Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.
Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.
Wow. One famous Taser victim. Care for a larger sample size?
False dichotomy. Stay in school, Bud.
Ok, should you ever be in the process/act of breaking the law and failing to comply with police officers' demands to comply, which method would you prefer be used to subdue you?
no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan.
The term for the Taser and other similar law enforcement devices is "less lethal". You are much more likely to perish or suffer permanent injury from a high speed lead bullet than a Taser strike.
Nonsense. It's the addressee that matters.
US Code Title 18 Chapter 83 Sec. 1702 reads
(snip)
Thank-you. The very same law (though worded and located differently, of course) exists in Canada. I've had to remind employers and their subordinates that they were NOT permitted to open my mail, regardless of the address of their business or the placement of "c/o" in the address field.
You share a credit rating?
Actually, no. That's quite a common myth. In point of fact, a lot of married couples find themselves in very tough situations due to their lack of financial/credit awareness.
To wit; a lot of married couples will put most (or all) of the debt into the name of the primary breadwinner. Sooner or later it will come to pass that the other income earner in the household will need to lend their income to a credit application in order to qualify for the loan and their credit will be so thin / weak they simply won't qualify.
I counsel many of my clients to put both names on major purchases so they can spread the debt load between them. After all, marriage implies "community property", so no matter whose name is on the item and/or the loan, both the asset and the debt belong to both partners equally anyways, so you might as well spread it out when you can so you have available servicing room and income when it counts (eg; when you need to re-fi your mortgage!).
"If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you". They imply that if you can see the mirrors, then the driver can see you [...]
This
is absolutely not the case.
It means exactly what it says and nothing more. If you can't even see the mirrors be extra cautious. It doesn't mean or imply, if you can't see the mirrors, be careless. Seriously, learn basic logic rules before making use of words like "imply" and trying to make logical conclusions. I'm sick and tired of obviously wrong converse arguments. Fresh snow is white but that doesn't imply white stuff is snow. Is that so hard to understand?
Based on the statistical number of non-truck vehicles that cause accidents with trucks, and the general population's general lack of understanding of trucks and their drivers, and the empirical evidence of dozens of truck drivers I've spoken to (my father included) the original poster is absolutely correct. People presume that when they can see the mirrors, the warning is no longer in effect and they're free to do/act any way they please.
Over analyzing the situation isn't going to change the opinion of the general public.
BTW; there are enhanced warning signs that both illustrate a driver's face in the mirror and are adorned with the saying "If you can't see me in my mirrors, I can't see you." which eliminates the logical loophole quite nicely.
But thanks for playing.
Until somebody bumps into my mirror in a parking lot, and I drive off thinking it's giving me the same view of the adjacent lane that it gave me on the way to the store.
I'll keep a sliver of my car's bodywork visible in the mirror as a reference, thanks.
Why? It takes 3 seconds to check the same reference points when you have your mirrors adjusted properly. Lean left, see car. Lean right, see car. Done. You can do this while you wait for your oil pump to start circulating and warm up your engine for a few seconds before setting off.
Any more strawmen from the overlapping mirror crowd?
This is a bit of an urban legend. To be really safe you need to have a portion of your car visible in the mirrors, otherwise you have no reference of what you are looking at.
It can't be an urban legend if hundreds of thousands of people (myself included) use it every day.
The problem with that method is that it requires that you be 100% confident in the placement of your mirrors because there is no feedback on their location until it becomes critical.
So did the old method, until people got used to it. This method, however, works better.
In contrast, when the mirrors are showing you part of your car, it provides an automatic reference point to judge the location of the images that does not depend on the precise mirror position. Furthermore, if your car does not show in your side-view mirrors, then it indicates that their alignment is off.
Since the standard interface with rear and side view mirrors includes easy adjustments, I'd rather not depend on the placement being accurate.
I'd rather have a proper view beside and behind my car without having to physically move my head (I still do anyways, but it gives me next to no new information when making a maneuver).
As to the notion that people will move your mirrors around, many new cars today come with memory seats and mirrors so you can have settings for 2 or 3 drivers programmed. Simple.
I, on the other hand, work in the car industry so I can set my seat, wheel, mirrors (and optionally pedals) and radio station presets in any given car within about 45 seconds, so it's not a huge problem for me. However if you practice in whatever car you personally operate you can get the hang of it in a few hours of driving.
...and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
Actually, if you're afraid to drive in any given circumstance, you're not qualified to drive. If you don't know how to operate the fundamental controls of your vehicle without so much as moving your eyes, you're not qualified to drive.
Then again, I sell cars. When people like you get involved in or involve others in accidents, I sell more cars. Feel free to carry on.
If you're routinely driving on interstates at night, you have a death wish. Even if you're not sleepy, others on the road might be. And even if they're not sleepy, they might be smugglers. Speeding to avoid the border patrol / police. Without headlights. On the wrong side of the road. Yes, this has happened.
There are a thousand things that can and will happen on a given road at any given time. It's how you deal with it that's important. Drive defensively and be confident in your abilities or get off the road. It's not complicated.
Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955