Dumb Laws

[430752]

I heard a news story this morning that got me all ired up. Some state senator in NY was proposing a bill to outlaw, get this, people talking on their cell phones or listening to an ipod while crossing the street. Yep, to make it illegal.

I mean, what's this country coming to? No, not the Iraq war dispute or the my-political-party-is-better-than-your-political-party thing. But just mundane, base laws that are going crazy.

First we got no cell phones while driving, which seemed okay, until people wanted to say no drinking coffee/pop while driving, etc.

then, no smoking anywhere inside, except your own house (but see below)

then no foie gras (goose liver pate) in Chicago could be served.

Then, transfats in your food are outlawed, at least in NYC.

Then, a bill saying no smoking in your car or home if anyone under 18 lives with you.

now, no phone or ipod use while crossing the street!

I mean, didn't we all learn that crossing the street could be dangerous and you could get hurt? with or without an ipod?

Next? lets see, since we can prohibit you from eating transfats, let's prohibit you from eating fast food. Or to eat only vegetables. Or must eat a breakfast. No seconds on deserts! No driving a car without stability control!

And don't go blaming the dems or the repubs, since these laws come from both sides. And don't go blaming the lawyers, since this is way, way beyond them (after all, by making crossing the street safer, they lose business!).

No, this is me and you. And my brother and your neighbor. We're doing this! This is crazy.

okay, **rant off**

curt j.

[crokett]

No, this is me and you. And my brother and your neighbor. We're doing this! This is crazy.

Actually its not that we are doing anything its that we are not doing anything. By this I mean we aren't voting out the elected officials who make up the stupid laws in the first place.

[ChrisD]

Actually its not that we are doing anything its that we are not doing anything. By this I mean we aren't voting out the elected officials who make up the stupid laws in the first place.

Guilty here. Decisions are made by those who show up!

[LarryG]

A lot of "dumb laws" are needlessly, perhaps even unconstitutionally, intrusive. No question.

A lot of "dumb laws" are enacted by legislators responding to the squeakiest wheel. Many of these laws are solving "problems" that aren't really problems to anyone except some narrowly-focused special interest group; and they are almost always utterly unenforceable. And every clear-thinking person knows both points to be a fact. But the special-interest group goes away happy and the pols get to go on TV and act like they've actually accomplished something.

Cell phones and personal stereos, though ... that's not so easy. A lot of people get on their wireless phones, or stick a pair of earbuds in their ears, and they become utterly oblivious to everyone and everything around them. Yes, they should use common sense and assume some personal responsibility, but the plain fact is that a lot of them won't or don't. So what is society supposed to do?

Sometimes, "dumb laws" truly are necessary in order to protect stupid people from themselves. More to the point, they're necessary so that the stupid person won't involve some innocent passerby in whatever stupid act he pulls -- like stepping out into a street in front of a car because he was too wrapped up in his phone call or music. The idiot on the phone, hey, his problems are over, 'cause he's dead. But the driver of the car is haunted for the rest of his life, even though he was entirely blameless.

Is this an instance where a "dumb law" is necessary? I don't know. I really don't. All I do know is that with many social issues, it's extremely difficult to know exactly where to draw the line.

[Richard in Smithville]

They ofter televise some of our local towns council meetings on cable. Many a time have I seen a common citizen stand up during the question period and challenge the council on some decision or another. The response is often, " Mr *****, you are out of order and we must ask you to leave".

But that's Canadian politics. You don't get anywhere untill all the newspapers have it in print.

[Ed62]

The response is often, " Mr *****, you are out of order and we must ask you to leave". But that's Canadian politics.

Actually, I think you can leave the "Canadian" part out. It's just plain politics, period!

Now on to the initial subject on the thread. I think there are a ton of laws that don't need to be laws. For instance, in probably most states it is against the law to drive without wearing a seatbelt. I believe in wearing them, and I always put them on, but for someone to be able to give me a ticket for not wearing it? That's just plain wrong! If the law says you must put your child in a seatbelt, that's an entirely different thing.

Ed

[jackellis]

I've seen the sausage being made and even had a hand in the process once or twice.

I'm ambivalent about seat belt laws though wearing a seat belt before it was mandatory saved my life. About cell phones, iPods and other distractions, I'm afraid I'm one of those who would mandate prohibiting their use in a car. Carrying on a phone conversation requires as much attention as driving, but few, if any, can devote sufficient attention to both activities at the same time. It's usually situational awareness that suffers and accidents are the result.

Don't get me started on smoking.

OTOH I would not ban trans fats - I'd ask for voluntary compliance. I would not ban foie gras any more than I'd ban beef or chicken or turkey.

One problem lawmakers have is that unless they're seen doing things, they can't justify their jobs. That problem could be solved with part-time legislatures.

[JSCOOK]

Actually, I think you can leave the "Canadian" part out. It's just plain politics, period!

Now on to the initial subject on the thread. I think there are a ton of laws that don't need to be laws. For instance, in probably most states it is against the law to drive without wearing a seatbelt. I believe in wearing them, and I always put them on, but for someone to be able to give me a ticket for not wearing it? That's just plain wrong! If the law says you must put your child in a seatbelt, that's an entirely different thing.

Ed

Is it fair to the poor guy who gotta scrap you out of your car or off the pavement because you didn't? ... Let's fore go the ticketing, and let's instead let the insurance companies charge people who are reported for not wearing a seatbelt a much higher rates because now you are classified as a higher liability ... it will get the same end result!

Now addressing the thread in general ...

While I would agree that some laws seem stupid or senseless, for the most part I believe that the intent behind them is typically thought "at the time" to be in the best interest of the general public ... remember that "we" don't always share the same perspective as the next fellow.

One of the things I always point out to people who squeak about this law or regulation, especially the "Drinking & Driving", "Gun Laws", "Vehicle Safeties" etc is this:

Why should your "rights" be allowed to impact the "freedom" of another?

When you stop and think about laws & regulations, it's not about controlling your "rights" and your "freedom", but more or less about preventing your action from having a negative impact on someone else's ... try being on the receiving end behind someone else's right to drive & drive which resulted in a fatality ... or the accident that results from someone driving while talking on the phone ...

Let's step it up a notch ...

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no reason to own or possess a hand gun unless your in some form of law enforcement ... hence the reason why I can pretty much walk in any part of a city in Canada and not feel life threatened ... and I've been thru most parts of the major Canadian cities.

Just food for though ...

[MilDoc]

Have to agree with JSCook. In too many cases the US believes in "individual freedom" rather than societal good. OTOH, I believe in laws to protect me from your stupidity:

1. If you walk out into the street, oblivious because of your cell phone etc, and I can't stop in time and hit you, it's your fault. No law suit. Take the consequences.

2. If you are in an accident while on the phoe / fixing your makeup / eating / reading while driving, it's your fault. You lose and pay all my damages.

3. If you kept smoking for years after the Surgeon General's report in the sixties and got cancer, it's your fault.

And lots of others.

[Ed62]

Is it fair to the poor guy who gotta scrap you out of your car or off the pavement because you didn't? ... Let's fore go the ticketing, and let's instead let the insurance companies charge people who are reported for not wearing a seatbelt a much higher rates because now you are classified as a higher liability ... it will get the same end result!

With all due respect, I think that's a pretty lame argunent. You could say the same thing for mountain climbers or a great number of other activities. Would you outlaw mountain climbing? Or flying on an airplane? If insurance companies charge higher premiums for those who do not wear seatbelts, that wouldn't bother me in the least. But I don't think it's right to make laws that force me to protect myself while driving, even though I would wear the seatbelt even if there were no such laws.

Ed

[JSCOOK]

Exactly! ...
... believe it or not, one of the law's we've had here in my tri-city region (three cities that have grown together of about 500,000) is that any public place is completely smoke free including bars & restaurants, and it's actually resulted in better patronage for most ... and I don't have to breath someone else's cancer causing exhaust!

Have to agree with JSCook. In too many cases the US believes in "individual freedom" rather than societal good. OTOH, I believe in laws to protect me from your stupidity:

1. If you walk out into the street, oblivious because of your cell phone etc, and I can't stop in time and hit you, it's your fault. No law suit. Take the consequences.

2. If you are in an accident while on the phoe / fixing your makeup / eating / reading while driving, it's your fault. You lose and pay all my damages.

3. If you kept smoking for years after the Surgeon General's report in the sixties and got cancer, it's your fault.

And lots of others.

[Ed62]

Paul, in most cases I agree with what you said. #2 would depend on what the other driver was doing. In most cases I'd agree that it would be the fault of the person doing those things, but not necessarily. The other driver might have been driving drunk, fleeing from a cop, or a number of other things. Granted, doing the things you mentioned while driving is an invitation to disaster, but it's just not as easy as black and white. i.e. the woman who was putting on makeup......was she a total beauty goddess?

Ed

[JSCOOK]

With all due respect, I think that's a pretty lame argunent. You could say the same thing for mountain climbers or a great number of other activities. Would you outlaw mountain climbing? Or flying on an airplane? If insurance companies charge higher premiums for those who do not wear seatbelts, that wouldn't bother me in the least. But I don't think it's right to make laws that force me to protect myself while driving, even though I would wear the seatbelt even if there were no such laws.
Ed

It's not just "you" your protecting, but what about "me" should I be riding in your car and we're side swiped? ... I could be fatally injured by your flying body on impact ...

... traffic accidents on the whole happen much more frequently that climbing or flying (and I think that is why the airlines have you wear your seatbelt most of the time )

I'm not an expert on insurance, but I did have a friend several years ago that was an avid climber and he did comment once that his life insurance premium was more due to his activities ... and I'm sure "private" pilots pay more too if their insurance companies know about it ...

[leehljp]

Just a reminder, Lets keep things cool here.

[Black wallnut]

Actually, I think you can leave the "Canadian" part out. It's just plain politics, period!

Ed

Folks there are very good reasons Political speech is expressly forbidden on this forum! My perception is that this topic has already crossed that line, even if started innocently enough. 'Nuf said?