How exactly are the police going to enforce a law that takes place in one’s private bathroom? And exactly what risk do bathroom incidents pose innocent bystanders?
Further, precisely what legally mandatory bathtub safety devices installed by manufacturers exist that a certain part of the population feels it’s their personal right not to use?
Terrible analogy.
No, it means that safety issues must be balanced against the feasibility of enforcement. Rules that cannot be reasonably enforced can do little good, and can arguably cause more damage.
Case in point: Should we have policemen determine if motorists have any loose bowling balls in the backseats of their cars? How exactly would we do this? Have traffic cops pull up alongside the vehicles and peer inside? Would this not create further safety hazards, as the policemen would then be distracted from other road safety issues?
And how many policemen would be required to enforce such rules? It’s one thing to identify speeding motorists. It’s yet another thing to examine every vehicle for every possible safety hazard. Policemen are in limited supply, and only a naive layperson would say, “Well, we just need to hire more cops, then!”
Your points are exactly my points. Bathroom risks pose nearly the same risks to innocent bystanders as not wearing a seat belt. Mainly the dubious argument regarding increased insurance premiums.
You also point out what I’m getting at, namely that if safety for people is the priority, then safety devices in bathroom installations should be mandetory, in the same way that there are building codes for the way plumbing, wiring, supports, and many other aspects of buidling are regulated.
The fact that the dangers related to seat belt non-use are above the radar and bathroom safety is below the radar just shows that safety is not the real reason that seat belt laws are an issue.
-Eben
Despite the terrible nature of the cost he paid, it’s a very “nice” example of actions and consequences. And yet…it adds nothing to this debate.
In this instance, the only benefit gotten by having a seatbelt law on the books was that the government received a few extra bucks (the amount of the traffic fines). Perhaps his insurance company gained a couple dollars of profit by raising his rates, but I’m not sure they do that.
Again, if this thread was a debate about whether or not to wear a seatbelt, it would be a golden anecdote enshrined with classics like “don’t run with scissors”.
Ummm…you might want to read the next two sentences after the one you quoted.
Bullshit. A guy hurtling around the inside of a car or flying through the air outside of his car poses nearly the same risk to his passengers and to people around his car as a guy in his bathtub? Um, no.
There are mandatory requirements for bathrooms such as you can’t have a light switch or electrical outlet in your shower surround; public shower facilities have specific codes for handicapped accessibility, etc. Just try getting your building to pass inspection if these mandatory building code requirements are not met. Are they going to arrest you? No, because building inspections are different than road policing. But why should the government care if you put a light switch in your shower? You’re not endangering anyone but yourself (and your guests). It’s a safety thing.
Again. Bullshit. The reason there’s a law is because people are apparently too dumb and/or stubborn to buckle the hell up without having to be told to do so. It’s smart. It can and does save lives and reduce the risk of serious injury. There’s nothing devious about that.
So the only concern with seatbelts is the flying around angle? I had the impression that was the least likely and most poorly defended part of the pro-seatbelt law arguments.
I was talking about the usual arugments that it costs the public through increases in insurance and personal danger. Both of those arguments are just as applicable to slipping in the bathroom.
I merely responded to your comment that there weren’t mandated safety devices in bathrooms to legaly require use thereof in the same way that there are. I thank you for pointing out that in fact there are some measure of required safety devices. Would it be a good proposal to mandate the use of them? It could be a secondary offence, as many seat belt laws are. If you’re busted as being a crack dealer and they find a radio plugged in by the bath, they could fine you some more, for example.
If the reason for the law is because people are too dumb and/or stubborn to buckle up then quite seriously there should be a law against people driving as they are too dumb and/or stupid to stop getting in accidents.
Safety is not the true reason for seat belt laws.
Also, if laws will make people be safer by buckling up, will it also make them safer by not speeding or running red lights? Apparently not. More proof that seat belt laws are not about safety. (We are talking about adult seatbelt laws here, just to be clear.)
-Eben
Really? What are they about for children then?
I think safety belt laws are a good thing. The average law abiding driver or passenger, who doesn’t want to get a ticket, is more likely to buckle up when the law is in place, in situations where they otherwise might not.
Illinois passed their law before California; during that time I was definitely more conscientious about using the seat belt when visiting Chicago than I was at home.
I know that some view such laws as a tool the police can use in harrassing minorities, but that’s an issue of police tactics. Any minor law can be used that way, and probably is, either because of the officer’s personal prejudices, or because of institutional issues in their PDs.
In the case of children the law is mainly about safety.
The subtext of that is that children are not capable of understanding the dangers of decisions they make, such as not wearing a seat belt.
Being an adult means that you are capable of making decisions while understanding the dangers involved.
Telling adults that they can not make decisions any better than children removes the differences between them in a legal manner. Do we need to make it illegal for adults to drink alcohol because they aren’t capable of understanding the ramifications of their decisions? I think we all know where that leads.
-Eben
So you believe that people will listen to a law when they will not listen to safety statistics and good advice?
If that’s the case, is there any reason not to institute a complete nanny state where everything we do is completely structured by safety laws?
-Eben
Nope, that’s the very worst* kind of helmet. The straps that run by your ear catch the wind and create white noise. It’s not much if you’re in a heavy traffic situation, where you’re expecting cars…
Eben, Sorry it took so long but I had to do some research. I am a bicycle rider, favorite is single track and playing in traffic, San Jose, Cal., but I have riden in every situation. I checked with a friend who rides 10,000 miles a year. Neither of us has ever had a problem with hearing any traffic while riding in any conditions. You may have a hearing problem or some other problem. You should have it checked.
Hm, maybe my overlarge ears are causing me to hear more whistling in the helmet than otherwise. I suspect it has to do more with my being used to quiet country noiselessness. According to my last hearing check, my hearing is within normal ranges (about two years ago).
Regardless of the cause, the effect is real. The ultimate point is that blanket laws without regard to situation can be counterproductive, in my case making me less safe on a country road. If it makes anyone feel better, I do wear a helmet when on steep mountain trails where my chance of flying off my bike are greater. I just feel that as the operator of myself I should be allowed to make my own decision towards what safety measures to employ in each situation.
-Eben