Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
For Your Own Good
In Illinois, seat-belt enforcement checkpoints:
For the first time in Illinois, local and state law enforcement officers will have nighttime seatbelt enforcement zones to ensure that drivers are buckling up, the Illinois Department of Transportation announced Tuesday.
The department's division of traffic safety will pay $1 million in overtime to police officers enforcing the state's seat belt law.
[...]
This year, 204 law enforcement agencies around Illinois will set up 360 nighttime seat belt enforcement zones around the holidays, in addition to 658 zones set up during the daytime. Officers will operate the zones much like alcohol checkpoints and will look at whether drivers are wearing seat belts.
If they're able to pay for all that overtime by citing improperly
affixed inspection stickers, expired registrations, or -- gold mine
-- a joint or two that could lead to a forfeiture, all the
better. That seems to be what happens with DWI
checkpoints. Much as I'd like to say this is Nanny Statism at
its worse (and it is), I suspect the prime motivation is
revenue.
Zubon|11.22.06 @ 8:55AM|#
Revenue is unlikely to be the prime motivation. NHTSA provides states with overtime funding for traffic enforcement, and a new priority there is nighttime belt use. The Illinois Division of Traffic Safety will be entirely separated from revenue decisions. That is, someone in the system may care about revenue, but the agencies funding this activity do not get any of the money, so they do not care.
D.A. Ridgely|11.22.06 @ 8:56AM|#
Much as I'd like to say this is Nanny Statism at its worse
(and it is), I suspect the prime motivation is revenue.
Nanny must be paid, after all.
|11.22.06 @ 9:02AM|#
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that police would use these checkpoints
as a revenue source rather than what they are ostensibly for.
Additionally, seat belt laws for adults suck and have no valid
reason to exist. I didn't ask for cradle to grave health care, so
don't even bother bringing it up.
|11.22.06 @ 9:05AM|#
Radley, even though it didn't list you as the poster, I'm
guessing that this entry is yours. So...still settling in? I see
that the good folks at H&R forgot to include the "How To
Come Up With Witty Titles for Blog Posts", and "How to
Include As Many Pop-Culture References In The Title As
Possible" in your initiation package. Gotta work on that,
man...it's gotta reference back to Monty Python or some other such
popculture nonsense. Just ask Gillespie. If you value your
job...you'll come up with witty titles ;->
Anyway...I don't know if they still do it here, but several years
ago Virginia was still doing their "click it or ticket" horseshit,
where they sent officers out to hand out tickets for not wearing
seatbelts. Putting on my seatbelt is second nature for me, so aside
from the ideological problems I had with it, I wasn't worried
personally. So, at one point duting this whole campaign, I was
getting off of I-81 at Harrisonburg, and there is there horrible
exit ramp where you come around a big corkscrew ramp, and you're
going slowly because of the curve...and you have to speed up
because the exit lane for the on-ramp is the same as the entrance
lane which I was on. Well, at the same place where this dangerous
merge takes place, that's where they decided to put the speed limit
sign. Needless to say, I was more concerned about not getting rear
ended while merging than I was going some arbitrary limit. As soon
as I merged, I got clocked and pulled over.
So, the trooper does his thing, and I start to explain myself, and
why the ticket doesn't make sense. Well, he stops me in
mid-explanation and tells me, in no uncertain terms, that
during the Click-It-or-Ticket campaign, officers have no
discretion in writing tickets, and if they pull you over, they must
write you a ticket. In essence, he had no choice, because of
this stupid seatbelt law, and I'd have to argue it with the judge.
Well, given that Harrisonburg is several hours away from where I
live, and given that it was in the middle of a workday, it was
ridiculous for me to miss an entire day of work and travel a few
hundred miles so that the asshole judge could tell me "so, you
shoulda seen the sign!", and so I just prepaid it and let it
go.
What irks me the most is that it's just so freaking obvious that
the state was using this stupid seatbelt campaign as an excuse to
clamp down on other stuff...and make it harder to explain your way
out of a ticket. As if seatbelts have anything to do with whether
an officer should have discretion over writing a speeding ticket.
It's just a farce, and they use the seemingly innocuous "we're just
trying to make sure everyone is safe" line to mask their real
intentions...which are much more sinister, as Radley notes
above.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 9:20AM|#
If seat-belt laws are really "Nanny Statism at its worse", then
I'd say Nanny Statism is not a problem that anybody needs to worry
themselves about.
If anything, seat belt laws are a good example of the positive
effects of "Nanny Statism" as they've increased seat belt use and
helped lower car accident injuries and fatalities. Not wearing a
seat belt is incredibly stupid so this might be a case where the
state really does know better than some individuals.
|11.22.06 @ 9:22AM|#
And let us never forget that independant studies (local
newsteams) have found that far and away the greatest violators of
seat-belt laws are officers in patrol cars.
Check out local news in Detroit, MI, and surrounding areas, when
'click it or ticket' was being touted there.
And then check out how quickly the stories vanished...
hugs,
Shirley Knott
|11.22.06 @ 9:28AM|#
The State of Illinois doing something purely for revenue? Gimme a break! Libertarian or not, how dare you accuse Blago & crew of greed! How dare you!
|11.22.06 @ 9:33AM|#
seat belt laws are a good example of the positive effects of
"Nanny Statism" as they've increased seat belt use and helped lower
car accident injuries and fatalities
Citation? I'd say that seat belt use has mostly increased because
of expanding awareness that seat belts save lives, not because of
these stupid laws.
In any case, I'm sure a law banning the building of cars that can
travel at over 20 miles an hour would help lower car accident
injuries and fatalities. That doesn't make it a good idea, or
something the government should be involved in.
T is for Troll|11.22.06 @ 9:38AM|#
the state really does know better than some
individuals
Riiiight...troll a libertarian blog and post contrarian views 15-20
times day.
You need help, dude. Really. Get some help.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 9:38AM|#
I'd say that seat belt use has mostly increased because of
expanding awareness that seat belts save lives, not because of
these stupid laws.
But the awareness is at least in part due to the laws being
passed.
In any case, I'm sure a law banning the building of cars that
can travel at over 20 miles an hour would help lower car accident
injuries and fatalities. That doesn't make it a good idea, or
something the government should be involved in.
It's true that wouldn't be a good idea because the cost/benefit
analysis would show that the lives saved by slow cars would not be
worth the general economic drain that would be caused by people
taking three times as long to get anywhere.
Seat belt laws, on the other hand, provide a nice return (saved
lives, fewer injuries, less medical expense, etc.) for almost no
cost (there's very little cost involved with buckling up...in fact,
it's hard to come up with a valid reason not to).
Sam Franklin|11.22.06 @ 9:40AM|#
I am sort a with Dan T. on this one. Seatbelt laws good.
I am also with Balko:
Traffic checkpoints bad.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 9:40AM|#
Riiiight...troll a libertarian blog and post contrarian
views 15-20 times day.
You need help, dude. Really. Get some help.
Comments like this I don't get. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my
posts are always civil and on-topic. I agree with much of the
libertarian philosophy but not all of it, and I'm surprised at the
way people who pride themselves on "freedom" are so quick to
suppress viewpoints that disagree with theirs.
|11.22.06 @ 9:47AM|#
Comments like this I don't get. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
my posts are always civil and on-topic. I agree with much of the
libertarian philosophy but not all of it, and I'm surprised at the
way people who pride themselves on "freedom" are so quick to
suppress viewpoints that disagree with theirs.
Because your posts are also tedious and hackneyed - we've heard
them a thousand times before and we really don't need to hear (and
refute) them again.
Give us something tough, give us something we can sink our teeth
into. Hell, joe gives us that much. Grow some stones.
Sam Franklin|11.22.06 @ 9:50AM|#
Because your posts are also tedious and hackneyed - we've
heard them a thousand times before and we really don't need to hear
(and refute) them again.
Strong disagree.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 9:52AM|#
Because your posts are also tedious and hackneyed - we've
heard them a thousand times before and we really don't need to hear
(and refute) them again.
Then ignore them. But probably if you feel like you've heard them a
thousands times it's because they're pretty obvious to everybody
who doesn't subscribe to libertarain dogma.
Zubon|11.22.06 @ 9:56AM|#
Citation? I'd say that seat belt use has mostly increased
because of expanding awareness that seat belts save lives, not
because of these stupid laws.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/OccupantProtectionTSF05.pdf
49 states require adults to wear safety belts (at least in the
front seat). Secondary enforcement states, where you can only be
cited if stopped for another offense, have about 10% lower belt use
than primary enforcement states. New Hampshire is the only state
that does not require it, and belt use there hovers around 50%. I
would not say that there is a huge difference in belt awareness
between New Hampshire and Vermont (85%).
You can see the same effect with motorcycle helmets. If helmet use
is required, helmet use is at least 95%. If helmet use is not
required, helmet use is around 65%.
I suppose the easiest example is watching a change in laws. When a
state moves from secondary to primary enforcement, its belt use
increases about 10%. When a state enacts or repeals a helmet use
law, its helmet use moves about 30%. Those changes seem mostly
attributable to worries about tickets rather than about
safety.
There is a plausible argument to be made that states that enact
stronger belt laws would have higher use rates anyway, which is why
there is support for the belt legislation. The timing of changes in
belt use, laws, and public opinion do not seem to support that. The
normal order is that the law changes, then belt use increases, the
cognitive dissonance sets in and people support stronger belt laws.
People generally support whatever the current belt law is, and if
that law changes, they will support whatever it changes to.
|11.22.06 @ 9:56AM|#
But the awareness is at least in part due to the laws being
passed.
And yet still no citation. I fail to see why it is necessary to ban
something in order to make people aware that it is dangerous.
Of course, in any case I would postulate that it is morally wrong
to force people to look out for their own safety. Everybody gets to
do their own cost/benefit analysis with regard to their own lives.
It's called "freedom."
|11.22.06 @ 9:59AM|#
I posted my last comment before I saw Zubin's post--thanks, my
citation demand is fulfilled.
I still consider these laws to be morally wrong, of course. But I
will refrain from saying they're ineffective.
Sam Franklin|11.22.06 @ 9:59AM|#
Everybody gets to do their own cost/benefit analysis with
regard to their own lives.
In your own house sure. On roads you are sharing with me and my
automobile insurer, no way. I don't want to look at that mess and I
don't want to pay the pavement scrapers overtime. What you do on
the roads affects everybody.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 10:06AM|#
Of course, in any case I would postulate that it is morally
wrong to force people to look out for their own safety. Everybody
gets to do their own cost/benefit analysis with regard to their own
lives. It's called "freedom."
Freedom is a good thing of course, but it's also relative instead
of absolute. At some point, we have to decide where freedom ends at
the personal level and where it makes sense to compel people to
adhere to basic safety measures.
The thing is, society is affected by people's safety decisions.
People dying or being badly injured needlessly affects more than
just that person.
If there were good reasons not to wear seat belts, I'd be more
sympathic to those who claim such laws infringe upon their freedom.
For example, I'm not quite sure about motorcycle helmet laws,
considering that wearing a helmet supposedly takes away from the
enjoyment of riding a bike.
|11.22.06 @ 10:13AM|#
"Revenue is unlikely to be the prime motivation."
It never is. Financial gains are just a happy coincidence.
---------
"49 states require adults to wear safety belts...."
Think how many lives could be saved if we were required by law to
walk everywhere; think of the cardiovascular health benefits! And
we could smash all the cars flat and use them to build the wall to
kep the Mexicans out.
ps- An Illinois State Trooper standing on a highway overpass with
his binoculars at the ready, in front of his chest, looks
strikingly similar to a kid about to drop a big rock on the front
of your car as you drive beneath him. And if you make an evasive
maneuver, they can pull you over to perform the sobriety test.
Timothy|11.22.06 @ 10:16AM|#
Except that mandatory safety devices can increase accidents. I'm having trouble finding Peltzman's original article online, although the Peltzman effect has a wikipedia entry.
Rommel|11.22.06 @ 10:24AM|#
I agree that there is almost no downside to wearing a seat belt:
they save lives or prevent serious injuries, they're easy to use,
and they cost very little. I put on my seat belt by habit -- it
just happens. Of course, there are many things in life that have
large benefits for small costs: washing my hands, eating healthily,
and exercising are just a few. There is no question that I should
do these things.
All of the discussion about whether it's good for you to wear seat
belts and statistics on seat belt use rates are immaterial. The
fundamental question is whether or not we are free to make our own
choices as they effect us. Fundamentally: is the state our mommy,
here to make sure we do "what's best", or are we grown ups now? We
don't need a mommy state using its might to make sure we brush our
teeth, wear a coat when it's cold, or change our underwear. I do
all of these things and I make my kids do them, too, but it's my
responsibility and prerogative as an adult to do so on my own.
|11.22.06 @ 10:29AM|#
I'd say that seat belt use has mostly increased because of
expanding awareness that seat belts save lives, not because of
these stupid laws.
Don't seetbelts perhaps reduce safety because isn't it safer to be
thrown safely from the car than to be trapped by the seatbelt in a
burning wreck and incinerated. That is why motorcycles are probably
safer because you don't get trapped in a burning wreck.
Rommel|11.22.06 @ 10:35AM|#
Brilliant, Joe! Ironically, those were the arguments used by my
father 20 years ago when I was trying to convince him to use a seat
belt. He was deadly serious, though. In the end, public awareness
and pestering by my mother and I wore him down: he now wears a seat
belt every time he drives.
It sure would have been easier to compel him with threats of
violence from the government.
|11.22.06 @ 10:40AM|#
It sure would have been easier to compel him with threats of
violence from the government.
Irony, right?
Zubon|11.22.06 @ 10:49AM|#
Don't seetbelts perhaps reduce safety because isn't it safer
to be thrown safely from the car than to be trapped by the seatbelt
in a burning wreck and incinerated.
On the off chance that this is serious: no. Being ejected from the
vehicle is almost always more dangerous, since the car has more
safety features than trees or pavement. Generally, if anything is
left of the car, you want to be strapped to it. The ugliest crashes
are partial ejection rollovers, i.e. you fell halfway out of the
pickup and it flipped on you. Being thrown does not mean being
thrown clear.
Also, motorcycles have far higher fatalities per mile, rider,
motorcycle, etc. If you think that motorcycles are safer than cars
in crashes, then bicycles should be safer still since they have
even less mass/machinery, and pedestrians should just bounce safely
when they are hit. All things being equal, more mass is
safer.
No citation here, but the last numbers I saw were that about 0.5%
of crashes (or was that of fatal crashes?) involve immersion or
fire in some form. Even in those cases, your greater risk is being
trapped because you were knocked out when you hit the
windshield.
On another point raised, there is some validity to risk homeostasis
theory, but there is not yet a preponderance of evidence in either
direction. We are seeing more pedestrian fatalities these days,
which is what you would expect if increased use of belts causes
drivers to drive more recklessly, but the connection is not yet
clear. I should run a regression on safety belt use and pedestrian
fatalities sometime. It is almost certain that the effect must
exist for some people in some cases, but it is not clear if the
actual effect is large or significant.
And yeah, freedom. We're at Reason, so you know the speech.
Egon|11.22.06 @ 10:51AM|#
Not wearing a seat belt is incredibly stupid so this might
be a case where the state really does know better than some
individuals.
If it's true that "not wearing a seat belt is incredibly stupid,"
I'd call it a case of Social Darwinism.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 10:58AM|#
It sure would have been easier to compel him with threats of
violence from the government.
I think fines are generally used to compel seat belt wearing, not
threats of violence.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:02AM|#
The fundamental question is whether or not we are free to
make our own choices as they effect us.
I agree - this question is certainly worth asking and should be
considered anytime rules or regulations are being discussed. But
one of my beefs with libertarians is that they seem to be unwilling
to consider this as a question, having already made up their
minds.
To me, it's part of the cost/benefit analysis. Part of the cost of
any rule is the freedom that is given up. So the benefit that comes
from the new rule should be great enough to make up for that. With
seat belt laws, I think the benefits are very good compared with
the very small amount of freedom that people lose.
|11.22.06 @ 11:06AM|#
Dan T.
You know, you come across a bit like a troll. I'll feed you
anyway.
The essence of libertarianism is that the fundamental question has
been answered. Try to start from that premise.
|11.22.06 @ 11:06AM|#
I think fines are generally used to compel seat belt
wearing, not threats of violence.
Uhh, Dan, do you know how they get people to pay those fines?
|11.22.06 @ 11:08AM|#
Sam and Dan (sounds like a bad folk duo) would have us outlaw NASCAR, mountain climbing, parachuting, hunting and god knows what else that's unsafe. It would seem the UK is going to get two new immigrants soon.
|11.22.06 @ 11:08AM|#
"In your own house sure. On roads you are sharing with me
and my automobile insurer, no way. I don't want to look at that
mess and I don't want to pay the pavement scrapers overtime. What
you do on the roads affects everybody."
Which is precisely why laws governing external threats on the road,
such as dangerous driving, make sense even to me, the libertarian.
But something that governs your safety, and your safety alone (seat
belts) doesn't affect anyone else.
If you're worried about the fact that you have to "share insurance"
with someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt, then the solution is
easy: go with an insurance provider that requires seatbelt usage.
The state needn't be involved. If you "don't want to look at the
mess", then don't look. If you "don't want to pay the pavement
scrapers overtime", then privatize the pavement scraping industry.
Your arguments all presume that general health is necessarily the
business of the state, and that's simply untrue.
|11.22.06 @ 11:10AM|#
The cost/benefit analysis for freedom has been answered. Countless lives given up for freedom. Duh.
|11.22.06 @ 11:12AM|#
"
I think fines are generally used to compel seat belt wearing, not
threats of violence."
See what happens if you refuse to pay said fine. See how nice they
are then. The state's authority is always, always based on one
premise: in the end, they can detain you at gunpoint. Not that this
is necessarily bad...without it, we'd have a "voluntary" justice
system, which would simply not work. But you also must keep this in
mind when supporting any kind of government regulation: at the end
of the day, it's their guns and their prisons which are the
ultimate coercive agent to make you do what they want.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:13AM|#
The essence of libertarianism is that the fundamental
question has been answered. Try to start from that
premise.
I suppose, but that makes libertarianism more akin to a religion
than a workable philosophy.
Or at the very least it's highly idealistic but not terribly
pragmatic.
|11.22.06 @ 11:14AM|#
Why can so many people just not bring themselves to leave those
who don't want to buckle up alone?
Instead, endless mental torture is committed to "protect the
public", "protect the individual", "keep down cost",
whatever.
Those who want to use belts are still free to do so. That's what
it's all about, the freedom to be smart or dumb.
Not about belts, but driving related, under the heading A
Breathalyzer In Every Car are these lines:
I also worry a bit about the slippery slope. Will police seek
to monitor these breath tests to catch people who even attempt to
drive drunk?
Try as I might, however, I can't convince myself that these devices
are bad news. I like any invention that reduces the number of
criminals, and the costs of crime, without filling up our
prisons.
Mind you, this is written by a law prof, widely connected, on a
blog that's widely read.
Whole thing at
Concurring Opinions
Presumption of guilt until proven otherwise, proactive law
enforcement, call it what you will. Not a peep about vanishing
liberties.
No slippery slope? My eye. From DUI checks to drug checks, to belt
checks, to cameras everywhere à la UK, to mandatory GPS, and so on
...
It's enough to drive a libertarian to drugs, er, drink, only
approved beverages of course.
Happy Thanksgiving anyway. Drink and be merry!
|11.22.06 @ 11:17AM|#
Don't seetbelts perhaps reduce safety
I was being sarcastic.
You can make some arguement that a seatbelt keeps the driver from
being thrown from the seat in a minor accident, thus preventing
him/her from losing complete control of the car and having a more
serious accident involving others.
Helmet laws are purely paternalistic as I see it.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:18AM|#
See what happens if you refuse to pay said fine. See how
nice they are then. The state's authority is always, always based
on one premise: in the end, they can detain you at gunpoint. Not
that this is necessarily bad...without it, we'd have a "voluntary"
justice system, which would simply not work. But you also must keep
this in mind when supporting any kind of government regulation: at
the end of the day, it's their guns and their prisons which are the
ultimate coercive agent to make you do what they want.
I'm not sure if that's true. Certainly there must be people out
there with an unpaid seat belt ticket that are not being dealt with
violently.
If anything, for a liberal democracy to work, people have to be for
the most part willing to follow laws without coersion. I think most
people feel that they have a moral duty as part of the social
contract to obey the law even if they don't agree with it.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:19AM|#
The cost/benefit analysis for freedom has been answered.
Countless lives given up for freedom. Duh.
Eh...countless lives have been given up for fascism as well. What
does that have to do with anything?
|11.22.06 @ 11:19AM|#
"I agree - this question is certainly worth asking and
should be considered anytime rules or regulations are being
discussed. But one of my beefs with libertarians is that they seem
to be unwilling to consider this as a question, having already made
up their minds."
That question HAS been asked, and it's been pondered by many a
libertarian, and the answer is: as a cognizant human being, I own
my body and my mind, and unless I am affecting someone else with my
actions, it's nobody else's business what I do. next
question.
"To me, it's part of the cost/benefit analysis. Part of the
cost of any rule is the freedom that is given up. So the benefit
that comes from the new rule should be great enough to make up for
that. With seat belt laws, I think the benefits are very good
compared with the very small amount of freedom that people
lose."
Your silly little cost benefit analysis presumes that A) 50.1% of
the people are always right, and B) all of life can be reduced to
some cold economic calculation. By your logic, anything that is
dangerous, but does not produce some kind of "tangible benefit",
should be outlawed. Can you think of how many thousands, even
millions, of things we do that produce no tangible benefit, and are
dangerous? Pretty much all sports are out of the picture. All
outdoor activities like hiking, mountain climbing, etc. None of
these provide any real tangible benefit, at least in the
traditional sense of the word.
Dan, at the end of the day, the human psyche is simply too complex
(and it varies too much from person to person) to come up with some
sort of catchall cost-benefit analysis that can be formulated into
law. It's absurd. It's inane. It's the stupidest thing I've ever
heard of. We all do things each day that are dangerous...like
driving to the store to buy crap that we don't need. But to presume
that we can govern all human activity by punching the cost and the
benefit into some calculation is just about the stupidest thing
I've ever heard.
|11.22.06 @ 11:21AM|#
"I'm not sure if that's true. Certainly there must be people
out there with an unpaid seat belt ticket that are not being dealt
with violently."
You're not sure that's true? Dan, if it weren't true, then the
government couldn't exist. yes, there are probably people out there
with unpaid seatbelt tickets who aren't currently being dealt with
violently, but by the letter of the law, the end result of
disobeying the government is violence, or the threat of violence as
a coercive measure.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:28AM|#
Dan, at the end of the day, the human psyche is simply too
complex (and it varies too much from person to person) to come up
with some sort of catchall cost-benefit analysis that can be
formulated into law. It's absurd. It's inane. It's the stupidest
thing I've ever heard of. We all do things each day that are
dangerous...like driving to the store to buy crap that we don't
need. But to presume that we can govern all human activity by
punching the cost and the benefit into some calculation is just
about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I don't mean that it's a formal analysis (some kind of formula
where you insert numbers to get a definite answer) but rather I'm
talking about the kind of risk/reward calculations that we each
make every time we consider any sort of choice or decision.
All laws, even ones that libertarians agree with, are based on this
premise. Murder is outlawed because the benefits (you're not as
likely to be killed) outweigh the costs (you give your right to
kill others). Every law restricts freedom, so in any case the
question should be "is it worth it"?
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:35AM|#
You're not sure that's true? Dan, if it weren't true, then
the government couldn't exist. yes, there are probably people out
there with unpaid seatbelt tickets who aren't currently being dealt
with violently, but by the letter of the law, the end result of
disobeying the government is violence, or the threat of violence as
a coercive measure.
No, there are many laws that simply are not enforced violently.
O.J. Simpson legally owes the Goldman family many millions of
dollars but is in no danger of being beaten up or jailed by the
government to enforce the judgement against him.
|11.22.06 @ 11:42AM|#
Simple. Respect the rights of others - including the right to do
anything they wish, as long as they do not infringe on
others.
Wearing a seatbelt is a good idea. Forcing me to do it because you
think it's a good idea is patronizing arrogance. Refusal to see it
as such is blind ideology.
|11.22.06 @ 11:42AM|#
"I don't mean that it's a formal analysis (some kind of
formula where you insert numbers to get a definite answer) but
rather I'm talking about the kind of risk/reward calculations that
we each make every time we consider any sort of choice or
decision."
And what you're asserting is that the government is the one that
should be making these choices and decisions for us. In other
words, we don't own our bodies, and that the government is the true
owner...subsequently, you're arguing the premise of "positive
rights"...that we are only allowed to do what the government deems
permittable. Ugh.
"All laws, even ones that libertarians agree with, are based on
this premise. Murder is outlawed because the benefits (you're not
as likely to be killed) outweigh the costs (you give your right to
kill others). Every law restricts freedom, so in any case the
question should be "is it worth it"?"
The other, more important question to ask is, "does the government
own my body, or do I"? This would separate out two different types
of laws: 1) laws that govern externalities like polluting, stealing
from others, and inflicting harm upon others, and 2) laws that only
affect the individual. What I am arguing is that it is inherently
immoral for a governing body to coercively force people to do
things that don't affect others.
There needs to be a line drawn, Dan...and we draw that line at
externality. It's rather simple. I own my body. I can do with it
what I please. The only time the government needs to step in is
when my actions affect another person.
If you refuse to draw this line, then it's a free-for-all on
everything we do. If the government can regulate my seatbelt use,
then it can regulate my right to eat a fucking cheeseburger. If it
can regulate my cheeseburger consumption, it can regulate when I
sleep.
Do you still not get it? The government does not exist to just make
up laws that "are worth it". The "is it worth it" question is only
HALF of the question. The other question, as I said, is whether my
own internalized actions are anyone else's business but my own.
Morally speaking, if you claim that the government has ownership
over any actions I make (which you are), then you're an
authoritarian, through and through. Sorry, but that's the fucking
honest truth here.
To put it simply, this question is both pragmatic and moral. You
asked the pragmatic half: "is it worth it". Unfortunately, you
forgot the moral half: "is it right". I posit that it is immoral
for someone else to force me to make choices against my will, if
those choices have no externalized effects.
Unless you are willing to draw a moral line, you're no better than
a robot, Dan. Life is not just cold pragmatism...
|11.22.06 @ 11:48AM|#
"No, there are many laws that simply are not enforced
violently. O.J. Simpson legally owes the Goldman family many
millions of dollars but is in no danger of being beaten up or
jailed by the government to enforce the judgement against
him."
So what do they do? What, the state just says "oh, pleeeeease pay!
Pleeeeeeease!" No, Dan, no. They seize your property. Theft at
gunpoint is still...theft. They may not have taken OJ's stuff yet,
but it won't just go away. It's simply not possible that you're
this inept...
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 11:53AM|#
What I am arguing is that it is inherently immoral for a
governing body to coercively force people to do things that don't
affect others.
Actually I do agree with you on this principle - where we differ is
in what we mean by "affecting others".
Certainly if you are killed or maimed in a car accident, that
affects plenty of people other than yourself.
|11.22.06 @ 12:00PM|#
Certainly if you are killed or maimed in a car accident,
that affects plenty of people other than yourself.
Name one.
Dave B.|11.22.06 @ 12:00PM|#
Dan T. - Can you name a single action that anyone has ever done in the history of mankind that hasn't affected others in some way? Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't qualify as an infringement against others just because they're somehow affected by it.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 12:02PM|#
So what do they do? What, the state just says "oh,
pleeeeease pay! Pleeeeeeease!" No, Dan, no. They seize your
property. Theft at gunpoint is still...theft. They may not have
taken OJ's stuff yet, but it won't just go away. It's simply not
possible that you're this inept...
Seizing property is not a violent act, for one.
Second, OJ's property in the form of his NFL pension and his
Florida homestead cannot be taken. So basically his is a judgment
that cannot be enforced.
But yes, I get your point that ultimately if you defy the law
enough times the government will use violence to enforce the rules.
But I still maintain that there are many other mechanisms that are
uses to enforce laws that do not involve violence.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 12:04PM|#
Certainly if you are killed or maimed in a car accident,
that affects plenty of people other than yourself.
Name one.
Well, if you're a parent then your kids are affected greatly. If
you work, then your employer is affected. If you have friends, then
they are affected. If your accident requires the police to come
document and clean up the scene, then the taxpayers who pay for the
police are affected. And so on...
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 12:12PM|#
Dan T. - Can you name a single action that anyone has ever
done in the history of mankind that hasn't affected others in some
way? Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't qualify as an infringement
against others just because they're somehow affected by
it.
Good point, and admittedly I look at things from more of a
collectivist perspective than many here.
But I'd say that it goes back to my cost/benefit idea. All actions
affect others in some way, and all laws restrict freedom in some
way. So I think it should be looked upon on a case-by-case basis as
to whether enough people are affected adversely enough to warrant a
restriction of freedom.
Sam Franklin|11.22.06 @ 12:19PM|#
Another affect is carnage that I have to look at as a driver. I
saw a decapitated head in a motorcycle helmet once. that still
gives me nightmares.
That is not to say that they should outlaw motorcycles, or make us
all drive tanks.
But if there is a low-freedom-restricting (eg, seatbelts) way so
that I can probabilistically look at one or two less mangled bodies
during my life as a driver, I think I have a genuine interest in
being freed of that margin of nuisance.
And b4 someone else tells me I am kidding, I will add that I am
dead serious about that.
|11.22.06 @ 12:31PM|#
"Actually I do agree with you on this principle - where we
differ is in what we mean by "affecting others". Certainly if you
are killed or maimed in a car accident, that affects plenty of
people other than yourself."
We're not talking about societal constructs here, Dan. We're
talking about me owning my body---and the fact that if I die or an
hurt, my family and friends suffer, does not mean that my risks are
"externalized" in any real sense of the word. No, nothing we do is
truly 100% absolutely internalized. Everything has some sort of
effect somewhere, like a kind of butterfly effect theory, if you
will. But by your extremely loose definition (that my health
affects others), you have suddenly obliterated any rational line
that could be drawn.
In other words, when your definition of "externalized" is so broad
as to conceptually nullify the differentiation between internal and
external altogether, then it doesn't matter that you claim to draw
a moral line.
Abstractly, yes, you have drawn a moral "line"...but the line is so
far in the "external" direction so as to have no practical meaning
in the world as we know it. Extremely loose/broad definitions of
moral terminology may technically mean you have a moral judgment
about it---but practically speaking, it really doesn't matter to
most of the things that affect our lives. You might as well draw no
line at all, because your loose definitions (i.e., conflating
"externality" with some sort of imbecile butterfly effect theory)
defy the entire concept of drawing said moral line...at least in
terms of that moral line having any real meaning in our
lives.
"Seizing property is not a violent act, for one."
My ass, it's not. They are FORCEFULLY taking your property. What do
they back up that force with? Violence. What happens if you try to
prevent them from taking the property? Violence. Jesus, just stop
this...
Anyway, I gotta run. Time for the big holiday trip. Ugh, traffic
should be nice.
|11.22.06 @ 12:43PM|#
Well, if you're a parent then your kids are affected
greatly. If you work, then your employer is affected. If you have
friends, then they are affected.
And they are all perfectly entitled to try to persuade me to use a
seatbelt (they don't actually have to since I use a seatbelt
religiously and think anyone who doesn't is an idiot). My employer
can even make use of seatbelts in company cars a condition of
employment (and in those states where the commute to and from work
is covered by Workers Comp I suppose there too).
If your accident requires the police to come document and clean
up the scene, then the taxpayers who pay for the police are
affected. And so on...
I'm all for charging the people involved in accidents for the costs
involved in accident response. The insurance companies can duke it
out for who has to pay what.
There are many non-coercive methods to encourage sensible and
appropriate behaviors. None, however, are available to government
whose only tool is force.
Sam Franklin|11.22.06 @ 12:51PM|#
If only the guy in the motorcycle helmet had been wearing
his seatbelt.
I pre-empted this kind of snark with my post. As joe says, read
gooder.
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 1:43PM|#
My ass, it's not. They are FORCEFULLY taking your property. What do
they back up that force with? Violence. What happens if you try to
prevent them from taking the property? Violence. Jesus, just stop
this...
Yeah, I suppose you could say that any time you have to get
somebody to do something they don't want to do, it eventually is
backed up by the threat of violence. Such is life, I guess.
Still, I think describing a $50 seat belt ticket as a "violent
threat" is being pretty melodramatic about it!
|11.22.06 @ 1:52PM|#
""""No, there are many laws that simply are not enforced
violently. O.J. Simpson legally owes the Goldman family many
millions of dollars but is in no danger of being beaten up or
jailed by the government to enforce the judgement against
him.""""
Need I mention OJ was not guilty of violating a law. You are
confusing criminal and civil penalties. The cops can not enforce,
by way of gun, civil offenses, only criminal.
I find it odd when people are willing to throw way their freedom
because someone thinks it is a benefit. There are benefits to
attaching tracking tags to every person, place, or thing.
If RFID chips were embedded in everything you owned and you had to
register your items with the police, society benefits. It works
like this. Say your house is robbed. You could call the police and
they could scan the neighborhood, city, and maybe state, and find
the location of all your items in a couple of minutes. The police
could arrest everyone that has possession of your property (theft
by receiving). Most theft would become a thing of the past because
the items stolen would rat the theif out via RFID making theft
almost impossible to get away with therefore reducing, greatly, the
overall amount of theft. We all would benefit.
So for all you freedom cost/benefit analysis types, should we
require, by law, all items to contain RFID chips and be registered
with the police? The analysis says yes!
Personally I don't understand this type of analysis as applied to
concepts such as freedom. If it's worth 3000 or more Americans to
give limited freedom to another country, what's it worth to keep
the freedoms we have? You can't C/B freedom.
Besides who get to decide how much a benefit is worth or if it's
valid. Hitler wanted to create super-race that would benefit
mankind. To him, the cost was worth it. I'm aware it's a bit of a
stretch.
The real issue is who should decide, the government, or the
individual?
Dan T.|11.22.06 @ 2:06PM|#
Need I mention OJ was not guilty of violating a law. You are
confusing criminal and civil penalties. The cops can not enforce,
by way of gun, civil offenses, only criminal.
That's not correct - law enforcement can garnish wages or seize
property and sell it at auction to satisfy a judgment.
|11.22.06 @ 2:15PM|#
Anybody stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt probably can't come up with the money to pay the fine. This sort of nonsense is what give libertarianism a nutbar aura.
|11.22.06 @ 2:56PM|#
They're spending way over a million dollars. You cannot listen to a commercial radio station in Chicago for 20 minutes without hearing a commercial about it. These ads aren't free, they have to pay the going rate.
|11.22.06 @ 3:05PM|#
I pre-empted this kind of snark with my post. As joe says,
read gooder.
You know, I went back and re-read the post in question, and I can't
for the life of me figure out where you "pre-empted" snark. Was it
the part where you imply that seatbelt laws would prevent unsightly
motorcycle accidents, or the part where you emphasize that you're
not kidding?
Sam Franklin|11.22.06 @ 3:20PM|#
Was it the part where you imply that seatbelt laws would
prevent unsightly motorcycle accidents
For the slow:
The part where I said that I understand that we should
not outlaw motorcycles or be required to drive
tanks implied that I understood that there will always be some
carnage on our roads.
Even if the reference to motorcycles somehow made you (incorrectly)
think I was suggesting that seatbelts on motorcycles would prevent
motorcycle related dismemberments, the reference to the tanks
should have clued you in to the real meaning of what I was saying
which was:
Carnage on the road is an inescapable fact of life, but should be
decreased at sensible margins where the cost in freedom is more
theoretical or trivial than real. Outlawing motorcycles is not
realistic. Requiring seatbelt usage is.
|11.22.06 @ 3:37PM|#
"""That's not correct - law enforcement can garnish wages or
seize property and sell it at auction to satisfy a
judgment.""""
They can't use a gun to garnish your wages but I do have to give
you the seizure. That, they can do that by a gun. But you can skirt
seizures by not having seizable assets. That's what OJ is doing. So
in the in end, judgement is not satisfied, gun or not.
|11.22.06 @ 3:38PM|#
I'm convinced that farceswanna and advancedsarcasm are the same
guy or possibly the same piece of code ...
And just for the hell of it, my favorite bit of the Talmud.
"If a man comes to kill you, forestall it by killing
him."
Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a
Dave B.|11.22.06 @ 4:04PM|#
Dan T. - Back to your cost/benefit analysis... How can you be
certain that saving the lives of people who otherwise wouldn't even
buckle their seatbelts is a net benefit to society? Of course,
before this you have to assume that seatbelts even cause a net
decrease in lives lost. They may improve the results of particular
accidents, but you can't be sure what they do to the number of
accidents.
The problem with your cost/benefit analysis is that we can be
certain that there are costs, but not that there are benefits.
Unless of you consider the loss of liberty to be a benifit, of
course.
|11.22.06 @ 5:02PM|#
I have always seen "Nanny Laws" as way Liberals ensure that their voters are able to remain alive and procreate. Without laws like this evolution would eventually create a more Republican/Libertarian population.
|11.22.06 @ 5:05PM|#
For the record, as I understand it, "But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" was understood at the time as like saying "fuck you," to the offender, not like saying "I am a wuss."
|11.22.06 @ 5:59PM|#
For fuck's sake, would you all please refrain from
putting a quarter in Dan's machine.
Don't Feed the Motherfuckin' Trolls, Bitches!
Steve in Clearwater|11.22.06 @ 6:42PM|#
DAN T submits: Not wearing a seat belt is incredibly
stupid
SH: Only if you're in a collision. The other 99.9% of the time
driving it's kind of a moot exercise.
Sam Franklin|11.23.06 @ 6:50AM|#
I'm convinced that farceswanna and advancedsarcasm are the
same guy or possibly the same piece of code ...
Nope.
Besides, I said seatbelt checkpoints are bad. I thought that is
what I was supposed to say.
|11.23.06 @ 8:30AM|#
Outlawing motorcycles is not realistic.
Some me see things as they are and ask, "Why?" I dream things that
never were and ask, "Why not?"
Sam Franklin|11.23.06 @ 10:22AM|#
Some me see things as they are and ask, "Why?" I dream
things that never were and ask, "Why not?"
I think it comes down to what Dan T. was saying. At least when it
comes to sharing the public roads (or private roads for that
matter), you have to balance how much a proposed restriction will
help versus how much it will "cost" in freedom.
The problem is that both the costs and the benefits can be
difficult to measure in dollars and cents. How much would I be
willing to pay to have never seen that decapitated head. I dunno,
probably $1000. How much would I pay for a minor child of mine not
to have seen the decapitated head? Probably more than $1000, but
less than $10,000. However, since we don't really get these kind of
chances in real life it is hard for me to say.
On the benefits side it is also hard to measure in dollars. How
much would I pay extra for the benefit of not wearing a seatbelt? I
think not very much. maybe $10. I think most people feel the same
way. If someone said they would pay a lot more I would not believe
them and think they were grandstanding. On the other hand, I know
motorcycle enthusiasists and how much they love their bikes. So
there is more of a value to that freedom.
Because of this kind of cost benefitr analysis, I don't think it is
inconsistent for me to say that I support seatbelt laws partially
because they force less people to witness carnage, but still I
would not support a motorcycle ban despite the obvious carnage.
|11.24.06 @ 10:56PM|#
Why do seat-belt law advocates only concentrate on compliance
rates? Why not cite the huge reduction is accident and death rates?
Because they are not there.
A broad study done by John Adams in 1982 found that countries with
mandatory seat belts enjoy greater use but did no better with
regard to accident rates or traffic fatality than those without. In
three cases (Sweden, Ireland and New Zealand) rates went _up_ with
greater seat belt use.
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PDFs/SAE%20seatbelts.pdf
Another study observing driver behavior found that habitual
non-users when forced to use seat belts became more reckless in
their driving. This mean that responsible driver like me who buckle
up regularly are placed at greater risk by increased recklessness
on the highways.
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter08.html#8.2
In response to Adams, the The UK Department of Transport
commissioned a study on the effects of seat belt laws in Sweden,
West Germany, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and
Norway. Known as "the Isles report" this study used the United
Kingdom and Italy as controls for no-law countries. It compared
casualty trends for both those inside and outside cars between
compulsory and non-compulsory states. The report predicted that, a
UK seat belt law would be followed by a 2.3% increase in fatalities
among car occupants. The British Government chose not to publish
the report and it only cam to light years later when it was leaked
to The Spectator.
Davis, R (1993). Death on the Streets: Cars and the Mythology of
Road Safety. Leading Edge Books. ISBN 0-948135-46-8. (no web
reference for this one)
In January 1986, three years after Britain mandated Seat belt use,
an editorial in The Lancet noted the shortfall in predicted
life-saving and increase in deaths of other road users (mostly
cyclists and pedestrians).
Lancet, Jan 11, 1986, p75
There have been recent reductions is some states in traffic
fatalities. But it comes far too late to be attributed to seat belt
use. More likely it is because of lower average collision speeds
caused by greater congestion.
For those who really interested risk and risk assessment I
recommend Risk by John Adams:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857280687/reasonmagazineA/
|11.26.06 @ 8:36AM|#
I think it is a waste of officers time. They should be out doing the impotant things. Like catching thieves and the dumb drivers that forgot how to drive. A check point for seat belts catches fewer criminals. Then gong out patroling the streets And serving warrants. After all its stil our tax money paying for them. Have the cops do what they need to do to take a bite out of crime. Not sit at one place for hours and let the bad guys go around and know that they may not get caught because the cops are on the highway not the nieghborhood streets.if I was a burgler Id love it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245