10.04.07
Law and Order
So, I know everyone accuses me of being a totally blind sided FGer. This is actually not true since I completely disagree with many (nearly all?) of their policies, but occasionally I feel the Law&Order streak emerge.
Today I saw two boy racing types get into their car. It was some Subaru racy looking thing with the sporty hubcaps, the big exhaust pipe AND this thing on the back, that I suppose is for easing wind resistance? like a wing attached to the boot. The windows were blackened and it had that No Fear sticker on the back window. When the engine started it had that really loud souped up noise. I would have them stopped and the car confiscated immediately. Every single thing about the car showed intention to speed. They might crash it some night at 4am and kill themselves and break the hearts of their families. They might kill someone else in the process. Disaster waiting to happen.
Bring back the birch..no Sarah, stoppit…
On the other hand, I am outraged by this article in the NYT
“When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.
But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.”
So I approve of the confiscation of cars that are being turned into weapons though no crime has actually been committed, but I do not approve of torture whether the victim is actually guilty of something or most likely completely innocent. By the way, torture doesn’t work even if the person is guilty. They just keep talking to make it stop, even if its total nonsense.
Ciaran Buckley said,
October 4, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I live on a bendy winding rural road, a favourite of the boy racers. On one occasion a boy racer pulled into my gate to evade the gardai, who were chasing him. He nearly ran me over as I stood in my own front drive. Then he rolled down the window and was very apologetic, in that courteous country kind of a way. I could have pulled his head off, but social convention rules, in a Having-tea-with-Mussolini kind of a way. It kind of illustrated to me that these guys are just kids, who’ll grow out of it. Hopefully before they kill somebody, specifically me or mine. They often kill themselves first, playing chicken or colliding with telephone poles. No harm in confiscating the cars though, for everybody’s sake.
Tomaltach said,
October 4, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Sarah,
Your statement that Every single thing about the car showed intention to speed was designed to provoke. Perhaps unconsciously, perhaps it’s the journo in you coming out kicking for a debate.
But seriously. If we can stop and count to three for a moment, and then slowly unbotton our blue shirt, take it off and fold it nicely. And then talk!
We cannot say what these guys’ intention was. It may have been to be ‘cool’ or what they see as flashy or whatever. We have no way of knowing. So we can only say that they had a possible intention to offend. Let’s hear that again: a possible intention to offend. I think we know the kind of horror we’d call upon ourselves if we started punishing people for a possible intention to offend
A partial solution to the boy racer madness might come in the form of restricted licenses for people of a certain age or say a harsher penalty points system. Or more assertive policing.
But to begin punishing people because they might offend, that’s a really slippery slope.
P O'Neill said,
October 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Without having to divine intentions, can’t they pull them over for the blackened windows and the noisy engine (which involves deliberate removal of the car’s muffler)?
Dan Sullivan said,
October 4, 2007 at 4:32 pm
D’Ivor Callely wanted to go after the blackened windows but some people do have genuine reasons for them to do with babes and the sun, and driving at dusk and dawn when the light comes through the windows at an angle that would blind ya.
Sarah said,
October 4, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Actually the blackened windows are illegal but a guard was explaining to me some reason why its really difficult to prosecute for it. They are dangerous. When I’m driving I like to look at other drivers’ faces because you can tell a lot about what their going to do next, say if they are not looking or something.
On the intention of speeding being an SDTP (staement designed to provoke) it wasn’t actually. It was my genuine assessment of the accessorising of the car.
And of course, I know you can’t punish people for things they might do. I was being facetious. I would just LIKE to do it
, in this particular case
Conor Delaney said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:12 pm
All cars should come with speed limitors. Why should any car be able to go faster that 120km? Or we could copy Singapore and have a ligtht on the roof of the car that flashes when you exceed a certain speed.
Niall said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Ok, the woman who watches peoples’ faces when they’re driving is criticising other people for driving dangerously? Tut-tut.
Come on Sarah, Have a bit of cop on and stop being so ridiculously prejudiced. I know many, many men and women with modified cars who drive safely. You’re making the classic mistake of deciding that because many of the dangerous drivers you’ve met have had modified cars, then having modified car is indicative of having an intent to drive dangerously. If this were the case, all we’d need to do to make our roads safer would be to ban spoilers, alloys and bodykits! Heck, given that these so-called boy racers also tend to have dance tunes pumping, would you like to take away the cars of people who listen to dance music?
Tomaltach said,
October 5, 2007 at 6:45 am
Every time I see those souped up cars I feel a rush of contempt and I think “you small brained idiot”. The low profile tyres and those dreadful sport shock absorvers are severe on the vertibrae, they make the cars seriously unconmfortable.
But when I compose myself again, I think wait a minute, those people have their tastes and I have mine. Live and let live (this is about the ridiculous look, not the speeding!). But there is one aspect of the live and let live which these guys violate: noise. They fit exhausts which are designed to boom out loud noise. I saw an add for these somewhere which said “Do you love the throaty sound of exhaust?Do you wish the neighbours know about your arrival? Then this is the exhaust for you”
Pitifully, unredeemablty sad.
tom said,
October 5, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“Ok, the woman who watches peoples’ faces when they’re driving is criticising other people for driving dangerously? Tut-tut.”
It’s very helpful to make eye contact with drivers – particularly when you are on a bike but also when driving yourself. There is certainly nothing dangerous about it, what makes driving dangerous is sealing yourself off from the world around you with tinted windows and loud music.
The civil liberties argument just doesn’t apply to these morons. Cars are dangerous, damaging to the environment, and damaging to the welfare of the rest of the community. If you want to play at being a rally driver fuck off to a rally circuit and do it, don’t ask for the ‘freedom’ to do it on the public roads.
For what it’s worth I would extend the argument to all cars. Maximum engine size – 1.2 litres would be a good start. Speed limiters on all cars. etc etc.
Niall said,
October 5, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Tom, trying to interpret someone’s facial expression in order to predict what they’re going to do is dangerous. For one thing, you can misinterpret them, and for another, it stops you giving your surroundings the attention its due. You’d be much safer if you focused on the actual rules of the road. No doubt it makes people feel safe to make a connection with another driver, but if people just focused on obeying the rules of the road, we’d all be much safer. I’ll never get over the hypocrisy of people who complain about other drivers dangerous habits while continuing to behave dangerously, driving fast in built up areas, pulling into yellow boxes, failing to indicate until they’ve already taken a turn, getting into the wrong lane at a roundabout and pulling out on front of someone, talking on a mobile phone, looking a passenger for long periods, not using their mirrors, applying make-up, eating, drinking and not driving too close to the car on front of them. These are the same people who complain about “getting done” for speeding when they were only going a few miles over the limit. Here’s a thought, if you want to avoid getting caught by a speed camera, how about driving a under the limit, instead of trying to drive at it! The speed limit is the maximum speed it is safe to drive at under good conditions, yet the same people who will complain about boy racers and the like, will continue to drive at the speed limit when it’s frosty or when visibility is poor. The reason people get annoyed about boy racers has little to do with safety – that is simply how they justify their prejudice. Modified car owners have become the targets of this sort of bile for the same reasons that hippies and punks became targets. They’re young, they’re different and that’s scares the shit out of people.
Nah, it’s not the boy racers that’s the problem, it’s those people driving around the country living out of caravans. They park them in places they shouldn’t where there’s no proper systems in place to deal with waste or rubbish and that lifestyle harms the environment. The kids make lots of noise. They show every intention of stealing. If you want to camp somewhere, why not go to a caravan park? Why can’t we just take confiscate those caravans from those small brained idiots?
An SpailpÃn Fánach said,
October 5, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“So, I know everyone accuses me of being a totally blind sided FGer. This is actually not true since I completely disagree with many (nearly all?) of their policies.”
If you disagree with many, nearly all, of Fine Gael’s policies, how to expect people not born into the faith, as you were, to vote for them Sarah? I’m baffled.
Sarah said,
October 5, 2007 at 9:50 pm
on FG: Well, OTHER people clearly do agree with their policies. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be the second largest party in the Dail. I simply acknowledge the realities of the status quo and vote tactically accordingly. I could be against EVERYONE because no party really represents me. But that’s not practical. And I am practical.
And Niall, you are just wrong. There are lots of situations where seeing the driver’s face tells you a lot. You can tell if they are away with the birds, or fiddling with the radio or on the phone and have just NO idea that you are there, if they are looking left and do not see the car approaching from the right. I do try to obey the rules of the road – but to be safe you have to use plenty of other senses and assume that the other guy will NOT do so. I use this all the time to predict driver behaviour and quite frankly it works. Its amazing what other drivers don’t see. When I can tell they can’t see i can get out of their way….
Oh and don’t you remember that ad about experienced drivers where the older guy saw the ball underneath the van and guessed a child would run out and chase after it? That’s not obeying the rules of the road – that’s using experience to observe the environment beyond yourself and your car.
Point of information: I passed my driving test first time
all due to the Glasnevin School of Motoring. A guy called Frank, who used to be a garda I think. He was SO strict. For one lesson he jacked up the front of the car in his driveway and made me steer for half an hour. He had a stop watch and I had to full turns, while looking all around me in 7 seconds. For another, I had to drive around an estate close to the kerb and he’d have me stop and I was supposed to be 1ft from the kerb. He said I had terrible judgement to my left, ie couldn’t tell distance and that’s what the exercise was for.
THEN when I did my test, in Rathgar, you know the way the guys say nothing? So when he told me I had passed, he said “you’ve done a lot of country driving”. and I said, YES! I have, how can you tell?” So its called “progress”. The length of time it takes you to move up the gears from a stationary position. Country drivers do it faster (and better) than city drivers cos they are used to pulling onto roads where everyone is driving at 90
Interesting, I thought…
ANYWAY, I have high standards for driving. Its’ my thing. So don’t you tell me about driving Niall! eek, gone overboard…..calm down Sarah, you are an EXCELLENT driver. relax….bla……..
Niall said,
October 6, 2007 at 10:22 am
Sarah, you may well be the world’s greatest driver, but everybody thinks that they’re a good driver, and everybody has their own ‘tricks’ that supposedly work for them, but which end up pissing everybody else off. Even something as simple as pulling in on the hard shoulder shouldn’t happen but people do it to be polite and it just ends up encouraging speeding by other drivers.
“AND this thing on the back, that I suppose is for easing wind resistance? like a wing attached to the boot.”
This sentence makes me doubt your claim to be the world’s greatest driver! The ‘thing’ you’re referring to is a spoiler, and while its function is supposed to be to reduce drag and lift, people put them on cars because they think that they look nice. They’re far from uncommon and you probably don’t notice them on most cars.
Sarah said,
October 6, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Niall I’d be interested to know if you drive?
And PLEASE how can you possibly argue that the ability to see if another driver is looking at his CD player instead of at other cars is dangerous?
Oh and the point which you missed is that darkened windows ARE illegal. I forget what the problem about prosecution is again but legally you are not supposed to have them.
Niall said,
October 6, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I drive, but not at the moment, since I don’t need a car. As for being able to see whether somebody is looking at the road, yes it might be useful in that situation, but what are you doing in that situation? You’re not looking at the other cars on the road! It’s not looking at somebody’s face that is dangerous, it’s not paying attention to other things that make it a hazzard. You’re dividing your attention between interpreting somebody’s facial expression from a distance, while paying attention to oncoming traffic, the speed limit, your distance from other cars…. And, it’s probably distracting for other drivers. If I’m driving and I notice that somebody is staring at me, I’m going to start wondering why that is. Do I know them? Is there something wrong with my car? Did I cut them off? Are they waiting for me to do something? Those are the kind of questions that automatically come to mind.
So yes, there are situations where looking at someone’s face might prevent an accident, but it’s just more likely to cause an accident by dividing your attention or distracting someone else. If the entire driving population adopted your tactic, then there would be an increase in the number of accidents.
Tinted windows may well be illegal, but not because they affect the driver’s vision, but because the Gardai want to be able to see who is in a car. The law is very vague on the matter I believe. Supposedly, you can tint side and back windows as much as you like, but the windscreen is only allowed to be tinted to a certain degree. I believe the reason that the Gardai don’t prosecute is because they don’t have the equipment to test the degree of tint and the law is vague, something about “unduly” tinted windows being illegal. At any rate, I don’t remember mentioning tinted windows.
JVC said,
October 7, 2007 at 7:45 pm
This is the situation in the UK. Why can we not do the same!!!
————————————————————–
If an Enforcement Officer thinks the front windows or windscreen may be tinted beyond the legal limit, they will test it using a hand-held meter. If the level of light transmitted is less than 30%, there is an immediate prohibition on the vehicle and the driver has to take it off the road. The driver has 14 days to remove the illegal tint and bring it for inspection to a Goods Vehicle Station. If satisfactory, the prohibition is removed. If the prohibition is not removed within 14 days, prosecution can result. If the level of light is over 30% but under 45%, a ‘delayed prohibition’ is issued, giving the driver 10 days when s/he may continue to use the car and sort the problem. If the level of light is between 45% and 70%, the driver is given an ‘advisory inspection notice’.
leon said,
October 8, 2007 at 11:34 am
The illegal tinting/blackening only applies to the windsreen and front side windows, the rear and rear side windows can be as opaque as you like, these are standrad on a lot of SUVs (like mine).
It is hanndy to see where people are looking on roundabouts as this is generally a better indication of where they are going than there indication, but the poor level of road knowledge and craft in Ireland compared to our immediate neighbours is shocking.
Country drivers may be faster at pulling out, but there failure to use lanes, junctions and roundabouts is terrible, and often horrific in dublin suburbs, if someone does something really stupid in front of you 95% of the time its a country reg, someone over 60 or a winker in a BMW (ans therefore obviously more imnportant than anybody else). Why do most irish drivers insist on using the handbrake at traffic lights, aarrrggghhhh, hold the bloody thing on the bite and just move as a column when the lights change instead of drip feeding away.