--As someone in government, i can tell you that most people in my situation
do not(!!) want to make MORE laws. After all, we have to follow them too,
and while there is corruption and officiousness aplenty (witness Mayor Daley
of Chicago), most people I have met in government just want to do their job.
That being said, there are individuals in society who see fit to push the
limits of societal norms or common sense. dealing with this group alone
wouldn't be a problem by itself, except the law requires equal treatment to
all. This is supposed to prevent government from playing favorites or
singling out people for unfair punishment. The net result is that there are
frequently 'nanny laws' that most of us follow anyway. I daresay that the
vast majority of people on this list have more than there share of common
sense (well, at least until the post-revel, but that's a whole 'nother
tale), for which many of these rules are an inconvenience or already in
effect. Again: 1) the laws weren't written for you, and 2) under the
principle of equal treatment, you have to follow them anyway.
None of my comments however, rationalize or deny that there ARE laws passed
strictly for financial gain. There was a small town in Ohio notorious as a
speed trap, so much so that the Car magazines loudly and repeatedly
mentioned that fact, and ultimately the Attorney General disbanded the
police force and I think the entire town government as a result. So it does
happen; I'm not blind to that. But if you check I think you will find that
a number of nanny laws and regulations are written for the offenders and
then applied to everyone.
It's not a perfect system (by far!!), but we're trying, and the goalposts
are constantly changing, so wherever you stand on this issue, please just
give a moment for the government folks you are about to criticize; not all
of us are faceless, heartless, rule-loving bureaucrats.
>The more I read this topic of arguments for the seat belt laws, the more it
>sounds like the seat belt is the universal life saver. "Presenting the new
>buckle up, it slices, it dices, it even make julian"... oh wait that is
>they say happens if you don't wear the seat belt.
>There are many factors one should take into account when talking about
>vehicle accidents and the reasons why someone survives or doesn't. Saying
>all comes down to wearing or not wearing as the reason a person survives an
>accident is truly not seeing the whole picture. The SB is a part of a whole
>that is intended to help you possibly survive an accident, not that it will
>protect you in an accident.
>My cousin was in an accident years ago. It was winter there was ice. She
>the passenger and she was wearing the SB. When the accident happened her
>belt malfunctioned and she was thrown from the vehicle and she ended up in
>the hospital. Her fiancÚ had his SB on his and it did not malfunction.
>the first impact that flung my cousin from the car, the vehicle continued
>to slide and wrap itself around a telephone pole killing her fiancÚ.
>They were wearing their seat belt and still one of them died.
>I have heard and have seen accidents that you could use for either side of
>Basically, the argument is not whether seat belts save lives, most here
>would probably agree that wearing an SB will probably help them in lessen
>bodily injury. Most, if not all agree that babies and small children need
>have some form of restraining device when in a car.
>The issue is whether the Government should make a law that takes
>responsibility out of the hands of the adults. Using accidents as the above
>does not prove the case for the intervention it just argues SB pros and
>What I have found that through time, what was government intervention as
>last resort has become government as first resort. This is not necessarily
>good thing in a lot of situations.
>It has been found that wearing a seat belt tends to increase your survival
>rate and "possibly" lessen bodily injury when in an accident then if a
>person was not wearing one.
>It has become the habit that instead of encouraging and finding ways to
>educate people so that they can make (usually) responsible decisions, the
>government is called in to legislate a law to force people to comply.
>Did the government need to make a law or could something else have been
>to bring about a greater voluntary use of the SB in adults?
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.