John’s Blog

I had always thought that the reason laws are so severe regarding drunk driving was that it was a public safety issue. After considering some other laws, I conclude that it is a moral issue. There are still people out there who are opposed to drinking.

If drunk driving is truly a public safety issue it must be because driving while under the influence interferes with the person’s ability to respond quickly to emergency situations. I assume also that it interferes with a person’s ability to concentrate on the road and avoid going through STOP signs and running red lights. Drunk drivers also do not always keep all four wheels in their lane.

Now let’s consider the person talking on the cell phone. They do exactly the same thing but they are on the road in far greater numbers than drinkers and at peak traffic times.

The majority of drunks are usually on the road after the bars close when traffic is very light and they usually have both hands on the steering wheel.

The penalty for talking on a cell phone is what? Practically nothing. The cell phone talker does not end up in the newspapers and is not therefore publically shamed as the drunk driver is. Cell phone talkers drive right by police cars with impunity therefore driving while intoxicated must be a moral issue.

While on the subject of public versus personal safety, while do the police patrol so stringently for seat belts not being buckled? If a person has an accident without having himself/herself buckled down they are not a danger to someone else. It is a matter of personal rather than public safety.

Think about it, you are required to wear a seat belt in a heavily protected metal enclosure, with air bags to cushion you, but it’s OK to ride a motorcycle without one.

If caught, you will be fined for not wearing a seat belt in your own car where you are the responsible driver but it’s OK to ride on a bus driven by a total stranger without a seat belt.

Public safety laws can be really strange.

Helmets are required in most states for children riding bicycles but it’s OK to ride a skate board without one. Which of the two is most likely to fall and hit their heads?

Some states do require a helmet for roller-blading but then why not ice skating?

Texas, for instance, requires eye protection and helmets for off-road motorcycles. Vermont requires eye protection and helmets on the highway but not off-road where they are more likely to be needed.

I mentioned ‘bungee-jumping’ in the title because where are the limits to be drawn as to what we are permitted to do that is considered a personal risk?

It’s an arbitrary system that sometimes doesn’t seem logical. Maybe we do need to have someone hold our hand while we cross the road.