Comments on: Seat belt legislation and the Isles Report http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:29:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Kate Carpenter http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-11881 Kate Carpenter Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:48:36 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-11881 The word missing from the issue of personal responsibility for their own safety and their dependents, versus state intervention, is Darwin (yes, I know there are still creationists who'll hang me from a tree for this). As a road safety engineer I am increasingly of the opinion that we get what we deserve - if we understand (even vaguely) the laws of physics (the laws no-one can break) then we are destined for the Darwin Award for self-removal from the gene pool (hopefully before procreation). I am uncertain about whether this means we should not assist those who struggle with physics - we strap our children in for their safety, so why stand by and allow less diligent adults to kill themselves or their dependents. I suppose it's all down to free will (the right to kill ourselves and our dependents if we wish) versus the state as benevolent parent (highway and police authorities using the naughty step!) I am sure the debate will outlive me, but meanwhile I'll keep belting up (and making double sure the person behind me does the same - for my sake as much as theirs!) On the political issue, I have observed the UK political dimension to highway management, at parish, town, county and national level: Conservatives want free flow driver-uber-alles regardless of child and elderly pedestrian risk i.e. all roundabouts and free-flow traffic. Labour members favour public safety even if it means some delay for car drivers - public net benefit concept - and libdems want whatever might gain local support! Congratulations John for intelligent, informed debate and thought-provoking articles. I like to be challenged! The word missing from the issue of personal responsibility for their own safety and their dependents, versus state intervention, is Darwin (yes, I know there are still creationists who’ll hang me from a tree for this).

As a road safety engineer I am increasingly of the opinion that we get what we deserve - if we understand (even vaguely) the laws of physics (the laws no-one can break) then we are destined for the Darwin Award for self-removal from the gene pool (hopefully before procreation).

I am uncertain about whether this means we should not assist those who struggle with physics - we strap our children in for their safety, so why stand by and allow less diligent adults to kill themselves or their dependents.

I suppose it’s all down to free will (the right to kill ourselves and our dependents if we wish) versus the state as benevolent parent (highway and police authorities using the naughty step!)

I am sure the debate will outlive me, but meanwhile I’ll keep belting up (and making double sure the person behind me does the same - for my sake as much as theirs!)

On the political issue, I have observed the UK political dimension to highway management, at parish, town, county and national level: Conservatives want free flow driver-uber-alles regardless of child and elderly pedestrian risk i.e. all roundabouts and free-flow traffic. Labour members favour public safety even if it means some delay for car drivers - public net benefit concept - and libdems want whatever might gain local support!

Congratulations John for intelligent, informed debate and thought-provoking articles. I like to be challenged!

]]> By: quickrelease.tv » Blog Archive » Want safer streets for cycling? Make cars crashier http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-11232 quickrelease.tv » Blog Archive » Want safer streets for cycling? Make cars crashier Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:17:19 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-11232 [...] save lives? What heresy is this? Read Adams’ views on this hoary topic for yourself here, and think about this when well-meaning cycle helmet compulsionists cite the efficacy of seat-belt [...] [...] save lives? What heresy is this? Read Adams’ views on this hoary topic for yourself here, and think about this when well-meaning cycle helmet compulsionists cite the efficacy of seat-belt [...]

]]> By: bonnie frye http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-10423 bonnie frye Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:34:34 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-10423 I am glad to know that others feel the way I do. I am glad to know that others feel the way I do.

]]> By: Dan Goebel http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-9968 Dan Goebel Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:20:41 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-9968 To all those interested in the truth! Billions of dollars in tax money has been spent on propaganda to promote seat belt use by the U.S. Government. We have been trained to think that if seat belt use can reduce the chance of death in an accident, then increasing seat belt use through unconstitutional laws that disregard individual "Free Will" will reduce traffic deaths. The problem is that the number of accidents has increased drastically as a result of mandatory seat belt laws and/or the enforcement there of. This drastic increase in traffic accidents, increased overall traffic deaths to the point where the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to separate out the non-occupant deaths from the overall traffic deaths in their statistics, or admit that these mandatory seat belt laws were causing more deaths. The NHTSA is a government agency with an agenda to push seat belt use through propaganda and government grants to states for the enforcement seat belt laws. They do this to the point of distorting the facts and spend billions of tax dollars doing it. Despite the manipulation of data by the NHTSA to make seat belt laws appear to be saving lives, the data does show that increased seat belt use has come at the cost of drastic increases in traffic accidents and traffic injuries. What is harder to find is that the number of deaths and injuries caused by drivers using seat belts to the more vulnerable of road users has gone up drastically with increased seat belt use. Thus, the enforcement of seat belt laws has put the general public more at risk. The enforcement of these laws has promoted careless driving at the cost of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. By disregarding the basic human right to "Free Will" with the enforcement of mandatory seat belt use laws, the government has put the non-occupant, or general population, far more at risk. In 2001, before the big push by the federal government to make seat belt use Laws a primary offense in all states, motorcyclists were 21 times as likely to be killed in a traffic accident (per mile) as a vehicle occupant. The fact that this ratio has gotten even more lopsided with increased seat belt use from enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws, demonstrates the absurdity of spending Billions of dollars in tax payer's money pushing these laws. Thank You John Adams for keeping up the fight to expose the truth about seat belt laws. Dan Goebel To all those interested in the truth!

Billions of dollars in tax money has been spent on propaganda to promote seat belt use by the U.S. Government. We have been trained to think that if seat belt use can reduce the chance of death in an accident, then increasing seat belt use through unconstitutional laws that disregard individual “Free Will” will reduce traffic deaths. The problem is that the number of accidents has increased drastically as a result of mandatory seat belt laws and/or the enforcement there of.

This drastic increase in traffic accidents, increased overall traffic deaths to the point where the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to separate out the non-occupant deaths from the overall traffic deaths in their statistics, or admit that these mandatory seat belt laws were causing more deaths. The NHTSA is a government agency with an agenda to push seat belt use through propaganda and government grants to states for the enforcement seat belt laws. They do this to the point of distorting the facts and spend billions of tax dollars doing it.

Despite the manipulation of data by the NHTSA to make seat belt laws appear to be saving lives, the data does show that increased seat belt use has come at the cost of drastic increases in traffic accidents and traffic injuries. What is harder to find is that the number of deaths and injuries caused by drivers using seat belts to the more vulnerable of road users has gone up drastically with increased seat belt use. Thus, the enforcement of seat belt laws has put the general public more at risk. The enforcement of these laws has promoted careless driving at the cost of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists.

By disregarding the basic human right to “Free Will” with the enforcement of mandatory seat belt use laws, the government has put the non-occupant, or general population, far more at risk. In 2001, before the big push by the federal government to make seat belt use Laws a primary offense in all states, motorcyclists were 21 times as likely to be killed in a traffic accident (per mile) as a vehicle occupant. The fact that this ratio has gotten even more lopsided with increased seat belt use from enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws, demonstrates the absurdity of spending Billions of dollars in tax payer’s money pushing these laws.

Thank You John Adams for keeping up the fight to expose the truth about seat belt laws.
Dan Goebel

]]> By: suzanne http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-1206 suzanne Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:30:20 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-1206 Mr. Adams, I just want to thank you for all your hard work. I live in New Hampshire USA and for the 2nd time in as many years am going before the transportation committee to testify in opposition to a proposed compulsory seatbelt law. Your work has been a cornerstone in facilitating my argument into a cohesive testimony. 2 years ago the bill was voted down along with a red light camera bill that was voted down by a super majority. With a democratic majority in power, I don't know how this will turn out this time. We're the last state in the Union to fight for this splinter of freedom. Hope for the best, brace for the worst! Cheers, Suzanne Mr. Adams,

I just want to thank you for all your hard work. I live in New Hampshire USA and for the 2nd time in as many years am going before the transportation committee to testify in opposition to a proposed compulsory seatbelt law. Your work has been a cornerstone in facilitating my argument into a cohesive testimony.
2 years ago the bill was voted down along with a red light camera bill that was voted down by a super majority. With a democratic majority in power, I don’t know how this will turn out this time. We’re the last state in the Union to fight for this splinter of freedom.
Hope for the best, brace for the worst!

Cheers,
Suzanne

]]> By: johnadams http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-48 johnadams Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:27:13 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-48 Martin You got me thinking. The division was largely left-right, but not entirely so. The opposition included a number of prominent left-wingers, such as Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner. The more important distinction was between libertarians opposed to criminalizing self-risk, and paternalists who believed that people should be compelled to do what was good for them if they weren\'t sensible enough to do it voluntarily. I\'ve modified the passage to read: \"It had a few eloquent libertarian supporters who liked its conclusions, but they were outnumbered by paternalistic health and safety enthusiasts who didn’t.\" Thanks for pointing this out. John Martin
You got me thinking. The division was largely left-right, but not entirely so. The opposition included a number of prominent left-wingers, such as Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner. The more important distinction was between libertarians opposed to criminalizing self-risk, and paternalists who believed that people should be compelled to do what was good for them if they weren\’t sensible enough to do it voluntarily.

I\’ve modified the passage to read:
\”It had a few eloquent libertarian supporters who liked its conclusions, but they were outnumbered by paternalistic health and safety enthusiasts who didn’t.\”

Thanks for pointing this out.
John

]]> By: Martin Parkinson http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-47 Martin Parkinson Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:00:22 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/#comment-47 Your write, re your seatbelt report: " It had a few eloquent right-wing libertarian supporters who liked its conclusions, but they were outnumbered by left-wing health and safety enthusiasts who didn’t" I'm curious to know if you think the left-right division is significant or acccidental. Does a "health & safety mindset" tend to correlate with left wing views? I don't have a left-right axe to grind here - I'm genuinely curious about that you think on this. I found your book "Risk", which I read in 2005, to be one of those rare books which noticeably changes the way one sees the world. Quite a compliment, I know, but there we are, so I make sure I drop in to your webpage from time to time. Your write, re your seatbelt report:
” It had a few eloquent right-wing libertarian supporters who liked its conclusions, but they were outnumbered by left-wing health and safety enthusiasts who didn’t”

I’m curious to know if you think the left-right division is significant or acccidental. Does a “health & safety mindset” tend to correlate with left wing views?

I don’t have a left-right axe to grind here - I’m genuinely curious about that you think on this. I found your book “Risk”, which I read in 2005, to be one of those rare books which noticeably changes the way one sees the world. Quite a compliment, I know, but there we are, so I make sure I drop in to your webpage from time to time.

]]>