Ridiculous Fines for Cellphone Use while Driving

Fines vary from $20 to $2000 – is this merely an extra money for the government to spend on new roads, or will it prevent people from using cellphones?

Photo from Stefan Kloo’s flickr

We all know your reaction time doesn’t improve when you use a cellphone while driving. If I were playing Angry Birds, I wouldn’t even see the other car coming.  But I could hold a navigation device in my hand all day while building a Lego tower, and not be fined. Even calling someone while riding a bike is no problem.

Calling would distract you from driving, and therefore be an offence. Research shows that older people react much slower than younger people (Green, 2009), and there is a dramatic increase  in reaction time between an 80 year old and a 20 year old man. Why then do we not forbid all old people to drive? They’re much more dangerous that young people calling.

Research also shows that handheld calling causes as many accidents as handsfree calling (Victor H., 2011). It doesn’t matter whether you hold your phone or not, you can’t pay as much attention to the road as you should. But when attention becomes the problem, we could also forbid music in cars. I personally find pink cars very distracting, let’s forbid those too.

Is there any way to forbid everything that causes distraction? No, but calling is a popular thing to do while driving, so when you forbid that. We might solve a big part of the problem. But then handsfree calling should be forbidden too. And Angry Birds. While we’re at it, let’s just ban all cellphone use from our lives. It is not possible.

Will the fine prevent you from calling while driving?

Sources:
Driver Reaction Time; Visual Expert
Using a Bluetooth hands-free while driving just as risky as using the handset, study finds; Phone Arena

Punishing Before and After Crimes

There is technology that can detect thoughts that  might, or will, lead to a crime.

Photo from photoXpress

Is it ethically responsible to hold people in detention for crimes they are going to commit in the future?

Normally, you will be sentenced to prison for a crime you committed in the past. The punishment is a reaction to your crime. If you’d commit murder, you would be in prison for 30 years or so, maybe for the rest of your life. We see this as a normal thing, but were you accountable for what you did? Probably so, unless you have a mental disorder. It is very hard to draw the line between those two. Doesn’t everyone who commits murder have a mental disorder? The real question is whether someone will commit murder again. If you have a mental disorder you aren’t expected to. You’re just a case of chance.

But if you’re not a case of chance, and you have been in prison for 29 years, with one year left, are you at that moment still accountable for what you did 29 years ago? How long does a punishment have to last? The worse the crime, the longer the imprisonment. But do those 30 years re-awake the dead person? Do they take away the guilt?

In the Netherlands the police is punishing people for crimes they committed, 4 years ago. People who uploaded videos of illegal sets of fireworks a few years ago are being held accountable for it now. Is this not a strange way of punishing, when people don’t even remember the video existing on YouTube?

What if you’re sentenced for a crime you are going to commit in the future? In the movie Minority Report gifted humans predict that John, the main character, will commit murder in 36 hours. John doesn’t even know the victim at that moment, but he is sentenced for murder. If pre-crime detection were possible in our world, would we use it? Are you accountable for a murder you are going to commit, without yourself knowing yet? We’d say it’s impossible to prove a future crime, but what if the government says the pre-crime detection is certainly right?

Video:
Indefinite Detention for Future Crime

Senkaku Islands: “War is the only solution”

The Senkaku Islands are covered in jungle but no rivers – it’s uninhabitable.

Photos from theatlantic.com

This month Japan bought the islands, prompting large-scale protests in China. Japan has been in control since 1972 anyway. But there might be a lot of oil reserves.

The dispute was caused by the territorial claims of Japan and China. The islands are within the boundaries of both countries, because they are close to Chinese coast as well as the Japanese one. Japanese boats have been on patrol to prevent Chinese fishing boats from visiting.

It is strange that China makes a fuss of the islands. They never really seem to have cared about them; Japanese boats have been on patrol long before this dispute. What would China want to do with those islands?  The oil that can be found there might be of some use, but it can’t be as important as China makes it seem. And the financial argument of China can’t possibly be better than the cultural argument of Japan. It became clear that a financial argument was possible in 1971, so why protest against the Japanese claim now? China hasn’t  been able to use those oil (and gas) reserves for 40 years, it can’t be that important if you ignore those reserves for so long.

This doesn’t make Japan good though. They tell the world that China only wants those islands for the money, but isn’t it a strange coincidence that Japan is in control of the Senkaku Islands since 1972, one year after the oil discovery? And why do they want to be the official owner of the islands, when they have been in control for so long? An answer for that is the money they’ll get from the oil reserves.

Is the dispute only about oil? There is also an important military shipping lane and it offers fishing grounds.  But does China need the fishing grounds or the oil? Probably not. They can’t need the strategic shipping lanes either, as if they would fear Japan more if it ‘officially’ owns these islands.

For China it is important to create an enemy. It is better for the harmony among people when they all have the same enemy; Japan. If China encourages protests, everyone in China will become mad at Japan. Normally if people protest in China, people are beaten and sent to jail. In the anti-Japan protests, no one is hurt. China is supporting the protests, if not organising them.

In front of a camera a Chinese civilian said: “They are stealing our land. War is the only solution”. If all civilians would be as easily manipulated as she is, war will be the only way to relieve their anger. What if Japan is not the chosen enemy but Europe or the United States? How easy would it be for China to start a war, to convince their people they’re right?

Is war the solution to this dispute?

Yes to Euthanasia?

If we all strive for more freedom in our lives, if we have the right choose our own jobs, our own way of living, may we not decide whether we want to live or not?

Photo from dailyrecord.co.uk

Euthanasia has been the cause of many debates worldwide. When we kill animals we do it fast to stop them from experiencing unnecessary pain. Do those animals want to die? Maybe so, their living conditions aren’t very good when humans put them in small cages. Animals can’t communicate with us, they can’t tell us if they agree. Would we let them live if they’d disagree? Maybe, if they could communicate, we might consider them equal to us, and we wouldn’t kill them. How can we be sure animals experience any pain at all? It is impossible, but we expect them to, it would be rather strange if they didn’t.

Tony Nicklinson was no animal. He was paralysed in 2005, and could only communicate with his eyes. Did he suffer from pain? Yes, he said his life had become a ‘nightmare’. Did he want to die? Yes, he lost many cases fighting for his right-to-die. Could he communicate, could he tell us he didn’t want to live anymore? Yes, he could and he did. Did we kill him, did we let him die without experiencing unnecessary pain? No.

Why didn’t we? Becauce the law says so? Is that a valid reason when someone has to live 7 years, paralysed? A healthy person who wants to die has many ways to do this. Tony didn’t, you can hardly kill yourself with your eyes. Doctors couldn’t because they would be murderers. His living conditions were worse than the animals we kill for food, living in small cages. If his living conditions are inhumane, does the law still apply to him?

After Tony lost a case in the High Court, he stopped eating, which was his death’s cause. It was his only option left. How could he enjoy living a life he didn’t want? How can you enjoy living if you’re forced to?

What is your opinion on the subject?

The Ibiza Depression

Ibiza, the ideal place to go to on holidays; yet research has shown many return depressed and disillusioned.

Photos from Philip Larson’s and Adam Russell’s flickr

People save money for years in order to enjoy the life on Ibiza for a few weeks. A vacation to live up to. But when you arrive there, everything is different than expected. You’re not the only one in the expensive hotel. Your expensive hotel is one of the cheapest in comparison to the others, and your clothes, on which a lot of money was spent, are nothing different from other people’s clothes. You’re normal.

You always were normal. But when you’re, for 3 weeks, trying not be, you still are. What did you save all that money for? To live the life, partying all week, to find out it doesn’t help. Ibiza should have been the distraction, but it became the eye-opener. But realizing all this, you think, well, if it’s all for nothing, why not release the brakes and go wild? Which is exactly what people do. Drugs and alcohol, and not a little.

The worst part might still be coming back. Back to all, found out, you really are but don’t want to be. Some even end up with addictions, because of all the party drugs and alcohol from Ibiza.

The advise experts give to people who have a vacation to Ibiza planned but unable to cancel it? Make an appointment with a psychologist before you go; he will be busy when you return.

Have you been depressed from a holiday?