Dropped: Repeal International Road Safety

[Scalietti]

Does this issue really need a replacement?

On the general consensus of the General Assembly, legislation should be limited to international affairs, or an issue which can affect multiple nations. That effectively rules out any chance of a more effective WA road safety scheme as any legislation must be confined to an international scale.

My issues with the resolution are the following.

What is an international road? This resolution does absolutely nothing to state what an international road is and leaves a door open for confusion amongst the masses. A road that travels between two or more countries, sure. But what sections of the road could be defined as international? The whole road, even the part that joins two cities that are 1000km away from the border, or just the portion of road in a 5km radius of the border?

This resolution doesn't enforce safety standards on roads, only bridges and tunnels. So practically, an international road could be a 5 metre wide strip of gravel running through a forest without a speed limit, but provided that the bridges and tunnels are up to scratch, thats alright.

International Commercial vehicles are rarely involved in motor vehicle accidents and when they are, drivers and occupants are far less likely to be injured than those travelling in a smaller passenger car. Passing legislation and micromanaging such a small minority is a completely ineffective use of WA resourses.

The resolution also prohibits nations from enforcing their own laws, which may be stricter than those enforced by resolution #83.

For what this resolution accomplishes, I highly doubt that it will be missed. At least, this resolution needs a repeal so it can be re-written with these flaws addressed

[New Buckner]

You yourself have stated:

I have prepared a rough draft of a possible replacement resolution. It is far from perfect, but does seek to address many areas that Resolution #83 does not.

So I can assume that since the said suggested replacement resolution has failed, you wish merely to move down a path of resolution repeal due to your thoughts that what? The resolution in it's current form doesn't do enough or isn't necessary. If you say it isn't necessary at all, then why even propose a replacement resolution in the first place? Why not just simply say - "I don't think this needs a replacement". That would have been the more respectable and honest approach.

New Buckner still stands by that the resolution, while not perfect, is strong enough to serve it's desired purpose.

To address your concerns:

1.) Not all resolutions should require a definition when they are clearly common sense. Look up the word "international" in any dictionary you find. If you need to borrow ours, we will be more than happy to let you. Now think on this one really hard. Road A, crosses into Country B at spot C. Road A officially becomes an INTERNATIONAL (INTER - NATIONAL) road at spot C since it now moves from one country into another without breaking.

Have you traveled on a gravel road sir? While a 5 meter strip is still wide, you are going to have a difficult time in gaining any sort of speed...

While they might be rare, you yourself is arguing about managing things such as roads, tunnels, etc, all matter of transport means. Then what is the problem of addressing a particular type of traffic that perhaps the author's had an issue with?

By charter of the World Assembly, all member nations are required to follow all resolutions that are passed by the world assembly.

However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing

Again - please decide if the resolution needs to be replaced or not. You start by asking if it does, and end by saying that it needs to be. Decide please sir, and again - if you want it repealed so bad, give us an idea of what is going to take it's place. To just blindly repeal a resolution because you don't think it does enough or it sucks, or for whatever reason but not have something to replace it with is just irresponsible activity for any member of this body.

[Scalietti]

To address your points.

Many roads join together a number of things, including cities, townships, airports, etc. One highway may be 500km long, and eventually lead to another country. While that same road may be international, many people will travel on it for domestic purposes only and since the road is contained almost entirely within a nation, one could argue that it is a domestic road. A clear definition needs to be set. By your logic, an entire road network could be classified as an international road just because some part of it crosses into another country.

Have you traveled on a gravel road sir? While a 5 meter strip is still wide, you are going to have a difficult time in gaining any sort of speed...

A 5 meter strip is barely wide enough for two cars to travel safely in the opposite direction. Also, I would like to question your knowlege of physics, the amount of friction generated by gravel is certainly larger than friction from a smooth road, however it isn't nearly enough to properly affect a vehicles top speed. Speeds of in excess of 100mph are certainly possible on a gravel road, and are extremely unsafe due to the unsealed surface.

I believe the lack of regulations on roads is a major omission, and I think it must be a clear mistake by the original authors part. It makes no sense at all for there to be regulations on tunnels and bridges and for there to be no regulations on conventional roads. For a whole international road to be classified as adequate, shouldn't all parts of it be subject to scrutiny?

It also makes no sense to focus specifically on international commercial vehicles as they are the minority in terms of accidents. Wasting an entire resolution on this simply defies logic.

No, this resolution does not need to be replaced because it doesn't accomplish anything. However, if somebody does feel the need to replace it, its flaws can be easily fixed.

[Serrland]

Internatioal Road Safety Will be struck out rendering null and void.

Acknowledging: The need for globalized standards for road safety througout all WA member nations.

So far so good

Considering: Resolution #83 is applicable only to international commercial vehicles, which when compared to other passenger vehicles, are rarely involved in accidents and are subject to a far lower mortality rate than other passenger vehicles which are not covered by this resolution.

Regulating passenger vehicles is a whole different ball game. The resolution as it stands works to regulate commercial vehicles (trucks, etc) that cross the border, as opposed to privately owned passenger vehicles used for personal conveyance. Serrland could not, in good conscience, support a resolution that would carry this regulation into personal vehicles - imagine an old lady being prevented from visiting her grandchildren in a neighboring nation because her car is too old or beat up. Not a pleasant thought.

Noting: Resolution #83 also limits its effectiveness to international roads, which remain undefined. Furthermore, there is no legislation dictating the level of quality a road must adhere to yet there is legislation dictating the level of quality tunnels and bridges along an international road must adhere to.

This is incorrect.

FURTHER AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to promulgate regulations related to the safety of roads and related infrastructure at points where roads cross international borders at which one or more member states operate customs, immigration, or other border checkpoints;

It is not limited to international roads:

FURTHER AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to recommend safety standards for domestic roads and related infrastructure;

Further Noting: The resolution does not define standards which vehicles and roads must adhere to.

Nor should it, as that power is relegated to the ITSC:

AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to promulgate regulations related to the safety of international commercial road vehicles;

Concluding that this resolution provides little gains for extensive cost and micromanaging at the expense of WA member nations.

Alarmed: That Resolution #83 prevents nations from enforcing their own laws within their own borders with regards to road safety.

A shaky and misleading claim. Nowhere in the text is anything that would prevent nations from enforcing domestic law.

Understanding that with a repeal of this resolution, its issues could be fixed and brought back into effect.

Hereby Repeals resolution #83

[New Buckner]

My point was just that - there is no definition to it, so common sense prevails into the interpretation of the wording. My point was you needed to define what is considered an international road.

100 mph on a gravel road - not going to happen. 60 I'd buy - with alot of sliding. At 100mph you'd be slipping and sliding all over the road. Trust me sir.

As to your questioning me on physics....the friction between the tire and the gravel is LESS than that of a road due to the square measurement of the total amount of tire that is touch with the road. More space, more friction, greater transfer of energy from the tire to the road thus creating acceleration. There is a reason that race tires are wide and flat with no ridges...

As I continue to say - if you are wanting to repeal this, you need to have an idea of what you want to replace it with. You say it needs to be removed because it doesn't do anything, but you can't produce anything for us to review.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

A resounding no on this one in my opinion.

[Quadrimmina]

A resounding no on this one in my opinion.

We wonder, what are your preferences as to the kinds of resolutions the WA should pass. Or, what are your political views? Because I don't think you've endorsed a single resolution.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

When I find one I agree with I will endorse it as such. Good to know you're keeping score though.

[Quadrimmina]

When I find one I agree with I will endorse it as such. Good to know you're keeping score though.

Not at all, simply perusing the debates currently active and noting that you have commented on many and have not been able to support any. We will of course expect similar analysis of our proposals.

At the same time, we would appreciate it a lot more if, instead of simply voicing opposition, you declare your grievances. Maybe then some common ground can be found. Such is the nature of such an august assembly.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

noted

[Scalietti]

The resolution has been dropped. The nation of Scalietti will now ignore resolution #83 in it's entirety, we will not let the WA prevent us from enforcing our own road laws which is partially prohibited in the second last clause of the resolution.

[Sanctaria]

The nation of Scalietti will now ignore resolution #83 in it's entirety

We would remind the honoured Ambassador that such an action is illegal and in violation of World Assembly conditions.

Yours.,

[Scalietti]

The nation of Scalietti will now ignore resolution #83 in it's entirety

We would remind the honoured Ambassador that such an action is illegal and in violation of World Assembly conditions.

Yours.,

The nation of Scalietti has noted this, and has since left the WA. We mean no disrespect to any member nation, but feel that the mainly liberal and environmentalist WA will continue to have a derogatory impact on our nation.

[Sanctaria]

The nation of Scalietti will now ignore resolution #83 in it's entirety

We would remind the honoured Ambassador that such an action is illegal and in violation of World Assembly conditions.

Yours.,

The nation of Scalietti has noted this, and has since left the WA. We mean no disrespect to any member nation, but feel that the mainly liberal and environmentalist WA will continue to have a derogatory impact on our nation.

This Ambassador noted your resignation with disappointment but also is claiming dibs on your office space.

Yours.,