The continuous drift of laws justified by the expected reduction in injury can only be stopped if there is an acknowledgement that is a balance of acceptable accident rates versus lack of travel facilities and freedom of movement.
If reduction in crime and traffic accidents justifies all further restrictive laws, there will be no movement of anybody in the anticipation of no accidents.
If all restrictive laws are justified if there is a reduction in crime, there will be no actions that people can take without being recorded, watched, and documented.
Is that the way most people would prefer to live?
If reduction in crime and traffic accidents justifies all further restrictive laws, there will be no movement of anybody in the anticipation of no accidents.
If all restrictive laws are justified if there is a reduction in crime, there will be no actions that people can take without being recorded, watched, and documented.
Is that the way most people would prefer to live?