Mother says
I, like many others, resent our safety-first culture. Does someone really need to tell me not to lean over the rail? Or do I really need read the red paint on the curb to know I'll have to step up to get off the street? Sometimes I can't imagine how people lived 50 years ago when you didn't have that little yellow pyramid warning you of a moist floor ahead.
Friend Jason Mayer has a hot blog opinion this morning: Do away with seat belt laws. He writes:
The seat belt law has to be the worst law on the books. Is there a more personal decision than choosing whether or not you want to wear a seat belt? The government does not need to step into places where it is not needed, and this is one of those places. If I choose to drive my car without wearing a safety belt, that's my choice, and the only person I could potentially hurt would be myself. How about a little personal autonomy? A small thing to ask for in the home of the free.
The logic makes sense, except that while the choice to wear a seat belt is a personal decision, the consequences of not wearing it extend beyond the very personal consequence (sudden death). First, there is the slight possibility your body flies out of your car and strikes another. Or, you should take into consideration the trauma to the driver who t-boned you. They could live the rest of their life with the guilt of having caused a preventable death. How about the ambulance that recovers your body. That ain't cheap. And the coroner's time costs something too. Then there's burial, which your family presumably would pay for, unless they had insurance. Then there's your employer. You didn't give two-weeks notice before careening through the windshield. Finally, there's your family. Besides the emotional cost, if your a wage-earner, that could put your kin in a financial bind.
I don't like laws like the seatbelt law. But I'm no social darwinist either. Wearing a seatbelt isn't completely self-regarding. And if "click it or ticket" gets a few more to buckle up, then it's fine by me. As for the ad slogans, it could be worse. Ralph could have created them.
5 Comments:
How about if the government made it mandatory to wear shoes? After all, they protect your feet and keep you from stepping on a pop-top or some other sharp object. They protect others from your foot odor.
Why does the government need to protect me? Simple: because seat belt laws are a cash cow for towns across America. Just one more way the government screws you in the land of the free and the home of the Dave.
Dave beat me to it, but he echoes my sentiments exactly. Anything the government does can be rationalized away as long as it involves safety (or the children). Saying that "I do it anyway, so what does it hurt if more people have to do it, too" is a dangerous sentiment. Sure, not for something as innocuous as the seat belt law, but the more the public acquiesces to needless governmental mandates, the more trouble we could find ourselves in. This just isn't an area where the government needs to meddle.
Finally, I think those potential costs (financial or otherwise) are things that each person should think about before deciding to wear a seat belt, not the government.
jason
Jason said:
"Finally, I think those potential costs (financial or otherwise) are things that each person should think about before deciding to wear a seat belt, not the government."
This is obviously bunk. Governments have never allowed people to make up their own mind regarding consequences to others. If so, there would be hardly any laws. "I understand the potential costs financial and otherwise of having a police chase/firing my weapon into a building/murdering another person. I have calculated the costs and am willing to accept responsibility for my actions." That reasoning doesn't work for any other negligent activity and not for seatbelts either.
I would happily come on board against seat belt laws and be a real libertarian conservative if wearing your seatbelt was truly a completely self-regarding act. Sorry, but it isn't.
Obviously, things with a potential harm to others are things that the government must legislate. But to equate firing a weapon into a building with not wearing a seat belt is a tad ridiculous. The personal responsibility I speak of involves thinking of things like the emotional and financial costs to your family, the difficulty your employer might face, and any trauma you might cause another driver.
However, if these things are within the government's realm, then is there a law against getting too little sleep and driving to work tired? Or, to use Dave's example again, the negligent activity of not wearing shoes. I could step on something sharp, flail uncontrollably at the pain and knock someone unconscious. I could also get a horrible infection and die. Is the decision whether or not to wear shoes truly self-regarding then?
Defining what may be negligent and what should be illegal are two different things. I could see how a judge or jury could find that not wearing a seat belt would be negligence resulting in someone else's injury. And there would be remedies for those types of things. However, making it illegal is going a step too far.
that previous comment was by me -- i forgot to post my name.
jason
Post a Comment
<< Home