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

Blood Vs Oil

Both are necessary to do some work.
by Chris Demas

Photo from photoXpress

When it comes right down to it, part of the reason we invent new devices is to avoid having to do extra work. The phone is a tool used to connect two people together without having to make them travel to one another. If they need to travel we have the car that can move them long distances without making them walk or exert themselves. Are we making ourselves obsolete? Is that notion a bad thing?

After all, we created machines to help us with everyday tasks. And while sometimes this knocks a person out of a job it makes the people using the machine quite happy. Let’s look at the automatic teller machine or atm. It’s convenient and in many cases harder to rob. The atm is also capable of taking care of strings of people with their financial needs and doesn’t get tired. Also, while you may no have a personal emotional experience with it, the machine  will give you the same service it gave the last person.

On the other hand, machines make awful mistakes sometimes that a human could probably fix on the spot. Machines can’t give you that interaction that a friendly employee can. And having to deal with a machine when it comes to returns is the worst kind of hassle. Obviously machines aren’t perfect and can malfunction at the strangest times. But do occasional glitches matter when the machine for the most part is handling your light work?

I love human interaction and I’m sure you do too. There is a pleasant feeling when you go to the mall and can be directed around by the help desk and don’t have to memorize a map. It feels good in those rare times when you return a product and the staff is friendly with you while offering good service. It can be incredibly satisfying to hear “have a nice day” after purchasing!

Does human interaction outweigh the idea of mechanical convenience? Do I go to the cashier or the self-checkout? Will the people inside Bank of America be jealous that I gave their atm machine more attention than the human employees inside the bank? What do you think? Are we ourselves becoming more obsolete or do we just use machines for our light work?

More from Chris in ChrisDemas.com

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

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?

Is Lying Good?

I’m sure there is no person in the world who never lied.
by Anushka of The Glowing Heart

Photo from Carmella Fernando’s flickr

People lie for many reasons. To hide their guilt, to protect someone, not to hurt someone’s feelings, not to cause a fight.

I’ve been lied to a lot of times by many people. Mostly by those who didn’t care about my feelings nor being fair to me. So I started thinking about my lies.

I know how to lie and how to make everyone believe it, but I don’t like to do it. Lying is stressful and requires next lies for a case to cover the previous one. What about if I forget about my lie and someone catches me on it? It won’t be a nice situation for both sides.

Every lie, sooner or later, comes out. So what for lying? I believe it’s better to say the truth and deal with consequences instead of lying and stressing yourself and get into more trouble.

But is it always good? Sometimes not telling the truth will save someone else from being hurted or sad. Sometimes lying is bad and sometimes is good? It’s a little bit confusing.

If someone doesn’t ask me about something I don’t say it myself if it’s not necessary. Is it lying? I don’t think so. Some information are better to be kept only for myself.

I think lying can be bad or good depending on situation. But from the other side we can lie saying we do it not to hurt someone’s feelings. There is a thin line between good and bad lying and this is needed not to cross the ‘good side’ line.

What “white” lie have you used?

More from Anushka in The Glowing Heart.