TheInsanity1234 wrote:So, therefore, what he is implying is that deaf people don't want to prioritise road safety above all else?
It's risky using statements like that. I'm able to just think "pah, another silly person just forgetting the needs of some!", but I'm sure that some of my deaf friends would've torched him if the lawyer said that to them
No, he is implying nothing whatsoever about deaf people.
He is saying that
if we (as a society) wanted to prioritise road safety above anything else, we would <do something that most would find daft and would possibly be counterproductive*>, but (read the rest in context) as a user of sat-navs and mobile phone whilst driving, he has learned how to deal with the potential distraction (choosing when to use them and by driving extremely carefully, fully aware that he isn't giving his whole attention to the driving task) "people are not aware and education is needed" etc.
There's a large difference between a conditional statement ("if") and the above absolute ("people are not aware and education is needed") - one which is ignored by the reporter who takes him out of context deliberately to wind up people who then skim read (as you have I'm afraid).
16 eh? In my day we'd have called it 'an exercise in reading comprehension'
. No offence 'insanity', but if you think he's saying anything like you are posting here, you will always be vulnerable to this type of media propaganda, which deliberately gives partial quotes out of context.