At the first suggestion of of a new Government regulation, the clarion cry from

capitalists is: “FREEDOM!”

This begs the question: Which is the greater freedom?

Freedom from exploitation, or the freedom to exploit others without scruple or mercy?

It seems fairly well established in the zeitgeist that drug dealers are more morally reprehensible than drug users, who are often looked upon more as victims than criminals.

The person who sells ‘speed’ (amphetamine) to teenagers is considered to be a villain of the first order; a predatory fiend interested only in profit; thoughtless of the misery, financial hardship, even incidental death that so frequently accompanies the use of his product.

‘Speed’ is an apt name.

In what subtle manner is the selling of the drug speed, in any way morally different to selling cars capable of speeds of 200 kilometres an hour or even more, when it is illegal to exceed 110 kph, anywhere?

We recognise the dangerous age for drivers, from 18 to 25 years. Insurance for people in this age group is ruinously high.

I would argue that wars are made possible not so much through male aggression, as by the young male certainty of immortality. If young men believed that ‘it’ was going to happen to them, and not to someone else, we would have far fewer soldiers for old men to send to war.

This same certainty, -keyed into our genes by the evolutionary need to compete for partners- that ‘someone could die, but it ain’t gonna be me!’- makes young men particularly susceptible to the lure of using dangerous, high speed machines.

Almost every day we see newscasts of death due to high speeds and high speed chases by police officers, called on to risk not only their own lives, but inevitably risking the lives of innocent bystanders and other road users.

By what twisted moral standard are car manufacturers less culpable than drug dealers?

Both parties can absolve themselves by claiming: “hey, I don’t force anybody to use my product”.

Both parties prey on the inbuilt weaknesses of their victims.

From 1979, all states in Australia recognised this problem in regard to high powered motorcycles. Young riders were dying, in statistically significant numbers, due to inexperience with large, powerful bikes.

The manufacturers’ response? When legislation was introduced to restrict the size motor cycle learner and permit drivers could ride:

“Mr G. Roff, Editor, Royalauto, explained in evidence:

‘Manufacturers have responded to the challenge of marketing motorcycles. When the legislation was introduced and the 250 cc motorbike, which produced 25 or 26 horsepower became the limit, a lot of research went into producing motorcycles with approximately the same power output as 750 cc motorcycles had 10 years ago. By limiting motorcycles to 250 cc with no other controls on the way they were developed, a situation developed where bikes are actually quite difficult to ride.’ ”

(http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/1993cycle/ch4.htm)

The problem was eventually resolved by further legislation, crossing ‘t’s and dotting ‘i’s, using performance standards, rather than mere motor size.

This makes a mockery of car manufacturers’ strongest argument for technological ‘freedom’; that of progress and development.

Legislative restrictions directly stimulated development.

In the current crisis of global warming, it is this sort of legislative vision we desperately need.

By legislation, we could have a new vehicle class.

We have the technology to create a ‘five star’ safety system; safety not only for the driver, passengers and other road users, but for the whole planet.

A five star car would have:

• speed limited to 110 km per hour

• only two seats

• powered by at least lpg, or motors even less polluting

• high safety standards

This class of vehicle could be the only cars drivers under 25 would be allowed to drive.

These vehicles could attract significant discounts in registration fees, sales tax and insurance costs.

With one simple piece of legislation, we could:

• reduce pollution

• save lives

• make transport more affordable for the young and low paid

• set an example to other road users, and the whole world.

One could reasonably hope that by the time most of these drivers were eligible to drive more powerful, more polluting -and more expensive- vehicles, they would have grown out of the desire to do so.

A four and a half star vehicle could have the same standards, but with four seats, so responsible family people of all ages could also join the revolution.

These cars need to be not only cheap, but also cheaply financed, so low income earners can trade in their smoky old clunkers which would have to have a one star -or less- rating. Regardless of which side of the AGW debate you are on, surely no one would argue that pollution is good, for anyone.

It’s said ‘you can’t judge a book by it’s cover’. While it may be true not every rich person goes around flashing their wealth, when you see someone driving around in a vehicle worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know they aren’t losing much sleep over starving children in Africa.

By owning and driving vehicles of this class, one would be proudly proclaiming: “we care, and we’re doing something about it.”

Thus far, the Rudd government has shown about as much flair and colour as the stereotypical CPA.

In a time of radical change -if not impending doom- we desperately need people of vision, not bean counters.

We need legislation which will guide technology in a socially responsible manner.

We need to tell our representatives that we want to do something concrete about global warming.

We want to make our roads safer.

We want to keep our kids alive.

 Loading ...