Asshole Murdering Street Racers

[billvon 2,478]

>There's no moral difference between being a menace because you
>feel like driving fast or would rather talk while driving than stopped.

If you equate pure risk to the morality of the action, then older drivers with reduced reaction times are just as morally wrong as drunk drivers. Most people don't equate morality in that way. If you do something that you know to be risky to show off, that's more wrong on a moral scale than someone who does something more risky to (for example) find out if their child is OK.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There's no moral difference between being a menace because you feel like driving fast or would rather talk while driving than stopped

Sure there is. Are you trying to be a menace? If so, there's a moral difference.

It's like saying there's no difference between attempted murder and murder. Or, there's no difference between murder and manslaughter.

Would you say there's no difference between an regular airline crash (i.e., the AeroMexico plane that hit Cerritos, CA causing deaths on the ground) and the plane that crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11 that killed people on the ground? After all, a plane crash is quite menacing.

How about driving at 90 mph to get your buddy to the hospital vs. driving that same speed to see if you can do it in 4th gear?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

There's no moral difference between being a menace because you feel like driving fast or would rather talk while driving than stopped

Sure there is. Are you trying to be a menace? If so, there's a moral difference.

It's like saying there's no difference between attempted murder and murder. Or, there's no difference between murder and manslaughter.

Would you say there's no difference between an regular airline crash (i.e., the AeroMexico plane that hit Cerritos, CA causing deaths on the ground) and the plane that crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11 that killed people on the ground? After all, a plane crash is quite menacing.

How about driving at 90 mph to get your buddy to the hospital vs. driving that same speed to see if you can do it in 4th gear?

How about driving at 90 mph to get your buddy to the hospital vs. driving that same speed to see if you can do it in 4th gear?

Or doing it inthe quarter mile on a street race.... Things come in degrees and shades rather than black/white, as you've demonstrated.

Good to read less hate and see you disecting the elements. I mean that sincerely. Are you going to see what you can do for the girls and that they have a home (assuming there is no father)? Sad stuff.

Are the cops going to do paint scrapes and attempt to match the car make, that is if they had factory paint? That's what we need cops for, not collecting revenue for the state. If the mother was a relative of a cop, they would be all about forensic everything to find the scum - petition of they refuse to fully investigate this.

[minobu 0]

I understand where you are coming from but just as Lawrocket stated above the person on the cell phone does not have the intent of driving in a dangerous manner whereas the street racer does that is what makes the two situations different. I am sure the number of accidents caused by cell phone use is much larger than the number caused by street racers but if you look at the number of people driving while using cell phones as compared to the total number of street racers I am sure there would be a huge difference and I would almost guarantee that the ratio of accidents per person that street races would be much higher than driving with a cell phone. Its interesting that you bring up swooping as I would imagine the ratio of swoopers that get injured would be much higher than the general population of skydivers I am still a newbie so I don't know for sure but logic would suggest this to be true. Additionally I think a big difference when you try to compare the way swoooping is looked at and the way street racing is looked at is that swoopers for the most part are only endangering their own life.

Only skydivers know why the birds sing!

Jim

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

...many here didn't get the upbringing to relate morality to legality, at least in this case.

Since my primary avocation is often classed as illegal by authorities, but would be hard to call immoral, I think I'm going to have to ask you what that says about my upbringing?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Good to read less hate and see you disecting the elements.

Yeah, the hatred is still there, but tempered greatly once my coping mechanisms take over. Unfortunately, I boiled over a bit yesterday on this board, and I regret that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[flyingferret 0]

Ok,

A few comments, as for the legal ramifications, thanks but I was never interested. My point from the beginning was to say this thread mostly sensational from the first post, and from a layman's perspective there was plenty of other things that were as dangerous as street racers, IF slightly less obvious.
As for the legal definition of irresonsible, again I am not terribly interested, my point was perception from the beginning. And in the world outside the courtroom you can do plenty of irresponsible things based on negligence rather than 'evil intent'. It is still not a responsible thing to do...we argue about it all the time in the skydiving world.

Study on cell phone usage:
Summary with lots of footnotes and sources http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2003/Olson05.aspx

As for confusing the issue, the only reason I ever got in this thread was a cross post from lawrocket in a thread about bikers, with a link to this one. Along with that a bunch of speed data got dragged in which was entirely from that thread and not this one.
I set out to clarify, not confuse the issue.
On that note, I would ask lawrocket to produce any data he has on the wreck....speed, location, etc, etc. Anything beyond the statement that 'asshole murdering street racers' killed somone. THEN, and only then, might there be analytical conversation about the event in question.
In the mean time you are now using legal definitions to explain to me how these people are the most irresponsible people on the road, while a day ago you were indicated that legal definitions did not allow adequate punishment.

Yet once more....for a layman's standpoint. A person accidently causes a collision, be it car or canopy is still irresponsible. If you would prefer to call it reckless or call people with intent malicious, whatever. The point is...most people don't have intent to cause an accident, they have intent to do what they want....whether it is drive a certain speed or talk on the cell phone or swoop in a congested landing pattern. Choosing to ignore the limitations of the situation is the irresponsible action.

Your argue about "it must be true" is pretty weak and applies to this thread as much as anything. I was referring to the fact, that cell phone usage is a problem with pending legislation. One would have to be pretty isolated from suburban/urban society to miss that fact.

Yep, soccer mom could be irresponsible too. Eating in my car could be too. Go watch defensive driving, it will advocate all of that. Do we follow it? DO I follow it? Not entirely, I am not sure how you can in today's pace of life. BUT, you can use judgement to eat a snack while cruising on an open highway, rather than in stop and go resedential traffic. You can choose to use a headset if a phone call is necessary.

As an aside the definition of irresponsible is the lack of responsiblity. And the definition of respnsibility is:

Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
Being a source or cause.
Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament

So, in summary, my point remains that there are plenty of irresponsible drivers that that do not engage in street racing and cause more deaths. You are trying to argue defintions with me that I never set out to state.

As a postscript, I do agree that our driving tests are a joke, and would be fully in favor of skill based tests that would eliminate inept drivers over a spectrum of ages.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Good to read less hate and see you disecting the elements.

Yeah, the hatred is still there, but tempered greatly once my coping mechanisms take over. Unfortunately, I boiled over a bit yesterday on this board, and I regret that.

That's why we're here ..... take care

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I would ask lawrocket to produce any data he has on the wreck....speed, location, etc, etc.

Okay. The wreck occurred shortly before 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 2005. It occurred at the intersection of Fig and Central in Fresno, California.

map link: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Central+and+fig,+fresno,+California&spn=0.066770,0.115356&hl=en

Satellite photo http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Central+and+fig,+fresno,+California&ll=36.680260,-119.800072&spn=0.041628,0.057678&t=k&hl=en

As you can see, the location is southwest of the city of Fresno in a predominantly agricultural area. Zooming in on the photograph, you can see that Central Avenue is bounded on the north by orchards and by a canal and agricultural fields to the south.

The two racers were each racing their Pontiac Grand Ams southbond on Fig, the north/south street. My friend was traveling westbound on Central.

Both vehicles entered blindly into the intersection. This intersection has a stop sign for vehicles traveling north and south on Fig. One vehicle broadsided her. She was driving a 1998 GMC truck. The impact drove her into the eastbound lane, where she was hit head-on by a box truck. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Both occupants of the box truck were injured.

So, there is a change. One of the vehicles did sustain damage. The driver of the vehicle that hit her escaped on foot into an orchard. His passenger, a 15 year old, was injured and taken to the hospital. There is a name and description of this suspect. He is 21 years old, and the Grand Am was registered to is father.

The other Grand Am fled the scene and there are now leads to his/her identity.

Speed estimates are unknown. What IS known is that they entered the intersection at high speed without stopping.

There is no evidence to suggest that Diana was using her cell phone. There is no evidence to suggest that Diana was speeding or otherwise doing anything of an unsafe nature. It also appears that given the intersection bordered by orchards, it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference, as time between seeing the vehicle and the collision was likely in the hundredths of a second.

So, let's look at the asshole moments:
1) Driving the vehicle at a high rate of speed on a public road;
2) Attempting to drive the vehicle at a higher rate of speed than another attempting #1;
3) Doing so bordered by orchards;
4) Doing so on a road that has intersections roughly every half mile through orchards;
5) Doing so during rush hour;
6) Doing so approaching a major east-west thoroughfare;
7) Blowing through a stop sign;
7(a) I don't give a shit if he attempted to stop;
8) Carrying enough speed and kinetic energy to cave in and push a vehicle weighing over two tons into oncoming traffic (probably in excess of 80 mph);
9) Successfully performing act #8;
10) Killing one and injuring three others;
11) Fleeing the scene
12) It is unknown whether he was on a cell phone at the time. If so, he should be strung up.

So, let's equivalate this individual to a soccer mom spreading gossip to her social circle, on her cell phone, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[flyingferret 0]

Thanks for the details.

For the record, I never meant to insinuate that your friend was at all in the wrong, cell phone or otherwise.

Obviously these racers were idiots and assholes as you put it. I don't think I have ever argued against it. I have simply tried to make the point that they are not the only or worst irresponsible assholes.

Based on your description, the racing does not really matter much. The only possible excpetion may be the kinetic energy, which is still a pretty big gamble.
In another scenario, a car driven by a non racing car could have run the stopsign, hit the truck, blown out a tire which initiated a loss of control with allowed entry to the other lane. There are hundreds and hundreds of variables.

Last year in Texas, a father fell asleep at the wheel on an interstate highway, perfectly sober while returning from a trip and killed (I think 8 people) including his entire family) No racing, no phones, simply the choice to push yourself beyond the responsible limitations for the situation.

Senior citizens have in recent years almost made a sport of driving into farmers markets injuring others. Still irresponsible by being too damn stubborn to admit you are past the point of driving age.

These people who killed your friends were blatantly irresponsible. And because of the blatant nature and the proximity to you, they are filling your subjective vision right now. My only points ever were (1) that there are plenty of other acts of irresponsiblity more complicated and less blatant, and therefore we are more reluctant to sensationalize them, because we can see ourselves doing them. And (2) pulling the speeding event in from another thred served no point to the discussion at hand.

And yep....I still say it all boils down to a decision to be irresponsible....speeding, racing, cell phone, sleep deprivation. You are citing the decision based on the carnage induced. Plenty of people race in a busy environment and get away with it. Plenty of people push the limits on the road and get away with it.....but guess what? They made the same decisions. On the reverse side, people like our rider forum member that exceeding 140mph on a straight isolated stretch did NOT make the same decision because of the controlled environment.

And if you still don't like the logic behind it...look at if from a sheer math standpoint. IF someone how you went on a crusade and stopped all street racing, you would have 135 people in a year.
IF you stopped even 10% of alcohol related fatalies, you would save 1700 people!

Quote

Overview

Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2004a).

Occurrence and Consequences

During 2003, 17,013 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 40% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2004a).

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Now tell me again how street racers are the biggest and most dangerous assholes and should get capital murder?

Again...there are much more common and damaging irresponsiblities than street racing. But of course the average american sees themselves as more likely to 'accidentally' have a few drinks and drive or do something foolish while on a cell phone, but they would NEVER street racer....cause only punks with fast cars and death wishes do that.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

What should they be charged with, when found? I say capital murder.

Yep.

Quote

I think a fit punishment for them is lifelong quadriplegia.

I disagree. Fuck the punishment, get rid of the problem.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Fuck the punishment, get rid of the problem.

Well said!
j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I never meant to insinuate that your friend was at all in the wrong, cell phone or otherwise.

I understand that.

Quote

I have simply tried to make the point that they are not the only or worst irresponsible assholes.

I understand that, too. The guy who drove his car into a preschool to kill kids was a bigger asshole.

Quote

In another scenario, a car driven by a non racing car could have run the stopsign, hit the truck, blown out a tire which initiated a loss of control with allowed entry to the other lane. There are hundreds and hundreds of variables.

You are correct. However, the odds of that happening are miniscule with everyday driving. The odds of an incident such as this occur go up on a logarithmic level when street racing is involved. It's the knowledge of the great increase in risk to others, and the deliberate decision to go for it, anyways, that brings this to the level of recklessness. It's not only foreseeable that this would happen from a streetrace, it's damned near certain that if you do it enough, events like this will happen.

In skydiving it is said that if you do it enough you will have a cutaway, and you will know somebody that dies. In this street racing, if you do it enough you either will kill yourself or someone else, or you will know someone who did. It's the killing of others that bothers me.

Quote

Last year in Texas, a father fell asleep at the wheel on an interstate highway, perfectly sober while returning from a trip and killed (I think 8 people) including his entire family) No racing, no phones, simply the choice to push yourself beyond the responsible limitations for the situation.

Yep. Falling asleep at the wheel is inexcusable and reckless. But there's still a difference - he didn't think he'd be a danger to anyone. Anyone who doesn't think he/she is doign something dangerous while street racing is not a street racer. It's the danger they are looking for. I doubt the sleeper was driving tired for the fun of it.

Quote

These people who killed your friends were blatantly irresponsible. And because of the blatant nature and the proximity to you, they are filling your subjective vision right now. My only points ever were (1) that there are plenty of other acts of irresponsiblity more complicated and less blatant, and therefore we are more reluctant to sensationalize them, because we can see ourselves doing them.

That's right. It is the BLATANT disregard of the BLATANT danger that makes is so bad. It's why we have sympathy for someone who blows a .08 while rcognizing that they screwed up, but have no sympathy for the cat who blows a .36. .08 is a mistake. A .36 is blatant.

Quote

(2) pulling the speeding event in from another thred served no point to the discussion at hand.

You are right. It's why I removed the post and posted an apology for all to see. I admit when I fuck up, and I don't hide it.

Quote

still say it all boils down to a decision to be irresponsible....speeding, racing, cell phone, sleep deprivation. You are citing the decision based on the carnage induced.

We have an Incidents forum that discusses fatal and non-fatal incidents that people get away with all the time. Lots of people hook it low and end up fine. Lots of people downsize too quickly and are fine - until it caught up with them. Carnage makes the danger in-your-face apparent to where it cannot be denied.

Quote

I still say it all boils down to a decision to be irresponsible....speeding, racing, cell phone, sleep deprivation.

Another point, the irresponsibilty of those acts really has nothing to do with the limited universe of asshole street racers. What they do is wrong, regardles of how wrong the others are. It's that simple.

Quote

IF someone how you went on a crusade and stopped all street racing, you would have 135 people in a year.

A noble goal, eh?

Quote

IF you stopped even 10% of alcohol related fatalies, you would save 1700 people!

A noble goal, as well having nothing to do with the virtue of stopping street racing.

Quote

Now tell me again how street racers are the biggest and most dangerous assholes and should get capital murder?

It is because they blatantly ignore all concern for not only themselves but others on and off the roads for the sheer sake of putting themselves and everyone else at risk. Like drunk drivers, whose first fuckup is to get drunk, the street racer's first fuckup is to race. If a drunk driver kills someone, they are on the hook for murder. If a drunk driver injures someone, it's a felony. At least a drunk can say his judgment was impaired from alcohol. The street racer's judgment is impaired only because he/she is an asshole.

I DO equate thsi with drunk driving. I DO NOT equate it with talking on the cell phone. I DO equate this with doing 60 in a school zone. I DO NOT equate it was doing 80 on the freeway.

Just my opinions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Since my primary avocation is often classed as illegal by authorities,

Are you talking basejumping?
I don't know where that is specifically illegal except in parks where it's been a problem. however, criminal trespass, etc is illegal and occurs quite a bit for some basejumpers. Is that immoral? I think not respecting property rights isn't very moral. (One of my base jumps we climbed a fence and wired the antenna's elevator - it was fun, but aspects to enable it were both illegal and immoral - just because it was fun, doesn't make it right. But then, my upbringing was by wolves)

But I was flip in wording the attempt to open a right vs wrong aspect. let it go - mea culpa

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EricTheRed 0]

Point conceded.

I stand by my statement that it should be made easier to race at a track without having to jump through SCCA's hoops or join an organized club. If you had a way for the punks to kill themselves out of the public's way, it could reduce the threat to those of us that use the roads to get to the DZ.

There are a lot of tracks that sit empty most of the time, yet you can't just roll up on a Tuesday afternoon, sign a waiver, pay your $$ and race. Easy enough to do IF the track owner wasn't worried about being sued out of existance when some dickhead with a big wing and fart can flips his Civic.

illegible usually

[flyingferret 0]

The bottom line typographically is point

Quote

Just my opinions

As mine are.

I agree with some of your thoughts, but I still think you are putting your own template around this and somehow automagically deducing what people are thinking.
I dont understand how you can say "But there's still a difference - he didn't think he'd be a danger to anyone" It doesn't matter if he thought....everyone thinks they can get away with the risk or they wouldn't take it. It is the bigger individuals that think "I may be a risk and therefore don't take the action" Thinking in advance that you might be a risk to yourself or others, does not change the fact that the action occured. You act like the intent is to cause an accident. It isn't. All you really have to do is avoid choosing not act. I seriously doubt the street racers conciously thought they would be a risk to others. Now before you respond, I seriously doubt they would have cared. My point it simply that thinking about it determines almost nothing. Good intentions do not change the consequences of bad judgement. Responsbility and maturity allow people to see past good intentions and realize that sometimes caution must take the place of good intentions.

So, I still maintain on a philosophical scale, the decision is the commonality: The decision to put your own immediate desires (phone, speeding, etc) above the process of acting responsibly in the environment. If you get stopped for something illegal, intent will make little difference....all the officer really cares about was that you made the decision to ignore the law. Short of cell phone, most acts discussed are illegal, and even cell phone usage is in some places.

So, again I don't see where intent has much to do with the statement of being irresponsible. If you were the first person to ever dirve drunk or use a cell phone, the mistake defense might have a point. But in this day and age it is your legal responsiblity to abide by the law, and to an implied extent to use judgement when driving. You agree to that through use of a state license and public roads. Ignoring that is irresponsible.

While "Carnage makes the danger in-your-face apparent to where it cannot be denied." is very true. It makes muted offenses no less danger. In fact may be alleged that they are more dangerous because of the ability to be overlooked.

So....not sure if there is any point of dicsussing differences for yet another iteration. We already have plenty of laws about traffic fatalities...I would think they could be applied to street racers as is, I don't see a need for a specific punishment clause for racers.

What would like to see is tougher penalties on fatalities of all types, namely drunk driving because of the sheer majority of events. Likewise, if cell phone usage is restricted, I hope it is enforced to the fullest extent possible. The need to talk on a phone while holding it while driving, is absolutely non existant except in emergencies. There is no reason you cannot abstain or use a headset. Much like the arguments you hear about seatbelts, the arguments about cell phones are bullshit.....not using them increases safety. It simply ought be legislated and enforced, rather than everyone arguing about how the soccer mom did not mean any harm when she caused that 10 car pileup while talking on the phone.

I digress....street racers are irresponsible and reckless. But not the most common or the most carnage inducing.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rehmwa 2]

Makes me think of the "suicide booths" from Futurama.

The tracks are about good driving and racing responsibly. Not about 'providing an outlet'.

If some idiot wants to just "open it up" (good quote on the Civic) without training or good equipment, then maybe that's a business venture we could open. It would be a service to mankind - in a Darwinistic sort way.

Do you know how to write a business plan? If fact, you wouldn't even need a track, just get them to sign the waiver and then shot them in the forehead. (After they write the check). On the otherhand, some wuffos feels this way about tandems, so I'm torn (do I eat pizza or chimis tonight).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Makes me think of the "suicide booths" from Futurama.
....
, just get them to sign the waiver and then shot them in the forehead. (After they write the check).

Unfortunately Oregon is one ofthe few states where assisted suicide is legal, even then you have to have two doctors declare you about to die anyway. And they won't let you use a gun, you have to give them pills that they have to take themselves.

Tis a shame in my opinion - lot's of folks out there that would be better off removed from the available gene pool.

illegible usually

[maxmadmax 8]

Fuck 'em....and they say that we are nuts.

I see these shitheads weaving in and out of highway traffic everyday.

Let's kill'em the Commanche way:

Strip 'em, stake 'em and then slowly burn'em to death via hot coals on the stomach....a very excruciating death......

As I said before......fuck 'em

Don't go away mad....just go away!

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Fuck 'em....and they say that we are nuts.

I see these shitheads weaving in and out of highway traffic everyday.

Let's kill'em the Commanche way:

Strip 'em, stake 'em and then slowly burn'em to death via hot coals on the stomach....a very excruciating death......

As I said before......fuck 'em

That'll make society a much better place, especially when your kids/younger siblings see our society as barbaric. Them and theri generation will grow up and act as or more barbaric and we'll scratch our heads wondering why.

If this was my sister/wife/cousin, I would want what you say, but then that's why we have objective, unaffected people making these decisions.

[kelpdiver 2]

We know that drunk drivers kill on order of 20,000 per year. How many deaths have been attributed to cell phone use? It's well below the obvious culprits of alcohol, speed, tailgating, and other aggressive driving.

That study's declaration that talking is a .08 makes great headlines, but it doesn't stand up well to common sense.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Tis a shame in my opinion - lot's of folks out there that would be better off removed from the available gene pool.

Yowser, I was again just being flip about the shortcut. But I do think a track which allows people (with no training, bad equipment, etc) to go kill themseves without harm to the rest of us is a good idea. But they need to be able to pay for it and all the consequences (medical, cleanup, etc) all by themselves.

Example - Our cycle racer (sorry guy, you are the example now) noted he had a buddy with EMT training on site (along with a bunch of other rationalizations with people pretending they controlled the situation - rather than finding a track that controls this type of recreation and helps qualify people). But if he'd have crashed at that speed, his EMT friend would still call an ambulance. If insurance doesn't pay (and shouldn't in this case), and our biker buddy can't afford medical treatment out of pocket, who foots the bill just so they can get some irrational jollies?

So let's have tracks where someone can sign a waiver, and then, if they can afford the consequences, let em loose. Maybe they will have a good time. Also, some enterprising guy with a straight stretch of private road on a fenced in property can make a few bucks in a new business enterprise.

Driving is very simple (it's one dimension control), and nearly everyone thinks they are good at it. That's why training is important and formal track operations, clubs, etc is crucial, since everyone is delusional about their abilities.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[flyingferret 0]

You are quite incorrect:

Quote

A study being released today by Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis estimates a rate of 2,600 deaths a year in such crashes, compared with the same researchers' estimate of 1,000 fatalities only two years ago.

http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/cellphones.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/02/MN93054.DTL

All the while this is compared to that 135 people killed by street racers. Obviously speeding and alcohol are in 'lead' However, cell phones fatalities are way ahead of street racing.

Additionally we are really just learning about this. Your common sense rhetoric sounds like most people's in the beginning of the investigation phase. Cell phones are too new to have any long term numbers, additionally their use has probably been exponentially growing in the last 5 years.

What we do know is the numbers above....2600 fatalities, as opposed to 1000 two years ago. It would seem that cell phone usage is becoming a bigger threat. Street racing has long been illegal. We have yet to regulate cell phones usage in most places and the death toll is climbing.

Regardless:
17000 fatalities - Alcohol and driving
2600 fatalities - cell phone and driving
135 fatalities - street racing

While not related to the same number of participants (1.48 fatalities per 100 Million vehicle miles, 21.74 fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/) for comparison:
100 fatalities - personal watercraft (only about 1 million in use)
20 fatalities - unrestrained dog attacks (53 million dogs)
7 fatalities - killer bees (only in about 10 counties in the us)

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[WatchYourStep 0]

Quote

Example - Our cycle racer (sorry guy, you are the example now) noted he had a buddy with EMT training on site (along with a bunch of other rationalizations with people pretending they controlled the situation - rather than finding a track that controls this type of recreation and helps qualify people). But if he'd have crashed at that speed, his EMT friend would still call an ambulance. If insurance doesn't pay (and shouldn't in this case), and our biker buddy can't afford medical treatment out of pocket, who foots the bill just so they can get some irrational jollies?

A few things:

-If I did crash at that point, lets be honest the chances of me surviving are slim, and I know that. Whatever my insurance wouldn't cover I would and could.

-When you ride a track (and yes I have ridden them) you don't get to go by yourself. Most track days are open track days. This means the track has multiple people on it. I have no idea the skill level of these other riders. If you want to see some big wrecks go to an open track day and watch a few of the crazy guys out there during the first few hours. No thanks.

-What brought up the insurance things? You can apply that to a thousand different scenarios? In my best rehmwa voice (I know I haven't met you so you don't need to tell me I don't know what you sound like) "What if someone gets hurt doing base? If insurance doesn't pay (and shouldn't in this case), and our jumper buddy can't afford medical treatment out of pocket, who foots the bill just so they can get some irrational jollies?" I mean come on. This could be applied to smokers who got cancer and couldn't afford the treatment and several other things.

-I'm the last person to think I'm delusional about my skills. I know what I can do and I know what I can't do. The latter being more important that the prior. For instance I can barely ride a wheelie. I've never bothered to attempt them in the past, but now I'm practicing in an empty parking lot. Call me Winslow.

"You start off your skydiving career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience up before your bag of luck runs out."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

>There's no moral difference between being a menace because you
>feel like driving fast or would rather talk while driving than stopped.

If you equate pure risk to the morality of the action, then older drivers with reduced reaction times are just as morally wrong as drunk drivers. Most people don't equate morality in that way. If you do something that you know to be risky to show off, that's more wrong on a moral scale than someone who does something more risky to (for example) find out if their child is OK.

I'll define morality as a function of intent, need, and risk.

The hypothethical street racer, drunk driver, and driving cell-phone user don't plan on hurting anyone.

None of them need to be driving on public roads in those circumstances. The street racers can have their recreation at a track. People can avoid drinking when they won't have transportation or arange for other transport. One can pull over before placing a call..

Studies suggest that the risk from driving under the influence and while talking are similar. With all three factors equal I'd say there isn't a moral difference between the two. In some circumstances street racing isn't any different either.

As long as people continue living they can't choose not to be old. Living many places in America is not practical without driving. Staying out of the driver's seat is not an option. Waiting to get to a hospital is not a choice.