[geeks] Stuff fo' sale

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 @ 19:24 +0100, Mike Meredith said:

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:02:36 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > Fri, 11 Aug 2006 @ 22:43 +0100, Mike Meredith said:
> > 
> > > Authorities have been focusing on vehicle design, driver training
> > 
> > No doubt there have been improvements, but much of that was driven
> > outside of government.  A lot of vehicular safety comes from auto
> > racing, for example, and the industry often has to fight the
> 
> I don't know about US racing, but European racing was once notoriously
> uncaring about driver and spectator safety. This only began to change
> once F1 drivers threatened to boycott certain races.

Well, over here the death rate of the late 60s and early 70s got so bad,
something had to be done.

If you look at driver rosters, there were times when a season would kill
a large part of the field.

> > In any case, I was addressing local government focusing on revenue
> > rather than safety, which does happen and is a big part of the problem
> > with things like road cameras.
> 
> I've already pointed out that in the UK local governments do not receive
> funds direct from speed cameras.

I'm not in the UK though, and neither are most of the people talking
about it.

Also, even if your local government doesn't get the money, it is still
money spent on something besides other traffic systems.  Are you sure it
is the best place to spend the money?

Maybe it works out over there, I don't know, but its a hell of a mess
over here.

> > No, complain about both.
> 
> I disagree ... if you break a law (even an unjust one) then you should
> expect to be punished. Patchy enforcement of laws weakens all laws.

You disagree about complaining about both or what?

If you don't let *BOTH* involved parties know, your voice will not be
heard.

A lot of stupid local laws have been overturned precisely because of the
flack law enforcement got about it, and the fact that they saw how
stupid it was themselves.

> > They have a vested interest in *NOT* having to do that.
> 
> As a bomb disposal expert I once had a few pints with (Portsmouth has
> lots of oddball military types) said "It'd be nice to be unemployed"
> (given the current rate that unexploded WWI ordinance is being made
> safe, he's got a job for at least 900 years!).

Yeah, that's a bit too much chaos for me too.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["We are all of us in the gutter, some of us
looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde]