HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 25, 2004 How catchy. In case you’re not in an area with this new ad campaign, here’s the gist. The government (local in conjunction with federal) has bought some airtime on local TV stations to inform the public that they will be enforcing seatbelt rules. So, buckle up or we’ll give you a ticket. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I’ve got a couple of beefs with this expenditure of my money. To start with, the government is spending tax money to inform me that they’re going to enforce laws that have existed for years. This implies one of two things: either they have previously made a conscious choice to not enforce seatbelt laws (which is indefensible) or they have been unable to enforce them effectively (also indefensible). Either way, it would seem that there is no need to spend money advertising that laws will be enforced. How about bank robbing? I can’t remember the last time a bank was robbed around here. Are they still enforcing those laws? It seems that a money-saving alternative might be to just start enforcing the laws and let the chips fall where they may. I’m sure that local news stations would be more than willing to report on the increased ticketing, providing some free advertising while simply following the law. What a great idea, huh? For the sake of argument, let’s humor these fine public officials and concede that this sort of advertising is worthwhile. Since we’re going to have our money spent on this sort of thing, what law’s enforcement should we be advertising (and actually enforcing, of course)? The current theme of Click it or Ticket is certainly catchy and perhaps quite noble at first glance. Let’s take a bit closer look at seatbelt laws and alternative ad campaigns to see if perhaps our money might be better spent, shall we? I am required by law, and under the penalty of a fine, to wear my seatbelt while in the front seat (and, in some states, in the backseat) of a motor vehicle. Also, children are required to be buckled in any seat (I think in all states, but I could be wrong). Let me ask the obvious question: Should I be required to wear my seatbelt? The libertarian in me says No. Why should the government force me to protect myself. I can climb a sheer rock wall without a rope, but I can’t drive without a safety belt? The requirement for children is fine, they are not legally capable of making many decisions that affect their safety and I think we should protect them in cases where their parents are too stupid to do the job. But adults, why? If I get into an accident, the damage/injury done to the people in the other car is absolutely independent of whether or not I’m wearing a seatbelt. The only argument I see in support of seatbelt laws is that I am more likely to be injured and, therefore, incur medical bills, cause insurance payouts, increase everyone’s premiums, etc. However, I can eat any dang thing I want, get heart disease, bill my insurance company, etc., etc. So what’s the difference? Basically, it seems that this ad campaign is designed to protect people from their own potential stupidity. Might my money not be better spent in an effort to protect me from other people’s stupidity? I, as you might have guessed, have a few suggestions. Staying on the topic of traffic issues, how about advertising the enforcement of lane change regulations. I cannot tell you how many times people cut me off on the highway without so much as a flicker of a signal. Or how about actually stopping at stop signs? Or maybe stopping before making a right on red? Or, maybe just actually stopping when the light turns red in the first place? (Can you tell I live in the northeast?) These are all examples of traffic laws that people blatantly disregard directly under the noses of the police and are absolutely not enforced. Further, the disregard for these laws can (and does) directly injure law-abiding citizens in the form of accidents caused by illegal actions of others behind the wheel. So if we’re not only going to suddenly start enforcing the letter of the traffic law, but also pay to advertise the fact, shouldn’t we at least try to protect law-abiding citizens? Instead, our elected (and probably appointed) officials have decided, in their infinite wisdumb, to spend my money to protect other people from themselves while leaving me exposed to hazardous driving conditions produced by people breaking traffic laws that are not enforced. What a great system. I suppose this will not get much attention, and any that it does garner will most likely be supportive. I only hope that I have convinced at least some of you that there might be two sides to this argument. Everything has a cost, in the case of the Click it or Ticket campaign, it’s costing us money and law-abiding lives to try to save people from themselves. ------------ About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never lacks topics for friendly discussions. Check out his blog MuD&PHuD. Email Thomas Carroll: mudphud11@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
