Raise the Hammer

The argument Roy and Lloyd seem to be making is that this bylaw is 'too much government'. It restricts our personal freedoms. It appears to be the same logic people use to complain about the seatbelt and bike helmet laws.

I have some sympathy for this line of thought however I know from my own observations and experience - so much so that this has become common sense (to me at least) - that when it comes to anti-social and 'harmful' behaviours, we humans really do need protecting from ourselves. As one commentator noted above, this bylaw is as much about setting the right tone than practical enforcement.

I remember coming over here from the UK and laughing at the Canadians standing at the traffic lights. "There are no cars" I would say to my British friends as we ran across the red light laughing, "Why don't they go? This would NEVER happen in Britain..."

Then I heard about the jaywalking bylaw and gradually I came to realise that one way to encourage generally accepted sociable behaviour is to legislate it. Hell - I even stopped jaywalking myself.

Since then the UK has introduced 'anti-yob' bylaws - spitting, congregating and so on - and it is starting to have the desired effect.

Same goes for idling. Yes Roy, and Lloyd, of course we all know the environmental impacts of our anti-social behaviour, but it doesn't mean we're going to do anything about it. The fact is that as human beings we sometimes need a little push to modify our behaviour. I agree that such governmental interference can be a slippery slope but in such cases as this we have plenty of evidence to show that this is not an overly oppressive restriction and - it works!

It is saddening to me that I should feel the need to post such an obvious comment as this buy - hey! This is what you gotta deal with in Hamilton. Here's hoping Mr Ferguson shows a little more enlightened leadship soon (there's still time - right?)

Ben