Will forest animals also wear reflective elements

When we talk about human rights, I have been feeling for a long time that the rights to motorists belong to somewhat more than non-motorists. Both they need to keep a safety vest for road safety.

I will remind you, for example, how long green pedestrians have been lit on the traffic lights and how long the cars, even though they are moving incomparably faster, would have less time. Or the tendency to interrupt pedestrian crossings, say, for the good of the pawns, for their greater security. It is only occasionally that somebody says that those transitions are simply too much and that it disturbs the flow of traffic. Which is wrong, while walking a hundred yards from the aborted crossing is normal and desirable? After all, after all, it will be more "fresh" air.

Perhaps it would be enough to reduce the speed
The latest good for pedestrians was approved by the government in the form of one provision of the current amendment to the Road Traffic Act, which is currently heading to the Chamber of Deputies. In my opinion, I am obligated to wear reflective elements on the garment (the specific shape of the element is not prescribed) if the visibility is outside the village on a road without pavements. Of course, those abusive non-motorists are not very few, and the reflective elements are purely technical at least some of their protection, even though they are not wiping away from the pavement.

On the other hand, however, there is a duty to be imposed, even a financial one (however buying a reflective tape for a relatively comprehensible amount, if not counting the non-punitive financial penalties in case of disobedience) to someone who is less of a source of danger, who is by far the greater threat. As more logical, it would seem to me, for example, to make provision for the visibility of the roadside driver to reduce the speed of the road so that a possible clash with the pedestrian could avoid or at least minimize its consequences. Moreover, on the road, not only the pedestrian, but also, for example, wildlife can suddenly appear under the described conditions. She's even more likely. Will she be required to wear a reflective tape? By the way, it's not a joke; in one of the Nordic countries they say they want a wild-colored reindeer.

It looks like this as a punishment for a non-motorist for the fact that he even allows himself to move along the road, even for poor visibility. However, the same right to use road traffic, unless specifically prohibited by law, has both a motorist and a pedestrian or cyclist. I emphasize that the law is equal, that the automobile is not bigger, it is not preferred. The right to make free use of public roads is perhaps even the oldest.

I have my horses, the duty to clean the pine trees
I'm not a lawyer, so I can be mistaken. But I think that if someone insists that moving along the road, surrounded by material trajectories, which is multiplied by the speed of movement, becomes a potentially fatal hazard for unintentional (and armored) road users, Who should be subject to risk-mitigating obligations to slaughter.



Sponsered Links

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2006-10 CAT4MBA.com.