If you haven’t read Part I of this series, I’ll kindly ask you to go back and read it by clicking HERE.
See, wasn’t that civilized? No threats, no coercion, no subversion of your will. Even if I had the opportunity to enact legislation that would allow me to require all those things of you, would I do that? No. I’d never do such a silly thing. Read things in whatever order you want, but I would merely suggest that reading it in the order I wrote it is good for your mental health.
I’d never force it upon you though. Force is the weapon of the weak. Apparently nobody told legislators the world over about that.
Back to what I was saying…
So in Part I, I was talking about an article in the Guardian newspaper which can be found HERE. The article practically celebrates the decreasing freedom of drivers to make their own decisions on the road. All in the name of safety. For the children of course. Amusingly enough, the information contained in this article alone is enough to give any reader with two firing neurons and one synapse pause to consider. Wait, 2 neurons plus 1 synapse… is that math? AND neurology? Whoa, dude.
Math, neurology or no, some telling evidence of truth-bending can be found just a little further down in the part of the article that few people read. I’ll get to that in a minute. But what part of articles do few people read, you may be asking? I’m glad you did. Okay, let’s face it, given the ample daily supply of BS we’re all constantly bombarded with, few people have the reserve to get beyond the first paragraph.
Amusingly enough, the information contained in this article alone is enough to give any reader with two firing neurons and one synapse pause to consider.
But not you. So I’ll offer congratulations and thank you for getting this far in my post. To further butter you up, I also would like to say that I appreciate your attention, intellect and striking good looks. You have nicely shined shoes too. You’re an all around good guy…or girl…or whatever. You’re welcome.
Regardless most people, when faced with the feces extruder one might describe as the “legacy media”, blank out after the headline. Should they have the requisite patience to suffer through the entirety of another screed shat out by the corps of half-witted minimum-wage press-minions, they would rather eat their own foot than critically evaluate the statistics provided.
Having already eaten both of my feet and having little else to do at the moment but evaluate statistics, I’ll point out what most will have missed. The author of the article states that the UK has one of the lowest rates of road deaths among European nations. “In 2017, 322 people died on British roads when the vehicle was either exceeding the speed limit or judged to be traveling too fast for the conditions.” The math and logic begin get a little fuzzy here.
So wait a minute, automatic speed “save the children” limiters are supposed to save 1600 people per year by causing the car to become unable to exceed the posted speed limit. Or that is how it reads to the causal onlooker. This would presuppose that 1600 people per year are killed in speed related incidents. Anyone who wouldn’t want to save all those parents and children may as well be locked up as serial killers. That means if you aren’t a serial killer then you are all for this legislation. See, there’s logic.
Looking for an easy win, the pasty bureaucrats and their underlings go about constructing a maximally intrusive plan to solve a problem that largely doesn’t exist.
But hold on a sec, that’s not the information provided in the hazy interior of the article. The actual figure is that 322 people died on British roads when the vehicle was EITHER “exceeding the speed limit or judged to be traveling too fast for conditions.”
It seems like if one were inclined to pass oppressive legislation, there had better be a good excuse presented to the public for doing so. Or at least you’d think so. In this case all that was presented was bogus numbers and a cry to save the children. I mean, it’s a pretty tough sell otherwise when one considers that the UK has the lowest rate of road deaths in all of Europe.
Looking for an easy win however, the pasty bureaucrats and their underlings persisted in the construction of a maximally intrusive plan to solve a problem that largely doesn’t exist. So if after enacting legislation, one fewer (i.e. 321) person dies per year on British roads “when the vehicle was either exceeding the speed limit or judged to be traveling too fast for conditions”, it’s validation for having taken these draconian measures. You can bet it will be presented thusly:
Headline: “New Mandatory Speed Assistance Technology Decreases Road Deaths”.
“New heroic child-saving legislation promising to save 25,000 lives by 2037, has in its first year decreased the number of people have died on British roads when the vehicle either has exceeded the speed limit, or was judged to be traveling too fast for conditions. The figures from the Department of Statistical Contrivance show that this represents a decrease from a projected average of 1600 all the way down to 321, and is a huge victory for the children.
“Since all new cars which have Intelligent Speed Assistance cannot exceed the speed limit except under specific circumstances, all the deaths can be attributed to older cars. Legislation is now pending which stipulates that all cars manufactured prior to the legislation must now be destroyed or retrofitted with such a device at the owners expense. The future of Great Britain depends on it.”
See how that works? Make up a number of people who will die in 18 or so years without your legislation, scare people into enacting it, and then compare it to the actual number (-1) a year later for political back-slappery. Genius.