|
Death reduction as a justification for laws
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Most countries have written lots of laws for the purpose of reducing the number of accidental or deliberate deaths and injuries among the general population. Food regulations, work safety laws, traffic safety laws, gun control laws, product safety laws, and pollution laws all come to mind.
Even with all of these laws, though, there is still a lot of room for even more legislation that could further reduce the number of accidental and intentional deaths among the general population. Bans on extreme sports; bans on cigarette smoking; bans on drinking outside one's home; (arguably) nationwide bans on guns; bans on driving any non-ambulance, non-police vehicles faster than forty miles an hour. You can probably think of many more, but let's move on to a question.
At what point do you consider "public safety" or "death reduction" a good justification for laws?
Do you do some kind of cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential inconvenience and oppressiveness of laws against their potential to reduce death and injury? Or what? |
|
|
| Project-K |
There's too many variables to consider. These things have to be judged on a case-per-case basis. However there are some common factors - for instance, endangering the lives of others as opposed to endangering your own exclusively.
I would actually really like this;
| quote: | | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles bans on driving any non-ambulance, non-police vehicles faster than forty miles an hour. |
|
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| ...and for some reason this reminded me of an Allstate commercial where president Palmer talks about you getting checks for not Bauering your car. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
Believe it or not, I'm actually against these kinds of laws.
For example; I think jaywalking is the stupidest law ever. If people are dumb enough to get hit by cars because they can't cross the road, they really don't deserve to function within our society. The old "Darwinian" theory. Why shouldn't an adult be allowed to cross a road if it's clear?
There are hundreds of examples I could think of like this one.
There are a lot of laws restricting people from doing things that don't affect others, which I think it senseless.
Unfortunately for the government, they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the population, which often holds things back. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
For example; I think jaywalking is the stupidest law ever. If people are dumb enough to get hit by cars because they can't cross the road, they really don't deserve to function within our society. The old "Darwinian" theory. Why shouldn't an adult be allowed to cross a road if it's clear?
|
Yeah, but what about the guy's Subaru that got hit?*
*not meant to be stereotypical, but you all drive Subarus. All of you. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
Yeah, but what about the guy's Subaru that got hit?*
*not meant to be stereotypical, but you all drive Subarus. All of you. |
Who? |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
Who? |
You. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
Australians?
Hmmm, I was under the impression that we all drove Holdens and Fords.
Silly me. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
Australians?
Hmmm, I was under the impression that we all drove Holdens and Fords.
Silly me. |
Yes. Silly you. But what about that Subaru? And the owner of the Subaru? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Beat Blog |
Interestingly, some towns in Germany and the Netherlands have recently removed their traffic signals and signs, with pretty favorable results, including fewer accidents and fatalities. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
It makes sense if you think about it for a bit: If you take away the usual signals, people will have to concentrate entirely on watching for cars and pedestrians instead of just looking at signs and traffic lights.
When people see a green light under the normal system, for example, they tend to just speed on through without even looking side to side to check for people that might be running red lights on the perpendicular road, and tons of accidents happen in exactly that situation. But if they had no light giving them "permission" to stop watching the road, they would have to stay more alert. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Interestingly, some towns in Germany and the Netherlands have recently removed their traffic signals and signs, with pretty favorable results, including fewer accidents and fatalities. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
It makes sense if you think about it for a bit: If you take away the usual signals, people will have to concentrate entirely on watching for cars and pedestrians instead of just looking at signs and traffic lights.
When people see a green light under the normal system, for example, they tend to just speed on through without even looking side to side to check for people that might be running red lights on the perpendicular road, and tons of accidents happen in exactly that situation. But if they had no light giving them "permission" to stop watching the road, they would have to stay more alert. |
Yes, but then the Hummer H2 wins against all mankind. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
The basic idea is that the way things are now, people rely on the traffic laws to watch out for them.
Take away the laws, and they would have to watch out for themselves. And apparently most people do a decent job of that, at least on European streets. |
|
|
|
|
