Rednecks should not be allowed to modify their trucks

[JulesMaximus]

It's no coincidence that you see plenty of shiny new trucks rolling around with lift kits and very few old ones.

It's because very few of them survive long enough to become old. Not that I'm complaining. Just natural selection at work.

I wish more of them would naturally select their way off the roads here.

 

[StageLeft]

Terrible.

 

[iamwiz82]

Depends what you mean by "fuck with". He wouldn't have a chance at a merge

Anyhow, I'm not sure why people care about things like this.

For the most part, the majority of people who do these kinds of things are similar to people cruising 1930s Model A's with equally crappy steering and antiquated suspension; they are just cruising in the right lane trying to stay out of the way and not endangering anyone, they aren't out doing slaloms in the middle of the intersection or trying to pass you on a cloverleaf.

Sure you can point at the occasional asshole driving a 20 ft high truck light it's a Ferrari, but an idiot like that is no more dangerous next to you on a public road than an idiot that thinks his stock Civic can do 10 Gs at 100 mph.

My concern with a disaster like this truck is that even a slow speed crash will cause that entire front (or rear) suspension to completely collapse. Just going over a few of the scary things:

-Look at the thin rod attached to the steering gear, I bet parking near a curb
and turning the wheel would bend that thing.

-Why in the world are the tires so close to the leaf springs? Any type of compression on that tire will cause it to rub, I would guess.

-Next stop, the bent rear axle. Those axle tubes are not even close to being inline.

-Shock mounts being a simple square tube tackwelded (I am sure) to the frame.

BTW, this can be yours for only $16,500!

http://socaltrucks.com/forsale2/viewlisting.php?view=532

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Enjoy:
http://128.83.80.193/scarysteering/index.html

Consider the rest of your day GONE.

 

[iamwiz82]

Enjoy:
http://128.83.80.193/scarysteering/index.html

Consider the rest of your day GONE.

I posted that yesterday in this thread :biggrin:

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I posted that yesterday in this thread :biggrin:

So you did... I just missed the post.

 

[bdude]

Geez ok, you made your point...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Scary...

 

[yh125d]

There is a thing called private property, individual liberty, right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, and thankfully the constitutional provision reserving the right to use force to protect oneself from intrusions against those principles.

Do we take away knives and guns from everybody because they aren't safe, or do we just punish careless and irresponsible individuals on a case by case basis when they actually cause a real tangible problem, and not a imagined "what if" problem?

Yeah yeah whatever, that argument is bullshit about "personal liberty" because in cases like this, your "personal liberty" is directly putting the life of others at risk, in which case your "personal liberty" doesn't mean jack shit when it is infringing on the safety of others on the road. Don't try to argue the libertarian POV when you obviously don't understand it


Build shitty trucks like that to play around with on personal property all you want, but the minute you drive a crash waiting to happen like that on public roads, your personal liberties are gone and that shit's getting impounded

 

[iamwiz82]

So you did... I just missed the post.

I'm overlookable

 

[exdeath]

My concern with a disaster like this truck is that even a slow speed crash will cause that entire front (or rear) suspension to completely collapse. Just going over a few of the scary things:

-Look at the thin rod attached to the steering gear, I bet parking near a curb
and turning the wheel would bend that thing.

-Why in the world are the tires so close to the leaf springs? Any type of compression on that tire will cause it to rub, I would guess.

-Next stop, the bent rear axle. Those axle tubes are not even close to being inline.

-Shock mounts being a simple square tube tackwelded (I am sure) to the frame.

BTW, this can be yours for only $16,500!

http://socaltrucks.com/forsale2/viewlisting.php?view=532

Sounds like a hell of a deal, I'll get right on it...

 

[exdeath]

Yeah yeah whatever, that argument is bullshit about "personal liberty" because in cases like this, your "personal liberty" is directly putting the life of others at risk, in which case your "personal liberty" doesn't mean jack shit when it is infringing on the safety of others on the road. Don't try to argue the libertarian POV when you obviously don't understand it


Build shitty trucks like that to play around with on personal property all you want, but the minute you drive a crash waiting to happen like that on public roads, your personal liberties are gone and that shit's getting impounded

No, I understand the libertarian POV perfectly well. Yes, I understand that right to liberty also means our right to be safe from the reckless acts of others, especially on shared public property like roads.

But do you understand the concept of *actually* infringing on your safety versus merely having *potential* to infringe on your safety? They are two different things. I have the potential to infringe on your safety in ANY car. What makes a heap like this any different?

Is it ok to arrest people who have potential to murder just in case (eg; everyone), or just those that actually plot or commit a real murder?

Is it ok to arrest or otherwise inhibit the liberty of people who are drinking at a bar because they have keys in their pocket and they *might* drink and drive, or just those who actually get in their car and put it in gear and begin to operate the vehicle and/or leave a private parking lot and pull out on a public road?

Seeing a distinction yet? Have you seen the movie Minority Report?

The ultimate goal of government is preservation of liberty. This includes both the liberty of the person free to drive whatever he wants AND your liberty to be safe from reckless individuals on public roads. In order to ensure a balance that results in the maximization of liberty, our system errs on the side of individual liberty, by holding responsible individuals for infringing the liberty of others WHEN IT ACTUALLY OCCURS; it does not operate on the concept of "precrime" by incriminating potential.

Yes, with this setup, people can be negligent, and accidents can and will happen, and yes the irreversible repercussion of wrongful death can and will occur regardless of whether or not the individual responsible is punished. This goes for everything including the potential for mass murders and school shootings. But ultimately, it is a setup that allows for the greatest amount of liberty with the least amount of infringement. A few deaths along the way are one of the many prices worth paying for having a truly free society. It is not the job of government to infringe on all possible imaginable liberties in some vain attempt to prevent every possible preventable wrongful death or injury. It IS it's job to protect liberties and selectively hold accountable those individuals who infringe upon others.

It is a balance, and in the case of the United States of America, it is unique in the world that the balance errs toward freedom of the individual. There are many other countries you can move to if you prefer a society that errs toward safety instead, at the excessive expense of freedoms (Britain comes to mind). Why should you move and not me? Because there are many societies in the world which run the way you prefer, but there are not many options like the USA.

The best we can do if we really believe in a free society, is accept the bad with the good, and hold individuals accountable for the bad they cause. Sometimes this isn't possible (when the wrong doer such as a drunk driver or school shooter kills himself in the process). It's frustrating when there isn't someone to blame or punish or take out your anger against for murdering a car or classroom full of children, but such is life, deal with it. You cannot allow that fear and anger to be misdirected, in the form of paranoid preemptive policing, back at the rest of society who had nothing to do with those incidents. Don't screw it up for those of us who had nothing to do with it with your laws, bans, and take, take, take, restrict, restrict, restrict, nanny knows best attitude because you're scared of potential.

Hate the individual responsible, stop making the rest of us pay for someone else's errors.

 

[foghorn67]

I wish more of them would naturally select their way off the roads here.

I think your hearts going to explode someday. I bet it pisses you off people have the freedom to do stuff that doesn't bode well with your personal preferences.

 

[yh125d]

No, I understand the libertarian POV perfectly well. Yes, I understand that right to liberty also means our right to be safe from the reckless acts of others, especially on shared public property like roads.

But do you understand the concept of *actually* infringing on your safety versus merely having *potential* to infringe on your safety? They are two different things. I have the potential to infringe on your safety in ANY car. What makes a heap like this any different?

Is it ok to arrest people who have potential to murder just in case (eg; everyone), or just those that actually plot or commit a real murder?

Is it ok to arrest or otherwise inhibit the liberty of people who are drinking at a bar because they have keys in their pocket and they *might* drink and drive, or just those who actually get in their car and put it in gear and begin to operate the vehicle and/or leave a private parking lot and pull out on a public road?

Seeing a distinction yet? Have you seen the movie Minority Report?

The ultimate goal of government is preservation of liberty. This includes both the liberty of the person free to drive whatever he wants AND your liberty to be safe from reckless individuals on public roads. In order to ensure a balance that results in the maximization of liberty, our system errs on the side of individual liberty, by holding responsible individuals for infringing the liberty of others WHEN IT ACTUALLY OCCURS; it does not operate on the concept of "precrime" by incriminating potential.

Yes, with this setup, people can be negligent, and accidents can and will happen, and yes the irreversible repercussion of wrongful death can and will occur regardless of whether or not the individual responsible is punished. But ultimately, it is a setup that allows for the greatest amount of liberty with the least amount of infringement. A few deaths along the way are one of the many prices of having a truly free society. It is not the job of government to infringe on all possibly imaginable liberties in some vain attempt to prevent every possible preventable death or injury.

It is a balance, and in the case of the United States of America, it is unique in the world that the balance errs toward freedom of the individual. There are many other countries you can move to if you prefer a society that errs toward safety instead, at the excessive expense of freedoms.

The best we can do if we really believe in a free society, is accept the bad with the good, and hold individuals accountable for the bad they cause.

Your logic is WAY off man. You think that enforcement should not be allowed to take action against reckless activity until it infringes on the safety of someone else, which is stupid. When someone takes their personal liberties to a reckless level, endangering others, action needs to be taken BEFORE something goes horribly wrong.


Analogy: I run down the street flailing a knife around wildly. It's perfectly legal for me to have that knife, and in public. What you're saying is that police shouldn't be able to stop me and take the knife away until after someone happens to stray into my path


Reckless activity must be stopped before bad shit happens. The end. Noones infringing on anyones liberty by making 50" lifted, obviously unsafe vehicles non-street legal

 

[brblx]

i really don't think he's worth arguing with.

if it's his right to have a cobbled together non-road legal piece of shit truck that a) won't handle properly and b) WILL kill someone if involved in a collision, it's my right to put a bullet in his fucking brain.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No, I understand the libertarian POV perfectly well. Yes, I understand that right to liberty also means our right to be safe from the reckless acts of others, especially on shared public property like roads.

But do you understand the concept of *actually* infringing on your safety versus merely having *potential* to infringe on your safety? They are two different things. I have the potential to infringe on your safety in ANY car. What makes a heap like this any different?

Is it ok to arrest people who have potential to murder just in case (eg; everyone), or just those that actually plot or commit a real murder?

Is it ok to arrest or otherwise inhibit the liberty of people who are drinking at a bar because they have keys in their pocket and they *might* drink and drive, or just those who actually get in their car and put it in gear and begin to operate the vehicle and/or leave a private parking lot and pull out on a public road?

Seeing a distinction yet? Have you seen the movie Minority Report?

The ultimate goal of government is preservation of liberty. This includes both the liberty of the person free to drive whatever he wants AND your liberty to be safe from reckless individuals on public roads. In order to ensure a balance that results in the maximization of liberty, our system errs on the side of individual liberty, by holding responsible individuals for infringing the liberty of others WHEN IT ACTUALLY OCCURS; it does not operate on the concept of "precrime" by incriminating potential.

Yes, with this setup, people can be negligent, and accidents can and will happen, and yes the irreversible repercussion of wrongful death can and will occur regardless of whether or not the individual responsible is punished. This goes for everything including the potential for mass murders and school shootings. But ultimately, it is a setup that allows for the greatest amount of liberty with the least amount of infringement. A few deaths along the way are one of the many prices worth paying for having a truly free society. It is not the job of government to infringe on all possible imaginable liberties in some vain attempt to prevent every possible preventable wrongful death or injury. It IS it's job to protect liberties and selectively hold accountable those individuals who infringe upon others.

It is a balance, and in the case of the United States of America, it is unique in the world that the balance errs toward freedom of the individual. There are many other countries you can move to if you prefer a society that errs toward safety instead, at the excessive expense of freedoms (Britain comes to mind). Why should you move and not me? Because there are many societies in the world which run the way you prefer, but there are not many options like the USA.

The best we can do if we really believe in a free society, is accept the bad with the good, and hold individuals accountable for the bad they cause. Sometimes this isn't possible (when the wrong doer such as a drunk driver or school shooter kills himself in the process). It's frustrating when there isn't someone to blame or punish or take out your anger against for murdering a car or classroom full of children, but such is life, deal with it. You cannot allow that fear and anger to be misdirected, in the form of paranoid preemptive policing, back at the rest of society who had nothing to do with those incidents. Don't screw it up for those of us who had nothing to do with it with your laws, bans, and take, take, take, restrict, restrict, restrict, nanny knows best attitude because you're scared of potential.

Hate the individual responsible, stop making the rest of us pay for someone else's errors.

Right. Then tell me, why do we have laws that state minimum and maximum bumper heights in this country? Why do we have drunk driving laws? Why not let people drive drunk because they aren't hurting anyone until they get into an accident!

 

[exdeath]

Right. Then tell me, why do we have laws that state minimum and maximum bumper heights in this country? Why do we have drunk driving laws? Why not let people drive drunk because they aren't hurting anyone until they get into an accident!

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.

 

[yh125d]

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.

Oh. My. God.


You think drunk driving should be legal and only punished when an accident occurs



Warning, detecting massive idiocy on an unprecedented level

 

[exdeath]

Your logic is WAY off man. You think that enforcement should not be allowed to take action against reckless activity until it infringes on the safety of someone else, which is stupid. When someone takes their personal liberties to a reckless level, endangering others, action needs to be taken BEFORE something goes horribly wrong.


Analogy: I run down the street flailing a knife around wildly. It's perfectly legal for me to have that knife, and in public. What you're saying is that police shouldn't be able to stop me and take the knife away until after someone happens to stray into my path


Reckless activity must be stopped before bad shit happens. The end. Noones infringing on anyones liberty by making 50" lifted, obviously unsafe vehicles non-street legal

My guess is you would feel differently if you happened to be an enthusiast of said 50" lifted vehicle, especially if you did it properly and made it safe and where still lumped together with the idiots and persecuted by people like Jules.

 

[yh125d]

You're making the assumption that 50" lifted vehicles can be made safe


THEY CANT

 

[exdeath]

Oh. My. God.
You think drunk driving should be legal and only punished when an accident occurs
Warning, detecting massive idiocy on an unprecedented level

No. You are generalizing, the root of the problem I've been describing.

It's well known that people are different and respond differently to things like alcohol. Should someone who has a single beer who is clearly not impaired by the standards of roadside tests, but blows .0001 over an arbitrary limit after passing everything else, have his life completely ruined?

Should someone walking toward a car with keys in hand automatically be a DUI because they were drinking? Many police treat it as such. How do you know they weren't just rolling up their windows and locking up and a cab wasn't already on the way? Besides they are still on private property at that point, so what does it matter? Should people driving or moving cars in their private yard while intoxicated be arrested for DUI? It happens. That is the result that all or nothing blanket laws crafted out of vengeance and anger for the lowest common denominator have on the rest of us.

The idiots here are the ones that think blanket arbitrary lowest common denominator laws and standards, especially based on their individual likes and dislikes, can be forcibly applied in a supposedly free society of almost 300 million individuals with widely differing views and capabilities.

This is in fact why we have a court system. Not to rule "you did it or you didn't", but to also weigh the legitimacy and applicability of the law and the spirit of that law on a case by case basis, for the very fact that one size laws often do not fit many. That purpose has been lost, and in modern times, courts serve only as a rubber stamp for the legislation, particularly with a emotionalized, demonized, and glorified topic like drinking or racing.

It's also why we are supposed to have minimal laws and minimal government; the less of those there are, the more people you can accommodate fairly.

 

[exdeath]

You're making the assumption that 50" lifted vehicles can be made safe


THEY CANT

That is your predispositioned opinion. Numerous others actually in that industry would beg to differ, as would as someone who has been driving a Geo Metro for 30 years and has never felt threatened by a large truck.

 

[yh125d]

That is your predispositioned opinion. Numerous others actually in that industry would beg to differ.

No, it is fact. Noone with half a brain would argue otherwise. Obviously you are lacking in that department

 

[exdeath]

No, it is fact. Noone with half a brain would argue otherwise. Obviously you are lacking in that department

Of course. Everything you say and feel is fact and there is no valid alternative. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and should be jailed at birth to protect you. For the good of society of course.

 

[JDub02]

that might be one of the worst examples of redneck engineering that i've ever seen.

the truck is 2WD, has no breakover angle because of the "steps", and has no wheel travel

fail truck is fail