This only has one natural conclusion really. Surely any road death will be unacceptable. Let's ban cars altogether.
-
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
Thomas Jefferson -
Well, the natural conclusion is to ban death altogether. Since it's death that is the major problem here.Surely any road death will be unacceptable
By banning death, and declaring a new, "transitive state", there can be no such thing as murder, or accidents, or whatever.
Hence, no need for murder laws, prisons, etc.
Imagine the savings !
Just sweep 'em up, pop em in a chair, and send them back to work.
To be honest, judging from some of the permies I've worked with in previous companies, it would be hard to tell the difference.Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. LewisComment
-
Calling speeding fines indirect taxation is like calling fines for ABH a stealth tax on violence. Speeding, like violence, is both illegal and optional.Comment
-
IIRC her particular scam is claiming the cash and not buying one....Originally posted by dinker View PostComment
-
-
you'll never take me alive copper!Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
Thomas JeffersonComment
-
On average one person a week is killed by a police car driver speeding, the highest percentage of deaths by any group of drivers. These deaths are acceptable by HMG."A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
-
-
I live in one of the cities that already has 20mph limits on certain residential roads, and I have no problem with them.
The 20mph limit has been applied to roads in residential areas which were never designed with usage of cars by the majority of residents in mind. Some of these areas are Victorian or Edwardian, some were built in the Thirties or the post-war period. The one thing they all have in common is that the roads are now lined with the parked cars of residents on both sides, leaving only a single-track road in the middle. Parking restrictions make no sense: these are the cars of the people who live there. As some idiots still wilfully ignore the fact the the legal speed limit is a limit, not a target, other measures have to be used to make them use these roads safely.
When I finally got around to learning to drive in 2001, before the 20mph limits were introduced, my driving instructor asked me how fast I thought would be safe to drive up such a road. "25mph?"
He shook his head, and opined that 20mph was the maximum safe speed to drive up such a road, although 15mph was preferable. Now that I have more experience of driving on these streets, I agree entirely: these are roads where children live, and where cats chance another of their lives. If the 20mph limit was extended to more of these roads in my neighbourhood, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest, for it isn't safe to drive at more than 20mph up them anyway. Anybody driving at 30mph up the road I use to get to the main routes into the city (which has all these problems but sadly still has a 30mph limit) is driving recklessly in the first place.
Of course, being Sky News, the story originally linked to gives the impression that stupid restrictions will be imposed where there is no need; and you'll also have noticed that the idea of speed cameras, though trumpeted in the sub-head, refers to average-speed cameras rather than Gatsos, and is relegated to an also-ran "other initiative" that "could be seen" in the story.
Not that I'm suggesting that a Murdoch-owned "news" organisation would deliberately phrase its stories in such a way as to distort the facts for the purpose of kicking up a stink and thereby garnering more page impressions from which they make money...
Comment
Comment