[Skunkabilly]

A friend and I were discussing freedom, government control etc., and the topic of children, seat belts and child seat laws came up.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws for adults, but what's your take on laws on child seats and seat belt laws for children?

[TallPine]

It's ridiculous ... how's a little kid supposed to lie down and sleep on long trips ????

[KC]

The usual reasoning for seat belts is that if you are in a traffic accident, and are not wearing a seatbelt, the chance for traumatic injury goes up by a lot. If you don't die at the scene, or conviently short period of time later, then you are liable to run up some amazing hospital bills. A lot of people are unable to pay $200,000+ bills out of pocket. If they have insurance, that may/will help a little, but it will raise the rates of everyone else in that plan. If the victim doesn't have insurance, the public is probablly going to foot the bill, which means I wind up having to pay for your unwillingness to wear your seatbelt out of my taxes.

Laws requiring you, as an adult, to wear your seatbelt protects me from the potential side effects of your bad judgement. The same reasoning applies to children, which is also why (at least where I am) parents have to present proof that their kid has had immunization shots before their kids can be enrolled in school. I also saw the same thing for the different colleges that I have attended.

I am in favor of law that protects me and my assets from someone elses blatant stupidity, which is what the seatbelt laws are for.

[TrapperReady]

KC - The slippery slope of that argument is that darned near every behavior can be linked to health-care dollars spent or insurance premiums. Where does the line get drawn? Helmets for motorcyclists? Seatbelts for front-seat passengers? How about diet and exercise?

If you've seen any news recently, I'm sure your familiar with the "Epidemic Of Obesity". Should there be laws mandating what you eat? How often you exercise?

Lots of lawyers and lawmakers have tried to hold the firearm industry accountable for "it's share" of the healthcare money spent on gun-related injuries? Is this OK? How is it very different from tobacco?

I'm all in favor of car seats for kids, and seatbelts for adults. Laws mandating them, especially when they use the "healthcare dollars as justification is worriesome to me. Once that line of reasoning becomes acceptable, then it's an open invitation for a (probably well-meaning) government to pass ever more intrusive and freedom-restricting legislation.

[50 Shooter]

Check your insurance policy, alot of them will not pay if they find out that you weren't wearing your seatbelt.

The thing that really bugs me is when you see some idiot with their kid on their lap riding in the front seat. Don't they realize that if they get into an accident the kid will become the AIR BAG!

Stupid people = more laws we don't need.

[Atticus]

I'm all for them. For starters their effectivness has been proven many times over. Secondly, an infant or small child cannot make a decision like that for themselves, and many parents are simply too ingnorant to do it for them. And a lot of folks will respond only to the threat of fines or jail time.
I see little difference between that, and other forms of neglect.

[KC]

Oh, don't get me wrong. It is a very dangerous step. It could lead to a lot of intrusive, unjust regulation. With that said:

I happen to like the idea of seatbelts for driver and passenger in cars, and the idea of helmets for motorcycles riders. I am a firm believer in the idea that your right to damage yourself end at the point the your actions enter my wallet.

Given that a waiver forgoing medical treatment in the event that your head winds up going through my windshield because you had a few too many before riding home is not likely to stand up in court, nor is our society interested in or able to pull the plug on someone who wasnt wearing their seatbelt and discovered a tree on a dark night, it is not just your 'rights' being violated when you do not take basic safety precautions, mine are as well.

So far as smokers go, I have absolutly no sympathy for them. There have been warnings on cigarette packs for (I think) longer than I have been alive. There has been more than adequate time for anyone who wanted to stop smoking to have done so, and anyone starting that habit since the appearance of the warnings has done so in the full knowledge that it may kill them. They do not deserve any monies from the tobacco companies, nor do they deserve any monies from the public treasury to maintain their habits or cure the side effects. Smokers are simply paying to play a dangerous lottery for an opportunity at a messy death.

Doing something stupid unknowingly, accidently, is far and away different from doing something stupid with full understanding that death and/or serious injury may be a likely result.

[gun-fucious]

my nanny state just past a 40 pounds and 6 years old mandatory child seat law

my 5 year old is 56 pounds but i have to keep a childseat in both vehicles for another year, then she will be safe to ride in a normal seat with conventional lap belts

:banghead:

[James Bondrock]

I, as probably with most of us, grew up without car kiddie seats, goofy-looking bicycle helmets, etc., rode in open beds of pickup trucks, ran with scissors ;) , and yet somehow I managed to survive to adulthood. But, there are just no legitimate grounds to oppose such laws. Who wants to be against child safety? And I must confess that if I had children, I would strap them into car kiddie seats and dorky bike helmets, too. ;)

[KC]

"Who wants to be against child safety?"

So long as the motives lead to decisions germain to the issue.

"my nanny state just past a 40 pounds and 6 years old mandatory child seat law"

Are you annoyed by your states action because they are telling you to do something you are already do (or should be), or that they are doing anything?


My point is only that your rights end where my nose (or wallet) begins. If there were a way for you to exempt yourself from EMS should you get into an accident while riding your motorcycle without a helmet, that would be fine. Unfortunatly, that is not possible. These laws are in place to protect not only you from yourself, but me from you. Yes, it sucks, but how else might we do this?

[MPFreeman]

[grumbling in anger and disgust]

We have three sons under five years old. And number four son is coming in a few weeks. The boys all ride in appropiate car seats when in the tactical assault mini-vans. The oldest can ride a bike and wears a helmet when doing so. My guns are either on me, or in a huge safe along with my ammo. We don't let them play ninja with my power tools. We keep matches, cleaning bleach, and chemicals locked up too. We don't use mind altering drugs other than the internet. We keep our minds sober and alert in order to serve them with all of our (limited) mental and physical power. They are our children and our responsibility and joy. I am the most important man, excepting Jesus, to their well being and safety. We love them tremendously and hopefully will serve them as they deserved to be loved and served.

"We" appreciate information and advise as to methods and materials that will keep them safe and healthy. We appreciate doctors telling us what things to help keep them healthy. We appreciate older parents and grandparents who've gone through these times, when they share bits of wisdom and clarity. We appreciate cogent and wise people, who have or dont have kids, when they offer consel and advise. We appreciate professionals who help us in securing our childs future in such ways as advising on insurance, financial moves and possible legal issues.

I do NOT appreciate or want the state to threating me with violence and coersion, and then tell me how to raise my children. Why doesn't the state just outlaw stupidity? :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Screw the state.

To answer the question, I'm against mandatory safety seat laws.

[rock jock]

If adults want to ride sans the safety belt, more power to them (specifically, braking power cuz they will need it). BUT, when it comes to little kids, yes there should be a law to make proper restraint of the little rugrats mandatory. If we are very lucky, they might grow up to be gun owners and RKBA activists.

[jimpeel]

Seat belt, helmet, etc laws exist in prior restraint. Because someone mighte harmed, everyone must wear them.

The major justification for these laws is monetary. It costs too much every time someone is harmed by not wearing some device or other. Essentially, your rights are forfeit at the point they become too monetarily burdensome to society.

There is a great article that was written some time back by Dwight Filley called "Risk Homeostasis and the Futility of Protecting People from Themselves". It is a great read and may be found HERE (http://www.i2i.org/Publications/IP/PersonalFreedom/RiskHomeostasis.htm).

Another great read, with lots of links, is HERE (http://www.nous.org.uk/risk.html).

and another HERE (http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/about.html).

It is a fascinating subject, especially for someone who is less than fond of the psychiatric profession.

[twoblink]

I'm against the seat belt laws.

First, let Darwin do his job; he who dies from the lack of seatbelt, that's God's way of pouring a little chlorine into the gene pool. Second, if this moron doesn't wear a seatbelt, then I'm almost ready to chant for his/her child not to wear one; if you want to clean the gene pool, and didn't get there in time, might as well do it now..

:evil: :neener:

Laws that try to protect me from my own stupidity is stupider than I am..

The problem really is a state hospital and insurance problem; not a seatbelt one.

Like it's been said, if an insurance company finds out you didn't wear a seat belt, they won't cover the damages. That seems fair to me, you didn't do your best to exercise prudent judgement, and now you gotta pay the piper.

Laws that "keep me safe" i.e. seatbelts; the same reasoning(s) can and are used for gun control. I see no difference.. It's not Uncle Sam's job to protect me from me.

That goes for smoking (which i'm against, but I'm even more against the smoking laws) drinking etc..

[ARperson]

I've mixed feelings on the subject.

For adults, the only justification for mandating seat belt use that I can see is the cost issue that is passed on to others with the same insurance carrier. As was said, someone else's rights end where my nose/wallet begins. (Love that phrase.) What I think is stupid is the law in Indiana doesn't force pickup truck drivers to wear the seat belts. :scrutiny: That doesn't make sense as I've seen plenty of pickups look like scrap metal after an accident.

But the child issue is another point entirely: It is our duty as parents and society to protect children (whether they are our own or not) from other people's stupidity and neglect. Children should not die or be injured because mom or dad was too stupid to protect them properly. So I'm okay with mandating child seats. Well, 99% okay with it. I'm still perturbed that Big Brother has to come in and add another regulation to our lives; and I'm very perturbed that parents can't be smart enough to protect their children themselves.

[Tamara]

I happen to like the idea of seatbelts for driver and passenger in cars, and the idea of helmets for motorcycles riders.

Me, too. I use both religiously.

I am a firm believer in the idea that your right to damage yourself end at the point the your actions enter my wallet.

Likewise. The solution, however, is to get them out of your wallet, not to put you in their car. ;)

[Joe Demko]

See, the problem with just letting it go at the insurance not paying off for people injured when not wearing seatbelts is that the hospital will still treat that person. Costs will still be incurred and passed on to the remaining consumers (that's other people to you and me, Rusty). P'raps my POV is skewed by the fact that I have a 3-year old daughter I adore above all others. She depends on me for everything, to include making decisions for her safety. Luckily for her, I choose wisely in those areas. Unfortunately lots of other lovely 3-year olds are saddled with dumbasses for parents/guardians. Said dumbasses not only endanger themselves and the child, but then the costs are passed on to the rest of us to boot (that means "as well" to you and me, Rusty). So, as much as I loathe statist control-freakism (that's intrusive government to you and me, Rusty), I don't know of anything better than laws at this point to protect my wallet and the children of dumbasses.

[Augustwest]

Likewise. The solution, however, is to get them out of your wallet, not to put you in their car.

The truth, in a nutshell.

[Leatherneck]

I've been a seat-belt user (religiously) for 40+ years. I'd no more strap a car on without restraints than I would a jet.

If you're against mandatory child restraint laws , then how is that different from opposing child abuse laws? :confused:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Tamara]

What happens when they bring the 40-y.o., 300lb indigent who's having a heart attack into the hospital? They'll treat them, right?

Maybe we could force all people to get regular checkups from gov't docs who would issue a chit proving you had low cholesterol and your blood pressure was in spec. You'd have to produce the chit to get a Big Mac or to buy fatback. That'd keep dumb indigents out of our wallet, too. :)

[Tamara]

If you're against mandatory child restraint laws , then how is that different from opposing child abuse laws?

That's an easy one: Assault and battery and/or rape are crimes, no matter the age or familial relation of the victim.

[Aahzz]

Likewise. The solution, however, is to get them out of your wallet, not to put you in their car.

Well said!

[Langenator]

Likewise. The solution, however, is to get them out of your wallet, not to put you in their car.

All it would take is a law saying something to the effect that if you don't wear a seatbelt/helmet or whatever, and you are involved in an accident, you are personnally and completely liable for any and all expenses that result. Whatever government agencies (EMS, hospital, whatever) incurs the costs are allowed to seize your assets, garnish your wages, etc. to pay for it if necessary.

[Joe Demko]

Tamara,
The 300lb indigent makes the decision for nobody but himself to consume an unhealthy diet. If he were feeding a toddler on a diet of nothing but Thunderbird and Big Macs (don't get me wrong, I like both but they shouldn't be staples during the developmental years) then he would be guilty of child neglect, if not outright abuse.
"Do it for the children" has been scorned here so much that it has all but lost any real meaning; but call me a nanny-statist if you will (just don't call me late to dinner) yet if I were in charge, "free" treatment at hospitals would be limited to those below the age of informed consent. Helmet-free bikers, lardasses, seatbelt-free drivers, etc. would be limited to exactly how much treatment the money in their wallets or insurance company would pay up. I'm enough of a softy to take up the slack for a little kid, but adults are on their own.
Dumbasses sometimes have dumbass kids, but not always. Why throw away the good ones with the bad ones if we haven't figured out a way to sort them? When they grow up, the ones that turn out to be dumbasses will eliminate themselves.

[MPFreeman]

Fine Golgo-13. Go ahead and pay for anyone you like. Just don't let the state to force everyone else to go along.

Seatbelts, hospitals, big macs are not the concern of a free nation.

[Joe Demko]

MPFREEMAN,
The state forces me to pay for enough crap already that the comparative pittance that actually does go to medical treatment for poor children doesn't even register on my radar much less upset me. A couple "wars on..." presently sucking up cash and spiling blood come immediately to mind. I'll ask you the same question I ask lots of L/libertarians? Do you feel so strongly about it that you don't pay your taxes?

[Henry Bowman]

Dumbasses sometimes have dumbass kids, but not always. Why throw away the good ones with the bad ones if we haven't figured out a way to sort them? When they grow up, the ones that turn out to be dumbasses will eliminate themselves.
[flame suit on] Sometimes it may skip a generation, but the carrier gene is there. The nanny state is interfering with Darwinism at my expense.

[Joe Demko]

Darwinism only in the sense that the 19th Century English liked to use the term to rationalize their domination and harsh treatment of their subject peoples. Darwin spins in his grave every time his name and theory are mis-stated and mis-used in that way.

[MPFreeman]

Golgo,

At least you understand that the problem is the state forcing you to pay. But just because it's not as big as the "War on everything" doesn't mean it's ok. The principle is the same. And therefore the seatbelt law is wrong.

Concerning taxes and my payment, yes I pay taxes. All 51% of my income, of them. Does that invalidate the principle? No. By pointing out that I have no chance of truly escaping the state's forces of coersion, and therefore hand over my loot to them, how does that nulify my point? Criminals and governments both use coersion to gain money. And if I say it's wrong for them to do so, yet hand over my money, does that make the criminal or state's actions OK or my argument wrong?

[TallPine]

I guess I was abused as a kid, because my mom never made me wear a seatbelt.

Of course, the cars didn't even have seatbelts back then ... :p

It's a wonder I survived.

[Andrew Rothman]

On the question of children:

Given:
Children, not being of the age of reason, need to be
protected.

Given:
It is incontrovertible that child safety seats/helmets/etc.
save lives.

Given:
Some parents are too durn stoopid to protect their
children thusly.

Therefore:
Child safety devices should be mandatory.

On the question of adults:

Given:
Adults should have the right to make their own
decisions.

Given:
Our current health care system treats everyone
(at sometimes enormous expense), even those
too dumb to either take care of themselves or to
procure the means or insurance to cover inevitable
expenses.

Therefore:
We must either:
a) Compel behaviors (such as seat belts and helmets)
that reduce the risk/cost of such care

or

b) Harden our hearts and decline to treat those who
spill their brains on the road through their own
failure to take precautions UNLESS they have
their own means (buck, insurance) to cover such
treatment.

Given:
Alternative (b) is extremely unlikely

Therefore:
Alternative (a) is acceptable

(Personally, I say the heck with those that deliberately
and pointlessly place themselves in harm's way - they
don't deserve communal help in scraping up their
splattered brains. Let the crows eat `em.)


Matt
Logical Guy

[gun-fucious]

i remember going to the lumber yard with my dad in the ford station wagon,
and riding home sitting on top of the stacked plywood

Now the State tells me that putting my kid in a boster seat
using the existing lapbelt is required
despite the fact that my kid is 16 pounds over the weight requirement.

Don't even get me started on how its now against the rules to sing "Happy Birthday" in my daughter school because a Witness family is now offended.

or that Halloween decorations, parties or costumes are potentially offensive and banned

now wait a minute, i have started and i am offended

:fire:

[Andrew Rothman]

i remember going to the lumber yard with my dad in the ford station wagon,
and riding home sitting on top of the stacked plywood
"I once played Russian Roulette, and I didn't die, so it must be safe!" :rolleyes:
Now the State tells me that putting my kid in a boster seat
using the existing lapbelt is required
despite the fact that my kid is 16 pounds over the weight requirement.
Well, since there is an age and a weight requirement, maybe each is significant?

And why the heck wouldn't ANY parent err on the side of caution on this one?
Don't even get me started on how its now against the rules to sing "Happy Birthday" in my daughter school because a Witness family is now offended.
That one is dumb. While religious practices should not be instituted by schools, secular practices which HAPPEN to upset a particular religious sect are quite permissible -- the burden then falls to the offended party to avoid the practice.

A parallel: should schools get rid of electric lights because an Amish kid attends?

or that Halloween decorations, parties or costumes are potentially offensive and banned
Halloween (All Hallows Eve) is a religious-based holiday and thus has no place in a public school. Get over it. There are much more important battles.

Matt

[10-Ring]

Sure let adults make their choice & make kid seats/ seat belts mandatory so they can decide for themselves when they get old enough.

[Mike Irwin]

About 15 years ago I helped scrape one child off a road after he was ejected from a car.

I became a great believer in child restraint laws that evening.

I guess I'd be more than happy to allow parents to make the choice of whether to buckle their kids up or not, but I'd be even happier to serve as executioner for parents whose negligence in this area causes the death of a child.

[MPFreeman]

MPayne, there is no question that intelligent parents put there kids in safety seats and such. The problem is when the state threatens you with violence if you don't put your kid in the seat. Legislating to the lowest denominator is tyrannical.

[Andrew Rothman]

MPayne, there is no question that intelligent parents put there kids in safety seats and such.

Right. Since kids can't take care of themselves, I am okay with "the state" stepping in when parents refuse to.

The problem is when the state threatens you with violence if you don't put your kid in the seat.

That sounds disingenuous.

First, a monetary fine is not violence.

Second, neither is a jail term, although I don't think you can land one for breaking a seat belt law.

Legislating to the lowest denominator is tyrannical.

I agree. But driving with an unrestrained or improperly restrained child is akin to hitting her or failing to feed her. It is at best neglect, at worst abuse.

[gun-fucious]

so this morning my wife had to take Nora and her buddy to dance lessons
So she grabbed the booster out of my car

now if my wife cannot return to pick up the kids

how am i able to legally assist?

Why is the adjustable rear sholder belt system in my 2002 car inadequate?

PS... my car also has a mandated airbag on the passenger side which can not be made safe for munchkin transport

my 4 passenger car is really a 2 adult, 2 kid car

[Jesse H]

I have no problem with seatbelt laws. As an amateur SCCA autocrosser, it's not hard to understand that the seatbelt keeps you in your seat. You focus less on sliding around and more on controlling your vehicle.

[Atticus]

"As an amateur SCCA autocrosser, it's not hard to understand that the seatbelt keeps you in your seat."

Exactly. Seat belt wearing is not only about insurance costs. It also has a lot to do wiht how well you control your car in the event of an accident or other incident that causes loss of control. A driver who no longer holds the steering wheel, and is pinned against the passenger door, is a problem for everyone.

[Augustwest]

But driving with an unrestrained or improperly restrained child is akin to hitting her or failing to feed her.

Not so. You might argue that it's akin to thinking about hitting, or failing to feed her.

But you imply that unrestrained kid is injured or abused. Again, not so.

And, btw, every parent ought to buckle his kids up. It's the right thing to do. But he ought not be compelled to by the state.

[MPFreeman]

MPayne,

If you don't think laws such as child seat laws are based on violence, just don't pay the ticket. And when they come to put you in jail, refuse to go. If they get you in jail, try and go home early. Bottom line logic is that if you refuse, an overwhelming amount of violence and force and coersion will be applied upon thy skull.

Let's say grandma takes her 5yo grandchild out for McDonalds or something. A POleese unit stops her and writes her a ticket for not having the state mandated child seat. Police unit writes ticket. Grandma doesn't pay ticket or even show in court. Officers of the court place more fines on her which she does not pay. State forecloses on Grandma's car/house/property/whatever. State agents come to take whatever property granny has and throw grandma out. Grandma and shotgun wont move. Is the state going to write Grandma another ticket now? Nope. Violence will beset granny. The police may even have to kill grandma if she is persistant enough. Therefore, I don't think it's worth killing grandma in order to make sure the Stupid people put kids in car seats.

It's telescoping the inevitable when I say Violence is used to put laws into action. Never-the-less, it's true.

[Mike Irwin]

"If you don't think laws such as child seat laws are based on violence, just don't pay the ticket. And when they come to put you in jail, refuse to go. If they get you in jail, try and go home early. Bottom line logic is that if you refuse, an overwhelming amount of violence and force and coersion will be applied upon thy skull."

Oh come off it, MP.

That's bogus, and you know it.

The mandatory response to someone not paying a civil fine is NOT an immediate club down beating, nor is a beating the immediate response to any of the other progressive steps that you list.

[MPFreeman]

I never said it was immediate, but eventual.

I will say that not paying a ticket usually won't grab the attention of the state, like claiming you made no income on your income tax statement. That get's the state's attention, quickly.

[braindead0]

Well I for one am tired of paying the hospital bills for idiot *car drivers* who do not wear nomex suits, helmets, neck braces, knee guards, chest guards (with helmet attachment points to limit whiplash), install 5-point racing harnesses and proper racing seats in their cars... and finally knee and elbow pads.

Hmm, lets also require helmets, hearing protection, steel toed boots.. more nomex and seat belts on law tractors as well....

Oh to heck with it, the above safety gear should be worn 24x7.. so I don't have to pay for your injuries if you fall down and break a leg/hip/whatever.

If you can justify any law that tells people what to do, the above can easily be justified as well.

As far as the violence aspect, MP is 100% correct. If you refuse to go along like a good sheeple, it will come down to violence. That is the stick the state wields to keep people in line, if they didn't... no laws would be enforcable.

"As an amateur SCCA autocrosser, it's not hard to understand that the seatbelt keeps you in your seat."

Which in turn encourages people to drive at excessive speeds. Do you realize that simply painting fresh lines roads, leads to increased driving speeds?

If you design all cars to explode on impact, have any idea how safe it would be to drive on the road? ;-)

[Carlos Cabeza]

I cannot expect a young child to make good decisions about their safety so I, as a responsible parent must make the choice for them. Just as JesseH stated, it is as much about your ability to control the vehicle as it is about safety for others. There are many things that require common sense on the users/operators part to prevent injury of themselves or others in the vicinity. We all agree on protective eyewear while shooting, don't we ? We preach the four rules ? We wear gloves and splash shields when handling pesticides yes ? I don't like government intrusion into my life at all, but this comes as a lack of common sense from the majority of the populace.


Why no seatbelt on my gixxer ????????

[braindead0]

I don't like government intrusion into my life at all, but this comes as a lack of common sense from the majority of the populace.

And that's the same excuse the government uses to take freedoms away. Because of irresponsible people, we have gun laws.. safe storage laws...etc.. etc.. If you accept any of it, you give permission for the government to control all of it.

[Carlos Cabeza]

So let all the stupid peole kill themselves. That won't happen because the stupid people always take a few intelligent ones with them.
The government has all but eliminated the laws of natural selection or darwin's law.

[Joe Demko]

PLEASE let us not misuse the terms "Natural Selection" or Darwinism again until we actually understand what they mean. Gad! I hate when scientific terms that have definite meanings are misused in common parlance.

[Quartus]

Jesse & Atticus, the question is NOT whether wearing restraints is a good thing, it's about whether or not the State should MANDATE that good thing. So we could talk about how wise it is to wear seatbelts till the cows come home, and probably most of us would agree, but that won't answer the question.


Personally, I think anyone who doesn't buckle it up (kids & adults) is an idiot, but that doesn't touch the question of the State making it a requirement.



I guess I'd be more than happy to allow parents to make the choice of whether to buckle their kids up or not, but I'd be even happier to serve as executioner for parents whose negligence in this area causes the death of a child.



That would work for me, Mike!


Prior restraint (legal, not seatbelt) is an exceedingly dangerous thing. Holding people responsible for the RESULTS of their actions is much less dangerous to freedom.


Is it possible that this is one of those areas where a compromise could be reached? Pass a law (Constitutional amendment, if need be) that makes it clear that gummit does not have the right to tell adults to take care of themselves, no matter what the consequences, but allow for such laws regarding children? Use the force of law to STOP further encroachment on freedom by the State (which is what the FF tried to do) for adults! That would have to include clear provisions that idiots are not entitled to free health care!

And the best answer to the "if the State pays, the state controls" problem was indirectly stated by Tam.


Get the State out of health care. Period. That's a very nasty weapon.

[Carlos Cabeza]

I apologize if I offended your intellect Golgo13. I am sure that in the context used, the words were clearly understood. My loose interpretation of them conveyed the thought I was trying to express. This isn't a scientific forum so why don't you "break it down" for us , hmmm ??????

[cuchulainn]

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/library/enterprise-europe/news-updates/internal-market/2003/20031016.htmSafer bull bars

Enterprise Europe, Brussels, 16 October 2003 - Pedestrians, cyclists and other road users will be better protected against the risk of injury from new vehicles fitted with so-called bull bars ("frontal protection systems") thanks to a proposal approved by the European Commission last week and just posted on its enterprise web pages.

All manufacturers will have to demonstrate that their bull bars satisfy a series of safety tests. The main thrust of the proposal is that any frontal protection system should be no more "aggressive" than the front of the vehicle on which it is mounted. In practice, this means that bull bars could, for example, be made of soft plastic or be able to collapse so as to cushion the effects of an impact.

The safety requirements, set out in a proposal for a Council and European Parliament directive, will significantly reduce the severity of leg and head injuries to road users involved in accidents with motor vehicles (passenger cars and goods vehicles less than 3.5 tonnes) at speeds up to 40 km/h, which are typical in an urban environment where most accidents involving vulnerable road users occur.

Specific tests will apply from July 2005 (for new types of vehicles and new types of frontal protection systems) and from January 2006 (for all new vehicles and new frontal protection systems), irrespective of whether the system comes with the vehicle or is bought separately.

These test requirements will support the commitment already made by the European, Japanese and Korean automobile manufacturers not to install or supply rigid bull bars. The requirements will also extend to the independent after-market. The proposal is part of the Commission's overall strategy to enhance pedestrian protection, which includes the Directive on pedestrian protection approved by the Council on 22 September 2003 (see MEMO/03/179) and the industry's commitment to install ABS on all cars and to consider further ICT applications in cars.

As many as 8,000 pedestrians and cyclists are killed and a further 300,000 injured in road accidents across the EU each year. Reducing the number of fatalities and casualties on European roads is a priority for the Commission, in line with the EU target of reducing road deaths by 50% by the year 2010.

[jimpeel]

The main problem with government intervention is the inevitable law of unintended consequences.

When auto theft reached an all-time high, the government mandated that manufacturers make cars harder to steal. A classic property crime quickly became a personal crime with the advent of carjackings -- the invention of those too stupid or lazy to circumvent the government's mandated devices. Now, the car companies have forced carjackings on the public by putting a microchip in the ignition key. Now the perps have to come for you to get the car.

When the government mandated seatbelts, the number one cause of childhood spinal injuries was lap belts. When there was a frontal collision, the kids would be thrown forward against their lap belts; and as their faces hit their knees, and the government-mandated seatbelt arrested their forward motion, the inertia of the impact neatly snapped their spine.

At about this time, the government mandated that the car companies put in airbags.

Then the government mandated the auto manufacturers to put a shoulder strap in the back seats also. This caused neck injuries to smaller children.

Then they told the public that if they didn't place their kids in car seats, they would take their rent and food money. Improperly installed carseats injured and killed kids by the dozens.

Then the government mandated the public had to have their kids in rear facing car seats, because this was the safest way to transport them. If they didn't, they would take their rent and food money.

At about this time, the government-mandated airbags started killing the government-mandated rear facing children, decapitating a couple of them. Parents begged for the government to allow them to disconnect the airbags. The government said "No" and if they did they would take their rent and food money.

The government started allowing car manufacturers to put a switch in pickup trucks because there was no back seat to place the kids. If you forgot to turn it "off", the kids were placed at risk. If you forgot to turn it "on", the standard size and weight passengers were placed at risk.

The government started "recommending" that parents place their children in the back seat. This soon became a mandate also. If they didn't, the government would take their rent and food money.

The government also, at this time, mandated the car companies reduce the force of deployment of airbags to protect smaller persons and children. Of course, this now left larger folks at higher risk.

Due to the government-mandated shoulder straps causing neck injuries to small children, the government now mandated that larger children must be in car "booster" seats so the straps would cross their bodies lower. If the parents didn't do this, they would take their rent and food money.

Now, we see parents, in their government-mandated automotive Utopia, driving down the street fishing in the back seat trying to get the dropped bottle and place it back in junior's mouth. Parents looking backward over the front seat makes the children so much safer.

The government mandates it so.

[MPFreeman]

Interesting post Jim.

[pax]

Jim's right.

So's Tamara.

pax

[Joe Demko]

"Darwinism", "survival of the fittest" and natural selection on boards like this tends to be used to mean things like "stupid" people harming themselves, poor people starving, bigger/stronger/faster people triumphing in fights and so on. The Victorian English were fond of misusing poor Mr. Darwin's name and work to justify their empire.
What does it really mean? Simple. It means that as the environment changes, the species will change in response. That is what is called "evolution." The mechanism by which Darwin postulated that evolution takes place is "natural selection." Natural selection works, according to Darwin, through members of a species having the set of characteristics best suited to environment living long enough to reproduce. Those characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Those w/o the characteristics needed for survival in that environment die w/o reproducing. Gradually the whole species changes to resemble the survivors. Biggest, strongest, smartest and other attributes that humans consider positive aren't always the desirable ones. If you had lived in the 14th century, for example, having an innate resistance to Yersinia pestis would have been a much more valuable survival trait than genius-level IQ or pro-athlete level strength. If the environment is turning desert-like, small body size and low water requirements are more desirable characteristics than speed.
As you look at the animal kingdom, some animals have evolved what to our eyes are bizarre or useless traits, those traits, however, are the product of natural selection. Male fiddler crabs have an enormous claw that is useless for anything but waving at female crabs. Natural selection selects for males with bigger claws exactly because that waving is how a male attracts a mate and reproduces.
This is all, of course, greatly -even over- simplified. Since Darwin's time the basic theory has been refined and other ideas of the mechanism have been postulated. Check out "punctuated equilibirium" for some interesting reading.
All the dittoheads are fond of parroting Limbaugh's catchphrase that "words have meaning." This is also one of the boards where using "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably will get you a whole raft of grief. If you want to talk about speciation, then Darwinism and natural selection have some application. If you just want to talk about people you don't like getting killed or injured, then phrase it as such.

[Quartus]

Ah, Golgol, I see you've imbibed the popular misconceptions of Darwinsm that is commonly taught in schools! Not your fault, of course, but still incorrect. I do give you credit for actually paying attention and remembering something, though. Few seem to do so.

But while I apprciate the effort to correct the common "Darwin Award" type of usage that we toss around here, it would be better if you got it right yourself first.


Since it's completely OT, why don't we just drop it? A full discussion of it with appropriate cites would be thread hijack of major proportions.

In breif, though, SELECTION is simply a FILTER - it creates nothing. The CREATIVE process is random mutations.

[Joe Demko]

No, instead of dropping it, why don't you correct me on where I got it wrong? I specified that I had given a greatly simplified explanation, but if you know better, please feel free to enlighten me and everyone else.

[Jesse H]

Jesse & Atticus, the question is NOT whether wearing restraints is a good thing, it's about whether or not the State should MANDATE that good thing.

Yup, I understand.

I think everybody should buckle up. I don't think it's up to the government to decide that everybody should buckle up. Unfortunately, we're not living in 1950-something or whenever the good old days were. The general population IS dumb.

With that said, I still don't mind if it's there or not since it doesn't affect me. Either way, I'm buckled up.

[jimpeel]

I have used seat belts for as long as they have been available. As the operator of a vehicle, it is my responsibility to keep control of that vehicle; and that is not possible if I have been thrown into the passenger seat by the forces of what would have been a temporary loss and recovery of control.

[Master Blaster]

Me & My kids we wear seatbelts, and my children sit in the best car seats availible, because I care for their safety.

Motorcycle riding with no helmet, feel free please, the way I see it if you aren't wearing a helmet and you get into an accident, you are DEAD, lower costs for me, not higher.



:p

[jimpeel]

The law was predicated on the "costs to society" by those who didn't get dead. The authors of these laws claimed medical expenses of one-million dollars -- on average -- per injury.

[Andrew Rothman]

Well I for one am tired of paying the hospital bills for idiot *car drivers* who do not wear nomex suits, helmets, neck braces, knee guards, chest guards (with helmet attachment points to limit whiplash), install 5-point racing harnesses and proper racing seats in their cars... and finally knee and elbow pads.

Hmm, lets also require helmets, hearing protection, steel toed boots.. more nomex and seat belts on law tractors as well....

Oh to heck with it, the above safety gear should be worn 24x7.. so I don't have to pay for your injuries if you fall down and break a leg/hip/whatever.


Look up "argumentum ad absurdum."

[Andrew Rothman]

The main problem with government intervention is the inevitable law of unintended consequences.

When the government mandated seatbelts, the number one cause of childhood spinal injuries was lap belts....
...

At about this time, the government mandated that the car companies put in airbags.

Then the government mandated the auto manufacturers to put a shoulder strap in the back seats also. This caused neck injuries to smaller children.
...

At about this time, the government-mandated airbags started killing the government-mandated rear facing children, decapitating a couple of them.
...
The government started allowing car manufacturers to put a switch in pickup trucks because there was no back seat to place the kids. If you forgot to turn it "off", the kids were placed at risk. If you forgot to turn it "on", the standard size and weight passengers were placed at risk.
...
The government also, at this time, mandated the car companies reduce the force of deployment of airbags to protect smaller persons and children. Of course, this now left larger folks at higher risk.

Due to the government-mandated shoulder straps causing neck injuries to small children, the government now mandated that larger children must be in car "booster" seats so the straps would cross their bodies lower. If the parents didn't do this, they would take their rent and food money.

Now, we see parents, in their government-mandated automotive Utopia, driving down the street fishing in the back seat trying to get the dropped bottle and place it back in junior's mouth. Parents looking backward over the front seat makes the children so much safer.

The government mandates it so.



What you overlook, Jim, is that each of these steps had the desired effect of reducing injury and death.

Seat belts, with all their flaws, saved more kids than they killed. Rear-facing car seats, same thing. Shoulder belts, boosters, air bags, same thing.

Each of these steps was a refinement of the one before, and each saved a higher percentage of lives than the last.

Granted no system was perfect, but each was better than the last.

---------------

I AGREE that "the public" (you know, your taxes and mine) should play no part in paying idiots' medical bills. But as long as we are, I am fine with mandating that anyone in his right mind should be doing anyway.

[LawDog]

I have no problem with adults buckling or not buckling as they wish.

They are, after all, adults, and I am not tasked with saving adults from their own stupidity.

I am, however, tasked with saving children from the stupidity of adults. And I am taksed with saving adults from the stupidity of other adults.

I am not real happy with mandatory child restraint laws. The idea that some parents have to be forced to take reasonable safety precautions with their children depresses me to no end.

However, mandatory child restraint laws are probably better than my idea of mandatory Murder charges against the adult driver of a car in which an unrestrained child was killed, and mandatory Aggravated Assault charges against the adult driver of a car in which an unrestrained child was injured.

The Texas Legislature seems to think my idea is a wee bit excessive.

*sigh*

LawDog

[Carlos Cabeza]

Golgo and Quartus, thank you for the brief explanations of my post inaccuracies. Now I'll have to go and read some more about "natural selection" and "Darwin's theory" .......................darn it !:D

And now......................back to your regularly scheduled programming.............:

[pytron]

Can someone actually provide proof that seatbelts, child seats, and their ilk actually do reduce deaths and injuries for the population overall? I see this thrown around and no one is challenging it. Let's see some proof or stop using that to justify the mandatory seatbelts.

I will happily agree that seatbelts and airbags can reduce injury and death PROVIDED THAT THE BEHAVIOR STAYS THE SAME. The problem is, people drive faster and take more risks to compensate. So there is no overall reduction in deaths and injuries.

I personally believe that all safety devices in the car should not be mandated by the government.

I don't give a hoot how much it "costs" me by having to provide care to idiots. But I'm betting that it wouldn't cost me a cent more. People compensate for having safety devices by increasing their speed or other risky behavior. And usually that is not to the benefit of other road users -- look at the number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities lately?

Regardless of how well the safety devices worked, the government has no business mandating adult or child safety features in a car.

Even if they made all travel perfectly safe, the government has no business mandating safety features.

To link this to guns, I will provide a few examples.

Freedom
Joe leaves a gun unlocked and loaded with teenage son alone at home. Son is responsible and safe with gun. Yet it is illegal in some states to do so.

Alice has her son to lay down and go to sleep in the back of the motor home on a long trip. Yet it is illegal in some states to do so.

Should the state regulate some behavior because it is potentially dangerous? Who decides what is dangerous? Why shouldn't the individual decide what is dangerous?

Behavior modification

Diane, works at a video rental store. She walks to work and then has her boyfriend pick her up to take her home. One day she decides she will carry her gun with her on the way home and stop having the boyfriend pick her up. She is now engaging in riskier behavior because of her new safety device.

Bob drives his junker with terrible brakes to work. Because of the bad brakes, he drives slowly and deliberately. When he buys his new car with power, anti-lock brakes, he suddenly begins to drive faster because he can stop sooner. He engages in riskier behavior because of the new safety device.

<flame suit on>

[Quartus]

However, mandatory child restraint laws are probably better than my idea of mandatory Murder charges against the adult driver of a car in which an unrestrained child was killed, and mandatory Aggravated Assault charges against the adult driver of a car in which an unrestrained child was injured.

The Texas Legislature seems to think my idea is a wee bit excessive.



Well, I like your idea, 'Dog. I do prefer having consequences AFTER bad behaviour rather than engaging in prior restraint. Less damage to freedom that way, even where the "bad behaviour" being regulated is none of the gummit's bidness.

-------

pytron, there's plenty of data on it. But debating here would miss the point. Effective or not, the REAL question is about the limits of gummit power.

-------

Golgol, I'll PM you. Like I said - MAJOR thread hijack and OT.

-------

Nobody has addressed my question about a possible compromise on this. I was thinking along the lines of The Great Compromise that gave us a House and Senate. Each side has valid points, and neither side is completely happy with the compromise, but both can live with it.

Whatcha tink? Could we do the same on this issue?

[jimpeel]

There were still 43,000+ deaths by automobile last year. There are those who say this is an excessive number so more must be done.

Now they are beginning to charge people with criminal intent for what are clearly accidents with no intent whatsoever on the part of the driver. Black boxes are being placed in new vehicles without the knowledge or consent of the purchaser; and the results of the collected data are being used against the drivers, who have an accident, in courts of law. This means that you are purchasing the means to testify against yourself while having to content with the argument that it is the car giving evidence, not you, so there is no Constitutional violation. Check and mate.

The question isn't what the previous iterations of mandated safety measures have accomplished; but what measures are to be taken in the future that further excise your rights. The government is covering more and more of your rights with their all encompassing thumb. That there are those who see this as good and just for their safety and financial well-being, makes it all the easier that the govenmental excision of all rights is ultimately assured.

[Tamara]

I will happily agree that seatbelts and airbags can reduce injury and death PROVIDED THAT THE BEHAVIOR STAYS THE SAME. The problem is, people drive faster and take more risks to compensate. So there is no overall reduction in deaths and injuries.

Heh. I've often thought that if you really wanted to reduce fatalities, you'd replace the airbags in ever steering wheel hub with six-inch stainless steel spikes. I think you'd see a dramatic upswing in cautious, courteous driving. ;)

[Andrew Rothman]

Now they are beginning to charge people with criminal intent for what are clearly accidents with no intent whatsoever on the part of the driver. Black boxes are being placed in new vehicles without the knowledge or consent of the purchaser; and the results of the collected data are being used against the drivers, who have an accident, in courts of law. This means that you are purchasing the means to testify against yourself while having to content with the argument that it is the car giving evidence, not you, so there is no Constitutional violation. Check and mate.


This is very interesting, but in no way related to what we were talking about, which was government-mandated installation and use of restraint systems.

The question isn't what the previous iterations of mandated safety measures have accomplished;

Then why did you incorrectly argue, or at least imply, that each one caused more problems than they solved?

The government is covering more and more of your rights with their all encompassing thumb. That there are those who see this as good and just for their safety and financial well-being, makes it all the easier that the govenmental excision of all rights is ultimately assured.

I don't think that anyone has the "right" to be criminally negligent in the safety of their kids. Sorry, we might just have to disagree on this one.

[jimpeel]

Can someone actually provide proof that seatbelts, child seats, and their ilk actually do reduce deaths and injuries for the population overall? I see this thrown around and no one is challenging it. Let's see some proof or stop using that to justify the mandatory seatbelts.While there is some empirical evidence that these measures do reduce automobile deaths, the numbers do not justify the added expense on a cost-to-life-saved ratio.

The manufacturers have to add a mandated safety device, say airbags, that adds $300 to the cost of a new car. The number of lives saved is about 1,000 / yr but they sell 1,000,000 cars. That means that the cost to society is 300 million dollars or $300,000 per life saved.

The problem comes when the life saved becomes an injury incurred. That injury costs, by the estimates of those who pass these laws, one million dollars per injury.

So if the number of lives saved -- one thousand -- are also injured at the rate of 25%, the cost to society at one million dollars per injury is 250 million dollars. This means that the total cost to society, per life saved, becomes $550,000.

All of the above are simple numbers for illustration purposes only.

I will happily agree that seatbelts and airbags can reduce injury and death PROVIDED THAT THE BEHAVIOR STAYS THE SAME. The problem is, people drive faster and take more risks to compensate. So there is no overall reduction in deaths and injuries.This was the point of my post earlier. What you describe is called "risk homeostasis" and a great article on the subject may be read at "Risk Homeostasis and the Futility of Protecting People from Themselves" http://www.i2i.org/Publications/IP/PersonalFreedom/RiskHomeostasis.htm .

From the article: There is a growing body of evidence--to be presented in detail in this paper--that points to the surprising conclusion that most coercive measures intended to increase safety either have no effect or an opposite effect. Thus for example, when the government mandates the use of automobile seat belts, fatality rates do not decrease as expected. This counter-intuitive result is consistent across a broad range of governmental attempts to protect people from themselves. Such lack of progress suggests that:


government regulators may be wasting their time and ours,

that they are wasting tax money, and

that other approaches are needed.
Moreover, there is evidence that more effective alternatives exist.

In your examples, the commonality of all of these laws is that they exist in prior restraint of what might, could, perhaps happen rather than what the laws are intended to do and address that which has happened.

[pytron]

Quartus said
pytron, there's plenty of data on it. But debating here would miss the point. Effective or not, the REAL question is about the limits of gummit power.

While I agree with the REAL question, I think there actually is a data void with respect to safety features. It is similar to the "proof" that gun laws reduce violent crime. "Everybody" thinks that the laws should reduce violent crime, but try to find that data. Same with seatbelts.

Like I said earlier, there is ample proof that seatbelts and airbags, etc can reduce injuries and fatalities in isolation. What is not clear is that these safety features reduce injuries and fatalities for the population as a whole.

Edited to add -
jimpeel, I agree wholeheartedly about prior restraints. And I bookmarked that page as an excellent explanation of risk homeostatis.

[jimpeel]

This is very interesting, but in no way related to what we were talking about, which was government-mandated installation and use of restraint systems.
Government mandates which usurp your rights are always on topic. The mandated seat belts, airbags, etc. are merely examples of that usurpation. Soon-to-be mandated black boxes will simply be another cog in the wheel.
Then why did you incorrectly argue, or at least imply, that each one caused more problems than they solved?Causing more problems is an accomplishment, just not the one intended.
I don't think that anyone has the "right" to be criminally negligent in the safety of their kids. Sorry, we might just have to disagree on this one.I don't know how old you are; but, by your standard, if you were born prior to 1965, your parents were negligent, belonged in jail, and you should have been raised by the State.

I was born in 1947. We had none of the "safety devices" on the cars we have today and for some odd reason I survived to participate in this debate without the coddling of the government.

My crib had bars that were spaced wider than four inches.

Matchbooks had the striker on the front of the book.

Aspirin came in a bottle with a screw top.

The dashboards of cars were made of steel.

There were no bicycle helmets.

We rode motorcycles without a helmet.

You could go to the filling station, gas up the car, buy a firearm and ammunition, without paperwork, a background check, or an anal exam.

You could put flammable liquids in glass bottles.

Codeine cough syrup and Terpin Hydrate were on the shelf with the rest of the home remedies.

Electrical plugs had the same size prongs on both sides and no ground prong.

Teddy bears had eyes that were sewn on.

I could go on and on, of course, but I think you get my point. I survived all of the above in spite of the lack of government intervention.

If you want to know why the government wants you to live, you need look no farther than to follow the money. Live taxpayers, heavy emphasis on live and taxpayers, pay taxes every year -- year after year. Dead taxpayers pay taxes only once.

[erikm]

A somewhat related note about bicycle helmets. My country (the Netherlands) probably has more bicycles than people and they are widely used. For instance, kids who cycle to school are as or more common as kids taking the bus or walking. Yet bicycle helmets are very uncommon, being seen mostly on competition racers and very occasionally on very young kids (under 5). Occasionally some bliss-ninny suggests mandating helmets for older kids, but that gets laughed down every time.

What we DO have is early training for bikes in traffic (as in: during primary school) and a driver learning system where you start later* and where bicycles are taken into serious consideration. We also have a road infrastructure that takes bikes into account. Major roads generally have separated cycle lanes.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

*) The police take a dim view of anyone under 18 driving any motor vehicle other than a scooter or farm machinery on the road.

[dustind]

Seat belts, helmets, and especially airbags have killed thousands of people. Motorcycle helmets can also cause neck injuries just from wearing them for long periods of time.

What are my odds of dying if I do not wear a seatbelt and drive my car my whole life? Same question, but for motorcycles and helmets? I looked into motorcycle risks before I bought my bike and concluded that helmets are not necessary. They are probably a good idea, but over rated, ditto for seat belts and air bags. I personally will not use an air bag, but will use a seat belt and helmet most of the time.

If we wanted to make roads safer require five point harnesses and helmets strapped to the seats(reduces almost all whiplash), that would avoid a lot of injuries, but the rate of injuries vs the hassle of helmets and a more complete belts is not worth it to most. You can apply the same thing for seatbelts and driving at slow speeds to the store, or out in the country.

People love to comment and even demand laws for things they know nothing about. So many people think we would be safer without those dang firearms, just think, 30 thousand people a year die because those evil guns kill them.:rolleyes:

Despite popular belief, people as a whole are not stupid enough to take needless risks when they can avoid it. There is always a gain that makes their choice worth while. Anyone want to take the Dustin challenge? Name one activity(driving, walking, swimming, etc) that is dangerous, that people could make safer in a way that does not cause more harm than good or seriously detract from the enjoyment of that activity. I doubt there is a single thing. What is that libertarian saying? "nobody knows better than you what is best for you" or something like that.

The best point made is children and child seats, but what is the real risk of a child dying in a car accident? Then subtract the number that would be saved by the law, add the number killed by it, figure in hassle, unintended consequences, and the failures of one size fits all-people-and-situations laws, and we see that these laws are not worth it. If they are where do we draw the line? Rubber suits to prevent lightning hits? Federal mandates for bathtub water limits to prevent drownings?

[Andrew Rothman]

I don't know how old you are; but, by your standard, if you were born prior to 1965, your parents were negligent, belonged in jail, and you should have been raised by the State.

That's a baloney argument and beneath you.

I was born in 1947. We had none of the "safety devices" on the cars we have today and for some odd reason I survived to participate in this debate without the coddling of the government.

My crib...Matchbooks...Aspirin...dashboards...bicycle helmets....

(etc.)

I could go on and on, of course, but I think you get my point. I survived all of the above in spite of the lack of government intervention.

Another meaningless argument. Five out of six people will survive a round of Russian Roulette -- but that doersn't mean it's safe.

Many kids in your cohort died from these unsafe things.

We know better now.

Doctors were not culpable for prescribing Thalidomide to pregnant wonem for nausea, although it turned out later that it caused birth defects.

We know better now.

A doctor prescribing it today would be culpable.

We know better now.

Deliberately exposing your children to danger which can be easily avoided qualifies in my book as criminal neglect.

The argument that the government is "usurping" parents' right to mistreat/abuse/neglect their kids is simply foolish.

[Quartus]

Doctors were not culpable for prescribing Thalidomide to pregnant wonem for nausea, although it turned out later that it caused birth defects.



Bad example - insufficient testing was done.

[Andrew Rothman]

Seat belts, helmets, and especially airbags have killed thousands of people. Motorcycle helmets can also cause neck injuries just from wearing them for long periods of time.

Snore. Same old bullhockey. It's pretty obvious that they save way more than they kill.

[pytron]

Mpayne - please show us some stats instead of just stating "it's obvious".

What is obvious to me is that in isolated cases, air bags, seatbelts, etc do work to save lives. But that doesn't mean that mandating them actually reduces fatalities and injuries because people compensate for the new safety feature (I feel like a broken record).

So what ends up happening is that the government mandates a new safety feature costing citizens money for an end result of jack squat. Now my liberty is infringed and for what? A feel good law at best.

-Pytron

[jimpeel]

You can choose to live in the Nanny State and raise your kids in a bubble if you please. I choose not to; and that should be my choice, not yours, or Ted Kennedy's, or George Bush's, or Saddam Hussein's, or Kim Jong Il's, or anyone else on the face of the Earth.

You sound like you have good common sense and the ability to make good decisions based on that good sense. Why do you need the state to mandate your good sense to you because there may be someone out there who lacks your level of common sense? Oh, yeah, it's for the children.

Well, here's something for you to put into your common sense databank -- Children are the weapon of choice for the modern liberal; and they are used liberally to convince those, so disposed, that they should give up their rights and freedoms "for the children". That there are an ever increasing number of Americans disposed to this is a victory for those who hold dear a lust for power and the control of the American populace.

[Master Blaster]

Motorcycle helmets:

I have two good friends who are motorcycle enthusiasts.

They tell me that there are two types of people who ride motorcycles:

Those who have been DOWN, and

Those who are going DOWN.

In otherwords if you ride long enough you will be involved in a motorcycle accident.

Both Brian, and Paul have been down.

1984 Brian was riding back from a scenic ride in the maryland countryside when a drunk gent in a pickup passed him and his friend who were riding 2 abreast. He clipped Brian, and did not even slow down, that is until he hit a telephone pole a mile down the road.

Brian went down, he was giong 40 mph at the time, he does not remember it happening, it took 5 days for him to wake up from a coma, and almost 2 years for the compound fracture of his left lower leg to heal.

He was wearing a helmet, which he still has to show folks who are new to the sport. The helmet is quite torn up. Had he been bare headed he would now be DEAD.

My other friend Paul was riding back from Virginia on I95 when he was rear ended at night by a 75 yr old lady. He says he remembers tumbling and thinking that he would never stop. 2 broke ribs and a broke arm. he was wearing a helmet, and full leathers, otherwise he said he would be DEAD as well.

If you dont want to wear a helmet that is your choice, but realize it may save your life.

[Andrew Rothman]

A quick sampling.


Airbag:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press11041997.html

Seat Belt:
http://nanonline.org/nandistance/mtbi/modules/suppl/belts2.html

Child Seat:
http://web.utk.edu/~dhouston/articles/psr2001.pdf

[Andrew Rothman]

Mpayne

You can choose to live in the Nanny State and raise your kids in a bubble if you please. I choose not to; and that should be my choice, not yours, or Ted Kennedy's, or George Bush's, or Saddam Hussein's, or Kim Jong Il's, or anyone else on the face of the Earth.

Hmmm.

First you say that demanding that parents not needlessly endanger their kids "usurps" their rights.

Now putting a kid in an appropriate car seat or seat belt is raising kids in a bubble?

I think you're wearing some political blinders on this issue.

What the hell. Let's go back to talking about guns! :)

[pytron]

Mpayne -

Thank you for your research. I stand corrected. Although the first study you link to does not support the hypothesis that overall the airbags reduce injuries and fatalities, the other two support (or reference other studies that do) the overall reduction in fatalities.

This brings us to argue the only point left. That government should not mandate safety devices EVEN THOUGH they save lives. Why? Who decides what are "reasonable" safety measures? Seatbelts are reasonable now, what about 5 point harnesses for all seats - I bet they'd save even more lives. What about speed limiters that stop you from exceeding 70mph. That'd probably save lives. What about air bags in every passenger compartment? Probably save lives too. What about built in child seats? The question is, where do we draw the line?

Who decides what is reasonable? The mob majority? If a majority decides that we should restrict motorcycles to 50cc engines - because it will save lives - should we do it?

The question is, do you want to live in a society where YOU make the choices or someone else makes them for you?

-Pytron

[jimpeel]

From Airbag: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press11041997.html

Health researchers report that air bags are a worthwhile investment, though risk to children is a significant concern.
The cost-effectiveness ratios were $24,000 per QALY saved for driver-only airbags and $61,000 per QALY saved for passenger airbags. But what was the cost to society to save those QALY? They only address the cost savings of medical expenses but do not address the cost to society to save those lives. This is not a zero-sum gain proposition. Yes, we may save $24,000 in medical costs but at what ratio? What's the use if the cost of that $24,000 savings costs society $100,000? Would anyone reading this take out a twelve month loan that the payoff amount was 400% of the loan amount?

Also note that they had to deduct the harm caused by airbags from the good they do to arrive at their figures.
The authors' methods of analysis accounts for the injuries and deaths prevented by airbags as well as the harm caused by airbags.

This one also bugs me. On what basis do they rank these lives? How old is a "child"? How old are the passenger adults if the extension of life is but a mere five years per child life year and, again, based on what age being a child? They are also mixing apples and oranges as they weigh the termination age of years already lived by a child with the expected continuation of life of an adult.
The concept of "quality adjusted life year" (QALY) is used as the overall measure of effectiveness. The authors found that for each year of life lost by children because of the passenger airbag, roughly five years of life were saved among adult passengers.

Also: Cost information included in the analysis encompassed the expense of installing and replacing airbags as well as the medical costs averted and caused by deployment of airbags.The cost of installing airbags (~$300/car) as well as the cost to replace them (~$1,000/incident) after they have deployed is all that is taken into account. I am sure that these numbers do not take into consideration the tens of millions of cars which have airbags installed at ~$300/car which have yet to be involved in an accident.

[JohnBT]

A seat belt can also help the driver stay behind the wheel during an emergency maneuver. I learned this 40-odd years ago when bench seats were more prevalent and a seat belt would really strap you in - none of this retractable belt tensioner nonsense - while hotrodding around late at night.

Anybody else noticed that race car drivers don't mind wearing belts? That's cuz they is smarter than the average fellow and not nearly as pigheaded.

Anybody else spent a lot of time working with individuals with traumatic brain injuries? $200,000 is just the first month or two in the way of costs that in many cases continue indefinitely.

John

[Quartus]

Well, Golgo is upset with me for not replying to him on the definition of evolution. Sorry, Golgo, I was traveling. After thinking it over, I decided to post this here rather than PM'ing you. It’s not arguing about evolution, just correcting some terminology, so perhaps the mods will forgive me.



What does it really mean? Simple. It means that as the environment changes, the species will change in response. That is what is called "evolution." The mechanism by which Darwin postulated that evolution takes place is "natural selection." Natural selection works, according to Darwin, through members of a species having the set of characteristics best suited to environment living long enough to reproduce. Those characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Those w/o the characteristics needed for survival in that environment die w/o reproducing. Gradually the whole species changes to resemble the survivors.


Oh, where to start? Where to start? It’s hard to go point by point, since it’s such a jumbled mess. But these misconceptions are the rule rather than the exception in schools today, even into the college level. Unless you are specifically studying one of the branches of evolution, you probably got taught the same wrong information.


Well, let’s try to take it in order.


It means that as the environment changes, the species will change in response.


Species don’t respond to changes in environment. The environment is not a stimulus which generates a response. A change in environment may favor different characteristics than were favored previously, so individuals that have those characteristics will survive better in the new environment. Surviving better, they will pass on their characteristics to their progeny, who will also survive better. If the environmental change is great enough, those individuals that were better suited to the old environment will die out, leaving only those individuals that are better suited to the NEW environment. (If the environment changes too radically and too quickly, you get extinction.)

The species is doing nothing that it was not already doing before the environmental change. Individuals were being born which had certain characteristics. Some mutations were occurring, producing individuals with different characteristics. This is happening regardless of whether or not the environment is stable or changing. Some of those changes will be improvements (in theory) and some will not. If the environment changes, the set of characteristics that favor survival will change, but this is not a RESPONSE to the change, it’s just the breaks of the game.

“Natural selection” does not have any creative power. It cannot produce change, either in individuals or in species. It is simply a FILTER. Changes are the result of RANDOM mutations. These changes are then run through the filter of natural selection, and those changes that are beneficial get through the filter in greater quantities than those that are not beneficial. Evolutionists say that those characteristics are “conserved”. The action takes place at an INDIVIDUAL level. The AGGREGATE of many such changes results in a change at the species level.

So, “Gradually the whole species changes to resemble the survivors.” Well, no, gradually the whole species IS the survivors. Natural selection is a process of SELECTION, not change. It SELECTS from changes that are produced by another process (random mutation) but it does not CAUSE change. Environmental factors do not CAUSE change in a species, they merely change the filter’s characteristics. (Except for the rare case of environmental radiation, which DOES affect the mutation rate.)


So what does all this have to do with a discussion about stupid people being an example of Darwinism in action? Well, if the environment favors intelligence (which is true of modern society) then seeing stupid people getting themselves killed IS an example of Darwinism in action. The less fit individuals are selecting themselves OUT of the gene pool. The Darwin Awards ARE appropriately named.


The saddest part of all this is that Golgo can, without much effort, find textbooks that support his view. The schools are, almost universally, teaching it incorrectly. To get the straight story you have to go to those who are directly involved in the study of evolution. And even there, misconceptions abound. For example, one of the worlds foremost evolutionists, and a prolific writer of textbooks, recently published a college level textbook in which he re-iterated the old nonsense that embryos go through evolutionary changes during the course of their development, citing some drawings done by Ernest Haeckel in the late 1800s. Those drawings are in many textbooks today.

Ooops. Haekel was convicted of FRAUD by his university for those drawings. He made them up. That’s been known for over 100 years. Undisputed. This was confirmed in the 70s by modern embryologists. What did this respected Ph.D. say when this was pointed out to him?

“I didn’t know.”


<sigh>

[Joe Demko]

Quartus,
Let us examine your presumably superior summary of Darwinian Theory.

Species don’t respond to changes in environment.
They don't? So, as climate changes, species simply remain the same or die out?

The environment is not a stimulus which generates a response.
Well, despite yourself, you're sort of right about that. The environment is many stimuli. The environment exerts various pressures on the species which inhabit its niches. The various species also cause change in the environment. One hypothesis for the existence of a primarily aerobic ecosystem, for example, is that pre-historic Earth's Venus-like atmosphere was gradually transformed by organisms that produce oxygen as a waste-product. Those organisms changed the environment. They, and other species, then had to adapt to the new environment.

A change in environment may favor different characteristics than were favored previously, so individuals that have those characteristics will survive better in the new environment. Surviving better, they will pass on their characteristics to their progeny, who will also survive better. If the environmental change is great enough, those individuals that were better suited to the old environment will die out, leaving only those individuals that are better suited to the NEW environment.

I fail to see how this is materially different from my explanation which was : "...through members of a species having the set of characteristics best suited to environment living long enough to reproduce. Those characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Those w/o the characteristics needed for survival in that environment die w/o reproducing. Gradually the whole species changes to resemble the survivors."

Natural selection” does not have any creative power. It cannot produce change, either in individuals or in species. It is simply a FILTER. Changes are the result of RANDOM mutations.

Nowhere in my post did I say it did. It was Darwin's name for the process, nothing more. If you got the mistaken impression otherwise, then I must be sure, in the future, to write down to your grade level. Neither does evolution have any goal, if you were confused about that too, as you are so many things.

So, “Gradually the whole species changes to resemble the survivors.” Well, no, gradually the whole species IS the survivors. Natural selection is a process of SELECTION, not change.
You're grasping at semantic straws here. Once again, natural selection was Darwin's term for the mechanism. The species as a whole most certainly does evolve (change).

The AGGREGATE of many such changes results in a change at the species level.
No duh. :rolleyes:

[Quartus]

Predictable, and not worth refuting.


<sigh> They just don't teach science much anymore.

[jimpeel]

The Darwin Awards are a joke! They are predicated on stupid people doing stupid things that get them killed. This is, in joke circles, called "Putting chlorine in the gene pool" or "Cleansing the gene pool" or "The shallow end of the gene pool".

It's a joke!

SOUND FILE (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg21.wav)

[gun-fucious]

The Cult of Father Darwin is a largely eclectic and secular bunch of folks who broadly follow the hallowed teachings of Charles Darwin, Chlorinator of the Pool, Slayer of the Inattentive, Scourge of the Stupid, and Exterminator of the Congenitally Thick.

Membership of the Cult is not a matter of choice: in a sense, you are in it already, along with every creature that ever lived on Earth; that is, you are subject to the laws of Darwinism whether or not you believe in them, agree with them, or accept them. The simple fact is, stupidity is often fatal. Period.

http://www.catweasel.org/Darwin/gene-pool.html

http://www.listmoms.net/lists/darwin/welcome.html