[SpamCop-Social] Re: So we are becoming more like China why?

[Miss Betsy]

"Porpoise" <porpoise1954 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d62cjl$gmo$1 at news.spamcop.net...
>
> "Miss Betsy" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:d60tsn$pp5$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> >
> > "Porpoise" <porpoise1954 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:d602ob$cf7$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> > <snip>
> > <snip>
> >> Hmmmm.... Don't quite make sense of the whole para, but (as
far
> > as the last
> >> bit goes) I think I'd be hard pressed to be able to walk/run
fast
> > enough to
> >> mow down/kill people as easily as driving a ton or two of
steel
> > at them at
> >> speed...........
> >
> > My point is that for most people, it doesn't matter whether
they
> > were licensed or not because they obey the laws and are capable
of
> > driving safely.  Part of the reason is that  have studied the
laws
> > in order to get the license.  But if driving were not as
> > complicated or as dangerous, then there would not be the need
to
> > make sure that people were lawabiding and competent.  They
could
> > drive wherever they wanted to without having to be licensed -
as
> > most people do since they don't have to show anyone their
license.
> > It is only those who disobey laws or drive recklessly who have
to
> > show licenses.
> >
>
> Not really...
>
> The *real* point is to protect the "rights" of other citizens to
have
> recourse to the driver's insurance in the event of an accident.
As you can't
> get insured without having a licence to "prove" that you are
*able* to
> drive, anyone driving without a licence is ergo driving
uninsured. Where
> does that leave you if you get hit by such a person? OK you could
sue them
> in civil court, at great expense, and maybe even get a judgement
in your
> favour - but that's a fat lot of use if they ain't got no munney!
>

The bottom line is always money, isn't it?

Miss Betsy