Comment 16568

By rake (anonymous) | Posted January 02, 2008 at 21:10:37

thus, capitalist, would you say that there should be no bylaws against jaywalking? littering? public indecency? how about noise bylaws or traffic violations? by nature ALL bylaws are difficult to enforce and 100% compliance is impossible but not the goal. there are anti dumping bylaws and parking bylaws which of course are also imposible to police everywhere at once. that is not the point. a parent can't watch children all the time to make sure they don't behave poorly but they still lay down the rules in the hope that most of the time they will be followed. bylaws are a cities way of telling its citizens what behaviour it considers appropriate and what behaviour is best avoided for the benefit of everyone. and as always most people will not break the rules because they believe that the prohibited action is at least inconsiderate and at most dangerous. Some will not break the rule because while they see no harm in the action, they fear being caught. still others will do as they see fit regardless of the consequences. if an anti idling bylaw stops only 30% of the population from polluting the air in some small way it is a success.

as an aside, Capitalist, why do you care if the city has an anti idling bylaw or not? besides the cost of enforcement, which is miniscule compared with the health related costs of doing nothing, do you actually think idling a car is a good thing? are you that stupid? or, do you simply have nothing better to do than gripe about something that you think might restrict your "American idealist "freedoms?"" just wondering.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools