Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Campaign for reason from the RSA

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,165 ✭✭✭enda1


    Junior #8 wrote: »
    You sound like someone trying to justify a corporation.
    "If we purge Central America, we can deliver to our shareholders"

    I am not trying to justify them.
    They are not a corporation.
    We are not in Central America.
    There are no shareholders.

    I don't understand the link between your analogy and road deaths and the RSA.

    And for the last time I AM TRYING TO CLARIFY (WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE) THEIR POSITION!!

    First thing one should do when writing such a letter is to know one's audience. I'm just trying to shed some light on that issue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭Junior #8


    Ha read the letter today frmo the Advertising people.....they said the could not foolow up the case, but they will pass the message
    *sigh*


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    enda1 wrote: »
    They are not trying to target all drivers. They feel that by targeting one group, the group they feel is most dangerous and vulnerable they will have the biggest impact on road deaths.
    It certainly makes sense to reach out to this "statistically significant" group*. However, I don't see any justification or even measured consideration of the extent, effectiveness and fairness of the proposed restrictions.

    For example, they can't just say "young male drivers are statistically more likely to cause fatal accidents, therefore we propose that all young male drivers be killed".

    The fact is that these proposed restrictions grossly overstep the RSA's mandate and are an extremely unfair form of discrimination. Let's stick to "innocent until proven guilty". Insurance companies get away with sexual and age (and racial?) discrimination, and that's already too much.
    We shouldn't let things get any worse.



    * i.e. not in the disturbing, alienating and accusatory way recent media campaigns do. Think harder, RSA!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27 BlondieCait


    Reason?

    When did reason have any influence in a propaganda campaign???

    This is all part of a bigger scheme.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6 TwoLegged


    zynaps wrote: »
    It certainly makes sense to reach out to this "statistically significant" group*. However, I don't see any justification or even measured consideration of the extent, effectiveness and fairness of the proposed restrictions.

    In Ireland, as in other countries, young male drivers are by far the most accident-prone group. In the UK, young males are also the only age group in which road accidents are the single biggest cause of accidental death (I don't know the Irish figures, but I'd be surprised if they are significantly different).

    So there is a particular problem with young male drivers, and when trying to reduce accident rates it makes sense to focus on the group which has the most accidents.

    I haven't looked at the measures proposed to see what I think of them, but I do know one thing: any campaign against the specific measures will be doomed unless it accepts clearly that young male drivers have far more accidents than any other group. Anyone who doesn't accept that is ignoring plenty of statistics, so anything else they have to say can be easily dismissed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    TwoLegged wrote: »
    In Ireland, as in other countries, young male drivers are by far the most accident-prone group. In the UK, young males are also the only age group in which road accidents are the single biggest cause of accidental death (I don't know the Irish figures, but I'd be surprised if they are significantly different).

    So there is a particular problem with young male drivers, and when trying to reduce accident rates it makes sense to focus on the group which has the most accidents.
    Yes, that is exactly what I said :confused::
    zynaps wrote:
    It certainly makes sense to reach out to this "statistically significant" group*.
    However, that does not mean that any approach can be used to deal with the problem. You can't just say "young men have the most accidents, so let's put every young man in jail until they're at least 35", can you?

    So, like I said, the scope and fairness of any new measures must be evaluated properly and justified before ham-fisted restrictions are lumped on every young male driver.

    Consider the backlash against racial profiling by the US police forces, where young black males were (and are) often harrassed by the police, without them having committed any crime, simply because young black males in those areas were statistically more likely to commit crimes. This practice was widely denounced and strong anti-discrimination measures have come into place in various organisations.

    If discriminating against people due to their skin colour is wrong, surely doing so on the basis of age and sex is just as wrong. Where do we draw the line? Why accept one and not the other? Putting extra restrictions on young males would be an extremely negative, alienating and unjust practice, which is why I argued for more positive approaches. Can you imagine a curfew on young black males in crime-prone US cities?

    If a scheme like this is instituted, I will protest strongly and encourage others to do so. Facing higher insurance prices due to age and sex discrimination is bad enough, but this would be a serious suppression of equality rights IMO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6 TwoLegged


    Zynaps, cries of "discrimination" and absurd comparisons with putting young men in jail just make you sound hysterical. I'm not saying that you are hysterical, just that your last post reads that way ... and I'm not trying to do you down, just to point out that if you want your concerns to be listened to by the powers-that-be, you'll do better to keep your feet on the ground. :cool:

    Some of the RSA's suggestions do seem problematic, such as the restriction on engine-size. If that sort of limit is being considered, it'd be much better to look at a limit on power/weight ratio. However, that would still have limited effect, because even the cheapest little cars on the road can do 90mph.

    The problem is that it's really easy to knock any suggestions for not solving the whole problem, without coming up with anything which actually addresses the central fact -- that far too many young men are killing and injuring themselves and others on the roads.

    Of course, the simplest solution would simply be to ban all young men from driving at all. That would take the highest-risk group of drivers off the road. I doubt that would be popular, but it would do the job.

    The RSA hasn't adopted such a draconian suggestion, but if young male drivers don't want that sort of plan to get onto the agenda, they need to start trying to help develop proposals that would work rather than simply saying "not fair".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 731 ✭✭✭celica1994


    hey, im being honest, i totally agree, i was absoloutly discusted when i first learned about the rsa's half assed national campain for wasting much needed money during the resession..

    its not bad enough that young drivers are steyrotyped, loaded with extortinate premiums for insurance, restricted to cars so small they got to kneel down just to get inside the thing due to the fact they either can afford the insurance for a saloon car or are just point blank refused insurance due to sumthing the government selectivly aknolege as "AGEISM".. young drivers are expected to fork out thousands of euros just to enjoy sumthing as basic as a mode of transportation which many people can easily obtain and afford, Im 24 myself and after 4 years claim free driving, my insurance which i am in no way going to describe as "affordable" is still very pricy for what it is. i really feel sorry for any 18 year old male scraping every last ounce of his spare cash together just to get his foot in the door. my first car insurance a few years back on a lowsey 1.3ltr mazda 323 was an astonishing 5.5k, the guy in the insurance company actually told me that car insurance pretty much dosent get any more expensive...

    The rsa has deemed young drivers mass murderers, well thats very funny...

    elderly people to me seem very dangerous on the road, no one can honestly dispute the fact that an 80 year old woman driving through a residental estate and a young kid runs out from behind a car that that woman has the physical ability to react quickly.

    it was always my belife that middle age drivers were the biggest offenders of drink driving? sure we heard gay byrne admiting that it was such the norm back in the day so it was perfectly this hypocrite to blame younger driver for road deaths, how dare we be young!

    the rsa now have theyre "he drives she dies" campaign... oh how we all have forgot... it seems that having a penis suddenly means that we have this unquenching desire to drive really dangerously once a woman enters the car, so where does the gender bashing end? should we replace the term "drivers error" with just "male errorcause it just seems now that male drivers are only capible of causing major road accidents, funny how youtube is full of videos of women causing comedic accidents.

    id like to just say, im not bashing at groups of people that i have mentioned above, im merly using them as examples, i belive everyone reguardless of age is capible of causing an accident and every young driver shouldnt be penalised just because they can do it! gay byrne is a pi** poor excuse for a human being, let me finish in quoting this hypocrite who has the nerve to tell people hes never met that theyre natural born killers - let me cut and paste my fav parts of this interview


    By Caitrina Cody
    Thursday July 02 2009

    quote -

    I remember the days when I drove home from the 'Late Late Show' late at night -- the great thing in those days was to have a drink or two, or three, in the green room with the guests to thank them for coming and all that," he said.

    Undoubtedly I was over the limit, night after night, until at some stage I was told by the controller of programmes that I wasn't to drive myself home from the show anymore, drunk or sober," recalled Mr Byrne.

    Certainly 10 years ago, perhaps even five years ago, if you told your pals that you had had 17 large brandies last night and drove yourself home -- just about making it through the gate -- you probably would have been clapped on the back for it."

    "Many of us thought nothing about drinking and driving back in the day

    "Thank God I got away with it -- thank God that nothing ever happened to anyone," he said

    Mr Rsa is so right:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    TwoLegged wrote: »
    Zynaps, cries of "discrimination" and absurd comparisons with putting young men in jail just make you sound hysterical. I'm not saying that you are hysterical, just that your last post reads that way ... and I'm not trying to do you down, just to point out that if you want your concerns to be listened to by the powers-that-be, you'll do better to keep your feet on the ground. :cool:
    What's with the quotes around "discrimination"? It is discrimination. And what's "absurd" about the comparisons with racial profiling? Can you explain how this scheme differs from racial discrimination in any way? The fact is, both are extremely unfair practices, but this one is somehow tolerated more widely.
    Imagine the statistics were the other way around and the RSA proposed that young women drivers be banned from driving at night or from carrying passengers. The reaction would be immediate and extremely negative.

    If you think getting pissed off at an unjust and unfair proposal is hysterical then that's fine, you can just sit down and let anything happen and just accept it.
    Personally, I'm seeing a very offensive proposal which should not even be suggested, and it bugs the hell out of me. So I'm prepared to open my mouth at the risk of sounding "hysterical" to some. :rolleyes:
    TwoLegged wrote: »
    The problem is that it's really easy to knock any suggestions for not solving the whole problem, without coming up with anything which actually addresses the central fact -- that far too many young men are killing and injuring themselves and others on the roads.

    Of course, the simplest solution would simply be to ban all young men from driving at all. That would take the highest-risk group of drivers off the road. I doubt that would be popular, but it would do the job.

    The RSA hasn't adopted such a draconian suggestion, but if young male drivers don't want that sort of plan to get onto the agenda, they need to start trying to help develop proposals that would work rather than simply saying "not fair".
    I suggested a fairly obvious and positive move to address the problem here on the related thread.


Advertisement