ANOTHER speeding clamp down

[Scuba_Steve]

I reckon a very interesting experiment would be to trial a month with no speed limit, but emphasise that the cops will be targetting dangerous driving and there will be no mercy for causing accidents.

While it has all the possibility of being the safest month we've ever had, it doesn't really give long enough for adjustment period; Think you'd need to run at-least 6mths. But lets face it it's never gonna happen anyways because it's all about $afety, none of them care about safety.

[BoristheBiter]

Either way, thinking about such things is a side effect of seeking the freedom that is my absolute right and that no man or "law" of man has authority over me other than myself. Especially not your society.

Are you willing to die for that right?

[Kickaha]

Are you willing to die for that right?

If he isn't let's kill him anyway

[mashman]

Are you willing to die for that right?

I already will be, but that's another story... but yes, although not without a fight.

If he isn't let's kill him anyway

Yeah yeah, bring it tuffnut: 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington.

[swbarnett]

and chooses who plays nice? you? me? or what even is playing nice?

Civil accusation. I'm accused of not playing nice. It goes before a judge and is argued out. No laws involved except that of common sense. And no lawyers either. Oh, and actual harm has to be proven (this can be as simple as loss of sleep from a noisy party).

The flip side is that if people understand and agree with the reasoning behind a law it will be respected. When the reasoning is so obviously flawed the law makers are pushing shit up hill to get compliance and just show themselves up to have a serious lack of cognitive ability.

So under that idea we should be allowed to drink drive as most of the time it is only dangerous in a very narrow set of circumstances, driving on the wrong side of the road, what about cutting corners, insecure loads, badly maintained vehicles?

While perhaps not so black and white I do support the idea of leaving people alone until an accident happens. Then you throw the book the one that caused it (along with the other 19 hard-backed volumes). I'd rather have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a cop car at the top spoiling the view.

I have seen far too much carnage on the roads to even consider your ideology when it comes to road policing even if i agree on what they focus on is not what they should be, it's just the easiest.

The thing is, a lot of that carnage is an indirect result of poor focus on the part of police and government.

Well that's ideology for ya.

What's life without a little bit of ideology now and then?

[BoristheBiter]

Civil accusation. I'm accused of not playing nice. It goes before a judge and is argued out. No laws involved except that of common sense. And no lawyers either. Oh, and actual harm has to be proven (this can be as simple as loss of sleep from a noisy party).

So then you just change form laws to an angry mob, weren't you saying something of the right to be left alone?

The flip side is that if people understand and agree with the reasoning behind a law it will be respected. When the reasoning is so obviously flawed the law makers are pushing shit up hill to get compliance and just show themselves up to have a serious lack of cognitive ability.

I really wish that was true, and to the most part it is. Try travelling at 100kph (on the open road) and see how many cars you catch up to.
The ones that lack cognitive ability are the ones that speed and keep getting tickets for it, whine about it but carry on doing the same shit.
Like i have said before, learn to play the game and you won't have a problem.

While perhaps not so black and white I do support the idea of leaving people alone until an accident happens. Then you throw the book the one that caused it (along with the other 19 hard-backed volumes). I'd rather have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a cop car at the top spoiling the view.

Cold comfort the the innocent party that has just been taken out.

The thing is, a lot of that carnage is an indirect result of poor focus on the part of police and government.

No the carnage is the DIRECT result of poor choices by the driver. To claim otherwise is just showing your disdain to all authority.

What's life without a little bit of ideology now and then?

The real world.

[mashman]

Like i have said before, learn to play the game and you won't have a problem.

[swbarnett]

So then you just change form laws to an angry mob,

Tempered by a structured arbitration process, yes.

weren't you saying something of the right to be left alone?

Unfortunately what is "playing nice" will have to be tested from time to time. If the arbitration comes out in the favour of the accused then they're free to keep doing what they were doing without interference.

Like i have said before, learn to play the game and you won't have a problem.

That depends on the rules of he game.

Cold comfort the the innocent party that has just been taken out.

In the long run I think you'll find that the number of innocent parties taken out will reduce from what it is now.

No the carnage is the DIRECT result of poor choices by the driver. To claim otherwise is just showing your disdain to all authority.

Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility. However, it is said that the only thing required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. This gives secondary (hence "indirect") responsibility to those that have been tasked with making the roads safer.

The real world.

I don't know what world you live in but mine is populated by humans - every one of which (including you) live by their own ideology.

[Swoop]

Yeah yeah, bring it tuffnut: 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington.

We could not find 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington


Make sure your search is spelled correctly.

Try adding a city, state, or zip code.

More Google search results for 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington

Well, if you don't seem to even know where you live, anything else posted by you appears to be unreliable.

[mashman]

Well, if you don't seem to even know where you live, anything else posted by you appears to be unreliable. The case for the prosecution rests me'lud

lol... fixed that for ya.

[BoristheBiter]

Tempered by a structured arbitration process, yes.


Unfortunately what is "playing nice" will have to be tested from time to time. If the arbitration comes out in the favour of the accused then they're free to keep doing what they were doing without interference.

So.....all your've done is change how the rules are written. So how is that any different to what we have now?

That depends on the rules of he game.

No it doesn't. all games have rules, you must learn them before playing.

In the long run I think you'll find that the number of innocent parties taken out will reduce from what it is now.

While i completly dissagre with that, are you willing to bet your family's lives on that, because I sure aren't

Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility.

no the driver holds the only responsibility.

However, it is said that the only thing required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. This gives secondary (hence "indirect") responsibility to those that have been tasked with making the roads safer.

So don't we do that by abiding by the laws that have been set down?

So going by what you have stated in your last few posts we should;
let everyone drive/ride however they like,
when they crash we should throw the book, set a set of books, at them by an angry mob,
we should stop the evil by making rules.....that.....should........be........followe d ??????hang on didn't you say we shouldn't have rules?

I think you might have just contradicted yourself.

[swbarnett]

So.....all your've done is change how the rules are written. So how is that any different to what we have now?

The "norms" of society would be decided on a case by case basis instead of the one size fits all solution that we have now.

No it doesn't. all games have rules, you must learn them before playing.

I, and you, will definitely have a problem if we don't like the rules of the game. That's why no set of rules is ever static.

While i completly dissagre with that, are you willing to bet your family's lives on that,

Yes, I am.

no the driver holds the only responsibility.

Moral responsibility, yes. But, if a cop, for example, ignores someone driving the wrong way on a motorway they are at least a cog in the machine that leads to the subsequent head-on collision.

So don't we do that by abiding by the laws that have been set down?

Only if the laws make sense under the circumstances.

So going by what you have stated in your last few posts we should;
let everyone drive/ride however they like,
when they crash we should throw the book, set a set of books, at them by an angry mob,

No angry mob necessary. Only reasoned arguments before an arbitrator.

we should stop the evil by making rules.....that.....should........be........followe d ??????

I never said that we should make rules. I said that the under the current system the cops are tasked with making the roads safer. Their actions prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have no clue how to do this. Which makes them part of the problem.

I also said that a sensible law will be respected as it will reflect basic common sense anyway.

I think you might have just contradicted yourself.

Not at all. I may not have been as clear as I could've been however.

[BoristheBiter]

The "norms" of society would be decided on a case by case basis instead of the one size fits all solution that we have now.


I, and you, will definitely have a problem if we don't like the rules of the game. That's why no set of rules is ever static.


Yes, I am.


Moral responsibility, yes. But, if a cop, for example, ignores someone driving the wrong way on a motorway they are at least a cog in the machine that leads to the subsequent head-on collision.


Only if the laws make sense under the circumstances.


No angry mob necessary. Only reasoned arguments before an arbitrator.


I never said that we should make rules. I said that the under the current system the cops are tasked with making the roads safer. Their actions prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have no clue how to do this. Which makes them part of the problem.

I also said that a sensible law will be respected as it will reflect basic common sense anyway.


Not at all. I may not have been as clear as I could've been however.

No you have actually been quite clear, you will abide by any rule, or law, that you agree with and all others are a waste of time.

I really don't know why I bothered as I knew how this was going to end up hence my post a few pages back.

[swbarnett]

No you have actually been quite clear, you will abide by any rule, or law, that you agree with and all others are a waste of time.

After all "Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."

I will abide by a law that:

1. I agree with

2. I understand the reason for, even though it may be to my detriment.

3. Is no skin off my nose either way.

4. The penalty is not worth the risk (although I can't think of any law that falls into this category that's not covered by point 5 anyway).

5. Other than that my own sense of right and wrong is plenty of guidance when it comes to interacting with other members of society.

I really don't know why I bothered

Truthfully, neither do I.

[Banditbandit]

'Bout time this bullshit disappeared into Pointless Drivel isn't it ???