I am not big on some aspects of the law. Often what is obvious and/or 'fair' gets short shrift as the letter is deemed to trump the spirit, often where fines are involved.
So I was a bit confused when I heard a report on BBC Breakfast News (link coming later I hope) about the latest issuance from our dear leaders, and was moved to write in (and featured in part):
I haven't read the new Highway Code. Am I required to?
I also don't smoke, but can see how a burning, smoke-emitting stick could be a distraction whilst driving.
But how on earth 'may' this be a reason for police to deem it a reason to prosecute for dangerous driving?
It surely 'is' or 'isn't' illegal. Which is it?
Such vagueness makes a mockery of the law.
I've just watched another Minister of Mendacity waffle away, but again thanks to a National Government/Broadcaster combo remain none the wiser on my question.
How on earth can society proceed when we have all these 'things' that 'may' be a reason to prosecute in existence and being added to constantly without honest admission by the sorry crew who conjure these things up.
This clown (why do we pay for people who contribute nothing but obfuscation?) seemed to be saying that if you were not holding the wheel at 1o to 2 you are on the way to being dodgy. So... changing gear? I guess we'll all need automatics. Glancing in the mirror? Better to stare straight ahead.
Indy - Expanded Highway Code tells learners to drive with courtesy
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.