Tangler.... here are some of John's weak points!
He claims to object to the 'arbitrary' nature of speed limits and that they are 'somehow' WRONG simply BECAUSE they are 'arbitary'. Note that: being 'arbitrary' NEGATES the very BEING of speed limits! He also claims and that there ARE safe places to exceed the speed limits, even though the limits are against it. He also believes that drivers SHOULD be allowed to judge when THEY think it is safe to exceed the speed limits.
Now ask him his views on whether the Drink Drive limits are ARBITRARY too!
And ask him if there are ANY places or times when it matters MORE N*O*T to be drunk-driving than others. Surely, if speeding matters less when there are FEWER road users about then the same MUST apply to being DRUNK when no other road users are about??? A logical, reasonable person would THINK so.... wouldn't they?
It's also fun to ask him whether WE should be allwowed to decide what WE think the MAXIMUM permitted alcohol level should be on Drink Driving for OURSELVES. John is probably safer than I am at or near the drink limits (I cannot hold my drink!) so, the law SHOULD allow me to drive at 80mgs but John SHOULD be allowed to drive at 150mgs..... shouldn't he? As should any of the people who are REGULAR drinkers that HAVE killed people when they were only FRACTIONALLY above the 80mg DD limit.... shouldn't they?
You'll find it fun that John's views on 'Arbitrariness' and 'more dangerous places' and 'we should set our OWN limits' suddenly, nay... MIRACULOUSLY... take a LEAP out of the window....
You'll find that 'Arbitrariness', 'safe places' and 'drivers choose' opinions ONLY affects those laws that John WANTS break and not those that he DOESN'T! You'd never have guessed that, would you?
Ian
|
|