WSpohn4@aol.com SEZ -
>
> What's arbitrary about giving offenders tickets? You know the law is always
> subject to enforcement, you take your chances by having no front plate, then
> why kick when what you knew could happen, does happen? We require front
> plates here, and all but my Lamborghini has them, and if I had been ticketed
> on the Lambo because there were no holes to mount a plate and I didn't want
> to drill any, I wouldn't whine about it - any law is subject to enforcement.
The biggest traffic problems where I live are people blowing
stop signs, failing to yield the right of way, and turning
without signalling. These are real traffic violations that
can cost people their lives. When the cops put a stop to
this type of behavior, they can start devoting their time to
picky little problems like no front license plate. That's
where the arbitrary part comes in. They go after the easy
money and leave the dangerous offenders to wreck their havoc.
> We have the same law in BC, and I think it is a damned good one. Use of belts
> reduces injury and drastically reduces the monetary cost of care for accident
> victims. It should be automatic - get in the car, belt up. I don't know why
> people still bitch about this.
Because if you want to do something stupid and kill yourself, it's
nobody's business but your own. That's natural selection at work.
It improves the species. As far as the tired old argument that
it "drastically reduces the monetary cost" of this or that, that
old canard is trotted out every time the government wants to make
another element of human discretion illegal or mandatory. Let's
ban little soft-top cars entirely! That'll save money. Let's ban
guns and knives and pointed sticks and big rocks while we're at it.
Somebody could get hurt. Let's require safety goggles when using
super glue. Get rid of self-serve gas stations. And hamburgers.
I always wear a seat belt, but I *don't* do it because Big Brother
tells me to. I do it in spite of that. Not wearing one is stupid.
What kind of a society will we have if everything stupid is banned?
Who decides what's stupid? It's a decision best left to the individual,
who can suffer the consequences of his decision. Why should we all
suffer a little with every effort to legislate common sense?
> Offends their so-called freedom or something I suppose - I see this argument
> mostly from Americans. Keep thinking that watching them sail through the
> windshield in an accident would be a good time to call after them "But hey -
> you are free......."
So-called freedom, eh? Sounds like something a monarch would say.
:-)
This has gotten competely off topic, so I suppose this
thread is nearing its end, and we can go back to the
things that bring us together (MGs) rather than drive
us apart (politics). Sorry if I wasted too much bandwidth.
--
David Breneman | "Advice is somethin' the
Distributed Systems S/W Analyst | other feller can't use,
Airborne Express, Inc. | so he gives it to you."
david.breneman@airborne.com | - Cal Stewart
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|