The OP stated in her opening post that henceforth she intends to stop at red robots, thereby evincing a clear intention on her part to abide by the very law which she questions. Is she not entitled to question or debate a law with which she disagrees? Are we so myopic that we will tolerate no debate whatsoever, merely because "its the law"? Your post, Falco, serves only to stifle and belittle a legitimate, topical and interesting debate. Newsflash: laws get debated and amended on a daily basis by the very people who represent us, the people, in Parliament. Why can we not debate a law without personally attacking the OP, and calling into question her integrity, her gender, her post count, not to mention your repugnant reference to the Darwin awards. Here is another thought. We still have laws on our books which are morally bankrupt. the Exchange Control Regulations, and the E-Toll laws are examples. Must we shy away from debating these because they are the law? Are they cast in stone and untouchable?
