However isn't THAT the issue? The philosophical belief that when people cause an accident, it isn't them to blame per se, but because they did something they shouldn't have. Why is it easier to produce a rule to ban something, than to focus on people who drive dangerously and cause an accident?The more you socialize risks, the greater the pressures for regulation to induce folks to do what they would have been doing if you hadn't distorted the market for risk in the first place.
Is it because it is easier for the Police, who can treat talking on the cellphone as the reason to prosecute, rather than negligent driving?
Or is it because of ACC? ACC remember removes your civil liability from being to blame for causing personal injury by accident to anyone else (although not property damage). Indeed your ACC levies for owning a car (equivalent to accident insurance) don't vary if you have a good or bad driving record. So perhaps opening THAT up to competition, so bad drivers pay far more for accident insurance, and good ones pay less, might make a modest difference?
You see, I by and large don't give a damn if stupid people cause accidents damaging their car and themselves. The state has better things to do that protect people from themselves. I do care about such people taking me or others with them. That is where rights to drive should be removed and penalties imposed.
In the first couple of months of Key's government, I was starting to think my prognostications were wrong. Now, I'm not so sure.
