Unsafe safety laws
By Ted Lang
web
posted January 6, 2003
Three days before Christmas, somewhere between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. that
Sunday evening, a horrible auto crash occurred near my home. And of course,
the usual suspects and victims were involved. After the initial shock
of the loss, and after disbelief is overcome and turns to inquiry, a more
powerful emotion settles in. It is that emotion which usually leads to
action, and feeds on the need to lay blame.
It is important to understand this progression of emotion and why people
become blinded by the subsequent anger and its need to lay blame. This
explains why people then participate in the cacophony of public protest
demanding: There ought to be a law! And naturally, headline-grabbing,
opportunistic politicians eyeing their next election campaign, are more
than willing to design legislation to fit the evident public emotion.
It is precisely such emotionalism that contributes to the political expediency
of bad legislation; laws created to serve public opinion rather than those
created from rational assessment. And it is precisely this kind of legislative
debacle that more often than not creates bad laws that contribute precisely
to generating just the opposite of the results and outcome intended
Recent examples are two pieces of gun control legislation passed in the
same state where the auto tragedy occurred; namely, New Jersey. "Smart
gun" legislation, created to prevent the accidental shooting of children,
as well as ballistic firearm "fingerprinting," the latter having
been conclusively proven not to work in testimony to the legislature before
passage, was passed in spite of logical objections.
Small but vocal, emotionally fired-up protest groups, who in no way represent
the will of the majority, the latter being woefully ignorant of the facts
as well as complacent in assuming logic and debate accompany the passage
of such laws, simply accept that such laws are better than none at all,
or at least serve the "greater good."
Finishing their Christmas shopping at a local mall three days before
the holiday, the five teenaged friends said goodnight and headed for their
cars. They were three boys, two aged 17, one 18 year-old, and two 15 year-old
girls. One 17 year-old boy had his own car and was driving alone, while
the other four got into the other 17 year-old driver's car. But there
was a problem, or at least one of the teenage boys thought there was
and of course he was right.
New Jersey State law forbids a 17 year-old from operating a motor vehicle
after dark when other under age occupants, the two 15 year-old girls,
are in the vehicle. The owner of the car was a responsible well-mannered
kid, liked by his teachers and accepted to college for his intended course
of study: aeronautical engineering. He was a musician and an honor student.
He was a responsible kid.
In fact, he was so responsible that he suppressed the urge to show off
in front of the girls, something that becomes very urgent at that age,
and handed the keys of his recently acquired Acura Integra to the 18 year-old,
the latter who by legislative standards would be more responsible and
that more conducive to safe driving.
Witnesses state that the car was doing about 90 mph when it hit a clump
of trees after a slight incline and gentle curve in the road where the
top speed limit is 45 mph. The auto disintegrated, the engine landing
20 feet from what could only be described as a pile of scrap metal and
pieces of junk intertwined with the trees. Both boys were killed, but
thankfully both girls survived, one actually crawling out from under a
piece of car.
This is a lesson for those who think government and its laws promote
well being and safety. Had the right boy been driving, the younger yet
more conscientious one as evidenced by his acceding to the laws and demands
of politicians, it is most probable he would have observed the speed limit
on that stretch of road as well. Perhaps everyone in that small town would
have had a merrier Christmas with a little less government, including
the two boys whose future was determined by observing one law and not
another.
Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.

Printer friendly version |

Send a link to this story |
|