From: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)

eoates@us.oracle.com writes:

>I've made this argument for the reasonableness of seat-belt laws, and
>I believe it still to be valid: if everyone was willing (and obligated
>by law) to take responsbility for their own actions, seatbelt and
>helmet (and other laws protecting you from yourself) would not be
>necessary.  But if, for example, you fail to wear your seat belt, and
>are involved in an accident, you will sue everyone in sight for your
>injuries, even though it can be shown that your injuries were
>increased by your own negligence (failure to wear the belt).  If it is
>shown than one of the people you sued is even 1% at fault, they will
>bear the entire financial burden (deep pockets).  Until that changes,
>requiring you to wear seat belts helps protect me from your lawyers.

I, and many others of us who vehamently disagree with 'personal
safety' laws, agree that if people took responsiblity for their own
actions, this world would be a far better place.  The solution to this
problem, however, is not to legislate against possibly unsafe
behavior, it is to change the legal system which allows people to sue
for (and win) absurd amounts of money in incidents in which the
injured person was obviously at fault.

If I, for instance, slipped and fell down in my place of work because
I was wearing slick-soled shoes on a rainy day, and broke my leg, I
would go have my leg repaired, and would not consider my employer at
fault for failing to prevent me from wearing improper footwear or
doing something stupid.  As it is, most people would sue the company,
not because it is logical, or that the company can be shown to be at
fault, but because they *can*.

Arguing that because the system is screwed up, we have no choice but
to legislate away personal freedom in exchange for attempting to
legistlate personal responsiblity is utter foolishness.  What you will
end up with is a system where not only can you sue for anything you
want, but where you are prohibited in taking any risks, by
governmental decree.

Don't assume that just because you are breaking one law, you cannot
sucessfully sue anyone within 1 mile of a collision you were involved
in.  The position you take assumes that if I am not wearing a
seatbelt, and that has been declared a crime, that I cannot sue for
damages incurred to my body because I was not wearing a seatbelt.  If
this assumption is false, then passing 'personal protection
legislation' has no effect other than to generate revenue for the
local law enforcement officials when they cite people who do not
comply.  I claim that this assumption *is* false, and that all such
laws do is reduce my freedom to do as I choose (as long as such choice
does not interfere with you personally), while not protecting *you*
one bit from a lawsuit.

There was a fellow who posted recently somewhere on USENET who had
pleaded guilty to a reckless driving charge.  The reason?  He struck
one of a gang of kids/men who had surrounded his vehicle and were
threating him and his car with weapons.  He drove slowly away from the
group, and struck one of the criminals in the process.  The criminal
then sued the driver for hitting him, and the fellow was advised to
plea bargain down to a reckless driving charge to avoid being found at
fault in a lawsuit.  With cases such as this on the books that *have*
been brought to trial, and the lawbreaker having one the case, it is
not too much of a stretch to see where legislating helmet use on a
motorcycle does not preclude me from suing the person I ran into for
injuries.  Depending on the skill of my lawyer, and the circumstances
surrounding the case, I may have a good chance of *still* winning a
large settlement, even if I was breaking one law when my injuries
occured.

On a slightly different front, but with very similar ideology, one of
these 'real footage of cops busting heads' shows was on some network
(I had left the room to do something, and it came on while I was gone.
No really).  They had apparently just done a bit on arresting
prostitutes, and as part of the propaganda ending, said something like
"They say this is a victimless crime, but this is a crime where the
perpetrator is also the victim".  They said this as they were shoving
some woman into the back of a police car.  So, what I think they are
telling her is "we are arresting you so that you will stop victimizing
yourself".  Yeah, right, that's the ticket.  By my riding in my car
without wearing a seatbelt, I'm victimizing *myself*.  Now I
understand.  This NewSpeak does take some getting used to, but as time
goes on, I'm getting the hang of it.

I think I'll go eat some red meat now, while it's still legal...

-- 
Ken Wallich

wallich@ncd.com ~ ken@wallich.com ~ kmw@al.org ~ [...]decwrl!vixie!amber!ken