I wouldn’t call it dumb. Outdated, yes, definitely. But not dumb; it was enacted for a reason, and it accomplished its goal: to make children’s bikes safer. It looks dumb now because we have technology that wasn’t available at the time the law was written; but that doesn’t make it dumb.
It needs to be updated in line with what technology can do now. On this, I’m in full agreement. I just wish people would use the right terminology to describe these things: outdated; outmoded; obsolete. Not judge laws from 50 years ago in line with modern day expectations, as if they’re being legislated today.
Yes, he did address the climate in which it it was enacted in his video, and said that it made sense then. He also said that it needs to be updated based on today's technology.
Yup. I'm taking issue with the click-baity headline rather than the content of the video, really. That sort of stuff really irks me. We're on the same page on the crucial matter.
Stuart Lamble
in reply to Neil E. Hodges • •It needs to be updated in line with what technology can do now. On this, I’m in full agreement. I just wish people would use the right terminology to describe these things: outdated; outmoded; obsolete. Not judge laws from 50 years ago in line with modern day expectations, as if they’re being legislated today.
Neil E. Hodges likes this.
Neil E. Hodges
in reply to Stuart Lamble • •Stuart Lamble
in reply to Neil E. Hodges • •Neil E. Hodges likes this.