Normally, I leave the Cracked.com to Michael. Their offering yesterday on The 5 Most Popular Safety Laws That Don't Work, however, seemed right up my alley. I like to think of it as a 5 step take down of the "if it only saves one life it is worth it" argument (aka, benefit-only analysis, as opposed to cost-benefit analysis), while validating my hatred of ubiquitous speed bumps (Duke University, you know what roads I mean). And, of course, one should always consider who that one life you are saving belongs to.
Comments
Becky Jungbauer | 04/08/09 | 10:58 AM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Patrick Lockerby | 04/08/09 | 12:23 PM
It's exacerbated when the "solutions" don't actually solve any problems and may make them worse. It's a common failing in our society. The perception that if you aren't doing anything (even if it's wrong) that you somehow are apathetic, instead of recognizing that many situations don't have solutions. Doing nothing is the entirely appropriate thing in a significant number of instances.
Gerhard Adam | 04/08/09 | 13:35 PM
I'm going to suggest that it isn't the responsibility of the government nor society to keep individuals safe from their own choices. This isn't the same thing as ensuring that safe products are produced, or that standards in products shouldn't be monitored, since it would be virtually impossible for an individual to obtain information (or verify it) on their on to make informed decisions.
However, when the information is available and an individual still makes bad choices, then the onus is on them and it shouldn't be the perogative of the government or anyone else to mandate behavior to protect people from themselves.
Gerhard Adam | 04/08/09 | 13:41 PM
I'm going to suggest that it isn't the responsibility of the government
nor society to keep individuals safe from their own choices.
This is a realm for personal opinion. Even if one disagrees with you that it IS the government's job to protect you from your own choices, it is not defensible to take actions that do not achieve their stated goals. And, determining whether certain actions achieve their stated goals is definitely the realm of science, not opinion.
Josh Witten | 04/08/09 | 14:37 PM
Just anecdotally, I was in Canada where an individual informed me that the government has made it illegal to smoke in your own car if children under a certain age were also present. Regardless of how someone feels about this (with respect to smoking), I would suggest that it is virtually impossible to enforce, and it gives far too many rights to police officers for discretionary stops.
It gets into a very gray area, because often we find that the intentions are good, but the implementation is dubious. In addition, all too often we find that the offenders to whom the original law is targeted are invariably the ones that still do what they do, while innocent people tend to be more victimized.
Gerhard Adam | 04/08/09 | 14:52 PM
I just try to make a point of injecting my own political views into my writing here.
Josh Witten | 04/08/09 | 15:02 PM
We have a ban on non-headset cell phone use too so, like with prohibition, we are creating a generation of casual criminals.
Hank Campbell | 04/08/09 | 16:41 PM
it is not defensible to take actions that do not achieve their stated
goals. And, determining whether certain actions achieve their stated
goals is definitely the realm of science, not opinion.
Josh: this reminds me of something that happened in London some while ago.
A politician, equipped with opinion, caused the erection of some concrete bollards across a street to keep drivers from using it as a shortcut.
The local fire service, equipped with the science of fire-fighting - and some rather hefty chains - removed the hazard to life soon afterwards.
Patrick Lockerby | 04/08/09 | 14:58 PM
