Seat Belts: Arizona on this point I agree with you...

It's come around again.  There was a tragic accident this past weekend on a stretch of Arizona highways and 5 of the 9 passengers in a Chevrolet Tahoe lost their lives.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety reports that it's likely the 5 occupants who were ejected from the vehicle after it rolled over from a blown tire would likely have survived had they been wearing seat belts.

There's no arguing that seat belts are the most effective personal automotive safety feature second only to the recent addition of vehicle airbags.

But it's still a choice to use them.

Back in the late 80's many automotive manufacturers tried to mandate their use by introducing automatic systems.  Ultimately, however, their poor performance and unreliability made them the butt of jokes until the widespread use of SRS Airbag systems.

Which brings us to today's automotive safety technology which includes everything from airbags, to automatic braking, lane change warnings and backup cameras.  In that mix is still the good ol' seat belt and it's still an active choice to use it.

In my view that's a good thing.  

Remember when I mentioned those goofy automatic systems from the 80's?  There's a reason they're gone.  They were unreliable and cumbersome which left most of them unused, bypassed or disabled.  If the single most effective automotive safety device becomes some comical Rube Goldberg machination then it's failed its primary function.

So no, I have no beef with seat belts.  In fact they may well have saved my life when I was involved in my own major accident.  By strange coincidence, the night that accident happened was the first time I had used them even though I'd been driving for a few years.  

But...

I use them by choice and strongly believe that's the way it should be.

You see, I have a problem with AAA's "nanny state" position on seat belts that seeks to change Arizona state law.  Right now seat belt use is not a "primary" offense like speeding or DUI.  Instead it's considered a "secondary" offense only leveled in addition to some other driving infraction.

I'm a firm believer in individual rights and as such believe that anyone who chooses to raise their chances of a fatality by not using seat belts should have the right to make that decision.

Yes, it's a stupid choice but with all its faults, Arizona and its laws in particular tend to bias against infringing on personal choice unless there's some inherent political benefit.  

Luckily, seat belts aren't the hot potato issue of say Planned Parenthood so it's unlikely that the Arizona state legislature will change seat belt laws anytime soon.

Still, it seems that the AAA continues to push the issue with new campaigns to change seat belt laws every year bolstered by some high profile tragedy that feeds their cause.

My problem with changing seat belt laws in this state is that Arizona tends to go overboard when putting the "nanny state" into action.

That's because nothing changes in Arizona unless there's the potential for a new revenue stream.  It's why we had such fiascos as freeway speed cameras which did nothing for safety but filled the state's coffers.  The minute they stopped earning their keep, they were gone.

So much for the safety argument...

Speeding is one thing but do we really need patrol officers spending their day watching for seat belt "offenders?"  How could anyone take such a personal mandate as anything but another potential revenue stream?

Too many liberties have become casualties in the cause of supposed safety.  It may sound ridiculous but we should have the right to be stupid if we want to be, especially if we're not putting anyone else in danger.

Safety is a personal responsibility.  The use of a seat belt has no effect on anyone but the individual making the decision to use it.  I challenge the AAA to prove otherwise.

Of course I already know what the AAA would say and I flatly reject the "monkey see monkey do" arguments about parenting and role models.  

On this point I call it a fallacy.  In fact in my own case, my parents never did and still won't wear seat belts but I choose to.  

There really isn't any valid, competent argument for such measures save for the increased revenue stream from the "tax" of compliance.  

Unfortunately for the AAA, that doesn't make as good a  sound bite as distracted driving or DUI.

Stay strong on this Arizona, we've had enough of being "protected" from ourselves.

The Sin of Driving And Cheesburgers

Originally posted on Technorati as The Sin of Driving and Cheeseburgers.

I'm a criminal....

At least I would be if I were in California...

You see last night I was kind of rushed for time. Instead of taking an hour to get my dinner from a box that once lived in my cupboard I decided to hit Burger King on the way out to a client site.

Now I've done this before but I've learned which fast food fare I can wolf down without worrying about the distraction of actually eating it. For one thing, forget about anything from Carl's junior or anything that takes more than one hand to stuff into your face. I also make sure that should my selection decide to disassemble itself, it won't require me to take my eyes off the road.

I do most of my driving at night with light traffic. Stick me in a rush hour and you won't find anything more substantial than a pint of milk in my cup holder. After all we do have cup holders for a reason.
Yes, I too have suffered the distracted soccer mom with a phone growing out of her ear. I've tolerated the tone deaf teenager too distracted by the 1000's of decibels shaking the earth to notice that the traffic light has changed twice.

Distracted driving is a bad thing and you'll never convince me you can text and control an automobile any more than you can drive your car while standing on the roof. The question is, what constitutes a distraction. It seems the law isn't quite sure either.
While there's no law that explicitly cites driving while eating as a criminal offense ( or even a misdemeanor). Many state and municipal law enforcement officers are empowered to stop any driver for activity that the officer deems as distracting. In the case of California my trip through Burger King could cost me $1000.

This isn't the first time we've heard of enforcement of vaguely defined laws. In Arizona, for example, an officer can stop and cite you if he feels you were driving aggressively. Aggressively isn't well defined so anything from extended middle finger to ramming the car in front of you applies. Better keep that bird caged!

It seems that we see an ever increasing volume of laws designed to punish us for what we "might" do. Speed enforcement cameras, distracted driving laws and various statues aimed at limiting free speech fall into this category.

It may be 28 years late but Orwell's concept of "thoughtcrime" may be coming to pass after all. I'm sure the argument for the vagaries of such laws is that they'd be unenforceable otherwise. My response is simply that if you can't define the offense then there isn't one.
Here's a compromise. Those whose driving is distracted by other activities will be obvious. Other more well defined laws will no doubt be violated during the process. Pull them over for those offenses and if the behavior is egregious enough to merit it, then cite them for the distraction as a secondary offense.

The difference here is that we're punishing an actual offense, not the possibility of one. If we all were prosecuted for what we might do we'd all be in jail.

In the end there's no real motivation to have laws like this other than revenue when a citation for texting can cost you $145 while eating can cost you $1000. The argument of safer roads is a straw man meant to distract a fearful public from the real objective.

It's another example of cash starved governments preying on a population seemingly bent on abdicating personal responsibility. All for the sake of false security.

Yes, cheer as you roll by the well dressed man in the sparkling BMW who flipped off the driver of a subcompact who dared cut him off. Chuckle as he vainly tries to explain his plight to the officer busily scribbling in his ticket book but ask yourself what have you lost.

By the way, while you were watching the BMW guy....You were distracted....