Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
....to deter them from becoming criminals?.... making more rules for innocent, law abiding citizens, ....
....to deter them from becoming criminals?.... making more rules for innocent, law abiding citizens, ....
I suspect the reality is that these idiots will have no problem continuing to kill people even within the speed limit. They will still drive like complete t**ts. What is needed is more traffic police to monitor our roads, and stiffer sentences for those who do behave in this way.I might need to drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation
I might want to drive my car on a track or on the autobahn
cars still kill people at lower speeds.
Figured I'd put all the usual excuses up to save time for those who don't want to lose bragging rights that their car can break the speed limit by X mph.
Exactly the point I was going to make. The excessive nanny state regulation is why we have instructions on bottles of bleach saying 'do not drink'. Many people seem to have lost the ability to think for themselves.To an extent I agree with your viewpoint about nanny states, but to what extent are you happy to give up your individual choice?
For clarity I would have no issue with a car limited to 80mph, but I would make an argument that while speed is linked to many (the majority?) traffic accidents, all will be as a result of poor individual decisions or inability (or choosing not) to control a vehicle in a manner that is safe to them and other road users.
My position in the discussion is whether you're happy for a government to reduce your ability to make decisions for yourself, and in turn reducing the ability of manufactures to innovate. Or are you wanting your individual freedom of choice. If you are wanting the freedom of choice, then all other members of society will be entitled to the same freedom (until such time they break the law to a degree that removes the privilege of that freedom). I'm not a proponent of anarchy, but individual responsibility and as a result liberty. I do not believe every individuals liberty should be removed as a result of a minorities lack of individual responsibility.
To go to an extreme, should the government ban sharp kitchen knives and only allow you to buy a butter knife if someone commits a murder with the kitchen knife?
I see a significant difference between preventing individual stupidity and protecting others from that stupidity. I’m all for letting people do whatever they want to as long as it does not present a risk to others. Let people drink bleach, but prevent them from inadvertently turning a mode of transport in to a weapon of mass distraction.Exactly the point I was going to make. The excessive nanny state regulation is why we have instructions on bottles of bleach saying 'do not drink'. Many people seem to have lost the ability to think for themselves.
Trump suggested injecting bleach to counter the covid virus!Exactly the point I was going to make. The excessive nanny state regulation is why we have instructions on bottles of bleach saying 'do not drink'. Many people seem to have lost the ability to think for themselves.
Pedestrians have been killed by collisions with bicycles. Do you propose banning those as well? You're just as dead at 10mph as 100mph. The loss of responsibility and common sense seems to more of the problem, together with the loss of any ability to risk assess.I see a significant difference between preventing individual stupidity and protecting others from that stupidity. I’m all for letting people do whatever they want to as long as it does not present a risk to others. Let people drink bleach, but prevent them from inadvertently turning a mode of transport in to a weapon of mass distraction.
You've been reading the Daily Mail! I wondered when cycling would get drawn in to this thread, it's a bit of an obsession with the road ragers!Pedestrians have been killed by collisions with bicycles.
Who said anything about banning? I am advocating preventing things being used inappropriately. If it’s possible to make a bicycle inoperable on a pavement I’m all for it.Pedestrians have been killed by collisions with bicycles. Do you propose banning those as well? You're just as dead at 10mph as 100mph. The loss of responsibility and common sense seems to more of the problem, together with the loss of any ability to risk assess.
About 20 years ago my friend's nine year old son was killed by a cyclist riding on the pavement. I've stopped reading newspapers.You've been reading the Daily Mail! I wondered when cycling would get drawn in to this thread, it's a bit of an obsession with the road ragers!![]()
How does one prevent a knife or a chainsaw or any number of things with potential to do harm being used inappropriately? Trust me, a broken neck or fractured skull at 10mph kills you just as well as a broken neck or fractured skull at 100mph.Who said anything about banning? I am advocating preventing things being used inappropriately. If it’s possible to make a bicycle inoperable on a pavement I’m all for it.
And no you are not just as dead at 10mph as 100mph.
Is there anything that you don’t agree with that you don’t ascribe to the right Jacob? You do seem to bring politics into every discussion."Nanny state" is a tired old cliche coming from the right.
The car is only the 'weapon', it's the nut holding the steering wheel that's the killer!I might need to drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation
I might want to drive my car on a track or on the autobahn
cars still kill people at lower speeds.
Figured I'd put all the usual excuses up to save time for those who don't want to lose bragging rights that their car can break the speed limit by X mph.
Probably from the left as well, but yes I agree with you."Nanny state" is a tired old cliche coming from the right. They say it about so many things - safety belts, crash helmets, etc.
What about parachutes?
Personally I'm all for it.
But how much more likely is a vulnerable road user to get a broken neck when hit by a car doing 10mph vs 100mph?How does one prevent a knife or a chainsaw or any number of things with potential to do harm being used inappropriately? Trust me, a broken neck or fractured skull at 10mph kills you just as well as a broken neck or fractured skull at 100mph.
I might need to drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation
We have regulation on electrical equipment so it doesn’t electrocute us.To an extent I agree with your viewpoint about nanny states, but to what extent are you happy to give up your individual choice?
For clarity I would have no issue with a car limited to 80mph, but I would make an argument that while speed is linked to many (the majority?) traffic accidents, all will be as a result of poor individual decisions or inability (or choosing not) to control a vehicle in a manner that is safe to them and other road users.
My position in the discussion is whether you're happy for a government to reduce your ability to make decisions for yourself, and in turn reducing the ability of manufactures to innovate. Or are you wanting your individual freedom of choice. If you are wanting the freedom of choice, then all other members of society will be entitled to the same freedom (until such time they break the law to a degree that removes the privilege of that freedom). I'm not a proponent of anarchy, but individual responsibility and as a result liberty. I do not believe every individuals liberty should be removed as a result of a minorities lack of individual responsibility.
To go to an extreme, should the government ban sharp kitchen knives and only allow you to buy a butter knife if someone commits a murder with the kitchen knife?
Enter your email address to join: