Comments on: Next Down The Slippery Slope http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/ RobFisher.net Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:37:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob Fisher http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/comment-page-1/#comment-177385 Rob Fisher Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:27:30 +0000 http://www.robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/#comment-177385 <blockquote>So, based on your argument, you’d be happy to see 18 people killed and 1,600 injured per day, so someone could legally eat a snack?</blockquote> That's a very disingenuous argument. The 9 / 800 figures are with the current laws. And people do not eat constantly in their cars, only for a few minutes on occasional journeys, and I'd wager not in busy urban traffic but at times when mental load is low. What you have to do is divide that 9 / 800 by the total number of journeys per day, then multiply by the fraction of time people spend eating in cars, and that's the number of people you'll save. I suggest it will be low, and even then won't be the real figure because people are generally sensible about when they eat or use their phones or tune the radio, i.e. they *generally* do it when stationery at traffic lights or crusing on the motorway and there's no traffic. So the cost = police lose respect and the benefit = not much. But I've fallen once more into the trap of arguing on ground of your choosing. I don't *care* about the utilitarian argument. I care about the principle that the government sees fit to interfere in the minutiae of our lives *at all*. They only get away with it because people buy into the lame utilitarian argument that they might have a 0.000000000012% better chance of making it through the day if they do. People *should* be saying, "mind your own bloody business".

So, based on your argument, you’d be happy to see 18 people killed and 1,600 injured per day, so someone could legally eat a snack?

That’s a very disingenuous argument. The 9 / 800 figures are with the current laws. And people do not eat constantly in their cars, only for a few minutes on occasional journeys, and I’d wager not in busy urban traffic but at times when mental load is low.

What you have to do is divide that 9 / 800 by the total number of journeys per day, then multiply by the fraction of time people spend eating in cars, and that’s the number of people you’ll save. I suggest it will be low, and even then won’t be the real figure because people are generally sensible about when they eat or use their phones or tune the radio, i.e. they *generally* do it when stationery at traffic lights or crusing on the motorway and there’s no traffic.

So the cost = police lose respect and the benefit = not much.

But I’ve fallen once more into the trap of arguing on ground of your choosing. I don’t *care* about the utilitarian argument. I care about the principle that the government sees fit to interfere in the minutiae of our lives *at all*. They only get away with it because people buy into the lame utilitarian argument that they might have a 0.000000000012% better chance of making it through the day if they do. People *should* be saying, “mind your own bloody business”.

]]> By: Jonathan http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/comment-page-1/#comment-173758 Jonathan Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:18:06 +0000 http://www.robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/#comment-173758 Notwithstanding that "horse of move" should have been "horse OR move", I totally agree with your first point. You can't always believe the stats you read in the Indy - after all, they told us that "virtually no-one" was coming from Eastern Europe: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article43265.ece - they persue this attitude with a "smoking is good" attitude that tabbaco companies do. But yes, they do good exposes from time to time, and this was a real eye-opener. Thanks for linking. Notwithstanding that “horse of move” should have been “horse OR move”, I totally agree with your first point. You can’t always believe the stats you read in the Indy – after all, they told us that “virtually no-one” was coming from Eastern Europe:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article43265.ece
– they persue this attitude with a “smoking is good” attitude that tabbaco companies do.

But yes, they do good exposes from time to time, and this was a real eye-opener. Thanks for linking.

]]> By: Jonathan http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/comment-page-1/#comment-173729 Jonathan Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:18:55 +0000 http://www.robfisher.net/blog/archive/2006/08/18/next-down-the-slippery-slope/#comment-173729 Interesting attitude to other people's lives there, Rob. Of course, it's not often the driver, but the pedestrian/cyclist/other road user who is the victim of poor driving. Some facts: <i>In Britain on an average day nine people die and over 800 are injured in road accidents. The death toll from the London bombings represents six days of death on Britain's roads. The death toll from the Madrid bombings represents twelve or thirteen days of death on the Spanish roads. In the 25 "busiest" years of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland twice as many people died in road accidents as were killed by terrorists. In Israel, between 27th September 2000 and 26th September 2003, 622 civilian Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists; the annual road death toll over this period was about 550. It is estimated that last year more than 1.2 million people were killed in road accidents globally – more than one 9/11 every day.</i> So, based on your argument, you'd be happy to see 18 people killed and 1,600 injured per day, so someone could legally eat a snack? Of course, we've all done it. Bought a Ginsters pie, microwaved it, stuck it on the lap, taken a mouthfull of gristle and fat as we drive off and tossed it quickly aside. Remember, driving is absolutely NOT a right, it is an earned priviledge, to which you agree to follow a set of rules if you wish to persue your chosen hobby. If you don't agree with driving laws, get a horse of move to India or Italy :) Interesting attitude to other people’s lives there, Rob. Of course, it’s not often the driver, but the pedestrian/cyclist/other road user who is the victim of poor driving.
Some facts:
In Britain on an average day nine people die and over 800 are injured in road accidents. The death toll from the London bombings represents six days of death on Britain’s roads. The death toll from the Madrid bombings represents twelve or thirteen days of death on the Spanish roads. In the 25 “busiest” years of “the troubles” in Northern Ireland twice as many people died in road accidents as were killed by terrorists. In Israel, between 27th September 2000 and 26th September 2003, 622 civilian Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists; the annual road death toll over this period was about 550. It is estimated that last year more than 1.2 million people were killed in road accidents globally – more than one 9/11 every day.
So, based on your argument, you’d be happy to see 18 people killed and 1,600 injured per day, so someone could legally eat a snack?

Of course, we’ve all done it. Bought a Ginsters pie, microwaved it, stuck it on the lap, taken a mouthfull of gristle and fat as we drive off and tossed it quickly aside.

Remember, driving is absolutely NOT a right, it is an earned priviledge, to which you agree to follow a set of rules if you wish to persue your chosen hobby. If you don’t agree with driving laws, get a horse of move to India or Italy :)

]]>