Monday, December 28, 2009

Fucking up your life

On this TfL page you can listen to a couple of MPs of radio adverts about speeding. The tagline is "if you lose your licence, you're just a kid again."

As such, it is a child who narrates, telling how he was caught going at 40mph in a 30mph zone. Twice. And since he had had his licence for less than two years, he was banned from driving.

Not only this, but the character's loss of his licence means that he loses his job, has no money and his (rather fickle) girlfriend "legged it". At the end, the chap is left waiting for his mother to pick him up "just this once".

Just consider this: the chap was caught speeding twice. He was in no accident, he caused no injuries and he caused no deaths.

He harmed precisely no one—no one at all.

So, these adverts are the state happily boasting about how, as a consequence of your breaking an arbitrary law and harming precisely nobody at all, it can—and will—ruin your entire life.

Am I the only one that finds this incredibly sinister?

24 comments:

Curmudgeon said...

And how many 30 limits were once 40s, 50s or NSLs?

Anonymous said...

The one that threatens to crush your car if you don't pay the tax is in a similar vein !

Cunts.

steveshark said...

And isn't a message also implied that you're only a man if you drive a car?

What about all the polar bears?

I'm sure Hattie Harperson might also have something to say about the obvious gender bias too...

David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

The British GramscoFabiaNazi State is now the largest Advertiser on the MSM.

You people ought to find this general fact rather more scary than the minor specifics about some poor dude caught doing nothing much in his car, and used as "an example". Although it is sad that highly-educated graduates fall over each others' pussies to try to "get into advertising". (That is scary too, don't you think?)

An incoming libertarian government will need to think about whether The State can advertise at all. But seeing that it won't have any money, the problem will solve itself.

Shug Niggurath said...

I do resent the fact that I pay for them to advertise at me, and then when they do they decide to call me a cunt, accuse me of killing puppies and threaten to strip me of my possessions and jail me.

Always the stick with these wankers, never the carrot.

Anonymous said...

I'm 34 and can't drive. Does that mean I'm a kid too? If so, does that mean I'm not liable to pay tax and NI and can therefore get a rebate on all the money the state has stolen from me? I certainly fucking hope so.

JuliaM said...

No, you definitely aren't the only one...

steveshark said...

@Shug Niggurath
Always the stick with these wankers, never the carrot.

Quite...and doubly insulting when I'm paying for the fucking stick...

Carlill said...

I agree with you completely on the general principle that it is inappropriate to sanction behavior we do not approve of because we consider that it might lead to harm to others.

However, do you not think that driving is more like a contract? You get to use the roads and in consideration for this you obey the traffic laws, have insurance, get your car MoT'd and so forth.

Under this you would acknowledge that criminal sanction (fines, imprisonment etc) were not suitable for such crimes of risk but only for crimes of harm, whereas losing your contractual benefits (the use of the roads) was suitable for not holding to your side of the bargain.

Would you, for example follow your train of thought as far as to no longer make people pass a driving test before being permitted on the roads? Or do you consider that the government taking it upon itself to issue of withhold such "permission" is itself the problem? If so, how would you structure the roads, to ensure their upkeep and smooth functioning?

James D said...

Streets are public spaces. They are for public use. The contract line only works with special roads (e.g. motorways).

It would be a lot more effective giving short-term bans than the database-heavy points system.

Carlill said...

James D - So we don't need to regulate them then? No need, for example, for traffic lights? Pedestrian crossings? All just drive where we like; oh there's Tesco, I'll mount the pavement and park outside it?

Just saying they are public spaces doesn't get close to presenting a workable solution.

Kay Tie said...

"harming precisely nobody at all"

I'm not going to defend speed limits, but in general putting someone else at an increased risk of harm through risky behaviour is harming them. It's then a question of what is a level of risk that is acceptable to place on innocent parties.

Rab C. Nesbitt said...

A couple of commentators have spectacularly missed the point.

As usual. let's micro-debate the ins and outs of the example in the post.

Fuck me, no wonder the country is a fucking cess pit of cunts.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Carlill, stop being so deliberately fucking obtuse. No-one is saying there is no need for guidelines on how to use the roads no matter which extremities of your own strange logic you choose to visit. The article was pointing out the glee that public paid adverts take in destroying lives for minor infractions.

The clue is in the words employed above, not your imagination.

Fausty said...

The presumption of innocence no longer exists. That is the UN way.

We're all global citizens now. Albeit with no rights, except those explicitly granted by our masters.

Live with it, or fight it. Your choice.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Kay Tie: {waves a cheery hi} You quoted it yourself. Actual harm is not the same as "risk" of harm.

If we're talking about punishing every risk of harm that could possibly occur, you'd have trouble ironing your clothes without Labour stepping in.

(give it time)

Kay Tie said...

"If we're talking about punishing every risk of harm that could possibly occur, you'd have trouble ironing your clothes without Labour stepping in."

At the risk of being called a cunt by a scotman in a string vest, I shall be a pedant and say that actually it ought to be about hazard: the damage multiplied by its probability. Politicians are incapable of assessing this, hence banning handguns and dangerous dogs laws.

Anonymous said...

implement the policies of abd.org.uk

the politically correct anti car policies of labour need to be swept away

and stop blaming drivers, lock up ONLY ONE designer of a dangerous road junction and i would start to consider some equity in the system

and speed limits should be set by advanced drivers with high milages not politicians or council yes men

thefrollickingmole said...

Youd love the Aussie system then....


I occasionaly work as a justice in a remote area in Western Australia, I have the ability to impose fines and reffer cases to the Magistrate in our nearby larger town.

One of the stats often used by our panty wetting government is one about how disproportionately Aboriginals are incacerated in WA. The unstated story being we must be locking them up more because we are bad....

However sit in the main court in Kalgoorlie any day and you will see multiple Aboriginal offenders being locked up (maditory for driving under suspension/pissy driving) for months at a time for violating road rules.

You WILL go to gaol in WA for driving under suspension/without a licence, however you are unlikely to recieve more than a suspended sentence for criminal acts against a person, or their personal property unless it is extremely serious. Serious assaults often result in suspended sentences...

That should show how moraly bankrupt our lawmakers are.

Pavlov's Cat said...

@steveshark, it most certainly is a fucking stick, seeing as it's used extensively for shafting.

Leo said...

surely the advert itself (not the laws definitely not the laws) is good. It's like warning me that I am going to shoot you if you move rather than just shooting you if you move without warning.

JuliaM said...

Carlil: "However, do you not think that driving is more like a contract? You get to use the roads..."

No. You pay to use the roads. They aren't free.

"...in consideration for this you obey the traffic laws, have insurance, get your car MoT'd and so forth."

No. You pay for those too.

Chuckles said...

@David Davis,

'it is sad that highly-educated graduates fall over each others' pussies to try to "get into advertising".'

Highly educated??? I doubt they are even educable. Perhaps you mean "Have taken some courses"?

Ugo said...

What Kay Tie says.

My freedom to act is in fact limited by risks of harm imposed on me by others even before I actually get hurt. These infringements are not all trivial.

EG I may choose no longer to travel on airplanes once the risk of suicide bombers appears. I may choose no longer to travel on roads once the risk of colliding with drunk or dangerously speeding drivers re-appears. I may choose not to live in a country where too many of my neighbours carry firearms.

The current DK prescription to deal with this seems to be to leave me to make a private claim against the person creating the risk once the harm is actually done. You can see from the examples that this is just not good enough, and needs thinking through.

This is particularly so because the obvious solution is more laws limiting the freedom of people to create these risks in the first place. And once this is conceded it's hard to see how to limit neatly the extent of the laws that are called forth.