BCT Editorial – 9/14/10

The editorial discusses two different situations as if they were equivalent in order to convince us government knows better than you and I.  The editorial says, “Remember this: Americans didn’t buckle up voluntarily, carmakers didn’t start making safer cars and trucks out of the goodness of their hearts, and drunken drivers didn’t sober up because they thought it was the right thing to do. … None of this would have happened if the federal and state governments had not forced drivers and carmakers to change their ways.  Seat-belt laws forced people to buckle up.  Federal regulations mandated that the auto industry make safer cars and trucks.  Tougher penalties got more people to think about the consequences of drinking and driving.”

Let’s look at the vehicle safety aspect of the editorial.  Not to rain on the Times party, but when I was two or three years old my parents bought a new 1956 Ford Customline with seatbelts, padded dashboard, and a “flowerpot” steering wheel.  This was long before our nanny government stuck its nose into our car/truck-buying business.  The editorial also fails to note the effect of vehicle insurance companies charging based on a vehicle’s actual or projected claim history.  Safer vehicles are and were less expensive to insure.  As for “carmakers didn’t start making safer cars and trucks out of the goodness of their hearts,” no kidding.  My experience is businesses provide what customers want and will pay for.  Where in the Constitution does it say a role of government is to make people buy products with specific features?  If customers chose not to buy cars with seatbelts, where is/was the constitutional authority to make customers do otherwise?

As for seatbelt laws, while I personally believe not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, doing so doesn’t place people in other vehicles in danger as does drunk driving.  Therefore, I believe seatbelt laws are wrong.  The possible exception would be for children because they don’t have the knowledge and maturity to make such a decision.

The case of drunk driving is a completely different situation.  Since a drunk driver can injure or kill others, drunk/impaired driving laws are perfectly appropriate and necessary.

Does the Times not recognize the situations are completely different?  Sure it does, but editorial authors like Marsha “Cathy Campbell” Keefer aren’t happy unless they are forcing others to live their lives according to rules favored by folks like Ms. Keefer and they don’t care what it takes to accomplish that goal.