Psy Wrote:
Well i don't want to obey the speed limit but i would suppose quite a few pedestrians (and my insurance provider) are glad i (mostly) do.
But what if you were a cab driver and you did obey the speed limit because it was the right thing to do and then the regulation people come along and wanted to start installing devices in all the cars to send data back to their office so they could monitor (regulate) your speed from their office. They send you a letter in the mail and say it is really a good idea if you get this device, it will help out the state and your fares in the long run. Just give us a call when you are ready and then drive out to see us and we will give you the device. You can then go to your local service station or dealer and have it installed at a nominal price. The service will only cost you a few dollars a month. If a violation occurs and you exceed the speed limit, say doing 37 mph in a 35mph zone we would not issue a summons right away but would give you the opportunity to respond to us in writing on why you exceeded the limit and what you intend to do in the future to insure it doesn?t happen again. We would review it and determine if you should be fined or not. You can always drive out and protest the decision in person if you like.
How many cabbies would sign up? If you didn?t sign up would it make you a terrible driver? Would it mean you are trying to hide something about your driving habits? Would you be the first one in line?
If I came along and told you that the state was swamped and had no funding to follow up on all of this and if you don?t get the device they wouldn?t know it for two years at least and there would be no fines, anyway. Which way would you go? Would your decision make you a bad person or your fares be put in any worse danger?
You've taken a so-so analogy and made it much worse. That tends to happen when analogies are continued... they lose a bit of pertainance with each generation.
The situation you are describing would make a cabbie's life hell. However, we are dealing with kids, not cab fares... there are a few major differences here:
Cab fares can get out if they think the driver is nuts. If cabbies were programs here's what would happen:
Cabbie: *runs stopsigns...*
Fare: "what the hell... you just ran a stopsign"
Cabbie: "So who are you going to tell. nobody will believe you. you're just a fare"
Fare: "Let me out"
Cabbie: "Not until my dispatcher gets authorization"
Fare: "I'm not paying the fare... this is kidnapping"
Cabbie: "You're right about that.. but this credit card just keeps charging"
Fare: "i'm calling the cops..."
Cabbie: "with what phone... oh you mean my phone... not without the dispatcher's permission... write a proposal *chuckles*"
You get the point...
It's one thing when you're talking about a 5mph over speed violation... There are cops to enforce that.. there are no speed limits on the industry, and where there are there are no cops for miles and miles...
I get your point... that "what if regulations cause some good schools to close down."
i see it this way... "what if regulations cause some good drivers, who speed with good intentions, to either follow the speed limit, or stop driving"
Why is it a good analogy? Becuase if the driver isn't speeding, he/she has nothing to fear from speed limits. But the industry
is speeding. EG Schools use techniques that could potentially, and have, harmed kids.
But what if it gets the fare there quicker?
These are kids. They deserve the maximum amount of safety... and unlike your big brother cabbie analogy... state regulation would only hurt those who were "breaking the speed limit".
So what if it creates a burden for the schools. An industry claiming to benefit kids should spare no expense to do so. It may be a hassle... beaurocracy can do that, but without cops... what would the state of traffic be. Could you imagine a "self regulating" traffic system? That was tried.. it failed .. miserably ...
