dead brains don't dance

I had my restart interviewspeed choice workshop on Friday; ten eval skunnerz and two... leaders? presenters? indoctrinators? I’m not sure what to call them.

It was all quite civilised; a nice mixture of real information, dodgy statistics and emotional blackmail. I regret to write that I was a bit Difficult, pointing out logical failures in arguments advanced and failing to accept that mechanical enforcement of arbitrary speed limits is a substitute for traffic police with judgement and the ability to perceive other failure modes in driving. Another chap there does safety work for the AA and likewise pointed out factual errors in the presentation.

It’s not as though I’m against speed limits or, indeed, traffic cameras in principle; my objection is to the unquestionable assumption that breaking the law is intrinsically dangerous (in safety terms, as opposed to just being prosecuted) without regard to circumstance. If it’s possible to recognise that it can be, often is, dangerous to drive at anything approaching the limit, why is it so hard to accept that there might be times when going faster is acceptably safe?

I suppose I need to develop some respect for the law...

[wanders off muttering about people who fear life so much that they can’t accept the existence of any risk or danger, and somehow manage to believe that it’s possible (never mind about desirable) to legislate total safety, and at any cost. Life is intrinsically risky, and WE ALL DIE; live with it]