Read it more closely Itpro. Maybe two or three times, and perhaps read Gillard's post prior.
The Post Again:
*** A quote from Gillard *** "My opinion is that "bad driving" in all it's forms, including excess speed (not just breaking the speed limit) is what we should be tackling and not being obsessed with speed cameras. I can't prove this to be correct and don't want to spend hours arguing my case because you have a different opinion."
*** Followed by my rebutal *** "That's the same as saying "my opinion is that murder in all its forms, including knife crime is what we should be tackling and not being obsessed with the number of knives on our streets." It's a baseless argument. Not one person will disagree about tackling bad driving. It's a way of airing a populist view without proposing any real policy or strategy and the implications inherent therein."
My explanation:
I'm saying that claiming bad driving kills, not speeding, does nothing to further the argument. It's one of those, "well duh...." comments like claiming Oranges are orange. It is not practical to tackle bad driving, you cannot formulate a strategy to tackle bad driving and you cannot measure in any objective way, whether you have reduced bad driving.
In my murder example, reducing the number of knives on the streets is a specific strategy to reduce murder rates. Similarly, controlling speed on the roads is a specific strategy to reduce death on the roads, in the same way the "Think Bike" campaigns were a specific strategy to reduce motorcycle accidents. They may not be the best strategies, or the most comprehensive, but in the real world you have to balance the cost/benefit of any strategy and controlling speed seems to be one way of reducing the aftermath of an accident if nothing else.
Dave
|
|