Page: 1 2
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2521
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Seat belt laws
My family frequently discusses what we think the government should and shouldn't be regulating. We have divided most laws pertaining to individual behavior into two categories: those that protect the person only from themselves and those that protect people from others. Laws that fall into the second category are more obviously appropriate. But some laws that fall into the first category make me wonder if our government should really be butting their head in. It's sets a precedent for ruling over many aspects of our private lives.
Laws that protect a person from the actions of others are clearly needed in a society such as ours. There must be some sort of consequence for endangering someone else so that we can feel and be safer. Laws against drunk driving, burglary, rape, arson, etc. are all to our advantage in my opinion.
But are laws that protect a person from themselves good or bad? Let's take the seat belt law for example. The requirement to wear a seat belt only protects the person wearing it. Why is it a law? A person will only hurt themselves if they don't wear one and get in an accident. Why not let a person exercise their own common sense? The more exercise that gets, the better off we will be in my opinion (and I don't think people use it often enough!). If you are able to (i.e. of sound mind and of a certain age), you should be able to choose whether or not to protect yourself in such a way. We shouldn't have to make laws to control every behavior.
Oddly enough (and unrelated), in the UK and Australia, there have been studies that show that seat belt wearing drivers kill more pedestrians and bicyclists then non-seat belt wearers by around 10-15%. I have never seen a satisfactory reason for this. Additionally, studies have shown that seat belt laws have not greatly reduced traffic fatalities.
Other examples of laws that only protect a person from themselves include helmet laws, gambling, requirements to wear life jackets, and many others.
A counter argument could be that when a person injures themselves, we, the taxpayers, are likely to incur some kind of cost due to police support, hospital charges, etc. Well, I have some other things to say about those topics, but I'll try to stick to one thing at a time here!
And there are laws that can arguably be put in either category. I maintain that prohibiting smoking in public protects other people from second hand smoke and is therefore legitimate legislation. My brother, on the other hand, argues that if people choose to go to bars, restaurants, etc. that allow smoking, they are choosing to accept the air quality that these places provide. I have to grudgingly admit that he is technically right, but that limiting a person's freedom might be considered injury as well.
Anyway, I think this is a very interesting topic and always provides for lively dinner discussions. What are your opinions?
Is there anything wrong with laws that only protect us from ourselves?
Do these laws really only protect us from ourselves or are there hidden consequences that outweigh dictating "private" choices?
Do we really lose the ability to choose for ourselves when we are always told what to do?
|
|
1/21/2008, 8:05 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
Firlefanz
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2714
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
Oh, that's a difficult topic. 
I think that statistics for Germany show a decided effect of the seat belt law on traffic fatalities when it was introduced sometime in the 70s. Some insurance companies don't pay when someone is involved in an accident who didn't wear a seatbelt. Personally, I think that's fair - those people who use their minds would have to pay for that person's hospital bill and damage caused. Even so, there's only a helmet law in place for motorcycles here (and no real discussion about it, either), and not for bicycles.
I have to agree with you on the smoking laws, as well. In fact, a non-smoking law just went into effect on Jan 1st in my state. Until then, there was a call to restaurant owners etc to offer non-smoker protection. That didn't work at all, so there was no real freedom of choice. Non-smokers simply couldn't pick a non-smoking restaurant as there were almost none, and non-smoker areas most often were such in name only.
The difference the law made has been stunning. We've been out twice this month, and I didn't come home with burning eyes. Statistics from Italy point to a noticable reduction in heart attacks after similar smoking bans were introduced there. Personally, I don't know why Germany took so long (well, I do--huge lobbying influence).
As you can see, I'm tiptoeing around the real issue: How much should a state "take care" of its citizens? I believe that question would be answered in very different ways in different nations and different times. Without trying to sound evasive, I'd say that each nation has to work that out on its own.
(And if you ask me, some of those damage rulings and the resulting customer warnings in the US are ridiculous. Ahem.)
--- - Firlefanz
  |
|
1/21/2008, 9:36 pm
|
Send Email to Firlefanz
Send PM to Firlefanz
|
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2521
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
Firle, I did a quick look at German seat belt laws and was surprised to see that since 1999 it's been required to wear a seat belt on buses. I think this brings up another point. We are required by law to wear seat belts in the car yet not a single school bus (that I know of) has seat belts for our children?!? What is this law really accomplishing here?
I agree with you about insurance. Frequently when I bring up the seat belt issue people say that other policy holders are unseen victims because of increase rates. I think it is perfectly reasonable for an insurance company to deny some or all coverage if you aren't wearing a seat belt.
Helmet laws for bicycles in Austin have been changed several times over the last decade. For about a year, all bicyclist were required to wear helmets. The police were actually ARRESTING people and putting them in JAIL for not wearing them! There was a huge public outcry and the city amended the law to pertain only to people under 17 and only allowed for fines, not arrests to be made. Can you imagine going to jail for not wearing a bicycle helmet? Ridiculous.
Austin banned smoking in bars a few years ago. It was wonderful for about a year. No more burning eyes, stinking clothes or sore throats. But then they changed the way the law is enforced. Instead of ticketing the bartender/owner, now the individual who is smoking will be ticketed and the officer must make a court appearance to testify that they actually saw a person inhaling on the cigarette. Needless to say, everyone smokes in bars again. Sigh.
Another point to bring up here. We have laws that tell us what to do and what not to do, but some of the we aren't really enforcing. Is it really worth it go through the time and expense of passing a law if it's not to be enforced? Ok, sorry, so many topics to cover when talking about the laws and the government! This is somewhat related in that it shows that we have too much legislation. We should make the laws understandable and accessible to the public and not burden the system with laws governing personal choices and unenforceable nonsense.
[stepping off soap box]
|
|
1/21/2008, 10:13 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
Firlefanz
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2714
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
Well ... yes, we're require to wear seat belts on overland busses, and I do think it makes sense. At least now the belts are provided for those who think it's a smart idea. However, in local service there are none, and people often stand in city busses because they can be very full at times.
People here won't go to jail for not wearing helmets, but they can be fined, same as cyclists using the wrong lane or such. Basically, it's almost like a parking ticket. In a similar vein, it's not allowed to talk on a cell phone in the car unless you have a holder for it. Even that doesn't seem safe - and here I think that law is good, since people driving while talking on the phone are endangering others. Yet it's hard to enforce ...
I'd say that laws and the extent to which a state can "rule" individuals is a rather difficult terrain. Your examples of how things are handled in Austin show that quite well. I have no idea how to improve this, however. Direct democracy is also a difficult thing, but it might work on local issues.
Last edited by Firlefanz, 1/22/2008, 2:06 pm
--- - Firlefanz
|
|
1/22/2008, 2:05 pm
|
Send Email to Firlefanz
Send PM to Firlefanz
|
Saijen SilverWolf
Head Administrator
Global user
Registered: 10-2004
Location: Upper North East Tennessee
Posts: 3730
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
I, personally, am all for the seat belt law.
Not long ago, my step son had 3 of my grandchildren in the car with him, sitting in the drive way listening to the radio. My stepson had been drinking and decided to go for a short ride up the road and back. The oldest and youngest grandkids were in the back seat, the middle grandchild was in the front passenger seat. NONE of them had a seat belt on. My step son managed to get the car over 60 miles an hour in less than 2 blocks. He hit a pothole, lost a tire, thus losing control of the car, and slammed into a telephone pole, ejecting the grandchild in the front seat out of the car and onto the pavement, where she slid until she hit grass. All 4 people in the car were knocked unconcious. The granddaughter that was in the front was taken to a hospital, then flown from where they were to a hospital here, flown again to a Children's hospital in Knoxville, then transported by ambulance to UT Medical center...all the while she was on a resperator. No one knew if she was going to make it or not. She was on a respirator for 2 or 3 days, in PICU. Thankfully, she lived. Had she had a seatbelt on, the worst that may have happened was some bruising across her chest and possibly a broke bone or 2. She will have a scar now, from wrist to elbow where either some glass from the car cut her, or something on the road as she slid cut her. The wrist on that same arm was broke, but they couldn't put her in a cast because of the cut, which went almost to the bone. The entire left side of her face and head were skinned up and badly bruised, and she had a concussion. Her left thigh had severe road burn. Thankfully, the other 2 kids were just banged up....nothing major for either of them. My stepson's head went through the windshield, he refused treatment. At this point, I have no idea how he's doing.
Another reason for seat belts....what is a child supposed to do if mom/dad is in a car wreck, and that's the only parent they have, and wearing a seatbelt would have saved that parent? Or, should a child be left to their own devices or be allowed to "wander" all over the car. What happens if the child is standing up, and BAM! they get hit by a drunk driver...kid goes flying, simply because they didn't have a seat belt on.
It's not JUST for our own safety, but to be considerate of the rest of your family. I'd rather not die in a car wreck because I didn't have my seat belt on....and trust me, I've been in enough wrecks that, had I NOT had my seatbelt on, I'd not be here now. I will not move my vehicle until every passenger has a seatbelt on. I don't care if you don't like them or not, you ride in my car...you wear a seatbelt.
Now..on the no smoking deal.....I think that was a good call on the government's part. I do, however, believe that some bars/clubs should be allowed to have smoking. It should be up to the owner. A lot of owners are all for the nonsmoking deal, some are not. For those that don't like smoking, there are enough choices now (In Tennessee, I think if the main objective of an establishment is alcohol sales and entertainment, they are allowed to have smoking). Personally, I'm glad I can now go into a smoke free restaurant. I am allergic to cigarette smoke....that's why I had to give up smoking myself. A good thing for me. 2 of my 3 girls smoke...the oldest did until she quit about 4 or 5 months ago. I don't allow even my own children to smoke in my house, or my car.
Talking on the phone is illegal in many states. I think, though, that if you have an ear piece and are able to conduct your calls thru that, with voice recognition commands, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, since you're not having to look at the phone to dial while you drive. In my case, I have a blue tooth, I touch a button, tell who I want to call..and viola....to end a call, I simply touch the button again. The only thing is, you can't see who is calling unless you look at the phone, or you have special ring tones for certain people. It can be very dangerous to use a cell phone on the road if you're having to look at it to dial. The best thing, if you HAVE to make, or take a call, is to pull off the road, then when you're finished....continue on your way.
--- Blessed Be,
~*~ Saijen ~*~
~~*~~  .~~*~~ |
|
1/23/2008, 5:33 am
|
Send Email to Saijen SilverWolf
Send PM to Saijen SilverWolf
Yahoo
|
Corvus
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 12-2003
Posts: 32
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
I am good friends with a nurse and his sister, who is an EMT crew boss. I can say with certainty, thanks to their knowledge, that the primary reason behind the seatbelt laws is that it prevents people from being an unnecessary drain on our already-overburdened public health system, not an Orwellian guiding hand. I had originally felt as Madness does, but when I learned that, I realized that the laws had a valid purpose. Since then I've been in support of the laws. I do not go anywhere in a vehicle without buckling up no matter what seat I'm in, anyway, and I won't ride with someone who won't buckle up.
As for smoking laws, I think perhaps governments are getting a bit overzealous. It would be a better world if people didn't smoke, but that isn't likely to happen any time soon. People who choose to smoke should have places to go where they can do so, and people who do not smoke should only go there forewarned that smokers will be inside. Those places likely would not be restaurants or other family establishments, but banning smoking in bars is about as silly as trying to ban bars. People go to bars to drink and, in many cases, smoke while they drink. It's just how it is. Their choice. (Personally, I don't care for bars, as I don't drink and don't like being around people who are drinking, but I don't own the planet...)
I suppose my point is that I believe there is a logical limit to laws of this kind. In the case of seatbelts, there's a valid reason. But banning smoking in bars, I think that's going too far.
|
|
1/23/2008, 11:43 am
|
Send Email to Corvus
Send PM to Corvus
|
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2521
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
I agree that seat belts save lives. My point is that our government makes lots of laws and not all of them are necessary and possibly some of them are deleterious because they simply clog our system or take away our own choices. I'm simply using seat belt and smoking laws as illustrations.
Saijen, even though it was against the law, none of the people in that car were wearing a seat belt. They should have been, whether it was legal or not. And I think that a person must be capable of making their own decisions in order to make certain choices - children are not capable of that. I see no problem with laws that protect children from the bad choices of their parents. I'm glad your granddaughter recovered. Scary business.
Corvus, I see that point as well about being a drain on the system. I just think that's another problem though! I don't know how to solve any of these issues either. We are compelled to help people even if they can't afford it. We can't just stop treating the poor and uninsured. But surely there's a better way to go about it. If we had a better health care system for that population, then possibly protecting someone from themselves wouldn't be such as issue. But the number of uninsured people simply continues to increase (half of my family is now officially in that category - thank goodness for the insurance through my job).
Running a country is sure complicated work. I don't envy the people who do it...even if I do complain about the way they go about it! My mom always says "If I ran the world..." and then tells what she would do, ending with "...but I'm not crazy enough to take the job."
Last edited by TexasMadness, 1/23/2008, 9:26 pm
|
|
1/23/2008, 4:36 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
Saijen SilverWolf
Head Administrator
Global user
Registered: 10-2004
Location: Upper North East Tennessee
Posts: 3730
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
Corvus, if you're referring to my statement about bars and smoking...I may not have made myself clear on that. Bars are exempt from the no smoking laws, because they are there solely for entertainment. Anyone who doen't like a smokey place should stay away from bars. Any estabishment that is not a 'family' place (bars and such) can allow smoking, however, if the owner of a bar chooses, they can make their establishment completely non-smoking. It's up to the
owner(s).
I do have to agree that our government does tend to stick it's nose in to too much at times.
I look back at my life as a child, and most of the things I did or had are now considered dangerous by the goverenment. Did any of that stuff contribute to my poor health now. Highly doubtful, as most of my problems are from car wrecks, being a firefighter and just other life stuff. Not that I rode my bike without a helmet, or chewed on toys painted with leaded paint. yeah, I broke arms riding scooters and a tricycle, broke legs running and just being a kid (I'm accident prone..lol) It amazes me how much the government has taken away. There are many things that I think should be left up to individual decision, but, that's not how it goes anymore! 
--- Blessed Be,
~*~ Saijen ~*~
~~*~~ .~~*~~ |
|
1/23/2008, 9:08 pm
|
Send Email to Saijen SilverWolf
Send PM to Saijen SilverWolf
Yahoo
|
playfultree
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 10-2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 427
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
Oh I can rant on this subject for hours but I'll try to be brief.
These laws that protect us from ourselves cause us to stop taking responsibility for ourself. {Blind Sheep Laws} Just in the news this week one man was found guilty of 2 counts of vehicle homicide when he crashed into a pole while drunk, this killed two passenger in his car. DUH why did the two get in his car to begin with were is their personal responsibility? Three teens are charged with murder of their friend when a pipe bomb explodes and the 4th was hit by scrape metal. All four built the bomb and set it off where is the one who died responsibility. By the way this was an honor student and Eagle scout not a typical teen and I believe he was 18. Two of the ones charge are 13 and 14.
Bars should be able to choice smoking or non smoking facility then it our job to decide to spend our money there or else where. If you going to ban smoking then ban alcohol sales too that would lower drunk drivers right?
Now just for the record I hit a guard rail Wed night head on at 30 miles an hour. The 3 of us walked away. Only one was buckled and her seat belt actually broke. I was the only one with any bruises and I was driving "blasted black ice" but it was my choice not to click the belt, yes I would have less bruises. However, I would be a distracted drive if I was buckled. Seat belts have killed two of my friend in the past because of entrapment. One burned to death one drowned.
I am all for the law that states that children need to be buckled. However, anyone older than 18 should have a choice. Here in good Ole KY you can ride a motorcycle with no helmet, none of the public transit has seat belt. The Board of Education states that in the case of an accident more children could be trapped if they are under a seat belt. We are required to sign a release in order for preschooler and kindergarten age children to be buckled that we realize this may leave them trapped in the case of an accident.
We are so busy in this country trying to run everyones life for their own good that one by one we are giving up all our freedoms to make it a safer world.
Well there is my dollar of opinion
---
Love and Light
tree
May your journey be full of happiness and blessings
|
|
1/25/2008, 2:01 pm
|
Send Email to playfultree
Send PM to playfultree
Yahoo
|
TexasMadness
Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 03-2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2521
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Seat belt laws
Wow, Playful, glad to hear that you are ok! Icy roads can be scary. I've only driven on them once and that was enough for me. That crash could have left you off much worse!
Looks like you and I have some similar opinions on the subject. I hate to read about those cases where a bunch of kids decided to do something stupid together, one of them gets hurt/killed and the other kids take all the responsibility. On the other hand, I can see how the courts want to make an "example" out of these guys so that someone else won't do it in the future. In my opinion, hearing about a kid getting killed while playing with pipe bombs is way more scary then hearing about a kid get sentenced to a few years in jail over it. To a kid, the example is the initial tragedy, not the court ruling. And those kids that were sentenced are probably living their own personal hell from the accident anyway and don't need to be put in jail - that will probably just prolong the healing. But alas, I think we also feel that we have to do something when someone is killed in such a tragic way.
|
|
1/25/2008, 5:33 pm
|
Send Email to TexasMadness
Send PM to TexasMadness
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 11/30/2009, 6:53 pm
|
|
|
