Views on News • October 6th, 2008

Click it or ticket?

by Chris Lato

I am not necessarily opposed to this idea, but I understand those who are. It’s kind of like motorcyclists who don’t wear helmets. If you split your skull open as a result, well, you knew the risks going in. Personal choice and all that. It could be argued that this is just another example of the nanny state telling us all what’s best.

But in a sense, it isn’t. As taxpayers, we pay for those whose messes that get cleaned up by the police when there’s an accident. As insured motorists, if there are fewer accidents and deaths, and tougher enforcement of ‘safe driving’ techniques, then presumably, insurance costs will go down overall. Ditto for health insurance. Behaviors in public places, on public infrastructure, impact all of us one way or another. Why should the rest of us have to shell out more because some iconoclast wants to let his freak flag fly by not wearing a belt?

Maybe, too, it is easier for me to swallow because I am already in the habit of wearing the belt and it makes sense to me as a basic safety measure.  It’s been in place as a secondary enforcement option for so long, I’d hate to get tagged for a seatbelt violation while speeding. That kind of double whammy would be adding insult to injury for someone, like me, who has admittedly struggled in the past to maintain posted speeds.

From a PR perspective, primary enforcement for seatbelt use is a sellable idea for the state. First of all, the federal windfall. Second, a focus on the safety ramifications of implementing such a law. Third, the potential benefit in terms of cost savings for motorists.  All good points that are hard to argue with.

Opponents are concerned that this gives police license to harass motorists. Well, wear the seat belt and the problem is solved.

So, where do you draw the line when it comes to driving enforcement? I would argue that line is drawn at California. During recent trips to California, I learned about the ‘hands-free’ law (no cell phone use while driving unless you have a hands-free device) and, more bizarrely, the ‘no attaching a GPS system to the windshield’ law. That’s carrying things a little too far. Doesn’t California already have an inattentive driving law that already covers all sorts of bad behavior while behind the wheel?

(By the way, I do not know if ‘Baby on Board’ signs and Garfield stuffed animals with suction cups on their feet are banned in California. But I would not be surprised if they are.)

As a side note: I was a really big fan of traffic legislation that was introduced several sessions ago (I have no idea if it has been brought back since) that would let law enforcers crack down on drivers who roll along in the passing lanes even when they are not passing. Few things get my goat more than some oblivious sort taking a leisurely drive in the left lane on I-94 with a string of 12 vehicles behind him.

I have no idea how enforcement of a passing lane law would work, but on the basics I am absolutely in 100% support.  Any chance we could tack that one on a seat-belt bill?

The safety vs. nanny state argument is a tricky one. For example, my daughter learned to ride her bike without training wheels this summer, and I had to really start cracking down to ensure she wears her helmet at all times – although I made it through my childhood without ever wearing a helmet and escaped serious injury.

Today, not making a kid wear a helmet is almost seen as a form of child abuse. Just about every kid living in my neighborhood wears a helmet, and there isn’t a law in place to enforce that.

Sometimes a little social pressure, and a dash of common sense, is all it takes.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am and is filed under Views on News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.