From: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:29:26 GMT
Reply-To: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Distribution: ba

mrk@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com (Michael R. Kesti) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.192921.8193@oracle.us.oracle.com>
>                                           devesh@bombay.oracle.com writes:

>>A very sensible law, IMHO. Seat belts save lives, I can tell from 
>>experience.

>I won't deny that seatbelts save lives, but what about personal freedom?  

Well, the correct answer is that wearing seatbelts can reduce injury
in a particular type of collision.  I have two friends, both of whom
had someone run into the drivers door of their respective cars at a
fairly good clip.  Neither was wearing a seatbelt, and both were
tossed into the passenger side of the car, as the drivers side
disappeared.  Both of them would either be dead or severely crippled
for life if this had happened since they were required to wear
seatbelts.  I know no one personally who has been saved from injury by
*wearing* a belt.  This isn't to say that it isn't wise to wear one,
or that statistically, the type of collision you are most likely to be
in will be one where a seatbelt will reduce injury, all this is
probably true.  It's just not *always* true.  If I am crippled because
I was forced *by law* to wear a seatbelt in a collision where not
wearing one would almost certainly have reduced injury, could I sue
The State?  I mean, The State is dictating what I must do to remain
safe, and they are claiming, by making this law, that they know what
is safer for me than I do.  If what they force me to do ends up not
being correct, I should have some form of recourse, shoudn't I?

>I see this kind of thing as still one more example of government intervention
>into matters that are purely personal and in which the government has no
>business.  Erosion of personal freedoms will eventually lead to a society
>where nobody takes any responsibility for themselves, and is, I believe, part
>of what has led to our tendency toward excessive litigation.

Yup.  Think about the fact that you will now have police spending time
stopping people and citing them for behaviour that endangered no one
except themselves.  This is time that could be spent looking for
erratic and dangerous drivers, which all of us see quite often, but
instead they are off pulling people over for going 70mph on an empty
freeway.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that not only can they pull you
over and cite you, but it is 2 *2* TWO points.  This is the same as
DUI or reckless driving, and results in very high fines.  Seems to me
that what they are trying to do is to simply increase their revenue
base by inacting laws that are easy to enforce, and safe to enforce
(most people stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, while driving 55mph
and obeying all other traffic laws (otherwise the officer would have
some other reason to stop them, right?) will not be escaped felons,
you can quote me on this).  I don't care how safe wearing a seatbelt
may be for me, not wearing one is *NOT* equivelent in severity to DUI
or reckless driving.  It is equal *AT MOST* to driving in the carpool
lane at 3:30pm with one person in the car, or going 65 MPH on an
uncrowded freeway.  It's the same idea, I'm not endangering anyone
elses saftey, I'm just doing something that we've decided should help
the state increase its income.

Hey, they've already dictated that us motorcyclists must wear helmets,
even though not wearing one can only injur the motorcyclist.  They now
have dictated we cannot drive without wearing seatbelts.  They want to
require *all* bicyclists to wear helmets.  Pretty soon, they'll
legistlate that we all must enclose ourselves in a lexan bubble,
purely for our own saftey, before leaving our beds in the morning.  I
agree with Michael.  What ever happened to personal responsibility for
your own actions?  What happened to liberty?  To doing whatever you
wanted to do, as long as it does not infringe on another persons right
to do what they want?  I'm afraid that idea died along time ago.  Not
only in this country, but in most others as well.  The majority has
decided it wants to trade liberty for saftey, and it will find that it
has neither.  Just take for instance the rash of problems with 911.
People *expect* that when they call 911, someone will come and protect
them.  They do not think that they have to protect *themselves* and
that perhaps the police won't always be around when they need them.  The
law specifically states that the police are not lible for not protecting
you.  If you call them because someone is breaking into your house, and they
do not come and stop the person, and the person enters and kills all your
family, and cuts off your limbs, *they* are not responsible to protect
you.  *You* are responsible for that.  Of course, our insulated, apatheic
society doesn't like that sort of answer.  They feel that they work hard,
they shouldn't have to protect themselves as well.  They pay taxes, the
*government* should protect them.  They forget that the only way the
government can reduce *all* crime is to constantly monitor every living
being.  We could do that.  It would make it less likely someone will
come up and stick a knife in your gut, or that you may rear-end someone
in your car and hit your head on the windshield because you failed to
buckle-up.  It would also mean that you had no privacy, no ability to
be by yourself.  No chance to take risks, and do things that made you
feel unsafe.  Unsafe, but *alive* and *free*.

[Ken steps off his foam-covered soapbox onto a State Approved floor cushioning
device, slips, but sustains no injury, thanks to his kevlar vest, titanium
lined helmet, and his knee and elbow pads, required by The State when stepping
on any object placed more than 4" above the surrounding protective surfaces]




Newsgroups: ca.driving