|
|
Steve, if you read further down, you'll see that I HAVE accepted that I have LOST the argument. I have only persuaded a FEW drivers to put their head above the parapet. This does NOT mean that I think you gutys are RIGHT.... you simply are NOT! However, I recognise 'brick walls' when I see them!
The subject WILL return and it WILL 'bite you' when the insurance companies finally discover what you are 'allowing'. As adults, we both realise we live in a 'health and safety' culture: it's just that I can SEE how H&S will impinge on THIS one whereas you don't seem to be able to.
On THAT basis, I am willing to drop the point.... however, don't say DAFT things or you'll set it off AGAIN!
Many people will accept the concept of 'zero tolerance' 'policing'. The logic behind it is that if you enforce the rules tnat you see being broken, then you will get a REDUCTION in overall 'crime' even if you do NOT 'see' them all. The concept behind 'zero tolerance' is that you INRCREASE law breaking, across the BOARD, if you allow people to get the idea that it's OK to break SOME of the laws!
The effectivenes of 'zero tolerance' in policing is simply unquestionable: it HAS worked where ever it has been used, FULLY! Simply by enforcing the 'lesser' laws (e.g., litter, graffiti, drunkeness, unrinating in the street, etc.) there has been SUBSTANTIAL reductions in SERIOUS crimes at the same time!
On THAT basis, I suspect you'd get BETTER adherence to ALL the rules if you ENFORCED even the 'lesser' ones!
Ian
|
|
|
