my letter to the editor re: seat belts

[franksolich]

Oh my.

Who says conservatives are set in their ways, never changing their mind?

January 11, 2009

To the Editor
name of newspaper omitted

A bill has been introduced in the Nebraska state legislature, to tighten the law regarding use of seat belts and other restraints in moving motor vehicles.  It is currently that a ticket for violation (not wearing a seat belt) can be issued only if another sort of violation is involved, too; this proposed law would enable law enforcement to issue tickets merely for not using a seat belt, even if no other violation has been noticed.

I am a firm believer in seat belts and other restraints--ever since a teenager--and of course use them.  And given the conditions of the roads around here during the winter, seat belts serve another useful function, besides preserving life.  Such restraints anchor one down firmly, so if the vehicle gets out of control over ice, since one is not bouncing around inside the vehicle, being tied down, one has better control over a skidding or slipping automobile.....and hence no catastrophe.

However, the other night I had a conversation with a "libertarian" (quotation marks intentional; if one wishes to see libertarianism in action, I suggest one examine the former Soviet socialist paradises of the workers and peasants, to observe how well this "everybody do your own thing" thing works out), which caused me to abruptly apply the brakes to speeding thoughts.

Sometimes the mind is harder to stop, than a two-ton vehicle recklessly rushing down the highway.

I had to apply the brakes, real fast.

I mentioned I was in favor of such laws, including the helmet laws on motorcycles, because of the damage done, not only to the individual, but also to society as a whole.  And society is finding such costs increasingly burdensome.  I had read somewhere that due to head injuries and other incapacitations, and vulnerable dependents, the taxpayer ultimately picks up circa 80% (the remainder ostensibly being personal insurance) of the costs.

We can't afford this.

The "libertarian," who is against such laws, then brought up something, which as mentioned earlier, caused the cerebral-cells to come to a screeching stop.

"Well, there's those who engage in risky sexual behavior that results in AIDS, and as you know, the taxpayer ultimately picks up nearly all--not just 80%, but nearly all--of the medical and living costs associated with AIDS.  It seems unfair to regulate one sort of risky behavior, but not regulate another sort."

Ooops.

Well, of course one can't regulate sexual activity--one can control it , to some extent, by societal pressure that some things aren't really good for one to do, by taboo (and one should remember that taboos usually have very good reasons for existing)--but one can't, really, regulate it.

A quandary; it is unfair to regulate one thing, but not another thing.

I plan, as I always have, to continue wearing the seat belt and shoulder strap, and if on a motorcycle, the helmet, but suddenly after decades of being strongly in favor of such laws, I unexpectedly find myself on the other side of the fence, against such inequitable laws, such unequal application of fairness.

Thank you.

franksolich
address

[rich_t]

Well written Op-Ed Frank.

But...

Well, of course one can't regulate sexual activity--

Of course one can.  In fact it is not all that uncommon to see such regulations.  Many states used to and some still do regulate sexual activities such as sodomy, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, adultry etc.

They are near impossible to enforce in many cases though.