Safe Speed Forums

Fair enough neither of us brought up building regulations. This may have lead to some general confusion.

So leaving aside building regulations (specifically) and discussing in a more general sense, with a leaning towards the drink drive limit. In fact I may cite that in my example.

People will always accept rules, no matter how pointless or ridiculous it is. This may be because in….errr… general people don’t want other people hurt.

When, for example the new drink drive limit was discussed on the news (see what I did there?).The question was something like “What do you about reducing the drink drive limit?”(This may not be the actually question).

The public gave the standard, expected reasonable response. “ Yes it is a good idea if it saves lives”

Most laws etc are considered good on the surface if they intend to save lives. However scrape the surface and the law of unintended consequences comes into play, as human behaviour is very hard to control. Those clips of from a camera van shown on the BBC could be cited as an example of this.

So therefore when laws, etc a thought up, they should be considered in more detail first rather than knee jerk reaction. This I believe is a point we can all agree on.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Yes we probably can.

WRT the building regs thing, I suppose it doesn't appear to be a problem until you are the one faced with some expensive repairs due to the fact that a previous owner bodged a DIY job. I'm sure we'd all like to think we'd have something to fall back on in order to gain recompense from the individual who was ultimately at fault. Perhaps this can be done through some mechanism other than specific regs - a claim in a small claims court perhaps.

WRT to drink-driving, I'd suggest that to call any alteration to the law in the near future 'knee-jerk' would be a little off the mark; the issue has been under review and discussion for some time now. Whether it would result in the desired effect or not remains to be seen. Whether or not people think it would be right to cut the limit simply demonstrates just how strongly people feel about the subject.

Fixing some of the wider problems that 'silly regs' are designed to ameliorate is probably a half-century project for a succession of governements with balls of steel. Until then, we muddle by as best we can.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Laws are supposedly introduced to "remedy an existing wrong". Sometimes the wording is obscure and it is then up to the court to "interpret the intent of the law's remedy"
Sometimes it results in some adjustment or addition to the Act/Bye-Law in question

Unfortunately, we have been deluged with a spate of some laws which have politically correct woolly-mindedness at base and these have resulted in some weird interpretations given the rather obscure and even contradictory wording of some of them in the real world and even more questionable sentencing by bewildered judges

As for the drink drive limit - this is more to do with what EU does and an attempt to "harmonise" - hence the rethink on potential punishment for the proposed lower limit.




My advice is still the same: Use a taxi or have a soft drink. There are some really nice ones on the drinks menus these days It does not have to be over-priced fizzy orange .. Cola or even more bizarrely priced "mineral" water


Anyway .. that aside




Ah... but what if the cowboy rogue roofer/plasterer/bricky/plumber botched the job? and the previous owner decided or found it impossible to take to task ..


Redress has always proven difficult with these dodgy individuals who manage to stay "just above the law" somehow ..

Under recent legislation - the seller is required to declare this. I think they are also required to point out any DIY too. I think this perhaps a good thing as you then have an idea what you might have to spend or barter to get the price down to compensate

in an ideal worlde of course ..



True. The main problem in real terms is that we will be ordered to make a big splurge of pulling folk as happened in Europe.. then it peters out and folk begin to drink up again just the same

It can only really have effect if police are around to deter in all reality, and I do not think just pulling those found above the lolly sign is the answer either. :banghead; The driving standard can be affected after just one drink - and it usually affects the co-ordination,, motor .. cognitive skills - the ones which control COAST skills

So - to be effective - we need to ensure education and enforcement. At the moment - we do seem to have more incidents above the existing limit - only detected AFTER an incident in far too many cases Therein lies one potential weakness which really needs thinking through.. the means of ensuring enforcement


As for some of the other regulations .. such as not being allowed to sell a home baked cake at a WI Fayre/village Fete lest it "poisons" folk , banning playground chase games/conker fight contests and village walks and dos (unless full risk assessment and costly insurance is taken out - I think we are perhaps stifling tradition and healthy exercise through too much of "nanny" and not enough "stiff upper lip"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Ultimately it is a shame that people don't always act honourably and honestly, but that is the world we live in. The shameless and dishonourable will knowingly pass on houses, cars, whatever, with faults and dodgy repairs that they know full well are going to cause problems for the buyer. Even a proper survey or report doesn't always uncover these, although they are the best course of action for a buyer who should of course beware. So in some cases I can see what has resulted in a new pice of legislation, even though it is quite obviously unlikely to have much effect other than a mild detterent for the few who may be tempted to try and pull a fast one but are more wary of the consequence.



Well this isn't regualtion per-se is it, it is the wildly over-zealous and inappropriate application of otherwise sound legislation.
But even in these instances we reap what we sow. Authorities and organisers of these events have become petrified of being sued by opportunists who have a minor mishap (which could have been avoided had they taken more care themselves) and then go in search of compensation. What is needed here is a re-application of common sense by the courts who should start telling individuals making pathetic claims to eff-off in no uncertain terms.
On that note, has anyone noticed a slight change in tack by that TV ambulance-chasing law firm, Injury Lawyers 4 U? Their latest ads suggest that you could just accept that a mishap that occurs to you is just one of those things that happen in life, or you could go running to them to gain compensation. The obvious implication is that you are some sort of eejit if you don't go down the latter route.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

After reading riggers post it brought me back to this article in the Daily Telegraph this week Boy hurt on bouncy castle sues for £1m

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Resetting the drink drive limit is not knee jerk, however it is more political, whether it is from the EU or just labour trying to win votes. In truth lowering the limit does not bother me. It is just this whole “cracking down” thing the government seems to want to do. It makes tougher sentences for laws it did not really bother to in force anyway.

I understand laws are made to correct existing wrongs, but to bring in new laws that create a whole load of new ones is in my mind stupid. I also understand that is probably difficult to prevent this. The least they could do is make sure the wording of the law is sound.

Where does sound legalisation and reasonable enforcement change and become a police state. I assume it as Rigpig suggest, the people who interpret and enforce it perhaps a little too zealous.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Fortunately the government seem to have seen sense on this issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 887987.ece

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Common sense for a change!

Isn't it strange how many "we must have a zero limit" people seem to forget that...



mb