There should be a law against writing stupid articles like this!

On the general point, I found Australia amazingly over-regulated when I came here from the UK in 1979. Some years later, Bob Hawke correctly noted that there were more regulatory barriers between Australian states than between EU countries. I suspect that the comparison has worsened since.

On a specific issue, you wrote "Wouldn't you prefer to be in a car travelling at 65km/h with a driver who is paying attention than in a car travelling at 60km/h - or for that matter at 40km/h - with a driver who is not? Dr Alan Buckingham of the UK's Bath Spa University College argues that road safety is ensured by having capable drivers, safe cars and safe roads. Any government action should be directed at these goals."

I drive fast, and I drive safely. (I did have a minor injury acident in Asian Turkey in 1970, when I had the choice of driving into a ravine or having a head-on with a mini-bus. I chose the latter.) I keep my car in good nick, I stay alert, I don't drink, use drugs or a mobile phone, I've slowed for situations well ahead long before drivers ahead of me brake suddenly. I also respond to overtaking oportunities before other drivers. My experience is that most people who drive fast have a much higher situational awareness than those who drive slowly, they are more likely to signal and to treat other drivers with courtesy. It's the driver, stupid! Often abetted by alcohol and other drugs.

Let's give Alan Moran carte blanche to tear up regulations between now and the end of the year, then review the situation.

Casper has missed the point,our state govts don't care too much about road deaths,they crave the revenue to build the empires to that enslave us all in this wonderful "Nanny State" Never a few sentences pass a pollies lips these days without some mention of a safety net.They want to enslave us with taxes and big note themselves on how good they are when they give some of our hard earned dollars back so we will vote them in again.

The Howard Govt pays lip service to bringing the spiralling social security system under control,but so many people now depend upon it that Govts are fearful of losing votes if they try to make the really hard decisions and stop this mentality of free handouts.

"There should be a law against...(insert pet gripe here)" This is exactly the mindset that empowers lawmakers to implement an ever more suffocating 'nanny-state'.

The difference between an adult and a child is that an adult has the freedom to think and act as they please (within reason) but it comes with the responsibility to deal with their own problems. A child has very few freedoms but also very few responsibilities.

The question is; What do you want to be?

“In all their dealings governments should ensure that individuals' responsibilities are met and that individuals' liberties are respected.”

This is the balance that must be struck by our law-makers. The trouble is, everyone has a different opinion as to where that point of balance is, in relation to all sorts of things.

It seems that Casper Conde’s overall point of balance is considerably more towards individuals’ liberties than mine.

Even if it is only the tiny minority who play up in a serious manner, as per Casper’s beer-at-the-cricket example, isn’t it a fair and reasonable thing to implement regulations that strive to stop it? And isn’t it the right thing to do to place everyone under the same regulations? Isn’t light beer in plastic cups instead of full-strength beer in glasses a fair and reasonable policy? Let’s face it, the authorities could easily have banned alcohol altogether.

In this case, law-abiding citizens may have had the pleasure of a beer at the cricket reduced, but they are also hopefully saved the quite awful consequences of out-of-hand antisocial behaviour. It seems to me that the positives clearly outweigh the negatives in this instance.

However, when it comes to road safety, more regulations, or slower speed limits are not the answer, for as long as we have a pathetically poor policing regime - something that Casper completely neglects to mention.

“After large amounts of government advertising, speed cameras, double demerit points in some states and reduced speed limits, there has been no significant reduction in the road toll.”

Yes. The answer is not more restrictions or more severe penalties. The answer is to have a sufficiently high police presence so that there is a sufficiently high risk of offenders being caught, so that the drongos on our roads will actually take heed of the law instead of thumbing their noses at it. Comprehensive driver-training is also a large part of the answer.

In the bigger picture, the lack of policing of laws is a major factor. It leads to a number of serious problems:-

1. Those who are very familiar with particular laws and the policing of them know what they can get away with, while those less familiar stick strictly to them. Thus a double standard is set up.

2. Similarly, those who take the principled position regarding the law are put at a disadvantage compared to those who realise that there is some leeway or that the chances or being caught are slight, or the penalties if caught are minor.

3. Due largely to the lack of police compared to the overall enormously broad spectrum of things that require policing, many laws simply go unpoliced. Again, those who know which ones are not policed have a great advantage over those who don’t or who take the principled law-abiding position.

4. Discretionary powers allow police and other regulatory authorities to treat people differently with respect to the same laws, and to do so with impunity.

Thus, the regulatory regime MUST have adequate and fair policing.

Casper writes: “The problem with bans and regulations is that individuals lose out”

YES, but not for the reasons he envisages – because of the often uneven and hence unfair regulation of those regulations!