MATTHEW GAGNON

Impulse to make laws does little for safety

Posted Sept. 15, 2011, at 7:04 p.m.
Last modified Sept. 15, 2011, at 7:26 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

There is nothing so dangerous in government as a lawmaker who feels compelled to “do something.”

People in government often feel they need to justify their own existence by finding a problem and then legislating a solution for it. Like parents disciplining their children, enterprising legislators have a penchant for codifying behavioral rules.

Motorcyclists die when they crash without a helmet? Mandate helmets! Motorists die because they don’t wear their seat belt? Mandate wearing seat belts! Too many fat people in the world? Ban trans fats!

The list of paternalistic, statist ideas is endless, because there is no end to preventable problems that lawmakers can find and propose a law to “solve.”

The latest — and in my mind most ridiculous — proposed law of this kind here in Maine is one which would require paddlers to wear life jackets while out on the water.

Naturally, this comes in response to a problem. A few kayakers have died this summer while not wearing life jackets. Ignorance of the danger, particularly by tourists, is a major factor in the push to legally force people to put on a life jacket. A law would magically fix this, of course.

Legal solutions like these are problematic for several reasons.

To start, their effectiveness is often either nonexistent or highly suspect. Take speed limits, for instance. In the 1970s, cars in the United States were slowed down to an achingly slow 55 miles per hour when the national speed limit was instituted. It was widely believed that slowing down cars on the highway would lead to fewer fatalities in crashes.

Not only do hundreds of thousands of motorists (myself included) flaunt the posted speed limits every day, but the lower speed limit didn’t really have much of an effect on traffic fatalities. Indeed, the state of Montana would later go on to remove speed limits entirely from nonurban areas, and they found that fatalities simply did not rise at all. With no speed limit. Go as fast as you like.

Why is this? People generally aren’t stupid and they don’t want to die. The people who are stupid enough to recklessly speed do it with or without speed limits. Very little changes (other than my bill for speeding tickets).

Other laws, such as outlawing the use of cellphones while driving, are simply not obeyed by anyone.

These laws always fail to deal with context. Not wearing a seat belt for a quarter-mile trip on an abandoned road is hardly more dangerous to you than doing so in the middle of rush hour traffic on the highway, for example. Not wearing a life jacket on a still pond is inherently less dangerous than kayaking rapids without one.

But most troubling is that laws such as these stomp on the freedom of choice by individuals to run their own lives how they see fit, risk and all.

There is a great scene from the movie “Demolition Man” (an otherwise horrible movie), in which Denis Leary’s character launches into a tirade which has become something of an anthem for those of us who hate nanny-state laws:

“I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, ‘Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?’ I WANT high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, OK? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, OK, pal?”

His point, comically, is that there are harmful things all around us, but legally removing our ability to choose to engage in riskier behavior in the name of “what’s best” for us is, and should be, offensive.

It is one thing to say “you really shouldn’t do that,” but it is an entirely different thing to say “you can’t do that, or we will fine you or put you in prison.”

Are all public safety laws wrong? No, of course not. But when we start legislating people wearing orange flotation devices, I think we’ve gone well beyond a reasonable line.

Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for Sen. Susan Collins and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    So I’m the only one not to use a cellphone while driving? Really? And getting into an accident because of distracted driving doesn’t hurt anyone but the person who caused the accident. Really?

    I agree with you on the pfds but not on seat belts or driving while talking on the phone.

  • Anonymous

    So I’m the only one not to use a cellphone while driving? Really? And getting into an accident because of distracted driving doesn’t hurt anyone but the person who caused the accident. Really?

    I agree with you on the pfds but not on seat belts or driving while talking on the phone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1565762781 Catherine Lavallee

    Awesome article!  Very well said.  I can only add this:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
    victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under
    robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s
    cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
    satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
    without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.    C. S. Lewis

  • http://jamesmcgowan.org James McGowan

    Great rebuke to this week’s introduction of the PFD bill.   Legislators often act on impulse and emotion (such as recent tragedy) when creating bill and laws that have long term impacts on all of us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    I think the point was people talk on their cell phone whether there are laws that make that illegal or not. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    It has never been the job of government to write laws to protect us from ourselves yet they continue to do so and we continue to elect them.

  • Anonymous

    Great commentary!   Nothing like a dose of common sense.

    Problem is that legislators,  especially progressives, do not seem to have any common sense.  They are convinced they can solve all the problems in the world if they just write enough laws and rules. 

  • Anonymous

    Really? There have veen laws regulating behavior since the Puritans landed and ever since.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, that’s true of every single law. Does this mean they shouldn’t exist?

    Besides which, driving while distracted kills other people, unlike eating badly, where you jist kill yourself.

    I can imagine this column being written 30 years ago about drunk driving. He’d say the nanny state was stupid and everyond drinks and drives and so what if you kill yourself. It was socially accepted to drink and drive then.

    Again, I think the pfd law is an overstep because it’s about one’s own freedom. But when hou get in a car, you can kill other people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

    The point is, behavioral things like using a cell phone in the car are such a minor act of control that their effectiveness in actually curbing the behavior is virtually non-existent.  I completely agree with you that people shouldn’t drive in their cars and talk on the phone at the same time, but a law saying you can’t isn’t going to stop virtually anyone from doing it.

    The people who obey that law are the people who take seriously the safety risks – which are the people who would do so ANYWAY without a law.

    I live in Washington DC, where you can’t drive on the phone.  And believe me, 80% of cars around me have people on the phones when I drive home at night.

    We shouldn’t legislate behavior, we should legislate action and consequence.  Being on the phone in the car shouldn’t be illegal, for instance, but if a crash happens and it is determined that the driver’s attention wasn’t on the road as they were driving (distracted driving) – be it phone call, text, changing a CD, looking for something in the glovebox, whatever – then the penalties for the crash should dramatically rise.

    That way, you could have a quick chat with your wife for 45 seconds when she calls and there is no one around you, tell her you’ll be home in 20 minutes, hang up, and you won’t have broken the law… yet if you text your friend about going out drinking tonight and then careen into oncoming traffic, you pay a hefty price.

    Trying to regulate risky behavior just because it is risky behavior is wrong for government to do, especially when the action only affects the individual.

    But lets be honest, anyway, most of these kinds of laws are just intended to raise revenue for the state or police stations anyway.

  • Anonymous

    Making laws for the public safety are a good idea but to make them for the individual is, in my opinion,not. Telling us what to do is heading down a slippery slope where the government will eventually tell us what to, or not, say. They take themselves way too serious, get off our backs and go get the bad guys.

  • Anonymous

    Making laws for the public safety are a good idea but to make them for the individual is, in my opinion,not. Telling us what to do is heading down a slippery slope where the government will eventually tell us what to, or not, say. They take themselves way too serious, get off our backs and go get the bad guys.

  • Anonymous

    Making laws for the public safety are a good idea but to make them for the individual is, in my opinion,not. Telling us what to do is heading down a slippery slope where the government will eventually tell us what to, or not, say. They take themselves way too serious, get off our backs and go get the bad guys.

  • Anonymous

    All of these comments (as of 3:20 9/16) state or imply that the only consequences of these dubious actions are on the individual involved.  Not so.  They involve everyone who is nearby any moving violation while driving, not just the individual, especially if an accident occurs.  Saftey, or lack thereof, has a way of spreading.  As for any hospitaliization involved as a consequence of unsafe acts, we all pay for that, even if not present or nearby.  As for illegality declares after the fact, as stated by Gagnon, that would appear to be illegal as an ex post facto law, entirely unenforcable.  The only thing we can do is legislate against these unsafe actions ahead of time.  Admitedly, they should not necessarily be primary offences, but they allow any bad results of these unsafe actions to be penalized heavily.

    I’m for mandatory seat belt laws, life jackets, and motor cycle helmets.  To do otherwise would be irresponsible for all of us, individuals and governments.

  • Anonymous

    All of these comments (as of 3:20 9/16) state or imply that the only consequences of these dubious actions are on the individual involved.  Not so.  They involve everyone who is nearby any moving violation while driving, not just the individual, especially if an accident occurs.  Saftey, or lack thereof, has a way of spreading.  As for any hospitaliization involved as a consequence of unsafe acts, we all pay for that, even if not present or nearby.  As for illegality declares after the fact, as stated by Gagnon, that would appear to be illegal as an ex post facto law, entirely unenforcable.  The only thing we can do is legislate against these unsafe actions ahead of time.  Admitedly, they should not necessarily be primary offences, but they allow any bad results of these unsafe actions to be penalized heavily.

    I’m for mandatory seat belt laws, life jackets, and motor cycle helmets.  To do otherwise would be irresponsible for all of us, individuals and governments.

  • Anonymous

    Great article, although I thought “Demolition Man” was Stallone. 

  • Anonymous

    People are trying to get the government to take responsibility for what should be on their own shoulders.

    Did a relative drown while kayaking? It is a horror for their families, but if they had no experience and declined to wear a lifevest, then they took a risk, and it blew up in their faces.

    Do you eat at McDonald’s twice a day? Do you smoke? These are risks that you have taken and may have to accept consequences for. It is not the restaurant’s fault, it is not the tobacco farmer’s fault, no laws need to be passed. Just act like an adult, and accept that everything we do has a consequence either good or bad.

    If your representatives don’t seem to be doing much in the way of passing new laws, remember, that is a good thing. It means they aren’t coming up with new ways to make your life more difficult.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

    Demolition Man was Stallone, but Dennis Leary’s character was named “Edgar Friendly”… he was a resistance leader of sorts…

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business