4 ms·

I simply believe that we already have laws that address the poor driving habits of others. We simply disagree, and that's ok. But, keep in mind some of us live

by 18pfsmt 15y ago

I simply believe that we already have laws that address the poor driving habits of others. We simply disagree, and that's ok. But, keep in mind some of us live in states with less than 5M people that are quite large; I don't have a commute, and there are very few trains in the Rockies (certainly no commuter trains outside of Denver). Making more laws that people won't follow (as noted elsewhere in this discussion) just erodes more of our freedoms, but doesn't really protect us anymore. For example, I don't wear my seatbelt.

mindslight 15y ago
I agree with most everything you've said. Also, the local PD has put up one of those feel-good-do-nothing 'BUCKLE UP IT'S THE LAW' blinking signs about 0.2mi from my driveway, so I've made a routine of preemptively shutting the car off and unbuckling just because I can. However, just please be aware that not wearing a seatbelt can easily turn a 20mph walk-away accident into a fatal one. Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop. Have you considered that the point of these 'stupid' laws is to save the public the expense of emergency medical care/roadside cleanup for non-seatbelt-wearing people who end up flying through the windscreen or pinballing around inside the vehicle? The government is not very interested in your private behavior, it's interested in minimizing the risk your behavior presents to others - both directly (DUI or cellphone bans) and indirectly (through the financial impact of accidents on the public purse).
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 15y ago
    Given that the cost to the public is much much less than the cost to the non-seatbelt-wearing person, I don't think it's very relevant. You've got to draw the line somewhere, otherwise such everything-affects-something reasoning can be used to justify anything.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      Yes, but your comparing the collective with the individual there. You have to consider the aggregate cost of non-seatbelt-wearers to the public, ie the cost of all avoidable injuries resulting from nonuse of a seatbelt within a given jurisdiction, and including the opportunity cost of death or ongoing medical treatment as well as the direct costs.
      - mindslight 15y ago
        Except you then divide the total cost by the number of people that bear it, and the term cancels out. Your reasoning implies that two governments merging justifies an increase in the number of restrictions simply because the numbers are bigger.
        anigbrowl 15y ago
        'the public' is the group of people that bear the cost. And no, it doesn't cancel out; the cost of avoidable accidents to the individual members of the population is small, but not that small. AAA (which is in the sinsurance business, admittedly) estimates, based on Federal Highway Administration data, that fatal accidents cost about $6m on average, and that the total cost to Americans is >$1500 per person per year: http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_CrashvCongUpd.pdf http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_... This is actually a great study - comprehensive, rigorous, and quite recent. The overall estimate of accident costs is just shy of $300bn/year, which is something like 1% of GDP. Even if we assume only 1/10th of fatal accidents involve innocent victims of careless drivers - probably somewhat low - that's still a substantial burden on the economy, which the public has a collective interest in mitigating.

by 18pfsmt 15y ago

mindslight 15y ago

I agree with most everything you've said. Also, the local PD has put up one of those feel-good-do-nothing 'BUCKLE UP IT'S THE LAW' blinking signs about 0.2mi from my driveway, so I've made a routine of preemptively shutting the car off and unbuckling just because I can. However, just please be aware that not wearing a seatbelt can easily turn a 20mph walk-away accident into a fatal one. Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.

anigbrowl 15y ago
Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop. Have you considered that the point of these 'stupid' laws is to save the public the expense of emergency medical care/roadside cleanup for non-seatbelt-wearing people who end up flying through the windscreen or pinballing around inside the vehicle? The government is not very interested in your private behavior, it's interested in minimizing the risk your behavior presents to others - both directly (DUI or cellphone bans) and indirectly (through the financial impact of accidents on the public purse).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 15y ago
  Given that the cost to the public is much much less than the cost to the non-seatbelt-wearing person, I don't think it's very relevant. You've got to draw the line somewhere, otherwise such everything-affects-something reasoning can be used to justify anything.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Yes, but your comparing the collective with the individual there. You have to consider the aggregate cost of non-seatbelt-wearers to the public, ie the cost of all avoidable injuries resulting from nonuse of a seatbelt within a given jurisdiction, and including the opportunity cost of death or ongoing medical treatment as well as the direct costs.
    - mindslight 15y ago
      Except you then divide the total cost by the number of people that bear it, and the term cancels out. Your reasoning implies that two governments merging justifies an increase in the number of restrictions simply because the numbers are bigger.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        'the public' is the group of people that bear the cost. And no, it doesn't cancel out; the cost of avoidable accidents to the individual members of the population is small, but not that small. AAA (which is in the sinsurance business, admittedly) estimates, based on Federal Highway Administration data, that fatal accidents cost about $6m on average, and that the total cost to Americans is >$1500 per person per year: http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_CrashvCongUpd.pdf http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_... This is actually a great study - comprehensive, rigorous, and quite recent. The overall estimate of accident costs is just shy of $300bn/year, which is something like 1% of GDP. Even if we assume only 1/10th of fatal accidents involve innocent victims of careless drivers - probably somewhat low - that's still a substantial burden on the economy, which the public has a collective interest in mitigating.