Read 2864 times

  • CO2
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6964

    • March 02, 2015, 03:41:14 pm
    • Uiwang
ONLY bus drivers and self driving cars from here on out

Doing opinion classes with Middle Gr 3 and we were talking about self driving cars.

 :shocked: Teacher, they are dangerous.

 :police: Alright, you know what else is dangerous?

*writes on board* Soju Ajeossi

Co-T  :-* *laughs*

 :shocked: --->  :lipsrsealed:
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 03:21:02 pm by CO2 »
ETA 2day 4hour 45min to next reboot.
DO NOT UNPLUG


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2649

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Parking on a crosswalk is automatic deportation to the North.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2627

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
If you don't have confidence in drivers to make that call, don't give them licenses.

Just no.  I want to have confidence in drivers to stop at a red light.  Those who don't understand the idea that we stop at red lights should not get to have a license.   Why the hell are you arguing otherwise?


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4711

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Roundabouts vs Traffic Lights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ0pnCx76Nk

Roundabouts pass cars through intersections faster, they look nicer, save tax money, and pollute less.
Actually, roundabouts are to slow down traffic for safety purposes. Traffic lights can be set so that one doesn't have to stop if you're obeying the speed limits. It's the American idea of getting to your destination as quickly as possible versus the European (at least parts of Europe) one of prioritizing safety.


Single-lane roundabouts are fine. Multilane roundabouts are communism and worse than ebola.


Single-lane roundabouts are fine. Multilane roundabouts are communism and worse than ebola.

Ha! Yes! I love the way so many slide into your lane without indicating, just as you're coming out of a roundabout. Always calms me down.


  • JNM
  • The Legend

    • 4792

    • January 19, 2015, 10:16:48 am
    • Cairo, Egypt (formerly Seoul)
Mr. D: Driving is a licensed activity. Licenses are agreements with the government to follow extra rules to get authorization to do something restrictive.

Police in the UK cannot generally ask you for ID without cause. If you are driving they can, because driving is a licensed activity.

Licenses do not grant you the right to decide which signs and signals you will follow.

Your insistence on the contrary tells me that you are likely not a good driver, despite your belief otherwise.


  • VanIslander
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 2441

    • June 02, 2011, 10:12:19 am
    • Seogwipo, Jeju Island
    more
I was walking on main street just after midnight carrying a box (of video movie rentals - it was 1992 - soda pop and chips and was sporting the first of two beards I had grown to see if I could), and the police asked for my i.d. and I indignantly refused, asking what i had done wrong, saying i have the right to walk on the sidewalk, blah blah blah (a political philosophy student) and wondering out loud if it was because of the beard (had experienced flack by security guards, moms and old people already with the beard - people do treat you differently with a beard) and the police.... just shook his head and waved me on.


Mr. D: Driving is a licensed activity. Licenses are agreements with the government to follow extra rules to get authorization to do something restrictive.

Police in the UK cannot generally ask you for ID without cause. If you are driving they can, because driving is a licensed activity.

Licenses do not grant you the right to decide which signs and signals you will follow.

Your insistence on the contrary tells me that you are likely not a good driver, despite your belief otherwise.

I don't believe he even owns a car in Korea.

The red light should be taken into context. 200k for non-reckless. 500k for reckless. If you're at some four way and there's no traffic coming any which way and you come to a complete stop first, and then proceed, it should not be in the same vein as blasting through during rush hour. Sometimes you have funky lights and it makes zero sense why a citizen who has already been granted a license can't make a reasonable decision.

That's called a 4-way stop. 4-way stops don't use traffic lights to direct the flow of traffic, you leave in the order that you arrive (another concept Korean drivers don't seem to get).
It makes perfect sense why you're not permitted to make your own judgements, it's called the law.

As for DUI, fines fine. 5-10 years license suspension, depending on circumstance and necessity, is really unreasonable. You have to separate between someone .05 and busted at a checkpoint vs. some guy .21 and weaving through traffic.

5-10yrs is throwing a bone. I support a lifetime ban of never being allowed to operate a vehicle ever again. The fact that being inebriated while driving is commonplace means sh*t to me and doesn't justify leniency. A drunk driver has demonstrated that they cannot control their impulse
and/or judgement and is willing to put the life of everyone in their immediate vicinity at risk. Weaving through traffic while drunk? Lifetime ban + a prison sentence.   

I think the idea a lot of people have- That the way to make life better is through laws and strict punishments, is not exactly the best mindset to have towards improving life.
For DUI, I'd say a much better way to combat that is to promote Drunk Driver services, enhance public transport availability as well as the current system of punishments now in place, which by all accounts have helped.

So we're supposed to think up ways to compensate for the lack of responsibility of drunks?
If you want to get drunk and act like a 5yr old then before you lose your wits and judgement plan for your intoxicated state:
Drink at home, take a taxi, arrange transportation to and from the bar etc.

Alcohol in the hands of an adult is a dangerous thing and again, the fact that it's so common doesn't diminish the harm it can cause.
The moment you choose to drink is the moment you've agreed to accept the consequence of your actions.

DUI? Having your license revoked for 10yrs is far safer to the public than having you attend a 3hr workshop run by the Korean Mr Mackey.

Single-lane roundabouts are fine. Multilane roundabouts are communism and worse than ebola.

A huge amount, if not most, drivers here don't even understand how a single-lane roundabout works. Who in the blue **** thought that a multilane
roundabout, in Korea, would be a great idea? On every single daily commute I see new ways of how not to drive in a roundabout. Very relaxing, indeed.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2627

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Ha! Yes! I love the way so many slide into your lane without indicating, just as you're coming out of a roundabout. Always calms me down.

Hey, look, kids!  There's Big Ben, and there's Parliament!


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2649

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Drivers here don't understand how driving works. Period!


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4711

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
This thread reminds me of one on Dave's where a poster said he threw his change at cars that blew through reds at interchanges where pedestrians were in the crosswalk. Martini had a cow, going on and on about how dangerous that was, potentially giving little ol' lady drivers heart attacks.

But it's OK for him to pick and choose which traffic laws to obey, including drinking and driving, which he admitted to.


Mr. D: Driving is a licensed activity. Licenses are agreements with the government to follow extra rules to get authorization to do something restrictive.

Police in the UK cannot generally ask you for ID without cause. If you are driving they can, because driving is a licensed activity.

Licenses do not grant you the right to decide which signs and signals you will follow.

Your insistence on the contrary tells me that you are likely not a good driver, despite your belief otherwise.
I don't think I made my point clear, which I wrote without full detail.

In the previous thread where I brought this up, I mentioned that this would be done in conjunction with the following- A tiered license system which enable drivers with good records to make this kind of call AND it being at designated lights.

What I actually mean: See Above
What people think I said: DeMart thinks its okay for drivers to run red lights through busy intersections


I don't believe he even owns a car in Korea.
Not now. Used to until I moved and switched to public transport.

Quote
That's called a 4-way stop. 4-way stops don't use traffic lights to direct the flow of traffic, you leave in the order that you arrive (another concept Korean drivers don't seem to get).
It makes perfect sense why you're not permitted to make your own judgements, it's called the law.
And I'm saying, make a better law that enables drivers to treat red lights as 4-ways in specific situations.

Quote
5-10yrs is throwing a bone. I support a lifetime ban of never being allowed to operate a vehicle ever again. The fact that being inebriated while driving is commonplace means sh*t to me and doesn't justify leniency. A drunk driver has demonstrated that they cannot control their impulse
and/or judgement and is willing to put the life of everyone in their immediate vicinity at risk. Weaving through traffic while drunk? Lifetime ban + a prison sentence. 
I don't think you really understand the criminal justice implications of your own policy. The sheer number of people would result in mass incarceration and mass unemployment in short order.

The answer to a social problem is not always harsh punishment. How Confucian of you.

Quote
So we're supposed to think up ways to compensate for the lack of responsibility of drunks?
If you want to get drunk and act like a 5yr old then before you lose your wits and judgement plan for your intoxicated state:
Drink at home, take a taxi, arrange transportation to and from the bar etc.

Alcohol in the hands of an adult is a dangerous thing and again, the fact that it's so common doesn't diminish the harm it can cause.
The moment you choose to drink is the moment you've agreed to accept the consequence of your actions.

DUI? Having your license revoked for 10yrs is far safer to the public than having you attend a 3hr workshop run by the Korean Mr Mackey.

First, the "so" tell for cognitive dissonance.

Second, everything you said about responsibility is true. That doesn't have anything to do with what the best public policy is.

I'm saying that there are better ways to deal with this issue, which is in part an addiction and public health issue than stern punishment. The issue to alcoholism wasn't Prohibition. The solution to drug use is not Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Zero Tolerance, and a War on Drugs.

Honestly, your thinking on this is rather one-dimensional: PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH. If the only solution someone is offering to an issue is punishment, then I'd be rather skeptical of their proposals.


This thread reminds me of one on Dave's where a poster said he threw his change at cars that blew through reds at interchanges where pedestrians were in the crosswalk. Martini had a cow, going on and on about how dangerous that was, potentially giving little ol' lady drivers heart attacks.

But it's OK for him to pick and choose which traffic laws to obey, including drinking and driving, which he admitted to.
If one beer is less than the legal limit for intoxication, then in theory, someone should be able to drink a beer while driving and it not be an issue. Drink while driving all you want as long as you are under the legal limit.

If we're going to say that even one drink makes you impaired, then we should ban radios, phones, eating, test people for caffeine if they're speeding, and talking in cars.


And I'm saying, make a better law that enables drivers to treat red lights as 4-ways in specific situations.

And everyone under the sun would appeal every single accident. Korean drivers already can't be relied to yield when THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.
You want to give them discretion over a red light? Are you high?

I don't think you really understand the criminal justice implications of your own policy. The sheer number of people would result in mass incarceration and mass unemployment in short order.
The answer to a social problem is not always harsh punishment. How Confucian of you.

Which means a sheer number of drivers don't belong on the road. Public transportation is top notch here, I think society will manage without them behind the wheel.
This isn't arbitrary punishment. You've made people aware of the law, they agreed and broke it regardless, thanks for playing.



First, the "so" tell for cognitive dissonance.

Second, everything you said about responsibility is true. That doesn't have anything to do with what the best public policy is.
I'm saying that there are better ways to deal with this issue, which is in part an addiction and public health issue than stern punishment. The issue to alcoholism wasn't Prohibition. The solution to drug use is not Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Zero Tolerance, and a War on Drugs.
Honestly, your thinking on this is rather one-dimensional: PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH. If the only solution someone is offering to an issue is punishment, then I'd be rather skeptical of their proposals.

Enforcement of the law and crime prevention (education, recognising alcoholism as a serious problem etc.) aren't mutually exclusive. You can educate, provide support and warn the public while concurrently enforcing the law against those who break it.

If one beer is less than the legal limit for intoxication, then in theory, someone should be able to drink a beer while driving and it not be an issue. Drink while driving all you want as long as you are under the legal limit.

If we're going to say that even one drink makes you impaired, then we should ban radios, phones, eating, test people for caffeine if they're speeding, and talking in cars.

People are typically suspected of being DUI because a cop sees them driving erratically. Cops don't use spidey senses.
An open alcohol container in a vehicle should also be grounds for penalty.

These are not difficult laws to understand or follow. 


And everyone under the sun would appeal every single accident. Korean drivers already can't be relied to yield when THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.
You want to give them discretion over a red light? Are you high?
Maybe it would incentivize better behavior if only drivers with clean records after a certain number of years got the privilege.

Also, can you stop generalizing like that? Most Korean drivers DO stop when they're supposed to. You need to understand the vast majority of people do try to obey the law. Seoul has exceptionally chaotic and confusing streets. I was driving with one of my friends, a non-Korean and a very good driver and this wasn't even in Seoul, it was in Busan, and even he got bewildered so at one point he went down a one-way the wrong way and also later made an illegal turn simply because things were so hectic.

Quote
Which means a sheer number of drivers don't belong on the road. Public transportation is top notch here, I think society will manage without them behind the wheel.
This isn't arbitrary punishment. You've made people aware of the law, they agreed and broke it regardless, thanks for playing.
"Thanks for playing" Yeah, that's not really how I would want to view an issue such as this.

I think you're thinking with your emotions here, not with actually trying to sit down and craft good policy. You want to punish these people because they disgust you rather than genuinely trying to craft good policy that will lead to great outcomes in safety, criminal justice, public health, economics and rehabilitation.

Quote
Enforcement of the law and crime prevention (education, recognising alcoholism as a serious problem etc.) aren't mutually exclusive. You can educate, provide support and warn the public while concurrently enforcing the law against those who break it.
Actually, they kind of are. When you throw people in their prison system and enact severe economic punishments such that their livelihood is taken away, with little prospect of returning, the chances of them entering into education or recognizing a problem or seeking treatment fall dramatically. Rather than seeking education about it to prevent it, most people will shy away from it because if seen getting educated on the subject, they might think they'll be tied to it.

If you want to use the criminal justice system, it would be far better to increase enforcement through more checkpoints and cops on patrol than through stiffened penalties.

Quote
People are typically suspected of being DUI because a cop sees them driving erratically. Cops don't use spidey senses.
An open alcohol container in a vehicle should also be grounds for penalty.

These are not difficult laws to understand or follow.
A person is cited for DUI based on their BAC. Driving erratically gives probable cause for a pullover, but without a breathalyzer or blood test showing proof of influence, then you can't be busted for DUI.

I say that if someone isn't legally at the point of intoxication, they should be fine. I understand the thinking behind such a charge, I just think it's overreach. But at least it's just a civil infraction, which I won't get too worked up over.


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 2215

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Now I see why you don't support voting: you're an anarchist.  :shocked:   :wink:


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2649

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Never thought we would be back to condoning drink-driving but itísÖMarty.



Also, can you stop generalizing like that? Most Korean drivers DO stop when they're supposed to. You need to understand the vast majority of people do try to obey the law. Seoul has exceptionally chaotic and confusing streets. I was driving with one of my friends, a non-Korean and a very good driver and this wasn't even in Seoul, it was in Busan, and even he got bewildered so at one point he went down a one-way the wrong way and also later made an illegal turn simply because things were so hectic.
"Thanks for playing" Yeah, that's not really how I would want to view an issue such as this.

Seoul, Busan, Incheon, Daejon, Gwangju, Daegu, Sokcho, Cheonan, Asan and too many small cities and towns to remember, I've driven this country flat. Everywhere I've driven Korean drivers generally DO NOT yield at 4-way intersections or roundabouts, Seoul and Busan probably being the absolute worst. Confusing streets, yeah, so what? By maintaining a safe following distance (till some prick decides to squeeze in), being alert (of course this includes never texting or holding a phone) I can say I've never been in a single accident. If you make a wrong turn you wait till you can make a legal turn to get back on track.

Your friend went down a one-way and made an illegal u-turn, that's his fault, not the road's fault. The one-way was clearly marked otherwise how would you be telling me about it? Your friend failed to notice the one-way because he was discombobulated. I'll cut him some slack since, I'm assuming, he hasn't driven here for long. Koreans grew up driving here, your "the roads are chaotic" excuse doesn't fly for them.

Culture influences behaviour, Korea has a bad driving culture so, generally speaking, Koreans are DANGEROUS drivers. Disagree if you like, but this isn't an opinion I've pulled out my ass. I've driven in all the biggest cities and smallest towns over years, I've earned the right to have an opinion.

I'd much rather prioritise human life and focus on enforcement and harsh punishment and not trivialise manslaughter/drunk driving. I don't see the point of wasting time trying to understand a drunk's "unique situation". As someone said, driving is a privilege, not a right. Drivers earn that privilege by demonstrating responsibility and competence. Human lives are at stake and I'd rather save someone from getting killed than to put the responsibility on the state to persuade a dangerous drunk not to be "naughty". 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2021, 09:36:07 am by Aristocrat »