Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Security desks and entrance regulations at schools - A few days ago I went to drop a cell phone off for my son at his high school. He had called and I said I would leave it at the principal's office. I was greeted at the front door by a friendly and pleasant security guard. I had to leave it with him. We got to talking. I pointed out that back in the day I visited my high school alma mater and went right to teachers' offices, and to my old club offices. Now that would be impossible. He pointed out that there used to be all kinds of entrances and exits that people could use. Now every entrance is a cluster and a delay, all because of the one-off incident in Sandy Hook. We went centuries before Sandy Hook without such rules; are there suddenly hundreds of monsters out there that would kill children? Remember most such tragedies, such as Columbine, involve current students, not outsiders.
Let me speak first-hand about your post in regard to #1. We had a really good school. Serious disciplinary events rarely occurred at our school. But keeping kids safe should be the number one priority at a school...even more important than learning. A dead kid learns nothing. As peaceful and as highly rated as our school was (one of the ten best in Virginia), we were fire bombed once. Another time we had an estranged parent with a gun come in and kidnap his daughter. Another time there was a small ring of thieves who would go to a school during the day, walk through and look for empty classrooms, and go in and steal personal belongings of teachers and school equipment. I could go on.
You make some good points there. But most of those things were risks in 1975 and I don't recall much bad happening from relatively unrestricted ingress and egress to and from schools. Often, just before Thanksgiving, Christmas and college spring breaks we were treated to visits by recent graduates. Many of those were in bands and clubs, and they remembered when those activities met. Some, such as myself, joined municipal summer bands based upon those visits. They created and enhanced community reeling and cooperation. Fending off the school behind what amounts to a DMZ separates schools from the wider community. This is sad, undesirable and unnecessary.
The other hazards fall into the category of "if you see something, say something." People who don't know a building well walk differently. And people should be skeptical of requests for directions, except from people who appear to be freshman age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
]In re cell phones and texting, I have been almost in collisions a half-dozen times in the last 10 years. Every single time the other driver was texting or talking on a cell phone. If you wanna text, pull over.
We are not "back in the day".
(From last response)
Cell phone and texting restrictions while driving - I get that people can be distracted by such activities. But wouldn't it be better if people could alert their destination that they were running late rather than speeding?
I have gone over the issues multiple times. The laws could be written far more narrowly. In my view typing a message or an email, or reading those, are dangerous and should be illegal, at least while moving. The law as written forbids hitting the "next song" button on the music playlist (about as disruptive as hitting the radio buttons in the days of old). Further even New York, the strictest state, allows one-handed driving. there is no reason, other than nanny-state or revenue considerations, to forbid a phone being held up to the ear. And as I have said I would far rather someone call if running late rather than speed.
Why over regulation? because people just can't behave themselves unless there are penalties.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that every regulation came about for some logical reason. That's not to say that the bar wasn't lowered too much to justify regulation. But, as at my school, when we changed a rule it was usually a cause and effect situation. Something negative would happen and we would brainstorm on how to make it less likely to happen again.
But people who constantly rail against regulations are most often just saying, "I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it." It's called selfishness.
I do think that every once in a while, regulations ought to be re-looked at and reconsidered.
Contrary to apparent belief in some quarters, regulations are not written by sequestered cabals of statist crackpots in order to deprive persons of freedom and liberty. They are typically hammered out among those of differing viewpoints as the best balance they can find between benefit and burden.
Better to text and drive safely than weave lanes and speed because you can't reach wherever you're headed with a message that you're running late. Obviously you didn't bother to read.
You don't need to do either. You can just be late due to your poor planning. The rest of society shouldn't suffer because of someone else's incompetence.
Contrary to apparent belief in some quarters, regulations are not written by sequestered cabals of statist crackpots in order to deprive persons of freedom and liberty. They are typically hammered out among those of differing viewpoints as the best balance they can find between benefit and burden.
Many regulations get proposed then dropped (for the time being) when there's an outcry, and then rammed through later. Examples include the National Maximum Speed Limit of 55 (March 15, 1974 and as early as November 10, 1973 on a "volunteer" basis till its merciful death on December 1, 1995), car bags, and the cell phone rules. Kicking around waiting for an opportune moment are serious Internet regulations, and bans on eating or drinking water while driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
You don't need to do either. You can just be late due to your poor planning. The rest of society shouldn't suffer because of someone else's incompetence.
Oh boy. Delays due to accidents, construction, and heavy rain can upend the best-planned schedule. How many times have I covered that?
Many regulations get proposed then dropped (for the time being) when there's an outcry, and then rammed through later. Examples include the National Maximum Speed Limit of 55 (March 15, 1974 and as early as November 10, 1973 on a "volunteer" basis till its merciful death on December 1, 1995), car bags, and the cell phone rules. Kicking around waiting for an opportune moment are serious Internet regulations, and bans on eating or drinking water while driving.
Please consider the difference between statute law and administrative law. It is the latter that is typically responsible for new, amended, and rescinded regulations.
The national 55 limit was of course an exception, not an example. It was part of a law proposed by President Nixon and passed by Congress in response to the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973-74. The point there was that MPG declines significantly beyond that point, and we should all stop wasting gas. As for the limit's repeal, that was made more difficult, first by the fact that another oil crisis came along in 1979-80, and then by the fact that carnage on the highways had fallen so dramatically. It was not that people actually drove 55 that did the trick, but rather that in fear of Smokey, they were driving 10-15 mph faster than a lower posted number. No surprise at all that it was Gingrich and the 1994 "Republican Revolution" gang that finally ignored what the energy and highway safety experts were telling them.
I think people need to start speaking up about this kind of government meddling. That is perhaps part of what earned us President-(Elect) Trump.The extension of the requirement for car seats out of infancy and the increasing stringency of those requirements are examples of over-regulation. These requirements also show that government does not weigh the financial interest of the average person trying to pay a mortgage or rent, property taxes and other ordinary expenses. They just don't care.
Perhaps it is but the majority of the laws in question aren't federal laws, they are city, town, county and state laws. For some reason, most people have little problem with a state getting involved as big gubmint, but the federal government is big gubmint. IMHO, big gubmint is big gubmint.
Please consider the difference between statute law and administrative law. It is the latter that is typically responsible for new, amended, and rescinded regulations.
The national 55 limit was of course an exception, not an example. It was part of a law proposed by President Nixon and passed by Congress in response to the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973-74. The point there was that MPG declines significantly beyond that point, and we should all stop wasting gas. As for the limit's repeal, that was made more difficult, first by the fact that another oil crisis came along in 1979-80, and then by the fact that carnage on the highways had fallen so dramatically. It was not that people actually drove 55 that did the trick, but rather that in fear of Smokey, they were driving 10-15 mph faster than a lower posted number. No surprise at all that it was Gingrich and the 1994 "Republican Revolution" gang that finally ignored what the energy and highway safety experts were telling them.
My point was that the NMSL was kicking around for a long time before Nixon and Congress got the opportunity to ram it through with the "energy crisis" (really botched price controls). All of the examples I gave were statutes. I know I wasn't specific and I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Perhaps it is but the majority of the laws in question aren't federal laws, they are city, town, county and state laws. For some reason, most people have little problem with a state getting involved as big gubmint, but the federal government is big gubmint. IMHO, big gubmint is big gubmint.
I am aware of the distinction but the Federal Government does get into the mix with forced lowering of speed limits, raising of drinking age, and other conditioning of federal aid moneys. Whether state or federal they're still overbearing.
I am aware of the distinction but the Federal Government does get into the mix with forced lowering of speed limits, raising of drinking age, and other conditioning of federal aid moneys. Whether state or federal they're still overbearing.
OK. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that or not. Most people that claim "big gubmint is too intrusive" are intellectually dishonest and mean just the feds, not local governments. I'm glad you are aware of it.
Speed limits are a fickle thing since there are roads that are state funded like parkways (most are within a single state with a few exceptions like say the Palisades Parkway) while highways and US routes are federally funded (due to many being in multiple states.) This explains say the speed limits on the Hutch compared to say I-87, I-684, and I-84.
This post is occasioned by innocuous events of the last several weeks that points to some glaring problems, all involving over-regulation. These rules and procedures are costly, inefficient and provide few benefits.
Security desks and entrance regulations at schools - A few days ago I went to drop a cell phone off for my son at his high school. He had called and I said I would leave it at the principal's office. I was greeted at the front door by a friendly and pleasant security guard. I had to leave it with him. We got to talking. I pointed out that back in the day I visited my high school alma mater and went right to teachers' offices, and to my old club offices. Now that would be impossible. He pointed out that there used to be all kinds of entrances and exits that people could use. Now every entrance is a cluster and a delay, all because of the one-off incident in Sandy Hook. We went centuries before Sandy Hook without such rules; are there suddenly hundreds of monsters out there that would kill children? Remember most such tragedies, such as Columbine, involve current students, not outsiders.
Cell phone and texting restrictions while driving - I get that people can be distracted by such activities. But wouldn't it be better if people could alert their destination that they were running late rather than speeding?
Security at office buildings - Right after 9/11 we began seeing almost all office buildings having restricted access for "security" reasons. Any reason a terrorist bent on making a statement couldn't just blow himself up anywhere he sees a line, such as a theater entrance or subway station? We have made it impossible for people such as myself, for example, who are looking for jobs to simply show up, hand in a CV and demonstrate motivation and drive. Or for spouses to surprise each other at work? Or close friends similarly? How many terror attacks are really prevented this way?
Security at airports - We have made air travel cumbersome. Thus, for example, I am planning to travel to Washington, DC a few weeks from now from the New York City area. Train travel is ridiculously expensive for a trip of about 5 hours. If I take a plane, back in the day it was a shuttle that was about a one hour flight. Now, adding security time at airport, it's 3 hours. Maybe I'll just drive. Heck, gas is cheap these days. Imagine the financial impact this must be having on the air industry? It would make far more sense to do spot checking, behavioral profiling, and the random use of sky marshals. But hey, it's racist to target people at war with us.
Low speed limits - See this thread (link). Low and arbitrary limits are only selectively enforced on a "shooting fish in a barrel" basis. They contribute nothing to safety since in general traffic flows at around 70 on highways, and 40 or 45 on most secondary roads.
All of these rules, and more that other think of, are annoying at best. At worst, they detract from productivity and waste valuable time and resources.
One of my EMT instructors almost died from a car accident as he was run off of the road by someone texting and driving. With over 20 years of experience seeing car accidents treating patients with sometimes body parts located in multiple locations of the scene, he now was a patient. He's lived to tell us about it.
I think he would disagree with your assertion that it's really no big deal to text and drive.
Add to that, the speed limit. There is a use for it. I live on the main road. So if I pull out and someone is clocking 80mph, they very well would kill me if they made contact. How many car accident deaths are caused by people 1) speeding and 2) not wearing their seatbelt.. This isn't even counting those texting and driving, which often turn into head on collisions.
As for security on airports, I agree it's overhaul. What would you do if someone wanted to put a bomb in their shoe or hold up the planes with knives.
There is a reason these regulations started to begin with.
I'm not all about overregulating everything. Quite the opposite, but some regulations are necessary.
And many aren't. Get rid of the one's that aren't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm glad you are aware of it.