Re: First autos then boats
- From: pd.news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Pd)
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:07:28 +0100
Ronald Raygun <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
TonyB wrote:
I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to do
90mph
down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
do it often.
No it isn't. It's just saying that a blanket ban is too draconian
when the bulk of the perceived risk to the public is from folk who
are never off the phone, not those who use it once in a green moon.
If the risk to the public is tiny because the occasional user is so
rarely on the phone, then the risk to the occasional user of being
caught and sentenced to a couple of years inside is also tiny, because
they're so rarely on the phone.
If the occasional user causes an accident because they were on the
phone, you could say 'oh, that was terribly bad luck, chance in a
million'. If they get caught and punished, you could say 'oh, that was
terribly bad luck, chance in a million'.
So it all evens out nicely, doesn't it.
--
Pd
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: First autos then boats
- From: Dennis Pogson
- Re: First autos then boats
- References:
- First autos then boats
- From: Wilbur Hubbard
- Re: First autos then boats
- From: Steve Firth
- Re: First autos then boats
- From: Dennis Pogson
- Re: First autos then boats
- From: TonyB
- Re: First autos then boats
- From: Ronald Raygun
- First autos then boats
- Prev by Date: Re: First autos then boats
- Next by Date: Re: First autos then boats
- Previous by thread: Re: First autos then boats
- Next by thread: Re: First autos then boats
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
