Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Grabs popcorn (Score 1) 518

by Meski (#46646007) Attached to: Department of Transportation Makes Rear View Cameras Mandatory

Who's arguing against them?

Huh? Have you not read the preceding posts, or are you just trying to move the goalposts? One guy tried a long screed about how awful these things are, and how they were going to cause wrecks

I read some of them. Who has time to read them all? The majority of the arguments against seem to be against the legislation itself. If their use was truly dangerous, don't you think there'd be legislation that banned them instead?

The argument is over the nanny state legislation. If people want them, they can install them, or not.

Since we are in the questioning mode - when did any requirement at all become symptomatic of the presumptive "nanny state"?

If someone wants to control what I see on the internet, because seeing a naked lady might harm me somehow. That's acting like a nanny state.

If someone wants to take salt off the table at restaurants because some people use too much, that's nanny statism.

For a no brainer cure for a persistant problem with automobiles - elimination of a dangerous blind spot, well, not so much,

Let's try the little test I give people when they get their nickers in a not about the nanny state:

Are turn signals a sign of the nanny state?

rear view mirrors

Brake lights.

Seat belts

Any and all safety devices.

Speed limits

Any law of the road

Most of the micromanaging road rules are. When people support this sort of thing, my rule of thumb is "Apply common sense. Now, do we really need this rule/law/legislation? Or should people just take some kind of responsibility and do these things?"

Fuel standardization

Haven't seen that much standardisation. A range of different octane ratings, that vary with brand.

All are requirements, and all make sense.

Some do. But where to stop? Would you force standardisation on Apple power sockets ? (which I kind of prefer to the microUSB) It can be a bit of a slippery slope type argument.

I think some people use their inherent grumpiness as the driver in their hatred of anything new. Then they use silly pseudo-Libertarian nonsense such as "nanny state" as a cover for their crankiness.

True. But our legal system (and yours, I guess) is complex beyond the ability of most of us to decipher. And this is an unnecessary addition to it. I'd rather our politicians remove laws from the books than go looking for new ones to add.

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.