Wednesday, August 18, 2010
It's not just me, then.
I liked the article by Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent newspaper entitled "Saving lives can't be the only criterion". She writes a lot of sense in her article and I totally agree with her views. Okay, the politicans and the police go on and on about saving lives and if only the nanny-state go have even greater powers, then maybe more lives could be saved. But these arguements forget that getting out of bed in the morning is a risk, you may trip or slip and bang your head. Life is about managing all risks and people are rather good at managing those risks, without the intervention of government.
There will always be the risk of injury from crossing the path of moving objects. Somebody could open a door against you and knock you over. Respect moving vehicles on the road and do not walk in front of them, that is basic road safety that should be obvious to all. There is no need for the whole country to be reduced to 20 mph so that the ignorant can jay-walk. Roads are for driving on and are not a playground or shopping mall.
Drunk drivers are a deadly problem, nobody will disagree with that. But lowering the drink drive limit will not stop the drunk drivers. The drunk drivers will always be a problem, that is the decision they have made and altering the drink drive limit will never affect their decision to drive. There are many factors that affect drivers' ability and playing around with the drink drive limit will not change things. There is a huge difference between having a drink with a meal, to being drunk and then driving. It is the same difference between having a conversation with a front seat passenger and using a mobile telephone whilst driving.
Mary Ann Sieghart's article is a good one to read and I believe she is right.
I liked the article by Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent newspaper entitled "Saving lives can't be the only criterion". She writes a lot of sense in her article and I totally agree with her views. Okay, the politicans and the police go on and on about saving lives and if only the nanny-state go have even greater powers, then maybe more lives could be saved. But these arguements forget that getting out of bed in the morning is a risk, you may trip or slip and bang your head. Life is about managing all risks and people are rather good at managing those risks, without the intervention of government.
There will always be the risk of injury from crossing the path of moving objects. Somebody could open a door against you and knock you over. Respect moving vehicles on the road and do not walk in front of them, that is basic road safety that should be obvious to all. There is no need for the whole country to be reduced to 20 mph so that the ignorant can jay-walk. Roads are for driving on and are not a playground or shopping mall.
Drunk drivers are a deadly problem, nobody will disagree with that. But lowering the drink drive limit will not stop the drunk drivers. The drunk drivers will always be a problem, that is the decision they have made and altering the drink drive limit will never affect their decision to drive. There are many factors that affect drivers' ability and playing around with the drink drive limit will not change things. There is a huge difference between having a drink with a meal, to being drunk and then driving. It is the same difference between having a conversation with a front seat passenger and using a mobile telephone whilst driving.
Mary Ann Sieghart's article is a good one to read and I believe she is right.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]