Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
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.
__________________
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.
|
Motorists are persecuted by the amount of time and effort utilised to enforce one law. Many other laws are relatively unenforced and unpunished. I would like to see GATSO revenue used to provide more policemen and women, so that crime can be reduced. Hey, that would be novel. Instead, we see policemen and women deployed to sit in a van 100 yards past a GATSO, IN CASE a driver speeds up. That's tackling crime? Let's start dealing with the problems we have, rather than those that we MAY have.
As for the balance, you have just slipped up. There is an old joke about a woman asked by a man if she will have sex for £1m; after a while she says that she will. He then offers her £5 instead and she says "Certainly not! Do you think I'm a prostitute?" He says "We've already ascertained that you are... now we're haggling on a price". So tell me, striking a balance, how many deaths on the road do you think are acceptable?