View Single Post
Old 28-02-2005, 10:03   #197
me283
Inactive
 
me283's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Back in England, but not for long...
Services: Weddings, christenings, barmitzvahs
Posts: 3,422
me283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronze
me283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronzeme283 is cast in bronze
Re: Road Traffic Act

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
The fact that you can kill yourself by drinking too much water is also a fact. Best outlaw the tap now.
__________________
I'm sure if the numbers were sufficient, then that might be a course of action that would be considered. However, your argument is flawed for many reasons, including the fact that water is available from many sources of which the tap is only one. That's like saying "road accidents can kill so let's blame drivers...". Oh, that's actually what you've been saying, isn't it?

On another point, my knowledge on this isn't 100% but death by drinking water can be by excessive consumption or possibly by allergic reaction. Just a small point.

Finally, nobody is saying that cars or taps should be "outlawed". One of the points being made is that motorists are persecuted, and the argument that is churned out is that it's all in the name of saving lives. That argument is not believed, much less proven. Nobody is denying that speeding is an offence/crime, that's actually undeniable. But spitting in public is a crime, carrying a knife is a crime, and burgling a house is a crime. There are hundreds of crimes that COULD be punished but aren't, or at least not as severely. The reason is always trumped up as "that won't save lives... we have too few resources" etc. I believe there are other reasons, such as lack of financial gain, too difficult (doesn't benefit statistics enough) etc.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
__________________



You want a response to that point. Well Xaccers has posted an excellent link detailing the rules for setting limits, one of which being that they must be realistic to road users. A balance has to be struck. Reducing speed limits will not necessarily produce the results you suggest. But it is apparent that speed limits are there, in the main (reducing congestion may be another factor for example), to protect all road users, including pedestrians. Somehow though, some motorists think that they know better, speed and get caught. End of story.
"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?
me283 is offline   Reply With Quote