|
"As you can see he doesn't make sweeping statements like SPEED KILLS, or SPEEDING KILLS" -----Well neither have I, so I don't know what you're trying to say there. Sweeping statements are meaningless, what matters more is actual facts. You are basing your opinion on something you think is a fact, but is actually John's complete mis-interpretation.
Actually, as much as you criticise the current system, I haven't really heard your idea of a better one, How would you suggest we: a) ensure that the dangerous drivers were forced to go slower than others? (which you have previously agreed that we need to do...Q6 remember)? b) differentiate between a good driver and a bad driver? c) be self financing or require very little budget? d) help save more lives than the current system?
You simply can't think of a better system that answers all those points can you. It's very easy to complain, but very hard to actually think of something better. If you can think of something better (and it answers all those points sufficiently) then there is no reason why is can't be implemented.
If you still skirt round the issue and refuse to actually suggest something...then I'll just be off. If you can't be bothered then I can't be bothered.
|
|
|