Category: the Rant Board
Hi.
I've been hearing about people running red lights while they're driving. I don't really know why they do that, but they do it for some odd reason. Maybe it could be because they're always in a big hurry, or something like that.
I narrowly avoided being killed at 13 by some eejit in a porsche who did just that! I think its a mixture of superiority arrogance and stupidity.
No no no it's not that at all. You see, they have to run the red lights whilst in their cars because they have busy lives and they want to make sure that their call-girls give client satisfaction and that none of them have been done by the police for solicitting........Oops sorry, I'm talking about red light districts! Slight misunderstanding there!
You know, it's really scary, but when people are driving they do as many dumb things as a result of just a minute of inattention as they do in every other part of their lives. When you're at the office, a momentary lack of attention might result in sending an email without a subject line. While you're driving, it might result in your running a red light. No one can be attentive all the time, as much as we'd like to expect that of ourselves and others. It's a fact of human nature. That is what scares me the most, personally, when I'm driving. You know, what could happen while I'm briefly thinking about what I'll make for dinner. So far I've been lucky.
Good lord Susanne after having read your post to the other discussion about blindness I'm surprised you walk out your front door considering how scared of inattentiveness, preconceptions and the representative role one takes in one's community you seem! It's true that we're all inattentive from time to time, but don't let it get to you or you'll increase your inattentiveness by worrying about what will happen if you're inattentive. Just as an aside, to get the adjective 'inattentive' into that last sentence as often as I did is no mean achievement in my opinion, though of course, inattentive readers wouldn't have picked up on the aforesaid example of verbal dexterity. I'm not a driver myself, and never will be unless there's some serious mistake, but I'm sure that the reasonably competent driver is not so inattentive as to jump the lights by accident. such an activity seems, to me, only to be possible if undertaken deliberately, which explains, of course, why the magistrates can send you to prison for it.
I should have been more accurate in that I don't want to mislead y'all into thinking that our distinguished magistracy have unlimited powers of sentencing. Only six months for a summary offence such as this, unless it amounts to something more serious.
Yeah. I think people just run red lights because they're in a hurry, and don't pause to think twice about the consequences.
I blame car programmes rattling on about great amounts of break horsepower and torque 0-60 in 6 secs
that does strange things to some people,{it does to me anyway} but fortunately I only drive off road the thought of which still gives my instructor nightmares.
they get in a car and mutate in to speed freak little hitlers!.
I blame car programmes rattling on about great amounts of break horsepower and torque 0-60 in 6 secs
that does strange things to some people,{it does to me anyway} but fortunately I only drive off road the thought of which still gives my instructor nightmares.
they get in a car and mutate in to speed freak little hitlers!.
I had a driving lesson off-road once, and I was very very careful. There's therefore no excuse for the driving fraternity.
Hehe... Lawlord... so okay, you caught me on two issues that admittedly bother me more than they should, though I assure you that they won't keep me from walking out of my front door in the morning, if that alleviates your worries in any way... :-) It's just that I know a person who, while driving, took a few seconds to turn up the volume on the radio, and in that time hit and killed a pedestrian. Can you imagine anything more horrible to have to live with? And the thing about being taken to represent a whole group of people, well, that is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. How can anyone be expected to represent anyone more than themselves?
I'm not afraid of SARS, nor of the plague, nor Anthrax. I'm not afraid of getting my feet wet walking out in the winter time in Toronto. I'm not afraid of getting hit by a car, or I wouldn't cross the street the way I do :-). I'm not afraid of building a new life on a different continent by myself. But I *am* afraid of hurting other people.
Susanne I'm afraid things just can't be reduced to that rather abstract concept of representation without being vulnerable to the charge of oversimplification. People represent more than themselves all the time, and in fact I think that the fact that we are taken to represent others as well as ourselves means that we're less likely to hurt people, because it necessarily causes us to reflect more closely on our actions, or at least it should do. Children on school outings are always told that they represent their school as well as themselves, and that's quite right, for it engenders a sense of responsibility for others as well as for yourself, awareness of the consequences of your own actions not only for yourself, but for others too. Now, the fact is that if I go to the high court today as I'm meant to, as a trainee family lawyer with my chambers, and behave like a young offender, my behaviour will be taken not only to represent me, but also my chambers, and perhaps even the family law bar association. And that is the way it always has been, and if you want my opinion, it's only natural that it should be that way. No man is an island after all, and I fear that your assertion that you can't represent anyone other than yourself is a touch isolationist. That is not to say that we should lose all sense of identity as individuals, nor does it mean that one should be a permanent actor, playing someone quite removed from one's own natural character, but I think the idea that you don't represent anyone other than yourself is divorced from reality, even if the theory is attractive. As for the situation with turning the volume up on the radio that you outline above, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that this is very tragic and I couldn't imagine what it would be like to live with that. Having said that, there are many instances of negligence that cause personal injuries, some arguably more horrific than death, and whilst we should never lose sight of the fact that we owe other people around us botha legal and moral duty to take reasonable care, it is not useful to coneemplate what we would do were we to breach that duty because we simply don't know until it happens. I hope, of course, that I am not going to leave my elf open to the charge of being nonchalant about anything raised in this post.
Just one point, though, Lawlord: You chose to be a lawyer, and thus a certain expectations of behaviour are warranted. It comes with the privilege, so to speak. But other things one does not choose, and it is more controversial to base expectations of behavior on circumstances one is just thrown into. Do you, personally, think that makes a difference?
Oh, and by the way: I admit that my statements about being scrutinized every time a person as much as flinches were slightly blown out of proportion. I do that occasionally (all right, fine, so I do that all the time :-)) to make a point. And while we're in the virtual confessionary, I might as well confess that personally I don't regard stereotypes as all evil, and nothing but evil. They certainly have their function. Namely, without them, our minds would constantly be overloaded by an abundance of information we just don't have the resources to process. But that is simply a fact, and as such doesn't have any bearing on the moral status of stereotypes, nor on the fact that many people resent being expected to represent, at all times, a certain group of people in which they are an involuntary member.
You'll notice though, Susanne, that your objection about my being a lawyer only half answer the point. The other example I gave but which you leave out of your equasion is when children go on a school trip. All children, or at least the vast majjority, will have had to represent their school in this way at some point during their career, even if it is only at a local sports day or something similar. So I don't accept, I'm afraid, the proposition that one only acts as a representative when one assumes responsibility by holding oneself out as a professional or pursuant of a certain calling or office of honour and profit. Now to your other point on stereotypes and as to that, I agree that not all stereotypes are negative, but the fact is that stereotypes are, by definition, representative of a one size fits all approach, and therefore not truly representative of reality. nothing works on a one size fits all basis, and this is the same fallacy which the UK government relentlessly seems to operate on, and it clearly isn't working. That is why the majority of the time, stereotypes are highlighted for their prejudicial, rather than supportive, value in relation to the subjectt-matter of the stereotypes under examination. I don't agree that the absence of a stereotype means that we have an abundance of information with which we are not able to cope, simply because I doubt the truth of this assertion as a pure matter of fact. You also say that you use exaggeration to make your point and I agree that this is often effective, but far less so in written than in oral debates. There's a great deal that you say with which I agree, but I can't agree in particular on the point you make about my representative role being assigned me simply due to my professional status. In the virtual confessionary we may be, but I am not prompted to confess.