|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Oct 13, 2024 15:12:20 GMT 10
I've never been good with rules and regulations, since a child I have always considered them optional.
Some years past I was doing a psychology course and it was said that I "had a problem with authority". I knew what they meant but it took me a while to come to the conclusion that the real issue was that authority had a problem with me.
Anyway: I often find myself at odds with people who obey to the letter any instruction whether it be given to them by a sign, a person in a uniform or something they think may be a legal requirement.
Don't get me wrong; there are many rules we should obey: don't kill, don't steal and the like. These are rules I would like to think any decent person obeys by instinct and doesn't need instruction upon.
But, say, the no generators in National Parks rule - do you consider you should *always* obey that?
Or the speed limit? Suppose you made an error of judgement and find yourself overtaking a B Double with doubtful space, should you put your foot down?
Given that I'm an acknowledged rebel I'm trying to get a sense of how strictly rule abiding people see the world.
Differently to me I suspect :)
|
|
al42
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by al42 on Oct 13, 2024 17:35:13 GMT 10
Mike I see that you say :don't kill,I see you quoting the sixth commandment,, the church- anity commandment. The real translation is Ex 20:13 is "You shall not murder" You have a right to kill in self defence.Ex20:2 if a thief is struck while breaking in and he die,there will be no guilt. Killing in a legitimate self defence is not murder in real LAW,but in man made law,well ,who knows? In N.P.using a chainsaw just after tracks open after seasonal closures is a necessity.Common sense applies
|
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Oct 13, 2024 22:17:04 GMT 10
".....no generators in National Parks rule - do you consider you should *always* obey that?"
The word "always" affects my answer. I loathe the sound of a generator when I want to enjoy the sounds of nature. If someone was far enough way not to be intrusive then I would have no problem with it. But too many people have no consideration for others. So, because there are too many cretins we all get lumbered with that rule.
Al mentioned chainsaws. Without the "no chainsaws in National Parks" rule, I think there would be too many people who would use one to gather firewood, which destroys animal habitats. It also encourages bigger campfires because firewood is easier to get (I should change my avatar). And then there is the pleasant sound the chainsaws make. Then when a ranger spots the cretins with a pile of fresh cut wood they respond "Oh no, it did not come from here". So, because there are too many cretins we all get lumbered with that rule.
It's a little like the speeding rules. I believe they are there for the lowest common denominator .... the barely capable driver in a crappy vehicle. That is vastly different from an experienced capable driver in a modern car. On the other hand if we are towing a van, it is certainly less safe than not towing. Yet we all get lumbered with the same rule up to 100 kph.
In the case of overtaking a B double on the highway, did you mean while towing? While towing a reasonable size van, I believe it would be virtually impossible to do so legally and safely without long straights. Unless going uphill the B double would usually be going pretty close to the speed limit. But for the exercise say 90 kph. If you overtake at 100 kph, you are over the line for more than 30 seconds and have travelled maybe a kilometre. So has a vehicle coming the other way. That assumes you are a B double length behind it ... about 25 metres (closer than recommended), 25 metres to be level with it, another 12 or so to get in front, then another 25 metres for a "safe" gap (also closer than recommended). 87 metres at 10kph differential speed takes 31 seconds.
Without the van behind, the choice is easy. Plant the foot and get in front to minimise the time on the wrong side of the road. With a van behind, going that much faster may not be the best solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobodyhere on Oct 14, 2024 9:19:17 GMT 10
Rules are made for lesser mortals than ourselves. Is that the position you're trying to convey?
As for noisy mechanical contraptions in national parks, we go there to experience the wildlife. They don't want to experience us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Oct 14, 2024 14:56:22 GMT 10
Rules are made for lesser mortals than ourselves. Is that the position you're trying to convey? I thought I made that clear in my original post - I am an arrogant bastard? Rules are made for people who are too stupid or too horrible to play nicely with others. Now stop fence sitting and tell us whether you obey every rule applied to you or not. al42 thinks chainsaws in NPs are OK so he's a rebel. AWL rabbited on a bit but finally admitted he might be a rebel too. |
|
|
|
Post by north200 on Oct 14, 2024 15:15:03 GMT 10
In the NT I ride a quad bike to the pub, does that count. I hate somebody telling me what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobodyhere on Oct 14, 2024 16:50:52 GMT 10
I admit that I regularly flouted the road rules when I was younger, but nowadays I drive to the letter of the law. I am also courteous to other drivers and acutely aware of their frustrations.
National parks are places where I expect to experience peace and quiet. I should not have to put up with a yobbo from Suburbia.
Rules and standards have nothing to do with stupidity. One example is the Australian Wiring Rules. Many rules were formulated in response to unforeseen events, some of them fatal.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobodyhere on Oct 14, 2024 17:52:29 GMT 10
Here are three examples that come to mind.
1/ When I splice two wires together, I flow solder into the join to make it robust. However, the wiring rules prohibit this practice if the wires are subsequently inserted into a screw connector. I admit I used to do this until my TAFE lecturer, who was responsible for the rule, explained that the solder softens over time, resulting in a loose connection.
2/ When I was visiting my mother in hospital, I used to eat the food that she wouldn't touch, reasoning that it would only be discarded. One of the staff saw me do this and remonstrated with me, telling me that eating the patients' food was prohibited. This made no sense to me until her supervisor explained that the caterers recorded the amount of food that each patient ate.
3/ When I studied computer programming at uni, I took a particular dislike to my lecturer. He was an arrogant bastard who I blame for killing my interest in the subject. I especially hated being told how to structure a program because I felt that nobody should be telling me how to think. I was particularly annoyed by him telling us not to do this and that, such as avoiding GOTO statements, etc. (If GOTO isn't necessary, then why does it exist?) I now understand just how hard it is to maintain someone else's code, even when they have followed established practices. My own code is trivial and convoluted and breaks all the rules, but that's because I'm not a real programmer and I write tools for my own use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Oct 15, 2024 11:37:29 GMT 10
north200: I reckon that qualifies you as a rebel - there's a lot of them in the NT, part of the reason I like the place.
NH: your posts suggest to me you are an avid rules follower even if you don't understand the rational of the rule, do you agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Oct 15, 2024 12:25:22 GMT 10
I read it a little differently. Happy to be a rebel until the logic of the rule was made clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobodyhere on Oct 15, 2024 13:50:56 GMT 10
In your opening post you appear to be saying the following. I'm intelligent, therefore I don't need rules. If you need rules, it's because you're stupid. If I don't like or understand a particular rule, then I am entitled to disregard it.
You can decide for yourself whether that comes across as arrogant.
As for whether I am an avid rules follower, I would prefer to say that I usually follow those rules that I don't like or understand, albeit reluctantly, especially when non-compliance attracts penalties. I do believe that there are cases where personal discretion is warranted, such as your overtaking example. My own examples illustrate particular cases where rules make sense only after someone explains them to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Oct 15, 2024 17:13:53 GMT 10
In your opening post you appear to be saying the following. My opening post is just a few lines above, read it and you'll see what I said but if you wish to twist it then so be it. It looks to me that you and AWL are really both rules followers - if the rule is explained to you and you disagree with its logic do you subsequently obey it? I'll bet you do :) That's OK, I was simply trying to get a sense of the psychology which drives rule following people. |
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Oct 15, 2024 18:11:38 GMT 10
At home I have made numerous electrical changes. Having seen some ridiculous questions online I understand that it is a good rule that we are not supposed to do that. There is one related rule that seems barely justifiable to me .... I am not allowed to do my own internet cabling. I suppose someone silly enough to make that a dangerous exercise should not pick up a screwdriver.
DIY plumbing is also unreasonably prohibited and that prohibition is also ripe to be ignored. LPG work, I understand and accept the validity although I have replaced various fittings and dismantled the stove on my (ex) boat. If it was something straightforward I probably would not be constrained by rules.
When fishing, I get tempted. Having caught a magnificent mud crab some time ago, my enthusiasm was dashed when I realised it was a female. First time crabbing for them. I was tempted, but sent her back to produce some more. I consider that a good rule worthy of obeying.
So, I think you have it wrong. I will obey a rule if the (potential) consequences of not doing so outweigh the benefits. But I can't think of any that I obey against my desire if there were no consequences. My Pirate Bay activity may be a good indicator and I have no qualms of ripping off the streaming services .... mixed feelings on the artists who get such a small cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on Oct 15, 2024 18:38:40 GMT 10
Fair enough AWL, we'll put you down as a rebel too :)
The "no unqualified electrical work" rule in Australia is an interesting one. There is, of course, a logical rationale: electricity is dangerous and you don't know what you're doing. Trouble is experience from many other developed nations where unqualified people are allowed to do simple electrical work says this is a load of dingos kidneys.
As most of us know this rule was introduced to protect the job status and income of electricians not for safety reasons. Should we follow it? I certainly don't because I am sufficiently "arrogant" to believe I know better than "The Authorities" and probably most electricians. But, as I said, I'm a rule breaker - much to the chagrin of some :)
|
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Oct 15, 2024 19:09:35 GMT 10
Just a quick followup on that part about electrical work.
I purchased my home about 20 years ago and the previous owner must have had some significant interest in video. There are 3 locations in the house where there are multiple RCA video sockets on the wall and 4 x double power points. Also another 6 doubles in the main bedroom. I have no doubt this would not be compliant because the whole 36 outlets are ALL on the same 20 amp power circuit PLUS half of the rest of the house. Probably more than 50 outlets on the one circuit.
No doubt the previous owner was a rebel and saw nothing wrong with it because they were only being used for low powered electronics.
I am troubled that if there was a fire that insurance would point to that as the cause. I recently decided they needed to go. Just need to get a round tuit.
On another forum (I have seen your name on Whirlpool), someone asked about making up an adapter lead to run a 20 amp pump on 2 x 10 amp circuits. He was going to have 2 plugs joined together so he could plug one into each wall plate. Sometimes the rules make sense.
|
|
