Re: To our UK, Lebanese, & Egyptian brothers

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:46:10 GMT, Walter wrote:
>This compiled data can be slanted by anyone in any way that they like
>... so if a person owns a company that makes bicycle helmets, they pay
>someone collecting data that says X% of kids lives would be saved if
>they wore helmets ... it becomes law (save the children and public
>safety ... no outcry) and the person making the helmets gets all of
>their money back X 10 because of this law.

Yes, I'm sure the bike helmet industry has one hell of a powerful
lobby.

>Even if a kid is safer without a helmet, the law says they are safer
>with one and you're subject to fine and imprisonment for not buying your
>kid one.

Yep. Blame the legislation and vote them out. Fine by me. In the
interim, you still have to abide by it or pay the fine if you get
caught. That makes me happy.

>With law, though, "protection" can quickly turn into "intrusion" by some
>overly zealous cop or prosecutor anytime they like.

Not relevant.

>In NJ, helmets are
>a requirement for everyone riding a motorcycle. In DE, helmets are not
>a requirement ... but eye protection is. Are you saying that it's safer
>in DE to ride without a helmet than it is in NJ? I don't think it is

Driving ANYTHING without a helmet is dangerous in NJ. :)

No, I think that DE is more relaxed about it. And I kindly invite all
motorcyclists in NJ who don't like wearing a helmet to scoot their
butts right up to DE and setup camp.

>Should people also be arrested for buying their kids dirt bikes and the
>like for them to ride? What's the difference between riding a
>motorcycle with a helmet and driving in a convertible with the top down
>and no helmet? Or should a person be arrested for that, too? No kids
>in convertibles from now on or you are subject to fine and jail time?

Not a rational argument.

>Kids fall all the time and skin their faces, knees, elbows, etc. I
>guess next you're going to say they should wear helmets and full body
>armor all the time?

Not a rational argument.

>Of course the law wasn't created with the hopes that I would let my kid
>ride whout a helmet so they could make money. The law was created
>because X number of kids get hurt every year and to "save the children",
>this law was put in place. I'm sure just as many kids get hurt now as
>before (just less severe head injuries). Only now, if your kid isn't
>wearing one and gets caught, you have to go to court and pay whatever
>they say you have to pay.

By George, I think you're getting it.

>If those 100 senators are so much better than we are that they can make
>laws to "protect" us, shouldn't they be model citizens who respect and
>follow the laws that they make? They are human and stupid, too, so why
>should they decide what is safe or unsafe for me?

Yes, but they shouldn't be making the decisions based on their own
stupidity or intelligence. They should be making them based on the
voice of their constituency. And I have no idea if I spelled that
right.

>What senator listens to their constituents and passes those views on to
>anyone else? Their job isn't to listen. Their job is to make laws
>(whether they make sense or not). They don't care about anything except
>staying in office. They act like they do, they kiss babies (of course
>now they might be arrested for endangering the welfare, sexual assault,
>official misconduct and the like ... be labeled sex offender and subject
> to megan's law) etc all in an effort to stay in office. Once they're
>in office, it doesn't matter what you say or do.

Not a rational argument.

>That's the point. Someone who isn't minding their own business has to
>report it. There are cases where kids are being abused or neglected,
>but if these agencies were there to protect and prevent, they would
>check up on all children ... not just the ones that have been reported.

Not a rational argument.

>So if they pass a law that says you can't hit your kids with anything
>except a newspaper, that means that if you hit your kid with a belt or
>your hand, you are abusing them? According to the law, you would be.

Yes, according to the law, you would be.

>It's not the same thing, but bear with me. On a particular road, the
>speed limit is set at 55. If you are clocked at 56 or more, you are
>subject to getting a ticket. If you are going along with your cruise
>control set at (an indicated on your digital dash) 55 mph but are
>actually going 55.6 mph, that might register as 56 on the radar gun (it
>has only whole numbers on it, so it rounds to the nearest number). Is
>it sooo unsafe for you to go 56 that you should get a ticket?

Actually, when I was first radar-certified, my agency would not permit
us to write traffic citations unless the vehicle was moving at more
than 10mph over the posted speed limit. Florida state law was updated
a couple of years later to define the penalty for speeding 1-5mph over
the posted limit was "Warning", thereby effectively eliminating
tickets for within a 5mph margin. I'm sure you had a point, but it
seems to have been lost.

By the way, running radar is called "tracking", not "clocking". You
"clock" someone with a stopwatch or a VASCAR unit.

>That all depends on how zealous the cop is and how far below his quota
>he is. The point is that the law defines things "precisely", but no one
>I know walks on water. These laws can be taken into whatever context
>they see fit to charge a person.

Few agencies have quotas. That's a myth.

For example, our traffic division had a "quota" of 160 tickets per
month. All they did was write tickets. They worked 20 days a month,
and eight hour shifts. That's one ticket per hour. Most of them
averaged 800-900 tickets per month.

And I don't know where you are, but laws are written pretty
specifically here for the most part.

>And talk about money ... if you choose to fight this ticket in court and
>lose, you'll not only have to pay for the ticket, but you'll also pay
>"court costs". In some places, you have to pay other fines, too. One
>township I was in charged everyone another $30 for violating the "safe
>neighborhood act". Anyone who gets a ticket was obviously operating
>their vehicle in an unsafe manner (or was driving an unsafe vehicle if
>their windshield was cracked or they had a headlight out).

You have the right to take a traffic violation to court, and if you
are found to be guilty, they charge you administrative fees for using
the services of the court. I'm not sure what's hard to understand
about that. If you're not guilty, the state absorbs that cost.

The 'safe neighborhood act' thing does sound a little ridiculous and
open to abuse.

>And if seat belts weren't a way to make money, why did they change the
>law here in NJ from your having to wear a seat belt (or pay a fine if
>caught ... but you had to be in violation of some other law to get
>pulled over) to they can pull you over for not wearing your seat belt
>even if you aren't doing anything else that is illegal?

It's not to generate revenue. It's to increase the level of
enforcement for people like you that think seatbelts kill.

Personally, I don't really care if a jurisdiction requires the use of
seat belts or not. It wouldn't change the fact that I wear mine (more
because of the fact my mother would kick my ass than for safety
resons), but I don't know that I think it should be a traffic
violation either. I'm pretty on-the-fence with this one.

>> Simply put, false.
>
>Where is it false? If you have a neighbor that doesn't like you and
>calls DYFS on you, they send a social worker. If that social worker
>feels that hitting your kid with anything other than a newspaper is
>abuse, guess who is going to court and maybe to jail?
>Guess who gets another case on their load that will eventually lead to
>more coworkers and a bigger salary for their supervisor?

Horsepuckey.

MP-
--
"Learning is a behavior that results from consequences."
B.F. Skinner
.