-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
23
Accident British Pensioner Crashes Through Wall, Child Narrowly Escapes
The old saying don't tar everyone with the same brush ( plonker comes to mind) -
11
Police checkpoint on Sukhumvit before Huay Yai flyover
Agreed. Look on my car windscreen you will see what most would call a tax disc - what would you call them? -
161
HIV outbreak in Issan. Do you always test first or use condoms in Thailand.
And if not, what then ? -
6
Trump Enacts New Travel Ban Affecting 19 Countries, Citing National Security Concerns
It's because Trump's biggest supporter, who lives in Cambodia, recently announced on this forum that he is travelling to the US for business in the near future. -
98
Report Pattaya Motorbike Drivers Protest Strict Helmet Law Fines
Thank-you Max Verstappen - but thats just a half witted rhetorical dodge, not an argument. It dismisses real-world discussions under the guise of cynicism... Yes, many laws could save lives if they were perfectly enforced - but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce the ones that are realistic, targeted, and effective. Helmet laws (the subject of this discussion), for instance, are simple to implement, cost-effective, and have been proven to save lives. They're not theoretical. They're not “if only.” They are practical measures with measurable outcomes. As for banning alcohol and drugs - we’ve tried that. Prohibition created more problems than it solved. It's a false equivalence to compare public health legislation like helmet laws to sweeping moral crusades that ignore human behaviour and societal context. Your comparison to murder laws is fundamentally misplaced. Murder laws are reactive by nature - they don’t prevent someone from committing the act; they simply define the punishment after the fact. You can’t legislate away intent. No one seriously believes that having a law against murder will stop every violent impulse. What murder laws do is set a societal boundary - they don't physically protect a person from being killed in the moment. Helmet laws, by contrast, are preventative. They reduce the severity of injury before a crash happens. Wearing a helmet doesn't stop accidents, but it does significantly increase a rider's chance of surviving one. That’s the key distinction: helmet laws protect the person from harm, while murder laws punish the perpetrator after the harm has already been done. It's the difference between locking your door to deter burglars, and calling the police after you’ve been robbed. One is a preventive measure; the other is a reactive consequence. So to suggest that helmet laws are on the same level as murder laws is to confuse behaviour regulation with harm mitigation. We can’t enforce what someone might do in the context of violent crime - but we can certainly enforce what someone chooses to wear on their head before getting on a bike. That’s not just enforceable - it’s common sense, and more a rather glaring absence of common sense on your part if that is your argument. -
232
Will Trump bankrupt the US entirely?
Hmmm, I don't remember anyone claiming Musk was smart because he supported Trump. I think you are making that up. I think Musk is smart, because Musk is smart. The left seemed to be claiming he was stupid, but now that he's saying things they like, he's back to being smart.- 1
-
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts