What would happen?

[jaymzw]

Bit like all the fuss with cigerette smoking....let em smoke, let em die young.... less burdan on the tax payer with pensions...

Yeah okay, we'll just pay for them while they are going to the doctor, then when they cant work, then when they need operations and are staying in our hospitals.

Smokings fine...

The gubbermint takes their share so who gives a fuck.

I still think a cage restrictor would work to some degree

[tigertim20]

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is, they wont do it, because somewill will mass produce a unit for a hundred bucks or so, then repco and supercheap will be selling it everyone!!, where theres a market, someone will produce.

[tigertim20]

wow, look at my grammar and spelling eh? should say "some one will" lol at me!

[Ixion]

Y..

I still think a cage restrictor would work to some degree

It would work, but only for those folk who don't need it to work.

Mabel would not object - she would never get near 140 anyway. But Mabel at 140 isn't the demographic that needs sorting.

[LBD]

Yeah okay, we'll just pay for them while they are going to the doctor, then when they cant work, then when they need operations and are staying in our hospitals.

You know you have a good point there, never thought of it from that perspective

[Dave Lobster]

Yeah okay, we'll just pay for them while they are going to the doctor, then when they cant work, then when they need operations and are staying in our hospitals.

Smokings fine...

How much tax is there on each box of fags? I'm curious to know..

I'm pretty sure that smokers will have paid for their hospital (etc) treatment five times over by the time they need it. If they government didn't get the tax from cigarettes, they'd be taking it from everyone else.

And, not many smokers get old enough to claim a state pension. Saving again..

Frankly, I think smoking should be encouraged.


Back on topic though, isn't it something like 6% of crashes where speed is a factor, the speed is over the speed limit? And of those, how many are above the 100km/h limit? A handful?

The government has FAR more important things to be getting on with than legislating for such nonsense as speed restrictors in cars.

[Mully]

How much tax is there on each box of fags? I'm curious to know..

Easy enough to work out - what's the difference between the price at Duty Free shops and the local supermarket??

Back on topic though, isn't it something like 6% of crashes where speed is a factor, the speed is over the speed limit? And of those, how many are above the 100km/h limit? A handful?

Interesting point. If you add up the cause of accidents, you get over 100%. This is because someone can be drunk, no seatbelt and speeding and crash and die, and the accident stat is credited to Drink Driving AND restraints AND Speeding.

Primary causes aren't trumpeted as much. Simply because speeding, by itself, doesn't kill that many people (which makes it harder for the powers that be to impose draconian speed enforcement). It needs to be combined with bad driving/unsafe vehicle, etc.

[CookMySock]

gee that would spawn off a whole aftermarket business. Great for the economy!

Steve

[Dave Lobster]

Primary causes aren't trumpeted as much. Simply because speeding, by itself, doesn't kill that many people (which makes it harder for the powers that be to impose draconian speed enforcement). It needs to be combined with bad driving/unsafe vehicle, etc.

They're a lot more effort for someone to be fleeced for though, aren't they? Alleged speeding is far easier to catch someone and relieve them of cash for. There's money in speeding..

[Mully]

They're a lot more effort for someone to be fleeced for though, aren't they? Alleged speeding is far easier to catch someone and relieve them of cash for. There's money in speeding..

Absolutely.

As far as I know, there isn't a traffic law called "being a fucktard who needs a clip round the ear"

Like the bus "driver" this afternoon who beeped at me on the north-western because I dared to filter through 10km/h traffic.

[Virago]

Dunno how many hre realise but a lot of jap four wheel vehicles if not all are speed restricted to 180km/h give or take 10km/h.
So why doesnt the gubbinment insist the speed restricters be altered to a max of 140km/h?
Wonder what would happen

Such draconian speed restriction would also have to apply to two-wheeled vehicles. Or is that "different"?

[Dave Lobster]

Why not just restrict uninsured vehicles to 50km/h?

It'd target the people that drive like knobs.. leaving the rest of us to drive round at 181km/h to our little hearts' content.