1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3699/fighting-back-against-anti-driving-mania/

Fighting back against anti-driving mania

June 10, 2005 by

David Veksler, via Wired, draws our attention to a great product called “Spray on Mud” which gives your car that authentic “off-the-road” look and which is useful in another way. As the ad says: “Sprayonmud is NOT to be used to obscure number-plates or the lights on your vehicle.”

David comments: “There has been a trend in the UK to outlaw driving, and ridiculously low speed limits combined with speed cameras are one of the main weapons of the environmentalists. To avoid the cameras, UK drivers are resorting to tricks like spray-on mud to obscure license plates and GPS devices which warn drivers when approaching speed traps.”


Rolf June 10, 2005 at 9:11 am

Is the death toll on American roads more than 50,000 per year and serious injury more than 500,000 per year.? I recall reading those were the numbers in the 70s. Has there been a decrease?

Andy D. June 10, 2005 at 11:13 am

still about 40-50k deaths per year, but now we have 12 air bags in standard cars!

Charles Hueter June 10, 2005 at 1:08 pm

Texas passed a law in 2003 that made it a crime that “alters or obscures the letters or numbers on the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design feature of the plate.” My father and I got into an ,a href=”http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000533.html”>argument over it; he (being a deputy sheriff) from the law enforcement side and me (being a stickler for potential police abuse) from the individual’s side.

Keith June 10, 2005 at 1:15 pm

Just counting total deaths per year doesn’t mean anything. You’re assuming all of the conditions are the same today as in the past. You need to consider the number of vehicles, miles of road, miles driven, etc.


Francisco Torres June 10, 2005 at 1:42 pm

Rolf wrote:
“Is the death toll on American roads more than 50,000 per year and serious injury more than 500,000 per year.? I recall reading those were the numbers in the 70s. Has there been a decrease?”

Is there a point to the question? Because you seem to miss the point of the article completely. Just because people get killed in accidents is not an argument in favor of banning a behaviour. People get killed driving aeroplanes – should the government interere and ban the machines? People get killed climbing mountains – should the government protect mountain sides from potential climbers? People get killed doing STUFF every day; nobody said the world is a safe place, yet should anyone infer from your question that maybe what the Brittish zealots are doing is ethical?

Rolf June 10, 2005 at 2:13 pm

The question was a straight forward question. This is the year 2005 and the question was, is the death toll on American roads more than 50,000 each year and is the serious injury more than 500,000.?

The death toll in Iraq for 2 years of American occupiers is just over 1600.

Are the roads of America a battle zone?

Francisco Torres June 10, 2005 at 2:34 pm


You may find some answers here: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm

You did not reply to my question: what is the point of your question? Quid pro quo – I expect a reply from you.

Rolf June 10, 2005 at 4:04 pm

The car has replaced the horse of the 19th century though perhaps you are aware of that.

I ask the question out of wonderment if average Americans as yourself were aware of the death tolls each year on your neighborhood American roads and the serious injury statistics.

Andy D was aware and replied with a straight forward answer.

Francisco Torres June 10, 2005 at 5:52 pm


Considering that I am not an American, I had to go fish for the info through Google, which is something you could have done anytime. I do not know what the average American knows nor do I care to know. I do not think that just because your question is straight forward, it merits anything but puzzlement from my part, since it is way, way off topic. Seems to me like it is a loaded question – I ask again, what is the point?

Is the point that maybe we can do without the car? Is the point that everybody needs more government intrusiveness in their lives? Is the point that maybe the British are on to something? Is the point that you are happy not driving a car and would like everybody to follow your lead, damned their liberty? I mean, I can think of a million things, but I prefer to ask you in a straight forward way: what is the point?

Rolf June 11, 2005 at 1:54 am

The point in your question is that you are looking for an argument and quarrel and such is a boring and an uninteresting method to discuss a subject.

fancyleprachaun June 11, 2005 at 5:32 pm

The most interesting discussions derive from a subject and argue various __points__ of view on that subject.

The article is the subject.

What is your point?

Paul D June 11, 2005 at 10:55 pm

I too have no idea what Rolf is getting at, since his question is either rhetorical or a request for others to do his research.

As for spray-on mud, it sounds like a terrific idea!

Rolf June 12, 2005 at 4:27 am

Why should it be necessary for anyone to want to obscure their owership identification plates from roadside cameras.? Also, speed limit signs need not be considered control systems but instead saftey systems.

Most road systems where I live for example are engineered. That is to say they are designed with tork and stress factors considered in contours, curves and stretches. Speed limit signs are message systems informing the driver of vehicles
the tolerances levels of that portion of the road.

Those who have mind sets of fear and a tendency to the paranoid will of course rebel against all and infere that systems designed with intentions for saftey are behaviorial control systems.

And where I live the statistics show that it is the youth who disregard most often the speed tolerance systems which results in the most tragic of death and injury.

I for one am very glad for the cameras. I feel a bit more secure knowing the crazies are under observation. To sit inside of thousands of pounds of hurling steel and plastic careening down some road is nothing more than insanity or death wish and I will not have them taking me and my family with them in their lunacy.

If cameras must be used for control then so be it.

Jared Rasmussen June 12, 2005 at 2:42 pm

Traffic deaths; no doubt they are the worst ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ that we have today.

Andy D June 12, 2005 at 10:52 pm

actually I’m a staunch libertairian Rolf, and I want people to own enough rope to be productive and happy, but at the same time hang themselves. I was actually making an observation that the free market is addressing the matter nicely with the abundace of air bags in cars. I was reflecting that my Maxima has 2 air bags, but a 2000 series has 4, and I think the 2005 has 9…I just happen to think things that explode are cool. ;)

But seriously, the government is only perveting the market with its reactionary schemes…one can only believe that mercanitlism abounds with detriot and washington.

Andy D June 12, 2005 at 10:59 pm

Rolf, I just read what what you posted last; you must really hate the 2nd Amendment then? Does it freak you out that millions of Americans pack concealed carry every single day? To work, to school, and even the store??

Rolf, the cameras stop nothing. There is nothing preventing someone from crashing into you save a minor correcting in steering. There are thousands of miles of two lane highways in my state alone where cars pass each other at 40mph opposing, and seperated by mere inches! Grow up. Big mommy government can’t safe you from getting hurt..and quite frankly she doesn’t care either!

Rolf June 13, 2005 at 1:25 am

Andy D

There is a completely different mind set about a number of different issues in your country.

Where I live we have grown up Andy and yes cameras do help to deter accidents where I live because of human additudes and no,where I live is not a battle zone.

Rolf June 13, 2005 at 1:55 am

Andy D

You said in your post millions carry concealed weapons where you live every day, to work, to school and even to the store. Do they carry them to church also Andy D?

It is truely tragic that people where you live feel so terribly threatened that they must carry such distructive devices with them everywhere.

Where I live such is not necessary and the millions carry only their purses or back packs or other personal items
and do not live each day of their lives in paralysising fear.

Many of us know of the state of terror you and your neighbors live with each day of your lives and we feel sorry for the many there. Tragic place. There freedom and liberty appear to have become an absudity with an obscene Orwellian twist.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: