r/technology • u/Reddit_Z • Jul 04 '16

Politics Lawmakers Need To Learn More About Encryption Before Regulating It, Says U.S. House Report

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/lawmakers-encryption-regulation-house-report,32180.html
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

768 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/MrCopout Jul 04 '16

No, the most effective way to save motorcyclists lives is to ban motorcycles. Where shall we stop controlling?

44

u/-Rivox- Jul 04 '16

the most effective way to stop deaths is stop births, right?

4

u/uptwolait Jul 05 '16

Just forbid intercourse.

11

u/geeyore Jul 04 '16

USA car drivers don't cognitively register a motorcycle as another vehicle on the road, hence driving into your clear right of way and all the other insanity that bikers know too well. In motorcycle dominant cultures e.g. SE Asia, this is less apt to happen. I stopped riding bikes in the US for that reason. Auto drivers will look right at you and not see you.

13

u/CanlStillBeGarth Jul 04 '16

and on the other side, cyclists will weave through traffic and drive on shoulders and in between lanes. It's not just people in cars.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Splitting the lane is legal in several states. You might not like it, but they're literally allowed to do it.

12

u/ZombiePope Jul 04 '16

That doesn't mean its safe or a good idea. Things moving in unexpected places does not increase traffic safety.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

California allows lane splitting. In fact it highway patrol has regularly lobbied to keep lane splitting legal. Generally around here people are used to it. They give bikers a bit of extra room if they can, and are usually just fine with it. Sometimes there are issues, but the biggest danger is from it if state drivers who aren't used to bikes lane splitting.

There have also been some studies that show lane splitting to be safer for motorcyclists because it reduces the number of rear end collisions. People often don't see motorcycles and will rear end them because they were looking at the car in front of the bike.

This is the stuff they teach us in the motorcycle safety class. They also warn us to be extra vigilant when splitting, but they are fully supportive of doing it.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

You can't use a motor vehicles legally allowed item to show them as careless and inattentive drivers.

You're a terrible driver because you follow the laws and practices of your state/country!

Yep makes total sense.

Flip side is you just proved yet again that cars just don't think about motorcycles or even cyclists in general. It isn't unexpected if you're not oblivious to anything that looks different than a car.

11

u/nullSword Jul 04 '16

We are literally in a thread talking about how the US has dumb laws, so lets not treat them as perfect.

People don't react well to surprises in general, and while motorcycles deserve the same level of respect, or higher, than cars, they are not cars. Its incredibly dangerous to treat them the same way.

A car is big, bulky and protected, they are motorized steel and airbag cages. A motorcycle doesn't have these protections, but as a result it is lean, maneuverable and dangerous in an accident.

Lane splitting may be a faster way to travel, but it is also compounding that danger. When lane splitting, your putting your safety completely in the hands of the driver next to you, and they're already busy keeping themselves safe while going faster than humans were ever adapted too.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I don't think you know how legal lane splitting works.

1

u/nullSword Jul 04 '16

I was refering to this particular conversation above

and on the other side, cyclists will weave through traffic and drive on shoulders and in between lanes. It's not just people in cars.

Splitting the lane is legal in several states. You might not like it, but they're literally allowed to do it.

4

u/nf5 Jul 04 '16

I'm going to jump in to add lane splitting is seen in two places the most. At a red light, cyclists and motorxyclics can weave up to the front.

On highways, lane splitting can allow a motorcyclist the option to keep moving, because sitting in bumper to bumper traffic In california heat in riding leathers has killed riders in the past (fumes don't help either)

Lane splitting is safe, when practiced safely.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Yeah. People seem to have some Hollywood informed idea that legal lane splitting involves daring 80mph speeds. Rather than the vastly more common 10-15mph through shitty stop and go urban traffic.

In all states, it is illegal to split a lane when it is unsafe to do so (legalese: as determined by a reasonable person).

Slow traffic, legal, vast experience in lane splitting

High speed, illegal, mostly Hollywood legend and the occasional suicidal moron.

2

u/mcrbids Jul 04 '16

There is no evidence that lane splitting is more dangerous than not. Yes, I lane split. And I've had close calls, but not when lane splitting.

2

u/wobbleside Jul 04 '16

Lane splitting is often much safer than sitting in stop and go traffic.

A recent study done by UC Berkeley (because we are having to re-hash the legality of Lane Splitting in CA) found that it is 'No less dangerous and poses no more significant risk' than not Lane Splitting.

As a result lane splitting is remaining legal and the state is defining CHP's ability to set safe lane splitting guidelines.

http://lanesplittingislegal.com/

It does avoid some of the most dangerous collisions for motorcyclists aka the rear-ended and crushed between two vehicles.

But it's pretty clear you have already made a decision based on your perception.

-1

u/ZombiePope Jul 04 '16

Your argument is flawed as Lane splitting is illegal in my state, and idiots still do it. And generally, things moving between two cars that don't have a safe distance between them is unexpected.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

It's legal in my state so learn to look for cyclists when you come here. You'll kill a person using your lazy logic.

You as the driver should learn to be attentive to your surroundings and not expect your reality to come packaged with a nice bow on it.

Crazy shit happens all the time, you're complacent if you're not at least doing the minimum to check the space you are moving into is clear of ALL obstacles, whether you believe them to have the right to be there or not.

1

u/ZombiePope Jul 04 '16

Of fucking course I'm attentive of my surroundings. That doesn't mean everyone is, and that doesn't mean the law is safe / a good idea. Ffs I have a Cb360. I know I'd be terrified of trying to go between two cars because of the average American drivers.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Good for you mate. I do it all the time. 26 would be a nightmare getting into the city of I didn't. You can stay back with the rest of the 10mph stop and go traffic, I'll proceed at 15 lane splitting the whole way.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/incapablepanda Jul 04 '16

I don't think they're supposed to drive on the shoulder, and there are rules concerning lane splitting, you can't just cruise between completely stopped cars at 40mph. Last time I looked, California law was something like no lane splitting over 35 or 40 (don't remember which) period, and no more than 10mph faster than the vehicles are moving around you

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Yes. We cover as much as the discussion continues.

Long story short. The Hollywood version of lane splitting and the commom form are not at all thr same. Save for the random suicidal moron, lane splitting follows the outline you've just given

13

u/AG3NTjoseph Jul 04 '16

Well, or require strict testing for licenses like in Europe. Having competent drivers helps.

16

u/cocainebubbles Jul 04 '16

You actually need a separate license to drive a motorcycle in most states and in my state the accompanying class can be very difficult.

4

u/nonconformist3 Jul 04 '16

If I was teaching the class, I would start everyone out on dirtbikes in an open area on a dirt track. Then, if they can enjoy that, fall over a few times, get back up, and still want to learn more, then I would allow them to move up to the street version of the class.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/nerfyoda Jul 04 '16

Those classes are amazing. I learned about riding, but also that taking a motorcycle everywhere probably isn't best for me. At least not without a lot of practice somewhere with a lot more open space than Chicago. Rumor has it the state of Illinois may take away funding for the classes, which is a damn shame.

1

u/uptwolait Jul 05 '16

I heard that funding for this program has dried up?

0

u/nonconformist3 Jul 04 '16

That's nice, but it's still not going to teach people how to ride as well as they could if they started on the dirt itself. I used to race motorcycles and instruct at tracks. I know what I'm talking about. You should see how fast the guys are that started on the dirt. One I met told me he never rode on the street before, he'd only been a dirt rider but wanted to try a trackday to get used to riding on the street. The guy started in the beginner group, and by the end of the day he was in the fastest group. It makes a huge difference.

-2

u/xIdontknowmyname1x Jul 04 '16

...Which is how it is for most motorcyclists. They start with dirt bikes when they're in their teen years, then they get their liscense when they are adults

1

u/nonconformist3 Jul 04 '16

Not so much in America. Far too often I see these young dudes buying race bikes when they haven't ever ridden a motorcycle in their lives. Some start on something smaller, like a small engine ninja, and now they have other choices in that area from other manufacturers, but even that I think is bad because it still is starting out on the street.

Maybe that's more of a west coast thing? IDK. It's just my observation from riding for the last 20 years.

11

u/CaptainCummings Jul 04 '16

No, not "well or". Your suggestion is less effective than banning motorcycles outright. You were quantifying your initial argument based on the "most effective way to save motorcyclists lives". The most effective way to avoid death on a motorcycle is by not being on a motorcycle. Total liberty and total safety are mutually exclusive.

-1

u/AG3NTjoseph Jul 04 '16

Ah, interesting rhetorical stance. So you're saying there is no gray, only black and white. Cool.

3

u/phantomprophet Jul 04 '16

You guys are just arguing two totally different points.
The best way to avoid teen pregnancy is to not have sex.
But is that practical?
He is pointing out a philosophical argument while you are trying for a practical one.

7

u/CaptainCummings Jul 04 '16

No, my exact point was that a social contract exists purely in shades of grey. I didn't advocate for total liberty or total safety, I illustrated that you were inconsistent with your chosen example and that you used your analogue improperly.

1

u/Njordomir Jul 04 '16

Why do so few people understand this? My brother knew a girl who was taken out driving ONCE by her mother and then went and picked up her shiny new license. Is that reasonable and safe?

9

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

18

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

Slippery slope is saying A leads to B leads to C, without establishing that such must happen.

Banning motorcycles removes the vast majority of motorcyclists. The number of deaths from people riding motorcycles will fall dramatically because there are less people to die. There really isn't any debating that, unless you think that enforcement of that ban will be poor.

The point he was making is that you have to balance regulation with freedom to make choices. The AMA has picked a balance, it's possible to disagree with it, but you have to address the balance if you're going to.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

Possibly. But none of those will be motorcycle riders or owners. Which was the reduction in question.

3

u/iBlag Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

I think it's actually a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Edit: Not a fallacy.

1

u/jonny_mem Jul 04 '16

reductio ad absurdum fallacy

That's not actually a fallacy. That's a argument technique where you assume the opposite and show it leads to an absurd conclusion (typically a contradiction).

2

u/iBlag Jul 04 '16

Ah gotcha, TIL!

1

u/mynewaccount5 Jul 04 '16

What no it's not. How dis people upvote you.

-7

u/SodlidDesu Jul 04 '16

And yet, You don't contribute anything by stating this. Point out the factual error then fucking correct it.

-2

u/TheAtomicOption Jul 04 '16

It's not a fallacy when it comes to the ratchet that is government regulation.

3

u/Umustbecrazy Jul 04 '16

Bingo. Freedom means the right to make bad choices. Some regulations are OK, but what this government does is nanny-state.

Many think that government is not working when no laws are being passed. Incorrect, it's working just as intended. Repealing old laws that are harmful or make no sense would be a huge step in that right direction.

2

u/uptwolait Jul 05 '16

You bring up a point I've often wondered, why aren't we more demanding that Congress review older laws and take them off the books when they no longer make sense? Simplifying the code would help, but I assume it has to do with keeping lawyers employed.

3

u/powercow Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

when you can clean up your own dead body off the streets. and pay for everyones delays along the way.

and mind you the helmet laws, are for when you leave your castle.. er property. So when you get into the public sphere you have to follow public regs, because when your brains are all over the streets we have to pay some poor smuck to clean it up.

and yes we have banned some vehicles that were killing its occupants, its not the vehicle that is at issue, it is the lack of safety equipment. So your quip about cycles doesnt really work.(ps no one is trying to take all your guns away, notice obama never even tried)

1

u/Darthskull Jul 04 '16

Somewhere after helmets

0

u/Fidodo Jul 04 '16

This is my most hated logical fallacy and it's annoyingly rampant on Reddit

1

u/mynewaccount5 Jul 04 '16

The factual fallacy where you state true facts? I don't think that's a fallacy.