tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post6099016811585919388..comments2023-09-06T22:58:43.907+10:00Comments on The Angry Exile: No steering for the wheels of justice.Angry Exilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13697765915987279791noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-50873276273957365652009-10-30T05:11:20.502+11:002009-10-30T05:11:20.502+11:00Why am I not surprised? Still, nearly ten years on...Why am I not surprised? Still, nearly ten years on and there's no noise about actually going through with it. I wonder if further research found that driving with your head covered in bubble wrap made you more likely to crash in the first place. Or possibly drivers being scum take low priority behind peds and cyclists. Or it would be a law for the individual states and none want to make the first move. Probably a combination, but since they've made electronic stability control mandatory on new cars from next year (I think) I wonder if it's mostly that they're going down the active safety route of avoiding the crash instead of passive devices like more belts and bags.Angry Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02491082312193274360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-2904104277612971592009-10-29T06:54:41.040+11:002009-10-29T06:54:41.040+11:00Don't flog your guts out worrying too much abo...Don't flog your guts out worrying too much about seat belt laws (the supposed success of which is one of the <a href="http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/seat-belts-for-significance-2.pdf" rel="nofollow">statistical nonsenses</a> of modern times btw), because the Aussies, I reckon, will be first to make <a href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2000/Protect_Head_3.aspx" rel="nofollow">protective headgear for car occupants</a> mandatory. Serious.Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-61526317783522032402009-10-29T00:09:51.716+11:002009-10-29T00:09:51.716+11:00Hi MummyLL
I've read your bit on prevention v...Hi MummyLL<br /><br />I've read your bit on prevention vs cure over at your place. Actually I don't think what I blogged about the Victorian cops and courts here stuffing Mr Di Milta with a drink driving charge despite zero alcohol, or even if he'd been pissed out of his brains, would make a lot of difference to what you said. I think you're right about having too many laws and needing a simpler system, though I think we needn't go too draconic (draconic penalties don't stop drug smugglers risking the death penalty in some parts of the world) and could go even simpler. We just need to ask two questions of any motoring offence - is it a victimless crime and if so are victims really likely if nothing is done. If it is a crime with a victim then that's that - it needs to be addressed. If there was no victim some would argue that there has been no crime, but then that would ultimately allow a combination of recklessness and luck (or even malice and incompetence) to go unchecked. If victims are likely, as with a driver impaired through alcohol (as opposed to being under or over an arbitrary limit), then there should be some punishment. I feel we're probably in the right area there as things stand - just that currently we're letting some go who should be prosecuted and prosecuting others who are not impaired.<br /><br />Re seatbelts. If there's a crash and the unbelted driver is flung into a passenger wearing their belt, injuring or killing the passenger, doesn't the driver bear some responsibility? In fact, if a single vehicle accident it could be all the responsibility? I'd suggest that a reasonable law might be that all occupants including the driver should wear belts if there are two or more people on board. When it's driver only it should be up to the driver whether or not they choose to wear it. I'm open to the idea that taxi drivers could keep their exemption, and in compartmented taxis possibly single passengers could also be exempted since the driver and passenger would be shielded from each other.Angry Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02491082312193274360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-90975536190245603192009-10-28T20:13:24.334+11:002009-10-28T20:13:24.334+11:00This is where my argument for prevention instead o...This is where my argument for prevention instead of cure falls flat on it's face. Doh. With drink driving, as with many driving 'laws' the prevention just doesn't seem to be working. There will always be muppets that think they can drive after drinking, drive whilst on a phone, drive with out having passed the required test etc. I my opinion the only way to deal with this problem is to make the punishment so severe and unbending that it is just not worth the risk. At the moment there are so many sub-laws, fines etc tied to driving that it has all become too complicated. I think we need to revert to a simpler system, take your chance but if you get caught, holy crap, you will pay the price. Do what you want behind the wheel but if you harm another person in the process you can't say you didn't know the consequences. If you kill someone with your car whilst you were drunk, high, speeding, phoning, texting, having sex etc it's life. You knew the risks, knew the punishment but still went ahead and did. No mitigating circumstances. End of. Seat belt laws should only apply to passengers. Not wearing a seatbelt never caused an accident, it just makes the chances of surviving one much slimmer. So if you are driving other people you should be bound by law to ensure that if you (the driver) fucks up, or some one else fucks you up, your passengers should be safe. What you choose to do with your own body is up to you.<br /><br />roarrrrrrrrrrr<br /><br />Mummy x<br /><br />am having a ranty day, you have been warned xMummy xhttp://andtherewasmethinking.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com