SmartNavWe use Smartnav with little touchscreens at work. I don't have any experience of other automotive sattelite navigation systems, but...
But not 2? So why raise seatbelts, then? Merely a poignant example, but not be explored any further?
Without including that, there may be some who are wondering what the reference to "Nanny State" is all about...
Why so - you brought up seatbelts, which presumably stems from a previous discussion where you opined about them.
careless
Why is it more likely, and why are your observations or summations any more tenable than my suggestion that regardless of how proactive, proficient or careful you are as a driver, another driver can still collide with you?
But yours are somehow significant?
How does your implication that by merit of seatbelt usage, drivers will automatically be more careless or reckless have any more weight, than my suggestion that regardless of the abilities or care of a driver, they can still be victim to collision by another driver?
M25 shut after explosion on lorryAll eight lanes of a section of the M25 are closed after a lorry containing hydrogen peroxide exploded. The fire is under control on the vehicle which...
What words am I putting into your mouth? You brought up the "Nanny State" and you also used seatbelts as an example. If your objection to compulsory use of seatbelts is purely based on your perceptions of risk and it's behavioural impact, then why bring up the "Nanny State" and seatbelts within the same breath?
Isn't it rather inevitable that the very examples you use for the main points of your post are going to be examined for validity?
If your not comfortable or happy with that, perhaps you should have given an example you are more happy to discuss, or feel more robust about your standpoint.
