Re: But which is the "reasonable" fear?
I accept the argument that pervasive surveillence infringes on my personal freedom, so Addison and I disagree on that point -- but with different secondary effects.
Hey hey hey, that's not what I said.
I said it wasn't unconstitutional, nor illegal. And that we needed legistlation to define "personal privacy" and "freedom"... And without that, I really couldn't produce anything that would show pervasive surveillance (of everybody, in public places) that was "wrong" or illegal.
I'm certainly *not* advocating it, and I wouldn't particularly like it. (But for instance, it wouldn't stop me travelling to England)
Helmet laws are intended to protect me from myself. I absolutely disagree with the intent. I should be free to risk my own safety in any way that doesn't affect other people.
Yes and no.
The issue with helmets, and seat belts, and such, is that you *aren't* just talking about yourself. That we live in a community, with shared resources, and you not using such safty devices puts a strain on said infrastructure, *and* impacts other people.
Which is a helluva argument. But that's the basis for it. (at least, IMO, the "legitimate" argument). (There *are* people who want to protect you from yourself, but right now they're busy trying to take our guns away. :))
I was in an auto accident about 10 years ago. Foggy night. I was driving 30, 35, on an unfamilar road, and went through a stop sign. Saw it less than 1/2 a second before I passed it, and hesitated just a fraction before hitting the brake (wondering if it would be better to go through). Too late. Another car and mine had their vectors converge and merge. The 2 people in that car weren't wearing their seat belts. They were doing 70ish.
As it turns out, when I was sued for wrongful death, the fact they weren't wearing seat belts didn't matter. Nor did it matter that they were going far faster than I. Because *I* went through the traffic control device, 100% of the accident was my fault.
But had they been wearing their seat belt (as I was), they wouldn't have been severely hurt. (The driver wasn't hurt badly, as he had the steering wheel to stop him).
And so everyone in my insurance pool helped me "pay" for that. The infrastructure was stressed (that night they were being run all over) trying to get rescue teams to our location. Had say, a fire broken out, a farther away squad would have had to made their way to it - through the fog.
*THAT* becomes the conundrum with safety devices. Its *not* merely a question of "it only affects you". It doesn't, it affects more people than that.
Additionally, with the legal system we have, blame MUST be assigned. Think about the opporunities you [could have] had, 100 years ago, to do the damage that you and I can do, on a daily basis now. (say, looking down for a second, and crashing into a school bus going the other way?).
I don't say that to say you're wrong, but to mention it as another topic of discussion (which really doesn't belong in this thread) :)
That its an attempt to provide accountability, and responsibility to people, such that they lessen the impact (no pun intended) on the rest of us. And its more complicated than saving you from yourself. (Another note of mention - apparently people drive *More unsafely* when they're buckled in - they feel safer).
Addison
