Law of reaction times

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Benson, Mar 6, 2019.

  1. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Let's take driving on the roads. We all have a licence to drive, to some adequate driving level. Imagine you can quantify/measure this driving ability, that includes reaction times etc.. We have scales for the likes of earthquakes, me mineral hardness etc..

    So pick a driving ability scale and you devise a test to figure out a drivers score. It could encompass adherence percentage to the Highway Code, reaction time etc.. and it's scaled 1 to 10, 10 being the best. Person A's alround driving skill/ability is a 5. Person B is a brilliant driver, super fast reaction time etc.. and is a 10.

    Now person B has a couple of beers and is breathalyzed at the side of the road. Oh dear, he's over the limit so he's arrested. If he immediately took the driving scale test, he scores a 6.

    But he's still a better and safer driver than person A, so what is he really charged for?

    (By the way, I've never drink drive or condone it, it was a discussion point I had between friends).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    Noooooooo

    Reaction time is only one aspect of driving

    Decision making is the biggie

    Deciding to drive when over the legal limit (which is probably a unknown when decision made) means a failure before the key goes in the ignition

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Hence "etc..."

    So the test covers everything, even decision making. Person B drops down to 6 on the driving ability score person A is a 5.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    Yes there is something to this. A young, testosterone-fuelled boy racer may be more of a danger to himself and others when sober than an experienced and cautious middle-aged driver who is a little over the legal alcohol limit. Speed is the big killer k.e. = 1/2 mv SQUARED.

    BUT society needs rules that are applied equally to all, in order to get buy-in from the public to adhere to them. It would be wholly impractical to set different rules for different people, based on criteria that could always be challenged as unfair or not correctly applied.

    In the UK, the vast majority of drink-drive accidents are caused by people well over the legal limit. So the issue is one of enforcement of the existing limits and not, as some politicians and puritanical campaigners pretend, whether current limits are adequate.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    Great point

    Which leads to - if individuals had their own set of rules how frequently would they have to be updated?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    This etc?

    Well the two examples you mention have various scales

    Apart from that, each of the scales are standardised and measurements comparable with other measurements

    To scale humans you would need a standard for numerous groupings

    Not going to happen

    But the gold standard for performing anything in the social area is

    DON'T DO IT IF YOU ARE IMPAIRED FROM ANY CAUSE

    So how many causes can you list which would impair a person?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Whatever scale is used for law enforcement must inform the person making the decision to drive or not, when they are making the decision.
    Being a worse driver than he should be, because he drank more than the law allows a driver to drink.

    I have known people who were better drivers with a beer or two in them than they were sober. The law that sets the blood level is unfair to them - but so is a law that forbids all theft, to some thieves in some circumstances. So is any law. The key is to set the level wisely - and not, as fanaticism tends to creep into, try to make the world perfect by force.

    One of the ways to ameliorate the unfairness of blood level laws is to regulate enforcement - if the police cannot pull you over without due cause, the driver who is unimpaired by that blood level will not suffer unfairly.
     
    sideshowbob and DaveC426913 like this.
  11. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    As in

    Imagine you can quantify/measure this driving ability, that includes reaction times etc..
     
  12. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Yes, they're applied equally but not fairly. You can have fairness, but not equality.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,875
    In a society where driving is almost a necessity, it isn't "fair" to deprive somebody of the ability to drive just because he's really bad at it. It is "fair" to apply the same standards to everybody, whether they are a real hazard (bad driver) or just a potential hazard (drunk driver).
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    You can't

    Well you can imagine but can never implement

    To many etc's

    I'm glad you are not on medical board which qualifies surgeons

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    That would be a really bad idea.

    How many accidents are prevented because, following a random breath test, the police stop drivers who are over the limit and likely, if their behaviour is unregulated, to go on to cause an accident?

    The police can't be everywhere at once. Nor is always possible for them to detect erratic driving prior to an accident occurring. It is far more effective to reduce the risk of injury or death through the random screening of drivers.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    Not without taking every case to court and having a judge weigh up what is "fair", you can't. Which would be quite impracticable. Criminal law needs to be easy for the public to understand, so that they can comply with it, and easy for the police to determine when it has been infringed.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,875
    I did say, "In a society where driving is almost a necessity, it isn't 'fair' to deprive somebody of the ability to drive just because he's really bad at it." We don't live in a society where being a surgeon is a necessity. Fairness applies in some situations, not all.
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    I'm glad you think you are never going to need surgery

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,875
    Having surgeons is a necessity. Being a surgeon isn't. Hint: Substitute "oxygen" for "surgeon".
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    Having good drivers is necessary, bad ones kill themselves and maybe others

    Bads surgeons don't necessarily kill themselves but are likely to kill others

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,875
    No it isn't. It's only preferable.

    DrivING is necessary.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Almost none, in my neck of the woods. They tried it. (People who don't show impaired driving are also unlikely to get into accidents, it turns out)
    What happened instead was a whole lot of auxiliary enforcement, since the police could now pull anyone over at any time and demand their papers, check their records, run drugsniffing dogs through their cars, etc. People lost their jobs, ran up thousands in court costs and other bills, were jailed on false positives, had cars they had loaned to others seized, etc. It was eventually thrown out as unConstitutional.
    It is not much more effective, and it greatly increases the harmful side effects of the law.
     

Share This Page