Bob Carr "hard pressed to argue against it"

Bob Carr on lowered alcohol limits for young drivers

"If it were to save lives I think people would be hard pressed to argue against it."

So is that view maintained for any of the following?

1) Ban motorcycles = save lives

2) Ban cars = save lives

3) Lower speed limit to 25 kph on main roads = save lives

4) raise speeding fines to minimum $1000 = save lives

5) "Enforce" ADR39 sticker laws = save lives

6) Introduce $50 bike levy = save lives

7) Introduce front numberplates and ID tags = save lives

8) Ban bikes on Old Road = save lives

9) Introduce death penalty for drivers that travel thru intersections and kill motorcyclists = save lives

10) More speed cameras = save lives

11) Spend more unused fuel tax on fixing shocking road surfaces = save lives

Gee, any more?

12) Introduce CBD tax for all vehicles travelling into the city = save lives ... I bet motorcycles will be the same <tax> as cars.

 

The Knobdoodle Sayeth:

I'd rather **** for virginity!

-----sharks
(War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Spam is a Vegetable.)

 

Yes the deterrence value should far outweigh the death penalty.

Need one be reminded by what Bob Carr says?

 

Ahh your a young driver pissed at the rules??

I see no problem with it. MAJORITY of them are fucking dangerous
enough now when sober.

 

I have no views to express on that particular proposal, one way or the other.

Just managed to sprinkle a few contentious options in there, to which the same statement by Mr Carr could be equally applied... ie.
of the ilk that if it saves one life then its worth it.

With logic like that we shouldn't be crossing roads either.

There is sense in your view (ie. sounds good to me). If it were introduced then it would have no effect on me other than I have less
drunks to deal with.

 

How about banning 4WDs from metropolitan areas = save lives

--
Cheers
Dave (Mojo67)

kill motorcyclists = save lives