Originally Posted by sebberry
How about regulations that aren't so outdated that they force people to clog up courts trying to defend their innocence?
Nah, let's proceed with the status quo as we continue down the path to moving traffic disputes to phone calls with SMV staff rather than in front of an impartial JP.
So how are you going to re-write the legislation? Because no matter how you word it, you still need to limit what people can do so they're not turning their cars into rolling hazards... and no matter how carefully
you word it, the people who just want to flaunt the laws will continue to push the boundaries, and clog up the courts trying to defend themselves.
Allow people to put 3mm of "eyelids" on, and the people with a point to prove will go to 4mm, just so they can complain about "the man" trying to put them down.
Same thing with things like front tint - allow 75%, and the clowns will be going to 65% and then complaining, "I don't see the difference, it's only 10%! You can't even tell by looking!"
Doesn't matter where you draw the line in the sand, the jokers are always out there wanting to put a toe over it... then two toes... and if they get away with that, the whole foot. So it becomes easier - and just more efficient and cost-effective - to put up a fence instead.
And then Sebberry can come along and complain that the fence is "violating his rights" to see that line. Or some kind of crazy hippie shit like that.
So tell you what: instead of whining about the laws that are designed to keep everyone safe (perfect or not)... why don't you go after the self-centered assholes who make it necessary to HAVE those laws in the first place? THEY'RE the reason we can't have nice things.