On 16 Feb 2005 15:05:38 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Zebee Johnstone says...

Seatbelt laws and laws about driving drunk or while on the phone are
probably different in that way. Theoretically, someone without a
seatbelt hurts themselves only, someone who is impaired enough to be
very unlikely to be able to control a ton and a half of lethal weapon is
a danger to others.

I think that's the critical separation. The first catagory (helmet
and seatbelt laws - for *adults*, that is) are laws designed to
protect the individual from their own actions. The effect to
society is tertiary at best.

I can buy that. Most of the dumber ones ignore the laws anyway.
But, society still has to pay for the brain-damaged non helmet
wearing "survivor", so there is _some_ effect.

The second set of laws protect one driver from another driver's
actions.

Arguably, seat belts _could_ fall into this category. Secondary
crashes and all that.

Because we all share public roadways, anyone who
drives impaired (drunk,

Yes,

or cell phone use)

IF, and only if, they perform unsafely while using the cellphone.
Punish bad driving, not things that sometimes cause bad driving.

will *directly*
affect other road users. It's a primary effect, not teritiary.

Arguable for cellphones. Sorry. Still.

I would argue that the first set of laws do citizens a real
dis-service.

Whaaaat? If I don't have to pay taxes to support some idiot who is
mostly dead for the rest of his unnatural life, I'm all for that.

As has been said more eloquently by another poster,
those laws shield drivers from the effects of their own stupidity.

That might have been me? Doesn't make 'em less stupid, it just
gives the EMTs something more intact to work on after they do
stupid stuff.

Dave