[currently abandoned] Repeal "International Road Safety"

[Giovanniland]

OOC: 2nd try at a resolution, feel free to post helpful feedback.

Draft 3:

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Saddened by the oversight that GAR #83 only authorizes the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) to promulgate road safety regulations instead of fully obligating it, thus technically not requiring it to even release anything;

Dismayed that the above flaw may negatively affect member-nations by drawing leaders' attention to the resolution's ambiguity on the matters of road safety, while accidents go unnoticed due to confusing laws;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Dismayed that, although the target states that regulations by the ITSC must improve international road safety, the effects of those regulations in member nations are either vague or not written at all;

Further dismayed the consequences of that flaw on member nations could be very severe, such as causing negative effects instead of actually improving road safety, and disagreement among member states’ governments over different effects caused by the aforementioned regulations;

Horrified GAR #83 only authorizes the ITSC to promulgate regulations for the safety of road vehicles, instead of fully obligating said committee;

Appalled by the fact the target resolution's own standards are also vague, such as not stating specific safety procedures, the scope of what will be affected by the standards, and possibly other items, resulting in a hindrance to the resolution's purpose;

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Hong Kong.

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution;

Dismayed that, although the target resolution states that regulations by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must improve international road safety, the effects of those regulations in member nations are either vague or not written at all;

Further dismayed the consequences of that flaw on member nations could be very severe, such as causing negative effects instead of actually improving road safety, and possibly also causing disagreements among member states’ governments over different effects caused by the aforementioned regulations;

Observing that, by listing specific items at border checkpoints to meet ITSC standards, the proposal inadvertently excludes other possible infrastructure at the aforementioned checkpoints and exposes them to hazard;

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Victoria.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put my feedback on the draft in red pen.”

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly, Why is this italicised? I’m against unnecessary italicisation generally, but this line in particularly doesn’t need to be formatted.

Aware of the importance of safety within international roads;

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles; At most, only one clause is necessary to extol the target resolution.

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution, This clause ends in a comma, but should end in a semicolon. Also, a resolution not legislating on something is rarely a flaw, since future legislation could target what is omitted.

Observing that, by listing specific items at border checkpoints to meet ITSC standards, the proposal inadvertently excludes other possible infrastructure at the aforementioned checkpoints and exposes them to hazard; Member states could add infrastructure not mandated by the WA themselves.

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Further noting that the above problem causes member states to either go bankrupt or not comply with the resolution; I think bankruptcy is a little extreme as a consequence of some quite reasonable requirements.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Hong Kong.

[Tinhampton]

1: Show me your replacement.
2: What have Novasamita and The Citizens of HK actually contributed to your proposal?

[Bananaistan]

"This is extreme petty nitpicking. If you want to propose something dealing with vehicles that carry less than ten passengers, you can do so. If want to add other items to ITSC standards, you can do so.

"And your financial arguments are completely unreasonable hyperbole. Installing a a few signs etc will not bankrupt any nation.

"Opposed."

OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

[WayNeacTia]

"OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

The entire thing is NatSov. And this little nugget "Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution," is a flat out lie as the resolution was never meant to deal with passenger cars in the first place.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

I do agree with others in that bankruptcy is unlikely (definitely hyperbolic), however there are many real life instances that prove changing road signage can be extremely costly because of the cost of complying with regulatory standards, paying for installation labor, printing, and stamping costs.

RL examples:
~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217
~ https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf
~ https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2019/2/22/ ... ld-it-cost

[Tinhampton]

I do agree with others in that bankruptcy is unlikely (definitely hyperbolic), however there are many real life instances that prove changing road signage can be extremely costly because of the cost of complying with regulatory standards, paying for installation labor, printing, and stamping costs.

RL examples:
~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217
~ https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf
~ https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2019/2/22/ ... ld-it-cost

A single hypothetical about the USA changing their road signs from miles to kilometres is not "many real life instances." Besides, even if the USA was in the WA, GA#88 "WA Numeration and Units Act" would leave it under no obligation to engage in such a conversion.

[Giovanniland]

1: Show me your replacement.
2: What have Novasamita and The Citizens of HK actually contributed to your proposal?

1. Why do we need a replacement?
2. It's a group writing, I had the main idea but they contributed with more clauses, grammar choices (since I'm not native English), etc.

"This is extreme petty nitpicking. If you want to propose something dealing with vehicles that carry less than ten passengers, you can do so. If want to add other items to ITSC standards, you can do so.

"And your financial arguments are completely unreasonable hyperbole. Installing a a few signs etc will not bankrupt any nation.

"Opposed."

OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

"You admit that GA#83 has flaws. Why write a resolution to cover up the flaws, if we can repeal it?"

"OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

The entire thing is NatSov. And this little nugget "Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution," is a flat out lie as the resolution was never meant to deal with passenger cars in the first place.

OOC: NatSov-only repeals are illegal, I've read the rules. Also, the proposal does deal with passenger transports:

DEFINES "international commercial road vehicle" as a conveyance including and not limited to a truck, a trailer, or a motor coach, that
(a) is driven over public highways across one or more internationally recognized borders between member states, has a point of origin and a destination in two different member states, or both, and
(b) is used to transport freight or is used to transport ten or more passengers or both;

[Tinhampton]

1: Show me your replacement.
2: What have Novasamita and The Citizens of HK actually contributed to your proposal?

1. Why do we need a replacement?
2. It's a group writing, I had the main idea but they contributed with more clauses, grammar choices (since I'm not native English), etc.

1: Read the first two clauses of your draft again.
2: Thank you for clarifying. :>

[Bananaistan]

"This is extreme petty nitpicking. If you want to propose something dealing with vehicles that carry less than ten passengers, you can do so. If want to add other items to ITSC standards, you can do so.

"And your financial arguments are completely unreasonable hyperbole. Installing a a few signs etc will not bankrupt any nation.

"Opposed."

OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

You admit that GA#83 has flaws. Why write a resolution to cover up the flaws, if we can repeal it?

"With all due respect Ambassador, I said nothing of the sort. These are not flaws. They are the extent of the resolution."

[The Unified Missourtama States]

I do agree with others in that bankruptcy is unlikely (definitely hyperbolic), however there are many real life instances that prove changing road signage can be extremely costly because of the cost of complying with regulatory standards, paying for installation labor, printing, and stamping costs.

RL examples:
~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217
~ https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf
~ https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2019/2/22/ ... ld-it-cost

A single hypothetical about the USA changing their road signs from miles to kilometres is not "many real life instances."

~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217 <this actually happened, go ahead and read it, the people of Wisconsin were shocked (and some angry) at the huge unexpected cost of replacement of signs.

Besides, even if the USA was in the WA, GA#88 "WA Numeration and Units Act" would leave it under no obligation to engage in such a conversion.

Yes, however not all sign replacements relate to measurements, such as warning signs, lane lines, instructional signs, and stop signs. Also realizing that even if the may keep their measurements they still may need to change other aspects of ‘measurement’ signage, such as size, color, and design.

[Gryphonian Alliance]

OOC: 2nd try at a resolution, feel free to post helpful feedback.

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Aware of the importance of safety within international roads;

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution,

Overall I think this repeal is solid but the clause about the exclusion of smaller passenger vehicles makes an incorrect assumption about the resolution and should be taken it out.
The point of the resolution is to regulate large motor vehicles going between countries. A vehicle with 10 passengers or less crossing international borders is most likely not traveling for commercial reasons: like a family on vacation or moving to a new home. Yes, the resolution doesn't protect/regulate passenger cars but it's not the point of the legislation- it only covers commercial vehicles. This is because commercial vehicle accidents (mainly trucks) are especially lethal.

But I do think there's something you could include instead. The problem with GAR#83 is that if a company or nation wants to avoid spending money on training and adjustments required to meet ITSC standards for its drivers and vehicles, they could simply claim their commercial vehicles are not for international transport purposes, or list them as normal passenger cars in their records and dodge the need to meet the ITSC's regulations. The ITSC has no method to enforce the resolution, it doesn't have the authority to investigate if a country is following ITSC regulations if the country refuses to reveal that information or falsifies it.

[Kenmoria]

But I do think there's something you could include instead. The problem with GAR#83 is that if a company or nation wants to avoid spending money on training and adjustments required to meet ITSC standards for its drivers and vehicles, they could simply claim their commercial vehicles are not for international transport purposes, or list them as normal passenger cars in their records and dodge the need to meet the ITSC's regulations. The ITSC has no method to enforce the resolution, it doesn't have the authority to investigate if a country is following ITSC regulations if the country refuses to reveal that information or falsifies it.

(OOC: This wouldn’t be a particularly strong point to include. It should be quite obvious whether a vehicle is for the purposes of international transport, since any vehicle regularly crossing borders carrying more than 10 passengers can be safely assumed to be. Also, the Compliance Commission does indeed have the authority to investigate possible instances of noncompliance, which would include refusal to reveal or falsification of information.)

[Giovanniland]

“I’ve put my feedback on the draft in red pen.”

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly, Why is this italicised? I’m against unnecessary italicisation generally, but this line in particularly doesn’t need to be formatted.

Aware of the importance of safety within international roads;

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles; At most, only one clause is necessary to extol the target resolution.

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution, This clause ends in a comma, but should end in a semicolon. Also, a resolution not legislating on something is rarely a flaw, since future legislation could target what is omitted.

Observing that, by listing specific items at border checkpoints to meet ITSC standards, the proposal inadvertently excludes other possible infrastructure at the aforementioned checkpoints and exposes them to hazard; Member states could add infrastructure not mandated by the WA themselves.

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Further noting that the above problem causes member states to either go bankrupt or not comply with the resolution; I think bankruptcy is a little extreme as a consequence of some quite reasonable requirements.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Hong Kong.

OOC: Thanks, I've made a few changes and added some other arguments. Although I must disagree on some points: although member states can indeed add infrastructure not mandated by the WA, there's nothing on the target resolution that enforces safety on those infrastructure, so member states could just use lower standards or no safety standard at all.
Though I've removed the bankruptcy argument because nearly everyone who commented said it was too hyperbolic, and looking at it, I can agree.

1. Why do we need a replacement?
2. It's a group writing, I had the main idea but they contributed with more clauses, grammar choices (since I'm not native English), etc.

1: Read the first two clauses of your draft again.
2: Thank you for clarifying. :>

OOC: Stating I recognize the efforts of the target resolution doesn't automatically mean I want a replacement.

You admit that GA#83 has flaws. Why write a resolution to cover up the flaws, if we can repeal it?

"With all due respect Ambassador, I said nothing of the sort. These are not flaws. They are the extent of the resolution."

"I'm sorry, but if the resolution doesn't cover some very important points, such as adding items or better explaining the effects of ITSC standards, it's clear it should be repealed. In my opinion, a resolution just to add up to this one is meaningless."

[Araraukar]

"I'm sorry, but if the resolution doesn't cover some very important points"

"Do you understand the concept of "limiting the scope"? Because a resolution addressing only regulations concerning yellow shirts says nothing about blue shirts, does not mean the Yellow Shirt Regulation resolution is flawed. Rather, it invites people to write a resolution to address blue shirts. Or all shirts except yellow ones. Limited scope is not a flaw."

OOC: Also, back when it passed, the character (includes spaces and enter presses and code) limit for a proposal was 3000. Including passenger cars would have required waaaaay more regulations than could have been reasonably fit in those 3000 characters.

[Giovanniland]

"I'm sorry, but if the resolution doesn't cover some very important points"

"Do you understand the concept of "limiting the scope"? Because a resolution addressing only regulations concerning yellow shirts says nothing about blue shirts, does not mean the Yellow Shirt Regulation resolution is flawed. Rather, it invites people to write a resolution to address blue shirts. Or all shirts except yellow ones. Limited scope is not a flaw."

OOC: Also, back when it passed, the character (includes spaces and enter presses and code) limit for a proposal was 3000. Including passenger cars would have required waaaaay more regulations than could have been reasonably fit in those 3000 characters.

OOC: I understand. Anyways, I now removed those 2 clauses and thought of better arguments. Draft 2 is up.

[WayNeacTia]

"Do you understand the concept of "limiting the scope"? Because a resolution addressing only regulations concerning yellow shirts says nothing about blue shirts, does not mean the Yellow Shirt Regulation resolution is flawed. Rather, it invites people to write a resolution to address blue shirts. Or all shirts except yellow ones. Limited scope is not a flaw."

OOC: Also, back when it passed, the character (includes spaces and enter presses and code) limit for a proposal was 3000. Including passenger cars would have required waaaaay more regulations than could have been reasonably fit in those 3000 characters.

OOC: I understand. Anyways, I now removed those 2 clauses and thought of better arguments. Draft 2 is up.

And it still remains a nitpicking disaster of whining about how the original doesn’t specify this and regulate that. Pro tip: There are character limits on proposals and they were significant less back when this was passed. Try actually making a meritorious argument.

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘dismayed’ clause is, rather ironically, quite vague. What regulations are too vague?”

[Giovanniland]

“Your ‘dismayed’ clause is, rather ironically, quite vague. What regulations are too vague?”

"The target has this clause on the effects of those regulations:

FURTHER REQUIRES the International Transport Safety Committee to assure that regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution result in reasonable improvements to traffic safety

In my opinion, simply stating the effect is 'reasonable improvement to traffic safety' is vague.
Positive effects of the regulations on member nations could be a better functioning society, lesser distances between people, etc.
On the other hand, there can also be negative effects, because a specific description of the standards isn't clearly stated on the proposal. If the writer did state only vehicles with more than 10 passengers count, why not display some specific measurements on the standards and effects? I feel that is a weak point of the target."

[Araraukar]

If the writer did state only vehicles with more than 10 passengers count, why not display some specific measurements on the standards and effects? I feel that is a weak point of the target."

OOC: To make room for RP. If your passengers are 4 metres tall centaurs, they're going to need a bigger vehicle than half a metre tall monkeys. Not all GA nations are populated by humans.

[Big Bad Badger]

This repeal looks great. Let's put it up in the queue to be voted upon.

[Kenmoria]

This repeal looks great. Let's put it up in the queue to be voted upon.

(OOC: I’m going to reply specifically to this post, although you have made others in other proposal threads, so as to avoid posting my response three times. Why are you suggesting that this put up for vote? The responses from GA regulars in these threads have highlighted issues with all of the repeals you have supported. All of them would benefit from further drafting and feedback, not immediate submission.)

[Big Bad Badger]

This repeal looks great. Let's put it up in the queue to be voted upon.

(OOC: I’m going to reply specifically to this post, although you have made others in other proposal threads, so as to avoid posting my response three times. Why are you suggesting that this put up for vote? The responses from GA regulars in these threads have highlighted issues with all of the repeals you have supported. All of them would benefit from further drafting and feedback, not immediate submission.)

I support all GA repeals.

[Honeydewistania]

(OOC: I’m going to reply specifically to this post, although you have made others in other proposal threads, so as to avoid posting my response three times. Why are you suggesting that this put up for vote? The responses from GA regulars in these threads have highlighted issues with all of the repeals you have supported. All of them would benefit from further drafting and feedback, not immediate submission.)

I support all GA repeals.

What about their quality? They certainly aren’t ready for submission now

[Bananaistan]

I support all GA repeals.

What about their quality? They certainly aren’t ready for submission now

OOC; TWP well known for supporting all repeals and opposing all resolutions. No surprise here but you would wonder why a community which is generally anti-GA has suddenly produced so many repeal proposals.