Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Pyromancer <dj.pyromancer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:54:08 -0700
On 26 Jun, 09:59, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
What use are laws which punish motorists because what they were doing
/might/ have been dangerous under other circumstances - but which wasn't
dangerous at the time it was done??? Better to concentrate on things
which definitely /are/ dangerous /at/ the time.
Ok, I have a proposal for you.
1. Fit all cars with tracking and monitoring devices, which both
report data to police control and record it, aircraft black-box style.
1a. All drivers to be issued with identity cards, and all cars to have
card readers arranged such that the car cannot be driven if the card
is not present (and will stop immedieatly if the card is removed).
2. Install recording CCTV in all streets in urban or semi-urban areas,
and at all junctions and bends and known frequent accident locations,
so crashes and other driver behaviour can be recalled later if needed.
3. Abolish all speed limits.
4. Abolish the legal insurance requirements.
5. Restore the death penalty.
6. In the event of a collision that kills someone other than the road
user who caused it, and where the perpetrator survives, execute the
person responsible. If more than one person is responsible (and
survives), execute them all.
7. For any collision that a) damages property owned by, or b) injures
anyone, other than the perpetrator, then the perpetrator and their
family shall be directly responsible for repaying the losses
incurred. Payment to be extracted in full as soon as legally possible
after the event. Families rendered homeless by this process to be
excluded from the general law that requires local authorities to house
the homeless. Tracing of families and assets to go back as far as
needed to provide sufficient payment.
8. The penalty for operating a vehicle without an ID card, or with an
ID card other than your own, shall be summary execution by armed
police at point of detection. i.e. no-one will risk driving withiout
being identifiable.
This scheme will need significant policing resources, but would
certainly put the onus on vehicle drivers to be responsible while
still allowing them to drive as fast as they like where the conditions
genuinely do permit. We'd still need numberplates, and we'd have to
arm the police, but it'd do away with insurance and speed limits, and
possibly also with the driving test requirement. I think we'd also
have to leave the EU before we could restore the DP, but that might be
negotiable.
It'd be fair to all - the "execute the perpetrator" could be applied
to all road users causing fatal collisions, though generally speaking
if the perpetrator was a cyclist or pedestrian they are unlikely to
have survived to be executed anyway.
So, are you willing to gamble your life for the freedom to drive as
you like?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Matt B
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- References:
- Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Marc Brett
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: fred
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Matt B
- Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Prev by Date: Re: Rhyl verdict out
- Next by Date: BMA hasn't changed its helmet policy
- Previous by thread: Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Next by thread: Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
