When Does Safety Go Too Far?

Actually, I thought about that after I posted.

The plug isn't pulled. I'm still subscribed, and will read anything that anyone has to post.

Sorry about that......just because yusef is tired of my thread, doesn't mean everyone is.........post on compadres!

_{I was feeling like my comments were just becoming an annoying rant.}

Yeah - but still fun and interesting rants.

I note that you put seat-belts and helmets in the same 'nanny' category. Going back to; is it a law to protect you from others, or you from yourself? - In my view, seat-belts are to protect passengers from drivers.

I fitted seat-belts before any laws. Often swapped out 'primitive compulsory versions' for better tech. Main 'driver reason' being; being 'strapped in' enables you to keep far better control.

There are times when I do not 'strap in' and will tell my passengers not to - e.g fording flooded roads or when it's possible to end up (slowly) slipping into deep water.

But essentially, I feel naked with out a restraint as a driver and quite vulnerable as a passenger.

It amuses me greatly on commercial flights, when the 'seat-belt light' go's off and there's a mass clacking of undoing belts - then a bump occurs and there is a mass squawk and scurry to re-buckle.

It may be about "freedom", but which kind is more desirable?

Then again, I don't think there is a 'Law' that pilots must wear seat belts.

Yepper, there are laws requiring pilots to be restrained in their seats, while occupying said seat and the aircraft is in motion. These restraints do not necessarily have to involve classic seat belts.

Since I got involved in aviation, both as a crewmember and a pilot, I also feel naked in a car without a seatbelt on.

However, I am vehemently against legal mandates requiring them. If people want to risk their life and limb by not wearing them, that is their right. It should also be their responsibility because of this to foot any medical bills that result without dipping into my pocket, except through commercial insurance policies.

Hooker

How about the laws requiring valid insurance?

What if the insurance contracts made the insurance invalid for driving without seatbelts?

Do you advocate just letting somebody die in the street if they don't have the money or sufficient coverage to pay for treatment?

1) By Constitution, that's a state issue. My problem is with unwarranted Federal intrusion (usually involving coercion through Fed revenue sharing)

2) That's an issue to be taken up by the state insurance regulatory body. If the state, and the majority of its citizens would deem it appropriate, then I have no problem with it. Again, my issue is with Federal intrusion.

3) Yes, if that's what the state and or local citizenry deems, NOT the Feds. There's a percentage of the population that is willing to risk their health and lives by not having enough money or insurance to cover hospital costs. I include myself in that percentage (though I currently have insurance) and I willingly absolve my fellow citizens from having to contribute to my well being through their pocketbooks, ESPECIALLY if such actions involve mandates from a third party; ie, the Federal government.

On the other hand I have no problem with voluntary charitable donation distribution through private parties/institutions with the intent of helping our fellow citizens.

Hooker

Really? When I said Law, I meant akin to the car legislation, as opposed to "in check lists", and SOP's, and enforce on others you are "responsible" for.

But maybe it's one of those rules under 'Why the Fuqk wouldn't you?' and I just never allocated brain cells to taking in the clause. Probably one in motor racing too.

However, we disagree on 'not having to wear them', as loss of control can harm others, which is not 'their right'.

And after all, no one actually needs them until a driver looses control.

I guess I should've been more explicit. The FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25 to be concise) require pilot restraint. In my job, we live and die by the FAR's and the FAA's interpretation, or often misinterpretation of such.

In the absence of Congressional level intervention the FAR's, as well as most other federal directives, carry the weight of law, with the possibility of fines and/or jail for non-compliance.

Yet another contravention of the Constitution.

Hooker

Is this 'fitted to the aircraft', like an Automotive Design Rule? or 'must be worn by the pilot', like a 'Seat belt Law'?

In short, Yes.

The whole issue of pilot restraint is much more complicated than either of those alone or combined. There are a bunch of sub-paragraphs dealing with things like how restraints are installed, what crash loading (G force) they must endure, when they must be worn, not having anything within 10" of the pilot's head, having critical controls within arm's reach, redundant controls if one pilot is incapacitated, windscreen visibility, instrument visibility, and lots more, all pertinent when the restraints are "locked down". Some pertinent in unlocked mode. And this applies whether the restraint lock down is pilot activated or inertial.

One interesting rule says that the pilot must not be restrained closer than 5 degrees forward of the plane of rotation of a propeller, in case of blade separation. This presumes that cockpits of modern day multi-engine propeller driven aircraft tend to be forward of the propellers.

Then there are different sets of restraint rules for non-pilot crewmembers and passengers. Also, some rules are different depending on the category the aircraft is being operated under; ie, commercial passenger, charter, restricted, private, sport, public use, et al. Helicopters are another animal.

I am far <sic> from being an expert in this area of regulation interpretation but know enough to get on the horn when I need clarification and guidance.

Oh, and for completeness I should mention that many of the aircraft my company operates are grandfathered under the old CAR's (Civil Aviation Regulations) system since they were built in that timeframe. Oftentimes we have to fall back to that system as the aircraft would be regulatory unflyable under the newer FAR system, which as you would expect from a federal bureaucracy, is much more complex than the earlier system.

And people think the IRS code is complex. They don't have a clue.

Hooker

Fascinating

But Q1. remains; is there a fine or penalty, if the "space police" catch a pilot "in control" but not buckled up?

Q2. I guess is; has anyone ever been caught?

Q1. Yes, there are fines and/or penalties. Most usual penalty is pulling of license, for specified time or forever. Airlines usually get monetary fines after accidents deemed to be their fault.

Q2. Caught? Usually only after an incident or accident. The cockpit is a very closed environment and evidence is usually unavailable until after an accident. Lots of things go on in cockpits that really shouldn't and that's why the pilots are strongly against cockpit video recorders.

Hooker

And yet the logic, rules and penalties are not 'transferable' to 'car pilots'.

Actually the rules for pilots sound about the same as for traffic. Get points on record for traffic violations like speeding, unsafe driving , etc. then get license pulled. Can have license pulled for a variety of specific activities such as drunk driving, accidents , excessively high speeds, etc. Only difference seems to be the felonny violations, such as manslaughterthing you get for killing someone when driving if found responsible for the accident, or to have been intoxicated, or a few other things like knowingly driving with your car in a unsafe condition. Never heard of pilots being sent to prison for manslaughter of even one person while flying, and i know at least a couple of people have died due to pilot error.

Not a contravention of the constitution if your actions could cause direct harm to others, as your actions would violate others constitutional rights.

Sorry, but that's not correct. The US Constitution does not regulate behaviors among/between citizens, only between the Feds and the States and/or citizens. The Constitution is designed to detail the powers that the citizens and states allow the Federal Gov't. Dealings between private citizens and/or the State and private citizen is reserved to be a State and/or Local issue.

These hate laws the Feds have come up with are unconstitutional in many aspects.

If you think I'm wrong please cite explicit section and paragraph of the US Constitution that proves your case. And please don't cite the interstate commerce clause...

Hooker

You comments are nearly always annoying rants

But that is one of your endearing qualities......

I never unsubscribe from much of anything, I'll just ignore a member [or guests named Gil] if I get sick of what they have to say

what about the center tail light? an attempt by the post office to reduce the number of rear end collisions, That was very successful & became a law? car companies hate it because it limits design options

Hi Garthh and 34,

I'm not able to jump on as much lately......my crazy wife thinks that with Christmas three days away, there are more important things than CR4.

Garthh, I can make a pretty compelling argument that the rear window brake light is not as safe as we've been led to believe. It seems like a good idea, but I also believe that the 3rd light encourages people to drive closer to the car in front of them, since having the other two brake lights in view is no longer necessary. If I'm right, (and I think I am), this actually drastically shortens response time and causes at least as many accidents as it prevents.

It's always easy for us to think that having laws imposed on manufacturers in the name of safety is a good idea, but ultimately, it's we the consumer that pay for these changes.

There are other ways to influence behavior, without implementing a constant barrage of new laws. When it became law for car companies to install seat belts in cars in 1968, they were largely ignored. It wasn't until the very successful crash test dummy ad campaign in the 70's that seat belt use increased dramatically, without a law being imposed to use them.

In my area we have a fairly large number of teenage fatalities every year in car accidents. In many cases it's difficult to even tell that it was a car they were driving, the destruction is so massive.

A picture is worth a thousand words, right? Well, my thought is that since drivers ed. is already mandatory, that part of the class should include repeated and graphic presentations of actual fatal car crashes, no holes barred. Parents will complain, but so what.......this is reality. Would you rather have a dead kid? This would have much more of an impact than any law ever could.

As far as motorcycles and helmets go, I see kids on crotch rockets with nice helmets on, but the manner and speed at which they are driving, no helmet will ever save them if they crash. I think that anyone that purchases a motorcycle should have to go through a driving class, the price of which will be tacked on to the purchase price.........probably a couple hundred bucks. Same deal here, I think that as part of the class, they should be shown the gruesome results of fatal motorcycle accidents in which the driver had no helmet on. Better and more effective than any law.

I think that it's been pretty well established that we are all going to die. And I absolutely agree that some safety laws are needed. For example, I don't think that companies should be allowed to turn out shoddy products that can cause injury or death, whether it's food or a bicycle.

On the other hand, I will never believe that "nanny" laws that are dictated by the government are a good thing. Injury and death are never going to be eliminated, and some will be quite tragic.

I will always believe that an educated populace, that are able to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions in regard to personal safety, will function better as a society, than a populace that is dictated to by a centralized authority as to what they can and cannot do, in the name of keeping them safe from themselves.

Actually, I don't remeber most anyone wearing seat belts until the 1980s, shortly after they started ticketing people for not wearing them. The best way to get people to use safety measures is to actually fine them enough that it hurts a little bit and they decide it is just more cost effective and less painful to utilize the safety features than loss of convenience is worth. Of course the safety feature has to first be universally available, as it would be unenforceable to fine someone for not utilizing a feature that may not be available.

I'm not trying to say that all laws are bad....................But at some point, I do think they go too far.

I think we would be wise to stop sugar coating reality for our young people, and supplanting common sense with laws.

I also am in total agreement with Hooker when it comes to the federal government circumventing the Constitution and imposing laws on individual states through coercion and withholding of funds. Our elected officials take an oath to protect and honor the Constitution, which make these underhanded tricks at least morally wrong, and if the supreme court were doing their job, it would be illegal.

In the US, all government should be following the will of the people...........somehow we have allowed that to become reversed.

Well, the PC brigade does suggest that the poor folks who call themselves "La Rasa" have as much right to be here as we do, but need better ways to protect themselves from us bullies who think our families and our land should be OURS, instead belonging to a bunch of gimme, gimme children who think that taking it away will give them the right to it.

I have too many very productive LEGAL Hispanic friends to be in any part of the crowd that either a) wants to run all Hispanics back, or b) wants to "Nuke 'em all, and let God sort 'em out", but I have absolutely NO PATIENCE, NO MERCY, and NO DESIRE TO ALLOW ON OUR SOIL THOSE ROTTEN SLIME BAGS THAT THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO JUST TAKE IT. Those, I say, shoot on sight.

But to do that, you need to hang onto your guns. And buy them now, before some stupid judge decides the BATFE is right. Cause they way things are going, you KNOW that's going to be next.

There is but one difference between a citizen and a subject....Firearms in the possession of the common man.

Dragon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101220/ap_on_re_us/us_gun_sales_reporting_2

AP picked up the story.

Just one more little inconvenient intrusion into our lives please. Lucky thing I purchased all my rifles from private individuals. (No reporting necessary there.) And luckily I still have my weapon from when I was a Sniper in the Military.

Dragon

I agree. Each small step will eventually lead to total control.

A regular part of "news" broadcasts now is advice on how to dress for the weather - "Better bundle up today. It's cold and wet out there." - as if we are all children. How long before the wearing of "proper" clothing in inclement weather also becomes law. The insurance companies could make a case for that too, using the same rationale as for seat belt and helmet laws. Improper clothing is a health risk and therefore a societal risk. Only a fool would oppose legislation enforcing "appropriate" outerwear. Where does it end?

How much Healthy Choice ice cream can one eat before it's no longer a Healthy Choice?

I would have thought this to be an inverse relationship since as the kids get more obese their bouyancy increases.

A quick response would be a resounding YES the laws are going to far.

Most of these so called "nanny laws" were passed right after some traumatic well publicised accident of disaster. That is absolutely the worst time to pass a new law. There should be a "cooling off period".

Is it still illegal to trade in Monkeys in the U.S.A. and that Patriot Act still in effect?

I am not sure that a restriction on the trade of monkeys in the US is a good example of how radical responses can occur due to some major disaster. There should not be any trade in a non-indigenous species that is prone to diseases that are infectious to humans and not found on this continent. Trade in monkeys except through highly supervised public entities is just looking for trouble, much like trading in swine from mexico during that last swine flu epidemic might have bbeen a risky venture. That example actually makes it sound like the only time wise laws get passed is when there is some impetus to get public attention to notice the risk thus feeding back on the legislature. Time and again the importation for private use of non-native species has proven to be a huge public problem, just look at Florida (or anywhere they have killer bees). And well the Patriot act some of the stuff that it implemented should have been done just as part of good standard of practice, didn't really need a law for that as it really fell under existing laws, filled in a few loop holes, and had a few extreme additions to existing law.

The extreme laws that are not very enforceable and just meant to belay public fears by feigning control over peoples actions are those like the one that outlawed steroid use, when you consider it is a hormone anyways and the way they discover its use is if the person tested show higher than statistically typical ranges, and if wealthy enough you can easily mask against the testing as baseball players have shown. That is a law solely for show and to limit access to poorer younger athletes who reside in the US. If you are too poor or not funded sufficiently by the boosters, you take on higher risk of going to prison. Similarly were many of the drunk driving and date rape laws of the 1990s, the pedophile laws of the 2000s, and the attempts to pass football safety currently to protect more delicate children that want to be involved. A bunch of these types of laws exist as knee jerk responses, particularly of women, against perceived threats against themselves or their children.

That is purely a nanny law meant to control athletes and influence children, as mother and non-athletic men conceive of these men as symbols to children. But what it really does is say if you have the money and the will you can get away with it.

"I predict the future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

-Thomas Jefferson

I used to have a motorcycle as my only form of transportation. The state I lived in didn't have a helmet law at the time. Most of the time......back and fourth to work, night time, etc., I had my helmet on. When I was just going putting around out in the country with my friends, we didn't wear helmets. Again, it was a common sense decision based on risk of injury.

Besides the government intrusion that comes with nanny laws, (whether they work or not), they also serve to make the entire population dumber. If people aren't allowed to make decisions based on common sense and risk assessment, whether it's kids or adults, they will continue to get more stupid as time goes by.

The dumber the population gets, the easier it gets for the government to impose ever more onerous laws. It becomes self perpetuating.......more laws=dumber people.......dumber people=more laws to protect them.

Oh oh!!!! Certainly this couldn't be intentional. They wouldn't do that!

Been folowing this thead with interest for a few days now and would like to toss in a few comments. Please don't ask me to quote locations for all the statistics I am going to mention, I just recall reading them in many different places. They all back up the theory that the more safety equipment a person has the more reckless they behave. So, bicycle helment use rises, the number of injuries for bicycle accidents rose; football equipment improves, the number of injuries to football players rises, manditory hockey helmets and visors increased the use of sticks as weapons and corresponding injuries, anti-lock brakes introduced, rear-end collisions rose etc. etc. On the subject of seatbelts while the number of accidents may have increased the severity of injuries decreased.

Some smaller cities have even experimented with getting rid of all traffic markings completely and found that traffic accidents decreased considerably. So it does seem that nanny laws are counter productive and actually may cause more deaths and injuries.

A personal experience that relates is observed pedestrian behavior. I am originally from Montreal where to step onto a road is to take your life in your hands, drivers do not respect pedestrian cross walks and never give a walker the right of way. But pedestrians there KNOW that, and are very careful when attempting to cross a street even on a green light. I now live in Edmonton where pedestrian right of way laws are strictly enforced and the result is a population of pedestrians who don't even look at traffic when they venture onto the roadways. They know drivers are supposed to stop, so they assume the drivers WILL stop. I bet there are entire cemetaries out here where every gravestone reads, "But I had the right of way!"

One more note on seatbelts and helmets. Here in Canada the universal health care system is funded by my tax dollars. Does this give me the right to insist that you wear a helmet to limit my cost of putting you back together after the accident?

then there is the topic of "rights" vs domestic terror. Again here in Canada we had our own spat with domestic terrorists a while back. (Google "October crisis") A group of domestic political terrorists who had been conducting a terror campaign of bombing ramped up their program by kidnapping a foreign diplomat and then a local politician. It was delt with pretty quickly and effectivly in my opinion. The War Measures Act was enacted, I guess that would be the same as declaring marshal law in the U.S. The army rolled into the streets and basically all civil rights were suspended. The police kicked in a lot of doors, yes probably a lot more doors than were necessary. and certainly a lot of doors belonging to people who had nothing to do with the current crisis. However in short order the perpetrators were rounded up, the foreign diplomat released and life returned to normal. Unfortunately the politician was executed by the kidnappers, and the government made a wimpy deal with the terrorists exiling them from the country instead of stringing them up.

Been pretty peaceful up here since then and the residents of Quebec don't have to worry abount bombs in their mailboxes any more. Do what you have to do to get rid of the nasties and get back to living your life.

English laws systems allow the actually army on their own soil to enforce government control of the public. The US system actually does not allow military action on US soil against US citizen. It was a huge deal to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War just so the y could intern southern prisoners (Training is different then military actions on US soil against US citizens). Note that the national guard is not army, but a States Paramilitary force or a sort of Gendarmerie that can be called up to Federal military service. I am not even sure if they can declare marshal law in the US without a declaration of war from Congress. The only times Marshal law by the federal government have been declared, that I am aware of, have been during times of war. Now States have different standards and are not restricted exactly the same as the Federal government under the constitution, so they could declare a state of emergency or marshal law with in a State (assuming the States Assmeblies and executive agreed to do such).

"One more note on seatbelts and helmets. Here in Canada the universal health care system is funded by my tax dollars. Does this give me the right to insist that you wear a helmet to limit my cost of putting you back together after the accident?"

No. But, with a representative style gov't, it does give you the right to go carp on your reps about it if you wish. You could also choose to go carp on your reps that healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a "right".

I've been doing the latter.

Hooker

I'll leave the carping to you thanks. Hows that workin out for ya? I thought the U.S. guaranteed liberty, the prusuit of happiness and LIFE to all its citizens? Isn't healthcare a major factor in the life part of that?

Here we are quite happy with our healthcare. It's not perfect but what is? It is however available to everyone. I see Canada just ranked in the top 3 countries for cancer survival.

Don't get too sick!

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

I guess it's possible that the author is lying.

It is true, the Canadian medical system does not supply every drug on the market. I note the article said that this particular drug IS covered by American insurance companies, but than again..... How many Americans cannot afford any insurance at all? Both systems will have failures and I don't really want to get into a pissing contest about which system is better. Both sides are going to have their share of horror stories.

My question originally was that if tax payers are footing the medical bills, can the government make regulations designed to minimize those bills in case of an accident? That is the question up here and if they can legislate helments can they go further and legislate healthy diets, forced excercise ...... it all starts a slippery slope.

No United States hospital/ER room is allowed to turn out someone just because they have no insurance or money. We were already footing all the hospital bills before Obamacare was enacted.

The above is one of the reasons our private health insurance costs have gotten so high. Those of us with insurance are essentially paying for the existing free health through our premiums as it is.

The health care costs to illegal aliens is estimated to be somewhere around US$9-10 billion dollars annually.

I contend that nationalized health care as enacted will drive those costs up exponentially due to bureaucracy and increased overhead inherent in gov't run systems.

Hooker

It does start a slippery slope. No pissing contest here, plenty of faults in all systems.

BTW, I like your signature line...........pretty much sums it up.

I think I've got another good post coming up, I just have to mull it over before I commit it to the thread.

Thanks for your input.

Yepper, I've heard tales about Canadian healthcare from a number of Canadian acquaintances. Just pray you don't die before your turn in the queue comes.

And, no, the US does not guarantee LIFE. God does. They, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are "unalienable" rights that many of our politicians tend to want to usurp with their own beliefs or dogma.

Here's the exact passage from the Declaration of Independence, which, btw, is NOT law:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I sure can get tired of people (including Americans) misquoting and/or misrepresenting our founding documents.

Hooker

Technically the declaration of independence is not a founding document of the United States, it is simply a declaration to justify armed revolt against the existing government in response to a british declaration of the 2nd continental congress as traitors against the crown. It was not the basis on which the United States was founded. The first attempt at governance actually failed. The US constitution wasn't developed for almost 5 years after the treaty of Paris ended the war in 1783. The articles of confederation were the the docuemnts that founded the original government, and it failed.

We agree - rules switch off 'assessment' powers and weaken the skill set.

And I also agree with ninja kitten, that the suspension of rules can result in less peril, as people are forced to 'think' (assess).

Probably the biggest down change in the road toll in Australia was the abolition of "right of way" in intersections and merging.

"Give way" replaced "Right of". Doesn't seem much of a difference, as it all works about the same - but the difference in 'attitude' it caused was everyone had to 'assess'. That turned to "be fair", as it had eliminated the Right to 'bully' other drivers.

And there is nothing like a set of inoperative traffic lights to demonstrate removal of a 'rule' makes 'thinking' switch on (in most people)

This does seem to fit if you really broke things down to consider such issues as traffic merging, which doesn't have directions typically. You see far more accidents on freeways and highways where traffic has to merge in with existing traffic flows. People with some understanding of the even minimal english won't care if you change the the terminology from right of way to give way, the effect is the same and in high traffic areas during rush hour traffics they will still violate the right or way even if you change the name, and force into traffic flows causing accidents. If you have ever driven around San Jose or LA during rush hour you see blantant dangerous traffic violation every day where there are no signage to tell people what to do (at least in those respects). With out signage, you can not enforce any traffic laws as it becomes a poorly educated (high school at best) police officers opinion against some driver who may be more astute. Even with the signs you see people constantly violating traffic laws, at least then the police can enforce the laws without much expense in court time over dismissals. Imagine a 4 way stop that has no signs on two 4 lane crossing highways where the speed limit is 70 mph, who is at fault when someone dies? (and they will as the deadliest traffic areas are where you have traffic crossing or merging on to highways at intersections.

A largely pictorial ad campaign came with it. But as said - it all comes down to adjusting attitude. And yes I've driven in LA - and no I don't understand "4 way stop".

Only the Shadow knows.