The bad actors in most cases won't follow them anyhow, no matter how draconian they are.
The bad actors in most cases won't follow them anyhow, no matter how draconian they are.
That's why there's a move to ELDs - it's not a matter of making punishments harsher, it's a matter of automatically enforcing the rules so that it's much more difficult to break them.
IIRC, I heard a very liberal biologist (Robert Sapolsky @ Stanford) say capital punishment does stop a certain amount of the population.
> 'You're a card, Mr Spangler,' said Mr Wilkinson. 'It won't be the same without you around, and that's the truth.'
> 'Not for me, at any rate,' said Moist. This was, once again, treated like rapier wit. Moist sighed. 'Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr Trooper?' he said.
> 'Well, in the generality of things I'd say it's hard to tell, given that it's hard to find evidence of crimes not committed,' said the hangman, giving the trapdoor a final rattle. 'But in the specificality, sir, I'd say it's very efficacious.'
> 'Meaning what?' said Moist.
> 'Meaning I've never seen someone up here more'n once, sir. Shall we go?'
-- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett
I'd say it's closer to "do you build rules that treat humans as if they were cogs in a machine"?
The fallacy about enacting stricter and stricter laws to curb lawlessness is that the lawless never did and never will care about abiding the laws.
And yet, in countries with gun controls, there is significantly less gun crime.
I daresay this is the case for most laws. Yeah, there will be always be some people skirting the law, but implying laws have no effect is ridiculous and untrue.
That doesn't mean I support this kind of logging for private vehicles (it really feels like the government overstepping the safety/freedom boundary), but it did have very positive effects on heavy road transport safety.
Sure. I mean, who else are the rules for?
A law against murder only applies to murderers.