DIYbanter - View Single Post

The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly

I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads.

You are joking surely?

Most "road safety" measures are their to incerease revenue and add to
congestion, so they can justify a further 'congestion charge'

If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid