The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

[jimpeel]

Of course, the number of drivers per 100,000 population remains unchanged over the same period.

The stats are based upon the total population not the number of drivers. The number of drivers could stay static and the rate would still change based upon the number of people in the total population.

You will have to do the extrapolation of columns yourself but things look different when they are broken down by different factors:

Traffic death rates: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
Per 100 million vehicle miles . . . . Rate . . 3.3, 2.5, 2.1, 1.7, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.5, 1.5
Per 100,000 licensed drivers . . . . Rate . . 35.2, 27.9, 26.7, 23.7, 23.0, 22.4, 22.3, 22.0, 22.0
Per 100,000 registered vehicles . . Rate . . 34.8, 26.4, 24.2, 21.2, 20.6, 20.0, 19.6, 19.3, 19.0
Per 100,000 resident population. . Rate . . 22.5, 18.4, 17.9, 15.9, 15.7, 15.4, 15.3, 14.9, 14.8

 

[jimpeel]

Good point.

I wonder how many lives saved the 7.9 drop represents.

That depends on the starting point.

The 7.9 represents the change from the 1950 figure to the 2003 figure ignoring all other figures between. Some were higher and some were lower than the 1950 23.1 figure.

1969 27.6

 

[jimpeel]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/pag14_15.html

In 1950, 57 percent of the driving age population were licensed to drive a motor vehicle. By 1993, 87.6 percent of the driving age population were licensed drivers. There were 1.26 licensed drivers for every registered motor vehicle in 1950. In 1970 the ratio was about one to one, and by 1993 it had fallen to 0.89, or 1.2 vehicles per licensed driver.

Of course it must be realized that the maximum ratio of drivers to registered vehicles is 1:1. It is hard to drive 1.2 vehicles at the same time.

 

[Inkara1]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/pag14_15.html



Of course it must be realized that the maximum ratio of drivers to registered vehicles is 1:1. It is hard to drive 1.2 vehicles at the same time.

My parents (two licensed drivers) own five cars. They can drive a maximum of two of them at any one time, being two people, but the ratio of drivers to registered vehicles is 1:2.5.

Do you have an old Mustang or Camaro in the garage that you only drive once in a great while, maybe for summer fun or to take to shows, but you have it registered? That still counts as a registered car, even if it's not the daily driver. Do you have your daily driver car, but also an old beater truck you use for dump runs or trips to Home Depot? Do you ride a motorcycle on a daily basis but also have a car for bad weather days? Do you have an old Trans Am that was your daily driver, but it got shitty-ass gas mileage, so you got something that gets 30 miles to the gallon, while keeping the Trans Am and your wife's separate vehicle? Those are all ways to have more registered vehicles than drivers.

 

[chcr]

The stats are based upon the total population not the number of drivers. The number of drivers could stay static and the rate would still change based upon the number of people in the total population.

You will have to do the extrapolation of columns yourself but things look different when they are broken down by different factors:

Traffic death rates: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
Per 100 million vehicle miles . . . . Rate . . 3.3, 2.5, 2.1, 1.7, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.5, 1.5
Per 100,000 licensed drivers . . . . Rate . . 35.2, 27.9, 26.7, 23.7, 23.0, 22.4, 22.3, 22.0, 22.0
Per 100,000 registered vehicles . . Rate . . 34.8, 26.4, 24.2, 21.2, 20.6, 20.0, 19.6, 19.3, 19.0
Per 100,000 resident population. . Rate . . 22.5, 18.4, 17.9, 15.9, 15.7, 15.4, 15.3, 14.9, 14.8

I think it's pretty obvious that the number of drivers per 100,000 population is the driving factor here. More drivers per 100,000 population, therefore more wrecks (most are not "accidents" but rather errors in judgement) therefore more deaths. What about undocumented drivers? There are a lot of factors here that you blithely igonre because they don't support your contention. I personally don't think that such should have to be legislated but not wearing a seat belt or keeping your child in a safety seat while driving is plain stupid.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with this stupid-ass cunt killing her kid.

 

[markjs]

One point that seems to be missed entirely by those screaming for repeal of laws that require a person to be responsible for their saftey and that of those in their care (passengers in their vehicle), is that there are unintended consequences of their actions as well. Personal responsivbility is all well and good, but what about community responsibility? Does it have no place? Should we have free license to manage our own habits in the car? Are mandated safety laws part of "too big govbernment", or worse yet, a growing "police state"?

Those with a lick of sense in their heads should see where I am going with this, but for those of you without such sense, or who are too blinded by your over passionate desire to keep government out of your personal life, I will spell it out.

I have no numbers on this, but it's simple common sense, and I have no doubt all the numbers back my point, but I KNOW, that only a grossly misleading representation of the numbers would make the point that saftey laws are bad for society, or a waste of taxpayer money.

Consider, that every time a person is irresponsible and does not wear a seatbelt, or a helmet on a motorcycle, or restrain the kids properly in the car, and serious injury, that is short of fatality occurs, and safety measures could have prevented or reduced the extent of their injuries, who does this cost? Don't know? It's ALL OF US!!!

With the health care cost in this nation and the crisis for those not able to be insured properly, their medical bills fall on you, the taxpayer, because they were too selfish to consider that they are not the only ones their irresponsibility effects. For those fortunate enough to have health care coverage, the cost of their irresposibilty falls on others who are also able to afford health insurance, but who are respoinsible enough to follow saftey laws, in the form of higher insurance premiums that basically go to pay for other peoples lack of regard for anyone but their own dumb asses, and have no sense of community, or societal responsibilty at all.

Like it or not, we are a society, and we are social animals, and I hear a lot of crap avbout personal responsibilty, which at heart I agree with for the most part, but why then is it I hear nearly nothing about community responsibilty as well, since, at least in my mind, is a HUGE part of personal responsibility?

Lastly, if you are a a seatbelt wearer, and say you are late for work one day and you forget, and nothing happens other than that you get pulled over and ticketed, is that a bad thing? I'd wager most people in our culture, would havbe the kneejerk reaction of hating cops andd seatbelt laws, and would fail to think it through beyond that. That is sad, because when that exact thing happened to me, my kneejerk reaction was exactly that, but when later I thought it through, I realized that A. My fine goes to help defray the cost of morons who feel they should be avble to do as they please and fuck the rest of us, and to support government without just coming from taxes, and B. that I am damn sure gonna remember in the future to be smart ALL the time and put that seatbelt on in all the 3 seconds it takes no matter how much of a hurry I am in.

I hope some of you learned somnething by my rant. America could use a good dose of COMMUNITY responsibilty lessons IMHO!!!

 

[Gonz]

I hope some of you learned somnething by my rant. America could use a good dose of COMMUNITY responsibilty lessons IMHO!!!

As long as it's not government regualted, I concur. Ask for my help & receive it. Demand my help & you can piss off.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Mark, you seem to me to be making two separate points. Your use of the term community responsibility is confusing. Does it mean I am responsible for the actions of others? Perhaps community liability would be a better choice. That encompasses your statements better than responsibility.

I concur that those who act irresponsibly increase the financial burden on everyone else; as you said, it's very basic logic. And I agree that some level of law enforcement seems to be necessary to ensure that these laws are followed more often. No problem from me there. But to shift responsibility to the community at large does drift into areas I'd rather not go into. I don't want to enforce seatbelt laws on other drivers; it's a helluva way to get yourself shot. Likewise, I'm not too keen on the notion of my neighbors being able to enforce laws on me. That's what we pay cops for.

Another more subtle point you make runs quite contradictory to your own admitted personal behavior, and I don't think I need to be terribly specific. Are you saying that community members should be able to enforce all laws on one another? Follow that to its extreme end and we have a vigilante justice system, and I for one would not be in favor of that at all. Our system has its flaws but vigilante enforcement isn't the answer. Again, I don't want some guy I don't know having the power to cite me for, oh let's say forgery, even though I have never been guilty of that crime. We start that, though, and child custody battles would result in each parent arresting the other for any manner of trumped-up charge in an attempt to sway the judge in the custody matter. Talk about a slippery slope...

It might sound like I'm nitpicking. That's not my intent at all. I just wanted to clarify what you are trying to say. There is a huge difference in practice between community responsibility and community liability. One is theoretical at best; the other leads to all sorts of unwanted possibilities. IMO it's a sad fact of life that some people are going to break laws. No matter what. I do it. I'm not a frequent seatbelt wearer, for reasons of my own. I am willing to pay the citation if I'm pulled over for it. I realize I increase my risk of being injured in certain crashes. I also know why I don't generally wear them. It's a decision I make, and I'm fully cognizant of the potential ramifications of that choice. I'll accept a ticket from a cop; I won't from a dry cleaner. By the same token, if I wanted to enforce laws I'd go to the police academy and become a cop. Personally, I'm happier paying someone else to do that with my tax dollars than doing that job myself.

You make some good points, and bring out some things that are impossible to dispute rationally. Just wanted to make sure I understand where you're going with your choice of terminology.

 

[markjs]

In my mind, community responsibility, and societal resposibility, is each indvidual's personal responsibilty to conduct themselves responsibly, so as not to be a drain or burden to their community or society. I never intended anything about the community being responsible for the behaviors of the irresponsible, rather to point out the fact that most Americans (IMHO) seem to run around thinking of them and their's, with little or no regard in respect to how their irresponsible actions have far reaching effects of the responsible members of their community or society. I realize how that could have been misunderstood, so does that clarify it?

 

[markjs]

To be quite candid actually though, this "community responsibility", that I am developing is rather new to me in some aspects of my life. I was raised to respect my city, by my mother for example, by things like her teaching me never to litter. As a result, my coat pockets are oft filled with empty wrappers, or napkins or tissues, because she taught me well in that regard about respecting my community, even when I was shooting dope I would not litter. The deeper level of thinking through the far reaching consequences of my actions, however, is something that I have developed over time being in and out of AA and NA, but since for the first time I am really working the twelve step program, in its enirety, to the best of my ability, I must report near miraculous results.

What I find is the people who really try to live this thing, do grow, they do get better, and they do stay clean and sober, and my experience tells me that it's not most, but 100% of them. Those who fail in AA and NA, simply seem to be unwilling and/or unable to just shut up, listen to those who have done it and know how, and follow instructions, and give it their best shot, but perhaps most importantly, to continue to give it their best shot for the rest of their lives. It is after all, a program of "attraction rather than promotion", and pushing it on people only makes them more unwilling/unable to embrace it. As I oft hear said in meetings, it is not at all a thing for those who need it, but only for those who want it. Lucky for me I became such a hopeless and desparate case I was as "willing as the dying can be", as they say in the book.

In AA they have a thing called the promises:

If we are painstaking about this phase of our development, we will be amazed before we are half way through. We are going to know a new freedom and a new happiness. We will not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it. We will comprehend the word serenity and we will know peace. No matter how far down the scale we have gone, we will see how our experience can benefit others. That feeling of uselessness and self-pity will disappear. We will lose interest in selfish things and gain interest in our fellows. Self-seeking will slip away. Our whole attitude and outlook upon life will change. Fear of people and of economic insecurity will leave us. We will intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle us. We will suddenly realize that God is doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.


Are these extravagant promises? We think not. They are being fulfilled among us, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. They will always materialize if we work for them.

I am happy to report that every one of those things has happend for me, as a direct result of the twelve step program. Life is in no way perfect, nor am I, and am none of those promises is an all the time absolute, but to the degree I am willing to live the way that the program teaches me to, then I have that kind of peace, and new attitude, and I am really happier than I have ever been.

It may be that it only works for a small percentage of addicts and alcoholics, but I can tell you, that I am absolutely positive, that the reason it won't is because they can't or won't give a sincere effort to live by those principals. But the point is, that as a result of this thing, I am a LOT more personally responsible, and I have a newfound sense of community responsibilty, or perhaps more clearly stated, responsibility to my community and society.

 

[jimpeel]

The thing that must be realized here is that I support the use of seatbelts -- voluntary use of seatbelts. I used seatbelts before they became mandatory to use. I use them for me and not for some government hack's self image. I use them to keep me where I belong; and that is firmly in the driver's seat. If I am thrown into the passenger seat during a skid, I cannot effectively control the vehicle. That means that all who are in the vehicle with me are in peril of their lives regardless of their personal use of their seatbelt.

I do believe that the driver has a responsibility to protect those who cannot act responsibily on their own behalf -- that being minor children. They should not be responsible for the actions or irresponsibility of those over the age of majority.

The SCoTUS has ruled that the government exists for the general protection of the general populace -- the general welfare. The government does not exist for the protection of any individual citizen.

However, the government deigns to protect me from myself when they have no duty to protect me from another person. It should be my choice as to whether I wish to use seatbelts, helmets, etc., not the government's.

"But those laws are for the protection of the general welfare, Peel, because they reduce the costs borne to the public by those who get in accidents and cannot pay for the care they need." you say. But I say this:

If you allow your rights and freedoms to be reduced to an arbitrary monetary figure which, once surpassed, allows the government to abrogate those rights and freedoms you are lost. How long before ALL rights and freedoms become too costly in the eyes of some government bureaucrat? Remember, the Congress has increasingly turned over more and more power to bureaucrats to create laws through regulation. These unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats -- Carole Browner, EPA head come readily to mind -- can change your life with the stroke of a pen and there is nothing you can do about it. They cannot be voted out of an appointed position.

Remember that famous quote by Paul Begala? "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool." Yes, that quote was about PEOs (Presidential Executive Orders) but it is just as effective when used to describe the power wielded by bureaucrats.

So how about revenue enhancement? How many of these laws are created for nothing more than revenue enhancement -- both long and short term?

The short term enhancement entails your being cited for infractions and paying into the government coffers through fines, fees, and assessments; but that is not the true goal.

The true goal is revenue enhancement through your longevity. Every time a politician uses the word "safety" merely convert that to "revenue enhancement" in your mind. You see, if they can make you live longer and work longer they can collect more taxes from you over the long term. Living taxpayers pay taxes year after year. Dead taxpayers pay only once.

So it is to the direct advantage of those making these laws to extend your life for as long as possible. It has never been about safety; it never has been; and it never will be.

 

[markjs]

Says you. I have one word for you:

HOGWASH!

So by that logic, can I assume you are saying that goverment should not infringe on our rights in order to insure public safety and general welfare?

(Watch it, because if what little I know about your polical leanings is correct your argument is standing on a paper thin sheet of ice!)

 

[jimpeel]

I have no numbers on this, but it's simple common sense, and I have no doubt all the numbers back my point, but I KNOW, that only a grossly misleading representation of the numbers would make the point that saftey laws are bad for society, or a waste of taxpayer money.

Consider, that every time a person is irresponsible and does not wear a seatbelt, or a helmet on a motorcycle, or restrain the kids properly in the car, and serious injury, that is short of fatality occurs, and safety measures could have prevented or reduced the extent of their injuries, who does this cost? Don't know? It's ALL OF US!!!

With the health care cost in this nation and the crisis for those not able to be insured properly, their medical bills fall on you, the taxpayer, because they were too selfish to consider that they are not the only ones their irresponsibility effects. For those fortunate enough to have health care coverage, the cost of their irresposibilty falls on others who are also able to afford health insurance, but who are respoinsible enough to follow saftey laws, in the form of higher insurance premiums that basically go to pay for other peoples lack of regard for anyone but their own dumb asses, and have no sense of community, or societal responsibilty at all.

So there it is. Community responsibility comes down to the almighty dollar and how much personal responsibility costs the community in monetary loss.

At what point does free speech become too costly? The cost of free expression? The cost of free association? The cost of the Internet? The cost of your religion? The cost of a speedy and fair trial? The cost of trial by jury? The cost of privacy? The cost to travel freely?

How many of your rights and freedoms are you willing to express in lost monetary value; and how many of those rights and freedoms are you willing to abdicate to abrogation by the government for the "greater good" of your "community responsibility"?

 

[jimpeel]

Says you. I have one word for you:

HOGWASH!

So by that logic, can I assume you are saying that goverment should not infringe on our rights in order to insure public safety and general welfare?

(Watch it, because if what little I know about your polical leanings is correct your argument is standing on a paper thin sheet of ice!)

There is a vast difference between the passing of laws for the common defense, public safety, etc and those laws which are passed for the sole reason of protecting us from ourselves.

There are laws that prohibit the attempt of suicide; not because they don't want you to commit suicide -- as you would then be outside of the tenets of the law -- but to keep you from injuring others when you make said attempt. Even those laws are not intended for the protection of the individual from themselves.

Falling on another person from a high perch; jumping in front of a truck on a crowded highway; firing a firearm through your head in a crowd, etc. present a grave danger to those about you. It is they that the law seeks to protect from you.

There are laws against speeding through a school zone filled with children. That law is not there to protect you from you but to protect them from you.

Seatbelt, helmet, etc. laws are written in such a manner as to protect you from yourself under the guise of protecting the community -- the general welfare -- from expenses that you will incur that they will have to pay. In other words, the monetary cost to society.

Politicians do not want to see the public coffers drained for such paltry things as your having your cranial cavity voided in a motorcycle accident. They want those funds to go to their "oh so much more important" pet projects. They get no credit for spending money to save your life but it makes a great photo op to be shown at a ribbon cutting ceremony at the dedication of the new park; or wielding a chrome plated official shovel at a ground breaking ceremony for the new fire station which, by the way, will replace the still-serviceable one two blocks away.

 

[markjs]

OK, so what about your beloved patriot act, infringing on what we hold most dear? Why should the 4th amendment be repealed to protect us from terror? I for one was NOT willing to consent to one sentence of that unconstitutional peice of shit legislation that lets goverment run a secret police state in our midst, and run roughshod on constitutional rights and freedoms.

Terrorists be damned, I'd rather risk it than give up what I hold most dear. Extra security at airports and borders, yeah, you betcha, incresed attention paid to espionage in arab contries where these vermin spawn from? Damn straight! But the ability for the government to spy on us without judicial approval, and due process of constitutional law? Well to hell with anyone who doesn't understand that that crosses the line! It was a kneejerk reaction at it's worst and is LONG overdue for repeal as the mistake it was.

A law for seatbelts because it keeps us safe, and keeps the tax and financial burden down for those of us who are resposible? Sure I can go for that. It's not a crime, just a civil fine. I in no means have to wear a seatbelt even if there is a law, and I will be held liable with a small civil action and a negligeable fine when I get caught, it's just on me to not get caught if I insist on being a moron. It's not an infringement of rights, it's petty bullshit, and there is sound logical reasoning behind it.

The Patriot act is the single most unpatriotic thing I have ever heard of, and it rips at the fabric of all that we were founded on, that our forefaathers held most dear, and you eat it up like babies eat pablem....Like sheeple to the slaughter, where's the outrage at that true infringement of rights? Is it more important that civil jurisdictions are not allowed to tell you hey, don't be a moron, we want you safe, and we don't want to pay for your dumb ass irresponsible ways? Yet big brother can watch us all at their whim, without regard to our rights? Which is it? I wouldn't say the two things are like apples and oranges, perhaps more like golfballs and beachballs. If beachballs were just golfballs the size of what we call beachballs, and someone was chucking them at me, I's sure be a lot more bothered by being pelted by 50# beachballs than 4oz golfballs. I can handle a little civil liability as punishment for my pigheaded insitance in my right to being a dumbass, but loss of my basic freedoms to potentially prevent something that might happen, when much more effective means can be employed? Hell no! Where people like you get your logic and reasoning "abilities" (more like disabilities IMHO), never ceases to bewilder and astound me!

 

[markjs]

No again bullshit. The seatbelt law, has the unintended effect of protecting dumbasses from their dumbass selves. The reasoning behind them though is to protct society at large from irresponsible morons from inflicting their irresponsible acts on our communities and our societies, and running up the costs of things for those responsible law abiding folks that give a whit about something beyond the end of their own noses, and perhaps their little households, and all the little carbon copies of their idiot selves they inflict on the rest of us in the name of vanity and ego, and then that they train to be irrsesposible just like ma and pa!

 

[Gonz]

OK, so what about your beloved patriot act, infringing on what we hold most dear?

What would that be?

 

[markjs]

Oh and BTW Jim, I've made my case and my point and you are free to try and attack it any way you see fit, but don't expect any further debate from me. I believe I have fairly much made mincemeat of your reasoning and logic, and it's up to you or any other reader to determine if you see my points.

No matter what, all the ranting and bitching about such trivial matters as saftey laws designed to protect society as a whole, and your irrational desire to have the right to be a moron and inflict that and all its intended or unintended consequences on yourself and your community and society, totally unchecked, doesn't make me any less right or you any less wrong!

 

[markjs]

What would that be?

Because I know you are well, to be as nice as possible "politically challenged" I will say it one more time; ever hear of the Fourth Amendment, or for that matter the Constitution?? Perhaps you've heard of the concept they were founded on? It's called freedom. (And yeah SnP, it is Wikifuckinpedia, as it was handy as all hell).

But again as I said in my intended last post, the one just before this one, well that last paragraph applies to you just as much as to jimpeel....

Goodbye oh silly debate, it was fun, but hardly worth further effort on such a bonehead black an white issue....Geez some people's kids!

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

In my mind, community responsibility, and societal resposibility, is each indvidual's personal responsibilty to conduct themselves responsibly, so as not to be a drain or burden to their community or society. I never intended anything about the community being responsible for the behaviors of the irresponsible, rather to point out the fact that most Americans (IMHO) seem to run around thinking of them and their's, with little or no regard in respect to how their irresponsible actions have far reaching effects of the responsible members of their community or society. I realize how that could have been misunderstood, so does that clarify it?

Yep. But I think we already have a word for all that. It's called maturity. And I agree, we don't see nearly as much of it as we once did. There's a whole bunch of things we don't see as much as we used to though. Tolerence, respect, forethought, planning, mentoring, humility...the list goes on.