Quote:
Originally Posted by gorotsuki69
using your logic , Subaru is also responsible if you get caught doing 160km/h?
|
No. My "logic" was simply stating that Subaru are not ABOVE the law here either; and therefore indirectly highlighting that following reasonable duty of care policy (that most companies are inclined to honour under fair trading agreements within our country) it should at least define that customers should adhere to laws re: use of foglamps in their state/ country as they do with the general disclaimer about performance vehicles and adhering to state/ country speed limit laws in most automobile manuals.
The argument is based on customer ignorance in the case of fog lamps. There is currently NO awareness raising campaigns to my knowledge on laws surrounding driving with fog lamps on and never has there been an effort, yet if you get caught you are fined a larger sum of money than going slightly over the speed limit. Under these present penal conditions then, it seems more 'logical' to do slightly over the speed limit than be caught with your fog lamps on in terms of punishment.
We forget that most laws that we as a democratic society agree to uphold are made for the safety and protection of self and others. Speeding laws and related penalties make sense under this practice (eg- the punishment/ deterant fits the potential crime)... I don't think you will logically find that fog lamps fit this category?? Yet this law is still upheld quite blindly as to why it was ever invented in the first place! This has been demonstrated over and over again by stories of officers enforcing this law giving little to no understanding or reason as to why they are doing it other than that it is 'the law', not to mention the indescrepency of demerits/ fine amounts enforced despite Giddyup highlighting this here!!
But each to their own opinion. If you can prove to me how foglamps are AS potentially dangerous as speeding for example, particularly when most lamps use lower wattage then headlights and as others have pointed out here are lower to the ground, having little effect to oncoming traffic sight... then your argument will be the more logical won't it?
