no offense or anything, but if i ever see you in public, i'm going to punch you right in the fucking mouth.
your fault for standing in front of my fist.
It's a free open public road. Nobody is forcing you to drive in front of, next to, or behind such a vehicle.
It's a free open public road. Nobody is forcing you to drive in front of, next to, or behind such a vehicle.
Agree 100% Some existing laws that have already been passed and are over-zealously enforced should be revisited as well.
Same goes for things like the recent controversy over texting. Some people can actually drive responsibly with all their attention focused on the road, and only muster a 5 second reply at a stop light before putting their phone away or turning it off completely. Those people would be unfairly lumped together and punished with idiots who carry on 2 hour conversations while moving.
Wrong. You do not have a right to endanger everyone else with your illegal vehicle, just as you do not have a right to drive after you've been drinking alcohol.
You should see the jackasses that have these stupid things in OC. I'm willing to bet they hardly if ever see dirt and they're driven like monster trucks. I dont know how many countless times i've been cut off or bullied into a lane change by someone with an insane truck lift. Its also slightly disconcerning to see one at a light and notice its bumper is level with my driver side window
I was riding to campus once with a friend who was sideswiped by a toyota matrix. He ended up chucking hhis u lock at the car when it passed, ended up going through the back window and smashing it. The driver never stopped thoughI won't be bullied into a lane change by some testicle sucking jackass in a lifted truck. If I'm on my bike, he's losing a mirror.
no offense or anything, but if i ever see you in public, i'm going to punch you right in the fucking mouth.
your fault for standing in front of my fist.
That's a trade off I'm willing to make to get those 2 hour distracted idiots from using their cell phones while driving and plowing into me while I'm riding my motorcycle.
Edit-Do you know what the most common response from a driver is after hitting a motorcyclist? "I didn't see him." Well, maybe if you had been paying fucking attention you would have seen him. Asshole. <--Not referring to you exdeath.
I don't know what you're talking about... All I said was anyone who's in a Geo Metro or even a Toyota Yaris (like I have) who is getting into an accident with the truck that the OP posted (or any trunk like it) and is NOT concerned, is out of their mind. I don't see how anyone would want to be in such a car at the wrong place/time when a "monster truck" crashes into them. I mentioned nothing about the probability of colliding with one being more than colliding with another Geo Metro or Toyota Yaris.
How many people in a Geo Metro or Toyota Yaris were killed by a monster truck yesterday? In the last week? Month? Year?
Those are the idiots that are going to text regardless of any law, and either get tickets all the time or plow into you anyway. Don't you get it yet? Retards will be retards regardless and need to be held accountable for the individual harm they cause others. Revoking liberties for everyone else in bulk and in advance is not the answer, especially since we already know it doesn't stop the fuckwads who don't care.
It's as immature as a parent taking away the toy from all the kids when clearly only one child is causing a problem and in need of discipline.
I don't know. You should go get those stats for us. But that doesn't change how much the monster truck posted by OP sucks!
Talking on the phone in your car isn't a liberty...and I don't care how good you think you are at it. It's a distraction, and you shouldn't be doing it.
I'm not the one making the case that everyone in a smaller car is dying left and right to lifted trucks and has reasonable cause to feel endangered, nor do I have any vested interest in either of those cars or monster trucks.
And, I never gave an opinion on the truck that started this thread.
I'm not the one making the case that everyone in a smaller car is dying left and right to lifted trucks
I'm seriously confused at your angle on this discussion. I didn't make the following point.
It just feels like you inferred that incorrectly from my comments. Not sure how though.
so you are a poser then and just don't like you don't have the balls to go to the next level.
You have stated people in smaller cars have a reason to be concerned with being injured by large trucks. Unless they have been hit by these large trucks on a regular basis, or people dying from the presence of large trucks is a credible epidemic, than that concern is groundless and based purely on emotional immaturity and insecurity.
Why would someone who has been driving a Geo or Yaris for 30 years and never been in a collision with the thousands of monster trucks on the road have any reason to be concerned, other than hyped up blown out of proportion fear mongering instigated by a third party?
My angle in this discussion is preservation of liberties; eg: letting people do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, and holding *individuals* accountable for when they do. A person driving a lifted trucks takes on additional responsibility in that he may have to drive more carefully or lose control and injure someone and face increased risk of liability and prosecution over someone who doesn't lift their truck. I don't care for the kinds of trucks shown in this thread. But I don't have a problem with them on the road either, even if I find some of them to be disagreeable. I am not intimidated by them (more concerned with them slinging rocks if they don't have flaps actually) and if I encounter someone being a retard in one, I treat them the same as any other retard driver I worry could hit me: I don't remain around them, whether it means allowing them to pass and keeping my distance until one of us turns and never has to see each other again, or passing them.
Some people wish to trade liberty for perceived safety, by outlawing things that other people enjoy. I wish to live and let live so that others might do the same for me. Some people want to ban lifted trucks or smoking on private property. While these do not concern me, I still stand up against it. Because there are also people who want to outlaw guns, sports cars, gas guzzlers, engines bigger than 4 cylinders, cars that get less than 30 mpg, video games, big screen tvs, houses that are "too big", dark paint on vehicles that is "energy inefficient" or any of the things that DO concern me.
You could also flip it the other way; instead of the driver of a small car wanting to ban trucks, how about truck drivers wanting to ban cheap small unsafe cars that are hard to see and can't stand up to a collision with any vehicle bigger than itself and use their own inadequacies to restrict what other people can drive in a lowest common denominator fashion? How fair is it for a Geo driver, who bought that particular car by choice, to say: "no fair, every other car has to be small and unsafe and EQUAL to mine so you're not allowed to drive anything bigger or faster or with more capabilities"? You can see how such logic is extremely similar to the equality principles in such ideologies as communism. Who gets their way? The Geo driver or the 4x4 driver, and why?
I say both. I am willing to assume negligible risks in order to achieve the most liberty. All of us do to some extent; we all know that driving or flying is dangerous and that accidents happen even against your best efforts to minimize them. But nobody will ever argue to ban driving and flying period. We still take that risk and drive cars and fly planes every day because the benefits outweigh the risks, and the chances for negative consequences are in reality very small. The people who say "loss of liberty is worth it if it saves just 1 life" are hypocrites. Every time you get on a plane to fly somewhere, you are acknowledging that it was worth the deaths of the thousands of people who have died in plane crashes so that you could get to your trivial destination a few hours faster.
And if liberty and freedom to do your own thing and live your own life isn't one of those benefits worth an accident here and there, I don't know what is. We can't be herded around in bubbles by government, because guess what, there will still be accidents, only you won't have anything to show for them.
Why do you think bazookas and fully automatic guns are illegal?! They do more damage than a handgun or a shotgun. And it just so happens some people are morons.My angle in this discussion is preservation of liberties; eg: letting people do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, and holding *individuals* accountable for when they do.
I think we can all do without any type of truck/car/gun/steamroller/etc that is designed for the sole purpose of exaggeration... perceived safety aside. I don't want these trunks banned... fact is in most places they're already illegal. I wonder why?Some people wish to trade liberty for perceived safety, by outlawing things that other people enjoy.
I don't think the Geo driver took extraneous steps to make his car that way.How fair is it for a Geo driver, who bought that particular car by choice, to say: "no fair, every other car has to be small and unsafe and EQUAL to mine so you're not allowed to drive anything bigger or faster or with more capabilities"? You can see how such logic is extremely similar to the equality principles in such ideologies as communism. Who gets their way? The Geo driver or the 4x4 driver, and why?
I agree totally here. But people going above and beyond for something so pointless is just retarded. I'm not saying it should be illegal for these types of cars to be modified by anyone, just don't drive them around on the street where they're illegal. My friend had one and he used to drive over curbs and shit... just plain stupid. That kinda shit should have ended him up in jail. And what if it was too dark to see someone walking on the sidewalk? Just plain stupid. But I guess that's the minority.I say both. I am willing to assume negligible risks in order to achieve the most liberty. All of us do to some extent; we all know that driving or flying is dangerous and that accidents happen even against your best efforts to minimize them.
Has anyone actually ever said that?The people who say "loss of liberty is worth it if it saves just 1 life" are hypocrites.
I'm not suggesting this... but I'm saying that these trucks are stupid... just as are those who have sex with their siblings.We can't be herded around in bubbles by government, because guess what, there will still be accidents, only you won't have anything to show for them.
[More inane horseshit]
You have stated people in smaller cars have a reason to be concerned with being injured by large trucks. Unless they have been hit by these large trucks on a regular basis, or people dying from the presence of large trucks is a credible epidemic, than that concern is groundless and based purely on emotional immaturity and insecurity.
Why would someone who has been driving a Geo or Yaris for 30 years and never been in a collision with the thousands of monster trucks on the road have any reason to be concerned, other than hyped up blown out of proportion fear mongering instigated by a third party?
My angle in this discussion is preservation of liberties; eg: letting people do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, and holding *individuals* accountable for when they do. A person driving a lifted trucks takes on additional responsibility in that he may have to drive more carefully or lose control and injure someone and face increased risk of liability and prosecution over someone who doesn't lift their truck. I don't care for the kinds of trucks shown in this thread. But I don't have a problem with them on the road either, even if I find some of them to be disagreeable. I am not intimidated by them (more concerned with them slinging rocks if they don't have flaps actually) and if I encounter someone being a retard in one, I treat them the same as any other retard driver I worry could hit me: I don't remain around them, whether it means allowing them to pass and keeping my distance until one of us turns and never has to see each other again, or passing them.
Some people wish to trade liberty for perceived safety, by outlawing things that other people enjoy. I wish to live and let live so that others might do the same for me. Some people want to ban lifted trucks or smoking on private property. While these do not concern me, I still stand up against it. Because there are also people who want to outlaw guns, sports cars, gas guzzlers, engines bigger than 4 cylinders, cars that get less than 30 mpg, video games, big screen tvs, houses that are "too big", dark paint on vehicles that is "energy inefficient" or any of the things that DO concern me.
You could also flip it the other way; instead of the driver of a small car wanting to ban trucks, how about truck drivers wanting to ban cheap small unsafe cars that are hard to see and can't stand up to a collision with any vehicle bigger than itself and use their own inadequacies to restrict what other people can drive in a lowest common denominator fashion? How fair is it for a Geo driver, who bought that particular car by choice, to say: "no fair, every other car has to be small and unsafe and EQUAL to mine so you're not allowed to drive anything bigger or faster or with more capabilities"? You can see how such logic is extremely similar to the equality principles in such ideologies as communism. Who gets their way? The Geo driver or the 4x4 driver, and why?
I say both. I am willing to assume negligible risks in order to achieve the most liberty. All of us do to some extent; we all know that driving or flying is dangerous and that accidents happen even against your best efforts to minimize them. But nobody will ever argue to ban driving and flying period. We still take that risk and drive cars and fly planes every day because the benefits outweigh the risks, and the chances for negative consequences are in reality very small. The people who say "loss of liberty is worth it if it saves just 1 life" are hypocrites. Every time you get on a plane to fly somewhere, you are acknowledging that it was worth the deaths of the thousands of people who have died in plane crashes so that you could get to your trivial destination a few hours faster.
And if liberty and freedom to do your own thing and live your own life isn't one of those benefits worth an accident here and there, I don't know what is. We can't be herded around in bubbles by government, because guess what, there will still be accidents, only you won't have anything to show for them.