More rubbish, Dave:-
"What I said was that the CHANGE in that number that will be achieved by vigorous enforcement of the speed limits will be low"
...and PRECISELY how much reduction ('change in that number') in murders occured by the HUGE expenses of the Rachel Nickell, Ripper, West, Hindley, etc. investigations????
Do I need to run through the same question foir EACH of my examples.....?
Secondly, how much of the DROP from 3500 per year to 2950 has been CAUSED by the semi-rigorous anti-speed campaign of recent years.... of which you are dismissive?
Thirdly, how come the EXACT same approach has WORKED for drink-driving, and I suspect you now SUPPORT that 'push'? Would you tell us that all the expenditure on THAT campaign has been a waste of maney becasue you COULD (and may even have done so) applied the IDENTICAL argument against the breathalyser: 'too much money for too little gain'. There were MILLIONS who DID claim that at the time.... do you STILL want to calim it?
Ian
|
|