Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> > A rule that is not enforced is worthless. The only way to enforce is
> > through drug testing. Can't have it both ways.
> "Enforcement" need not be a cop every half mile with a radar gun.  In
> fact, enforcement need only be what it takes to get compliance.
>
> We DO have enforcement--my odds of being tested at an AERC ride are
> roughly on par with my odds of meeting an officer with a radar gun on a
> rural Idaho highway.
>
> > From what testing we do, it certainly appears that the level of
> > compliance
> with the AERC drug rule is FAR superior to the level of compliance with
> posted speed limits on rural Idaho highways.  Does that mean we should
> do away with our speed limits?  I think not.
>
> Heidi
And a PS--before Howard and Truman jump in with both feet and suggest that
I am "against" more testing--I'm not!  The above doesn't say that, and in
fact, I've voiced my support for more testing and my willingness to see a
higher drug assessment per start to finance that.  But it seems odd to see
us currently billed as having "no" enforcement, when that is not the case
at all.  (And I agree with Bob that the rule is not "worthless"--even if
it WAS true that we had no enforcement.  Is it better WITH enforcement? 
You betcha.  But worthless without?  No way!)


============================================================
Locks do not prevent theft, they only deter those in doubt.
~ Robert Morris

ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/

============================================================