There was a fatal crash in Toronto this weekend. Apparently 10 Koreans were riding in a minivan, which of course means that there were more people than seat belts, and so now; 'Ontario moved swiftly yesterday to close a loophole in the province's 30-year-old seat-belt law' by introducing legislation that requires there be no more passengers than seat belts in a vehicle. This is a wonderful new development isn't it? Seat belts save lives, and so anything that forces people to wear their seat belts more is a good thing isn't it? Well, as you might have guessed, I think there is another side to the story and so I would like to present you with a few of the reasons that I think this move is another example of how our government runs on 'feel good' principles instead of 'do good' principles.
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
6 comments:
If you haven't seen the numbers, you ought not to speculate on whether or not it is beneficial to impose such a law.
Perhaps you never considered that fatal collions are more costly to society than non-fatal. Consider the following:
1. More costly for law-enforcement, as they require a more thorough formal investigation. This can cause street closures which can be very inconvenient.
2. Insurance rates increase across the board when more fatalities occur.
3. Even very serious injuries increase health care costs, and in Canada, that means your taxes go up.
To argue that perhaps not wearing a seatbelt is an acceptable level of risk is rediculous. Clearly it is in anyones best interest to minimize risk, especially at such a minimal cost (i.e., it's not a big deal to wear a seatbelt, and it could save your life); a quick Google search will tell you how many lives are saved because occupants were restrained. Nearly two thirds of fatalities have unrestrained occupants.
Perhaps this is a crude form of "ethnic cleansing" where we rid society of stupid people?
It discriminates against the poor? If someone pulled out this argument every time legislation discriminates against the poor, we'd never hear the end of it.
Discrimination is a bullshit term made up by stupid liberals to sound like they're actually doing something useful.
Aaron:
If it is not right to speculate on the benifits of the law without knowing the numbers surely it is not right to accept the law as a good thing without have seen those numbers.
Yes I am aware that we have socialized medicare in Canada and that it is possible that it costs society more to not have this law in place. However, you are doing the same as me and arguing that it is more expensive without having actual numbers. My point still stands: How much will it cost and is this cost worth it?
Note that I am NOT argueing against the use of seatblelts as such. I wear my seatbelt and I agree with you that the cost of doing so is much less than the risk incurred by leaving it off, but my argument is for when there aren't enough seatbelts. Do I make two trips? Do I leave someone behind? This increases the cost and makes the cost/benefit analysis more difficult.
Asher:
Yes I know discrimination is a useless term used to make politicians seem like they are doing something, but that is precisely why I used it. Its called turning their argument on its head and showing how this law contradicts what they claim to be in favour of.
If a tree doesn't fall on you, you'll live 'till you die.
I agree that wearing a seatbelt is the responsable thing to do, but why does the government need to babysit the country? I've also heard all kinds of seatbelt horror stories- choking, cutting, etc.. Maybe we should all start wearing body armor and keep ourselves in shock-proof boxes for the rest of our lives. Now that is responsability!
It is difficult to put a dollar cost on life. In my opinion, life is worth a lot more than a second trip.
I was merely throwing in some considerations you might not have thought of. Feel free to research some numbers and find out if your tax increase due to the time spent debating and implementing this law you find useless costs more than the other possible costs I mentioned.
Also, over crowding a car is dangerous to other drivers as well, as it results in less room or more distractions for the driver. Should you take other's lives as well?
It sounds like you're arguing a ridiculous point using arguments you don't even agree with.
Some people need the law because they lack the common sense not to wear a seatbelt. Let's look out for stupid people.
“Discrimination is a bullshit term made up by stupid liberals to sound like they're actually doing something useful.” –ever heard of a self-defeating argument? You’ve put it in a nutshell; “don’t use a useless liberal argument against a policy that makes liberals feel like they’re doing something useful.” Because, Conservative government or not, this policy is based upon liberal philosophy; that a state’s function is to ENFORCE right actions, (like a parent.) This is antithetical to the conservative conception of government in its function as a restraint; to penalize evil and to encourage (not mandate) good. What are they thinking? :S
Post a Comment