Contemplating safety tyranny

[JohnStOnge]

So the thousands of lives saved from car crashes, the thousands of lives saved with work safety regulations, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by a cleaner environment?


You are a **** moron. You really just need to pack up and move to Somalia, because you have no **** clue in that little right-wing pea brain of yours what life would be like in the United States without strong safety and environmental regulation.

Life would be fine in the United States without seat belt laws. I grew up in a time without seat belt laws and it was not, by any reasonable standard, a "dangerous" life.

A question: Do you think that establishing that "thousands of lives will be saved" automatically justifies making a law to regulate peoples' choices in order to accomplish that?

[JohnStOnge]

Walking and driving are not the same thing because when you are walking down the sidewalk you are not in command of a 3000 pound weapon where your elevated sense of entitlement to do stupid sh!t like talk on a cellphone endangers everybody else. I'm sorry but some people do not belong behind the wheel of a car, period. It is treated too much like a right these days anyway.

I think that is basically making the argument that whether or not something is a right depends on the extent to which the activity potentially introduces risk to others. That is if the intent of writing it was to argue that walking on the sidewalk is a right while driving a vehicle on a public road is not.

The fact that you mention talking on a cell phone suggests to me that you tend to think the risk of talking on a cell phone is larger than it is. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think that's one of our problems as a society. Very small risks applied to a population of over 300 million and billions or even trillions of episodes (such as vehicle trips) translate into what appear to be large numbers of adverse events. And we have institutions like the NHTSA issuing propaganda designed to arouse concern.

But the risk, on average, associated with driving a vehicle while on a cell phone is very small by any reasonable, objective standard. Time is short so I won't look up numbers myself right now but all you have to do to see that is think about how many instances of driving while talking on a cell phone there are. You estimate risk of accident while using a cell phone by dividing the number of accidents by the number of instances in which someone drives while using a cell phone. And if you do that you're going to divide something in the thousands or ten thousands by something in the trilliions or something like that. You're going to get a very small number. A very small risk.

Then you have to adjust that to make it even smaller by estimating how many of those accidents would have happened anyway, all other things being equal, if the person wasn't talking on a cell phone. It's going to be a very tiny risk. Using a cell phone while driving is not, by any reasonable standard, "dangerous" when one actually objetively and quantitatively looks at the risk.

[dbackjon]

So the thousands of lives saved from car crashes, the thousands of lives saved with work safety regulations, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by a cleaner environment?


You are a **** moron. You really just need to pack up and move to Somalia, because you have no **** clue in that little right-wing pea brain of yours what life would be like in the United States without strong safety and environmental regulation.

Life would be fine in the United States without seat belt laws. I grew up in a time without seat belt laws and it was not, by any reasonable standard, a "dangerous" life.

A question: Do you think that establishing that "thousands of lives will be saved" automatically justifies making a law to regulate peoples' choices in order to accomplish that?

It may go in, but you would have tens of thousands of more deaths, serious injuries, millions if not billions in additional medical costs.

Not automatically - you still need to look at the cost/benefit instrusion factor.

The costs to install seat belts is cheaper overall than the cost of not having them.
It is not intrusive - I don't even think about putting them on - I just do.

[Wedgebuster]

Coming onto motorcycle season here, the 30 day countdown to Sturgis is near, and packs of annoying cyclers will take over our highways, riding on the center line, spacing out so you can not pass, and running 10 MPH under the speed limit.


So in Wyoming there is no helmet law, but I am required to be seat belted into my big crew cab four wheel drive pickup, as well as the two smaller cars and my rzr.

Why is it legal to ride a motorcycle with obviously no seat belts, and with no helmet to boot?

Oh I get the safety issue, and the cost of public emergency services...

So what about the Harley heads? And, why are they not restricted in Yellowstone National Park when the threat of "noise and pollution" effectively shut down the winter snowmobiling industry??

Just askin...

[youngterrier]

Now you know how we feel whenever you post. So you admit defeat? Good call on your part......

I had something else to do and didn't have time to go through your post and describe each fallacy. I don't have much time right now either but I'll go ahead and describe one.

You wrote that something like not wearing a seat belt "radically" increases risk. No, you didn't say, "Not wearing a seat belt radically increases risk" but I think anybody reading the post would interpret it that way. In any case you appeared to be taking the position that "radically" increasing risk is a key consideration. Later you hit upon that point again by writing:

The same goes for the seat belt. No one's banking on getting into an accident, but when we do there's no telling the damage it could do to one's self or others, and the fact remains that the chances of death or serious injury greatly increase when one does not wear a seatbelt. It's not even comparable to the analogies you're making.

If by your last statement you meant to say that none of the analogies I made increase risk to as great an extent as not wearing a seat belt does you are objectively incorrect. Take the one about choosing to go to a theater to watch a movie or staying at home and watching the movie on my TV after ordering it from my provider. By doing that I chose some risk that a vehicle accident will occur over zero risk that a vehicle accident will occur. I don't know what the risk of a driver harming someone else because the driver doesn't wear a seat belt is, but the relative risk that the driver will injure him or herself by virtue of not wearing a seat belt according to one estimate I saw is about 1.8. The driver has about 1.8 times the chance of being injured not wearing a seat belt than he does wearing a seat belt.

Again, the risk of being injured through a vehicle accident increases by an undefined (some risk divided by 0); essentially infinite degree if I choose driving to the theater to watch a movie instead of staying home. It is a much greater increase in risk of vehicle accident both in absolute and relative terms.

Now, the risk that something bad will happen while you are staying home watching TV is not 0. But I hope we can agree that it is a lot smaller than that associated with driving a vehicle.

You're a stubborn old man and an idiot. I can't believe I just read that stupidity...

There are multiple factors that contribute to wrecking in a car accident and even further factors in determining whether or not said accident could be fatal. Suffice to say, the chances of one getting in a car accident are greater than one being critically or fatally injured in a car accident.

So to show how your comparison is false, I'm showing how deciding to go somewhere does not increase your chances of fatality. Does not wearing your seatbelt increase your chances of an accident? probably not, but it doesn't take away from the fact that in the instance that when you do wreck it radically decreases your chances of fatality.

there are way too many factors when talking about being harmed outside, so it's a false analogy on your part because it's broad and vague.

[dbackjon]

Coming onto motorcycle season here, the 30 day countdown to Sturgis is near, and packs of annoying cyclers will take over our highways, riding on the center line, spacing out so you can not pass, and running 10 MPH under the speed limit.


So in Wyoming there is no helmet law, but I am required to be seat belted into my big crew cab four wheel drive pickup, as well as the two smaller cars and my rzr.

Why is it legal to ride a motorcycle with obviously no seat belts, and with no helmet to boot?

Oh I get the safety issue, and the cost of public emergency services...

So what about the Harley heads? And, why are they not restricted in Yellowstone National Park when the threat of "noise and pollution" effectively shut down the winter snowmobiling industry??

Just askin...

Good points.

Helmet Laws: We need the organ donors. Motorcyclists without helmets make great organ donors - die from head injury, leaving rest of body intact. Usually younger, so organs in better shape. Die instantly, or after brief life support period.

Noise Pollution - the regulations SHOULD be the same.

[youngterrier]

So the thousands of lives saved from car crashes, the thousands of lives saved with work safety regulations, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by a cleaner environment?


You are a **** moron. You really just need to pack up and move to Somalia, because you have no **** clue in that little right-wing pea brain of yours what life would be like in the United States without strong safety and environmental regulation.

Life would be fine in the United States without seat belt laws. I grew up in a time without seat belt laws and it was not, by any reasonable standard, a "dangerous" life.

A question: Do you think that establishing that "thousands of lives will be saved" automatically justifies making a law to regulate peoples' choices in order to accomplish that?

1)There are a lot more drivers on the road than there were then---the danger kind of increases

2)Each citizen would probably like better safety standards. There's a lot of utilitarian benefits.

Basically you're saying it's better to let people suffer by not regulating activity,than to make a small rule that would accelerate thriving for everyone whether it be economic or otherwise

We live in a society, activity is regulated, it's just a fact of reality, get over it.

[youngterrier]

Walking and driving are not the same thing because when you are walking down the sidewalk you are not in command of a 3000 pound weapon where your elevated sense of entitlement to do stupid sh!t like talk on a cellphone endangers everybody else. I'm sorry but some people do not belong behind the wheel of a car, period. It is treated too much like a right these days anyway.

I think that is basically making the argument that whether or not something is a right depends on the extent to which the activity potentially introduces risk to others. That is if the intent of writing it was to argue that walking on the sidewalk is a right while driving a vehicle on a public road is not.

The fact that you mention talking on a cell phone suggests to me that you tend to think the risk of talking on a cell phone is larger than it is. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think that's one of our problems as a society. Very small risks applied to a population of over 300 million and billions or even trillions of episodes (such as vehicle trips) translate into what appear to be large numbers of adverse events. And we have institutions like the NHTSA issuing propaganda designed to arouse concern.

But the risk, on average, associated with driving a vehicle while on a cell phone is very small by any reasonable, objective standard. Time is short so I won't look up numbers myself right now but all you have to do to see that is think about how many instances of driving while talking on a cell phone there are. You estimate risk of accident while using a cell phone by dividing the number of accidents by the number of instances in which someone drives while using a cell phone. And if you do that you're going to divide something in the thousands or ten thousands by something in the trilliions or something like that. You're going to get a very small number. A very small risk.

Then you have to adjust that to make it even smaller by estimating how many of those accidents would have happened anyway, all other things being equal, if the person wasn't talking on a cell phone. It's going to be a very tiny risk. Using a cell phone while driving is not, by any reasonable standard, "dangerous" when one actually objetively and quantitatively looks at the risk.

Okay, you've basically demonstrated to everyone here that you are radically disconnected with reality.

I'll try this one last time.

If you talk on a cell phone, it has been demonstrably shown that you are less focused and while driving the chances of having an accident increase because of the distraction factor. I don't think that really needs to be cited.

sure, if one person does it, it's trivial, but we have a whole society who does it than the chances spike as well, even if it's random.

Some people won't do these things unless there's a law, and some won't do it either way.

[89Hen]

Noise Pollution

This is a big one for me. I am so fucking sick of the 16 year olds with a POS Civic with a damn amplifier in place of a muffler. How are they not illegal?

[ODUsmitty]

Regulations in the name of "safety" are not much different than those in the name of "environmental sustainability".

In either case, we mortage our personal liberty on the whims of some very-remote chance of adverse consequences.

So the thousands of lives saved from car crashes, the thousands of lives saved with work safety regulations, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by a cleaner environment?


You are a **** moron. You really just need to pack up and move to Somalia, because you have no **** clue in that little right-wing pea brain of yours what life would be like in the United States without strong safety and environmental regulation.

Jon, this is a disappointing response and below your normally high standard.

I'll add to an initial point made in this thread, and disagree with JSO in the process. There is no arguing that mandatory seat belt use has saved lives. I get that. However, the RISK to everyone else from someone not wearing their seatbelt is incredibly low (while the risk to the unbelted person is higher). I agree that children (who are not of an age to make such a risk decision) should be buckled-in with appropriate child seats, etc. However, if my behavior is only statistically detrimental to me, with little effect on other drivers, what business is it of government to mandate seat belt use. I would wear them anyway, but the point is why legislate behavior when the only person with any real risk is me.


As for cell phone use, and other forms of distracted driving, someone choosing to take that risk does in fact endanger me and my family. Studies have shown great corrrellation between accident rate and device use. My compnay bans cell phone use (even hands free) when driving, and it is a terminatble offense. Personally, I would prefer hands-free to be mandatory for everyone and texting illegal nationwide. Iin the case of seat belts, the risk is only to the person deciding to use a seat belt. In the cell phone case, the risk is to everyone who crosses the distracted driver's path.

[ODUsmitty]

As for overburdensome environmental regulation, we are likely miles apart. The link between DDT banning and thousands of people that have died from a disease once thought eradicated (malaria) comes to mind. Dr. Walter E Williams of George Mason University has some interesting thoughts on that topic.

The onset of tougher environment regulations for air, water, oil exploration, etc. all have the net effect of making it harder to do business in this country. When the EPA declares CO2 a pollutant, with global climate change theory behind it, I struggle to understand whether this is a scientific issue or one of political power on a global scale. I am in industry, so I understand the challenges of Boiler MACT, BFR compliance, tighter phosphorus wastewater regulations, etc. coming down the pike means to US industry. While the goal is good and mostly well-intentioned (except for climate change, in my opinion), there has to be a balance of needs between the environmental and economic parties involved, and in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far on the environmental side.

Thanks for the insults, by the way. Papa Smitty always told me that liberals are the most tolerant and open-minded of all groups, just as long as you agree with their positions. Cheers.

[Grizalltheway]

As for overburdensome environmental regulation, we are likely miles apart. The link between DDT banning and thousands of people that have died from a disease once thought eradicated (malaria) comes to mind. Dr. Walter E Williams of George Mason University has some interesting thoughts on that topic.

The onset of tougher environment regulations for air, water, oil exploration, etc. all have the net effect of making it harder to do business in this country. When the EPA declares CO2 a pollutant, with global climate change theory behind it, I struggle to understand whether this is a scientific issue or one of political power on a global scale. I am in industry, so I understand the challenges of Boiler MACT, BFR compliance, tighter phosphorus wastewater regulations, etc. coming down the pike means to US industry. While the goal is good and mostly well-intentioned (except for climate change, in my opinion), there has to be a balance of needs between the environmental and economic parties involved, and in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far on the environmental side.

Thanks for the insults, by the way. Papa Smitty always told me that liberals are the most tolerant and open-minded of all groups, just as long as you agree with their positions. Cheers.

Pretty laugable coming from the guy who just called Tod every name in the book because he has different views on issues.

I agree that there needs to be a balance between environmental and economic concerns. However, I think that many people are too quick to dismiss the environmental side as irrelevant.

FWIW, an oyster producer here in Washington state just decided to move his entire operation (farms and whatnot) to Hawaii due to ocean acidification in the Puget Sound, so it's not as though human impact on the environment can't have long term consequences for businesses and industry.

[youngterrier]

It's one thing to be against over-bureaucratic or radical environmental protection legislation....

but those who dismiss environmental protection legislation on face value are idiots

[CID1990]

Coming onto motorcycle season here, the 30 day countdown to Sturgis is near, and packs of annoying cyclers will take over our highways, riding on the center line, spacing out so you can not pass, and running 10 MPH under the speed limit.


So in Wyoming there is no helmet law, but I am required to be seat belted into my big crew cab four wheel drive pickup, as well as the two smaller cars and my rzr.

Why is it legal to ride a motorcycle with obviously no seat belts, and with no helmet to boot?

Oh I get the safety issue, and the cost of public emergency services...

So what about the Harley heads? And, why are they not restricted in Yellowstone National Park when the threat of "noise and pollution" effectively shut down the winter snowmobiling industry??

Just askin...

It is safer to come off the bike than to stay with it in an accident (the bike will crush you).

That said, it is stupid to not wear a helmet (you are just an organ donor in waiting) and I always wear mine, but I dont think there should be a law because the only person you are hurting is yourself. Same goes for seatbelts. I
never unbuckled a corpse in 17 years as a cop, but there shouldn't be a law proscribing seat belt use. Caveat: I sympathize with folks who dont want to pay other people's med costs, I dont either, but thats a whole 'nother issue.

[CID1990]

Wedge I forgot to mention: the number one cause of moto accidents is other oncoming drivers turning left in front of the biker. Not really pertinent, but an interesting fact.

[dbackjon]

As for overburdensome environmental regulation, we are likely miles apart. The link between DDT banning and thousands of people that have died from a disease once thought eradicated (malaria) comes to mind. Dr. Walter E Williams of George Mason University has some interesting thoughts on that topic.

The onset of tougher environment regulations for air, water, oil exploration, etc. all have the net effect of making it harder to do business in this country. When the EPA declares CO2 a pollutant, with global climate change theory behind it, I struggle to understand whether this is a scientific issue or one of political power on a global scale. I am in industry, so I understand the challenges of Boiler MACT, BFR compliance, tighter phosphorus wastewater regulations, etc. coming down the pike means to US industry. While the goal is good and mostly well-intentioned (except for climate change, in my opinion), there has to be a balance of needs between the environmental and economic parties involved, and in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far on the environmental side.

Thanks for the insults, by the way. Papa Smitty always told me that liberals are the most tolerant and open-minded of all groups, just as long as you agree with their positions. Cheers.

I was just speaking to you the way I thought you liked it - rough and dirty.

While environmental protection may make it tougher to do business here, I will take that trade off for clean water, air, etc.

[Wedgebuster]

Wedge I forgot to mention: the number one cause of moto accidents is other oncoming drivers turning left in front of the biker. Not really pertinent, but an interesting fact.

I understand, used to have a bike. People get in the habit of looking for a larger vehicle than a bike, and probably misjudge their speed as well. Scary stuff, and the reason I got off my bike for good was because of a buck pronghorn turning in front of me.

[Ibanez]

Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.

[Grizalltheway]

Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.

Cool, but who was the first chick WITHOUT a dick to do that?

[Ibanez]

Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.

Cool, but who was the first chick WITHOUT a dick to do that?

Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.

[JohnStOnge]

So to show how your comparison is false, I'm showing how deciding to go somewhere does not increase your chances of fatality.

I don't know how you think you showed that but I'm also wondering if you even think it. So let me check:

Are you saying that you think that, if given the choice between sitting at home in front of your TV and watching a movie vs. getting into your motor vehicle and driving to the theater to watch movie, you don't think choosing driving your motor vehicle to a theater to watch the movie carries the greater fatality risk? You don't think there is a greater risk of fatality associated with driving your motor vehicle than there is associated with sitting in your living room in an easy chair or something?

[youngterrier]

So to show how your comparison is false, I'm showing how deciding to go somewhere does not increase your chances of fatality.

I don't know how you think you showed that but I'm also wondering if you even think it. So let me check:

Are you saying that you think that, if given the choice between sitting at home in front of your TV and watching a movie vs. getting into your motor vehicle and driving to the theater to watch movie, you don't think choosing driving your motor vehicle to a theater to watch the movie carries the greater fatality risk? You don't think there is a greater risk of fatality associated with driving your motor vehicle than there is associated with sitting in your living room in an easy chair or something?

You suck at reading.

Getting in a motorvehicle accident without a seatbelt on=higher chance of fatality than driving period.

You may drive and get in an accident, but you don't have a chance of dying if you aren't in an accident.

We're done here. You have a flat earth understanding of reality, and the reason your opinions are so unpopular is because they're static and illogical, not because you possess some form of higher intelligence.

[89Hen]

YT showing his red ass again. Shocker.

[youngterrier]

YT showing his red ass again. Shocker.

the fact that someone thinks the statistical likelihood of getting injured fatally astronomically increases simply when one gets in a car in comparison to actually getting in an accident, let alone one without a seat belt is self-evidently stupid.

being a red ass>being a dumbass

[JohnStOnge]

If you talk on a cell phone, it has been demonstrably shown that you are less focused and while driving the chances of having an accident increase because of the distraction factor. I don't think that really needs to be cited.

sure, if one person does it, it's trivial, but we have a whole society who does it than the chances spike as well, even if it's random.

As I wrote at the start, the issue is one of altering a very tiny risk to a somewhat higher or very tiny risk. It's not that there is no increase in risk at all associated with cell phone use. It's that it is still a very small risk. The risk picture is not altered substantially.

What you get at in the second paragraph is a mindset I think is dangerous to liberty. There are over 300 million people in the United States and millions...probably tens of millions and maybe hundreds of millions of vehicle trips every day. And there are undoubtably (for example) millions and probably tens of millions of instances in which cell phones are used while driving every day. Very small risks translate into what appear to be large numbers when the numbers of times those very small risk are incurred is very large. So if you think in terms of managing us as though we are a population of animals (yes, we're animals but you know what I mean) instead of treating us as individuals you're going to find plenty of reason for controlling our behavior in order to reduce very small risks to somewhat smaller very small risks.

If you're looking at the individual you might think something like this:

"if that person makes choice B instead of choice A, the chance that someone will die will be one in 1 million instead of 1 in 2 million. That means the chance that nobody will die will be 99.9999 percent instead of 99.99995 percent. Either way the chances that nobody will die approach virtual certainty. So there's no reason to interfere with the choice."

But if you're looking at that choice being made 10 million times per day in a large population you start thinking, "We could "save" over 1800 lives per year by stopping people from making that choice."

The problem with letting the second way of looking at things govern society is, again, that we make all kinds of choices that alter risk like that. The scenario I gave about the choice between staying home to watch a movie or going to a theater to watch one is indeed an example of one; whether you choose to accept it or not. And if we are going to live anything like free lives that's the way it's going to be. Since we have accepted the premise, we have opened the door for people to use it when they decide that a particular choice should be denied.

When you're looking at something like telling someone who is driving a vehicle that they must wear a seat belt or can't use a cell phone you are interfering with their choices because of something that might but probably won't happen in their individual case. And the probability that it won't is overwhelming. It's not like there is even a good chance, by any reasonable standard of what a "good chance" is, that it will happen.