Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
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.
__________________
"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?
|
The tap was a throway line _ I'm sure you can see the point that I'm making (or are choosing not to).
So, motorists are persecuted for being prosecuted when they break the law? Ah diddums. They can stop that 'persecution' quite easily. Incidentally a lot of trafic cops were removed from road duties to focus on, I think, burglaries. There was subsequently an uproar. My position is that I'd like those traffic cops on the road and more resources (not reallocation) given to tackling other crimes. I'd like to see GATSO revenues going into highway safety and public transport. I'd like to see motorists shutting up about how unfair it is that they get caught BREAKING THE LAW.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?
|
A balance between daily life going on with managed risk, or daily life being halted by trying to remove all risk by, as you say, reducing speed limits. Taking that logic to its extreme we should have a 0mph limit because then we can guarantee there will be no collisions. The world would stop. So we strike a balance.