I prefer to consider it a "citizenship dividend".
In the US, political power is (ostensibly) derived from We The People. We convey our political authority to government. The government uses that authority to provide the service of "law and order" to taxpayers. But the government does not (currently) compensate We The People for the use of our political authority.
That can change. We can, and should, receive dividends on our investment.
Not if those distracting screens were prohibited.
That could have been the mandate. They could have mandated that be the only allowable screen. It shows what's behind you, and that's it. No distractions tolerated. No pop-up logos or other advertising. No driving controls on that screen. Touch screen disabled while in motion, with all essential functions actuated by physical controls.
But they didn't. They mandated a rearview and monitor, but didn't restrict its use. And that failure has probably caused more injuries and deaths than it has prevented.
Unless they only permitted that screen to show a rear view. They could have prohibited any other use, or prohibited non-tactile controls that required ocular attention while driving. They could have required that touchscreen controls be disabled while driving. But they didn't.
They mandated the distracting screen, and probably killed more people than they saved.
They also put a distracting video monitor in front of the driver 100% of the time, not just the 0.2% while backing. Manufacturers have moved a lot of controls to that screen, rather than leaving them on tactile buttons and switches that could be operated without taking eyes off the road.
How many collisions have been caused by distractions from the these screens?
With a backup camera comes a video screen necessarily in view of the driver, contributing to distracted driving at all times the vehicle is not in reverse. How many kids have been killed because of such distractions?
Fight club?
Wake me up when we get to #GuillotineParty.
The people who hate it are those who think themselves better than their peers. They think they deserve more than their peers, and that socialism transfers their superior effort to the benefit of their inferiors.
They see socialism not as everyone helping everyone, but as they, the successful being forced to support them, the lazy.
You're literally arguing that merely BECUSE the code needs safety devices it is therefore unsafe
"Unsafe" is not the correct term. "Unsafe" implies an absolute condition. The UK system is not "unsafe", and I have not argued that it is "unsafe".
"Less safe" is the more accurate description. "Less safe" implies a relative condition. The UK system is "safe enough", even though their household wiring - the wiring between the breaker and the outlet - is significantly "less safe" than household wiring around the world.
A fault between the breaker and the outlet in most of the world develops 2000-4000 watts before a breaker can be expected to trip. Japan's 20A @ 100V is on the lower end; EU's 16A @ 240V is on the higher end of that scale. 2000-4000 watts arcing at a faulty terminal. 2000-4000 watts that can only be dissipated by various potentially flammable building materials around the faulty device.
In the UK, it's not 2000-4000. It's 7200 watts. A similar fault can deliver substantially more energy to those flammable building materials, increasing the risk of fire.
North America mitigates such risks in its 7200 watt (60A @ 120V, 30A @ 240V) circuits by minimizing the number of connections; the number of places where a fault can potentially develop. We don't allow multiple outlets: these circuits must be dedicated to a single, special-purpose outlet only. Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world have similar requirements for such circuits. The UK goes ahead and daisychains their 7200W circuits throughout the home.
By that metric, the household wiring is, indeed, "less safe" than competing circuits around the world. By that metric, UK household circuits are, indeed, substandard, even before they eschew simple straightforward branch topology for rings, which introduce a variety of complex failure modes that can easily overload household wiring.
The "less safe" condition of UK wiring necessitates additional protections at and after the outlet. The safety measures employed in the rest of the world are inadequate to mitigate the dangers posed by the UK's 7200 watt household circuits.
The code HAS those fuses, and with those fuses it is safe. Safer than a central breaker system in fact. You can't just keep racking caveats changes and asterisks onto the UK electrical code and then laughing at how unsafe is.
Again, the topic of discussion is "Why does the UK need these plugs, when the rest of the world doesn't?"
To understand that topic, we do, actually, need to consider the dangers of the UK using the kind of plugs used in the rest of the world.
America has UNFUSED multi cords rated for 7A.
Indeed, we do. We have detachable appliance power cords built to be plugged into a 15/20A circuit, that connect to devices labeled to 7A, so the cord is similarly labeled. But, that cord is built with at least 18AWG wire, which is normally rated to carry 16A, not 7A. And it doesn't have our normal NEMA 5-15 socket on the downstream end, so it cannot be used as an "extension" cord.
There's literally nothing stopping you in America from plugging a 7amp rated extension cord, into a 20A outlet, plugging in two space heater on max and a third one on low, and pull 18-19 amps through a cord rated for 7, and no fuse or breaker is going to stop you from doing that.
Other than the fact that we don't actually have extension cords labeled (or rated) to carry 7A at all. Or that three 1500W space heaters will draw 37.5A @ 120V, which will easily trip our 15/20A breakers.
We could physically plug them into an extension cord labeled 10A, the lowest rating I've ever seen. But that cord will built with at least 16AWG wire, which is rated to carry 22A in chassis wiring. (It will also be very short.)
The key flaw in your argument is your failure to understand that the world does, indeed, protect its devices with household breakers. We do, indeed, build our devices to carry the full current that our household wiring could provide at an outlet, even where the device itself is intended to draw only a tiny fraction of that current. This is one of the most basic standards in use by UL, CSA, CE, and every other electrical certification body on the planet.
I know you understand the reason behind this standard. What I don't know is why you think the rest of the world doesn't understand it, and hasn't codified it.
Frame it as a "Citizenship Dividend".
We "invest" our political authority in the government: Political authority is conveyed from the people to the government. We are entitled to a return on that investment.