Quote from -ooO-(GoldTrade:
So what you think, 100% of the people should pay for roads and only let 5% approved by you, use the them? Nobody thinks that they are going to get caught. What evidence do you have that fines act as a deterrent?
Do you always construct straw man arguments?
I think roads should be paid for by the people who use them. I think people who recklessly and needlessly risk the lives of others should be prevented from and punished for doing so, unless the latter consent to it. I think minimum standards of driving safety are objectively measurable and should be met before one takes a motor vehicle onto the public highway. Private roads can be anything goes as far as I am concerned e.g. racetracks, rally courses, or privately owned highways, as long as everyone there is informed of the risks.
These standards are already almost universally applied for high speeds, dangerous driving, drunk driving, driving underage, driving without having passed a test etc. There is no reason they should not be applied to other life-threatening activities such as tail-gating at high speed, driving whilst using a cellphone, driving too fast for adverse weather conditions, failing to learn and practise basic driving skills such as skid control etc. Almost all driving skills are objectively measurable, so it is not my opinion - these are facts we are dealing with.
Fines will deter some people. Those who aren't deterred by fines can be deterred in other ways. Those who can't be deterred can be forcibly prevented from driving. Those who kill or injure innocents by their own laziness, negligence, and recklessness should pay for their immoral actions.
Formula 1, where cars routinely race in close proximity at speeds of 150-200mph, has a better safety record over the last 15 years than the public highways of every country in the civilised world. Ditto for the World Rally Championship. That is a ridiculous state of affairs and shows that public roads and their users are governed irresponsibly.