetes . I remember seeing an interesting doco on heroin addicts, addiction and kicking it, just about to a man/woman, they smoked, all the ex addicts smoked and they all stated heroin was easier to kick . It's highly likely it takes an addictive type to be hooked on either . I smoke, but I've never had horse . The real bugger is, I do enjoy a good rolly, add a beer and the occasion is complete . So, you smug superior tossers (If that is you, be my guest and take offence . I not, please move on), don't diss the smokers . If they are being prats, have a go for that reason alone . Chris . Driving age in general, should defintiley be restricted . Young men especially, are just not built to handle the responsibility . It's not just about experience and maturity, it's also biological . The poor benighted twits can't turn off all that testosterone raging through their body when the get behind the wheel . Add in another young twit in a 2nd vehicle and the hormones run completely out of control . BTW, the amount of kids killed or injured in farm accidents while driving/riding something is pretty high, is it not . One last thing . I reckon the guvmint should set up a Ministry of PC BS & Meddling, with all similar departments and ministries put within it's control . Make Winnie the head honcho, give it a budget of $0 . 00, but let Winnie say what he likes . A suitable location for the head office and workshop rooms would need to be found, perhaps Campbell Island, to which every concerned organisation/citizen would be invited to a permanent workshop to air the issues and share their grievances and form action group committees . That sort a few issues on several levels, in one foul swoop :thumbs:	Murray P (44)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9