RoR: Forum

Well said, Luke.

Post 1

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 8:49am

As I expected, I received a lengthy reply from a close family member of the victim. I will not repeat it here for privacy reasons, but it said, in essence, "If a seat belt law will save even one life, then I support it." Sigh...

Trying to reason past people's pain borders on the impossible. I hesitated to write this letter in the first place as I expected such a response, but did it anyway just in case it might make a difference. Obviously, it did not.

Post 2

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 8:59am

Your effort is not wasted. It "puts a bug in their ear." The thoughts will not go away (since they are objectively true), and the next time someone speaks the truth, it may encounter slightly less resistance. Others may see the letter also, and not be in a position to get a rebuttal out to you. It is all part of the long, tortuous process of changing the cultural atmosphere.

It is the "mound of silence" that is the killer. Well done.

Post 3

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 9:07am

The problem is complicated by the fact that the schools are public entities.

I believe that it is criminal negligence that public school buses do not have seatbelts -- shoulder harnesses, in fact: the "five-point" halters that aerobatic pilots use.

Your own choice in your own vehicle is one thing -- given that you promise never to let your brain-damaged self be cared for at public expense -- but in the case of kids in a schoolbus -- kids who are compelled by their parents who are compelled by the law -- no, there is no excuse for the government to dodge its culpability.

Again, from aviation, the FAA used to require spin training. The theory was that in order to be a certificated pilot, you needed to know how to recover from a spin. The old Federal Aeronautics Commission and then the FAA killed more pilots with their "spin training" than actually died in such (rare) accidents. Now, we train pilots to avoid the problem long before it occurs. The FAA never accepted responsibility for their laws or policies or requirements.

On the road, in south central Michigan there is a Y where Interstate 496 splits off from US-127 at Lansing. I-496 goes downtown and US-127 continues north. After a long series of spin-outs in rain and snow, the state highway department finally GROOVED the pavement to allow runoff of water and traction for tires. Who accepted responsibility for all the accidents they caused with their (so-called) "engineering"?

Luke, I agree 100% that seatbelt laws are the Nanny State in action. That said, (1) seatbelts are a good idea and (2) in public school buses -- the case in point -- they should be installed for the safety of the passengers.

Post 4

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 12:50pm

Michael, just to be clear, the case I addressed involved a young lady in the passenger seat of a regular automobile. Her boyfriend, the driver, fell asleep at the wheel and had an accident at night on a major highway in Florida. He wore his seat belt, but she removed her seat belt so she could recline comfortably and nap. The car wrecked. He lived. She died.

I do not know if you misunderstood the story to involve a school bus or if you simply used that as an example of when a seat belt law has merit.

I submitted the letter via the contact form on the site. It will never get published outside this forum, though, based on the response I received.

Post 5

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 2:14pm

Luke, I think that was a terrible letter to send.

For starters, seat belt laws probably do save more lives, just as helmet laws do for motorcyclists, even though I oppose both for operators of some age of informed consent, it seems reasonable enough (though I haven�t dived into the data) that those laws probably do save more lives. The point of contention I have with such laws is of course that they imply it is ok to force someone to do something as long as you (the majority / government in the case) think that there life will be better off. I usually ask point blank to advocates of such laws if they think slavery is OK as long as the slave lives a better life while under their domination, and then ask that they distinguish the difference. This, at least, makes them think a little about the issue.

To call seat belt laws fascist to the average person is probably going to make them immediately disregard your letter. Aside from various anarcho-ists, objectivists, and half the professers in universities, very few people consider the US Government fascist, saying that to them will make them think you are immediately some conspiracy nut crank, imo. Furthermore, you are doing little more than stating what your opinion on the matter is, and not giving any reasons behind why you hold that opinion. Should they really be expected to change their mind because you told them to?

Your �For your information, the apparence of�� comment could not be interpreted by any typical reader as anything but arrogant and condescending. Do you think the members of this foundation would actually read your letter, contemplate these issues deeply, and turn around and say �oh, well, he�s right!� Hardly, they probably now all think that www.rebirthofreason.com is a paranoid conspiracy theory site of a lot of arrogant heartless people. I, of course, think none of this of you or the site, but I am only pointing out how important the tone of a message can be in trying to get the message across to someone and that the tone of your message undermined any good that could have possibly come from it.

Regards,

Michael F Dickey

Post 6

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 2:32pm

LS: "Michael, just to be clear, the case I addressed involved a young lady in the passenger seat of a regular automobile."

Sorry. My mistake. I placed this story in the wrong context because of the opening: "On April 26, the Marchetti family took their cause to Tallahassee, along with parents and teens of five area schools."

The 2005 Florida Statutes
TITLE XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.6145 School buses; safety belts or other restraint systems required.
316.6145 School buses; safety belts or other restraint systems required.--
(1)(a) Each school bus that is purchased new after December 31, 2000, and used to transport students in grades pre-K through 12 must be equipped with safety belts or with any other restraint system approved by the Federal Government in a number sufficient to allow ... Online Sunshine, official website of the Florida Legislature http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0316/ch0316.htm

I see that the Marchetti Family and Friends believe that if not wearing your seatbelt were against the law that Kaite would be alive because fear of the law would have forced her to be uncomfortable for her own good. Obviously, you and I can see through that. The family will have a harder time coming to grips with the death of their daughter. That is probably the bottom line.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/01, 2:54pm)

Post 7

Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 3:14pm

M. F. Dickey, thank you for your comments. To set an example for us, perhaps you will consider writing a letter to the site using the guidelines you suggest and then post that submission here. That would offer us a sample for future reference.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:54am

Just a tangent on the contextual immorality of school bus seat-belts (from The Skeptical Environmentalist, p 339) ...

===================
For $182,000 a year it is possible to screen black new-borns for sickle cell anemia and save 769 life-years: a cost of just $236 per life year. ...

Equipping all school buses with passenger safety belts would cost around $53 million, but because this would only save much less than one child a year, the cost would be $2.8 million per life-year.
===================

In the real world, 'protections' compete for limited funding -- and funding a 'protection' that is 12 thousand times less cost-effective, rather than one that is 12 thousand times more cost-effective; is an immoral thing to do (ie. it inherently takes lives, or 'kills' folks -- in the big picture -- rather than actually saving any net 'lives').

Seat-belts in school buses are deadly (because of the diverted funding away from more cost-effective 'protections').

Ed

Post 9

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 8:34am

Ed Thompson wrote: from The Skeptical Environmentalist, p 339... For $182,000 a year it is possible to screen black new-borns for sickle cell anemia and save 769 life-years: a cost of just $236 per life year. ...

Ed, this has been bothering me all day. As stated, it sounds like a powerful fact, but when I examine it, I am not sure what it says. According to the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/black_health.htm there were 599,847 African-Americans born in 2003. Ed is saying that for 50 cents each, they could be tested for sickle cell anemia and that those who have it can be treated. The first might be possible -- 50 cents a dose to test. The second is questionable. According to the Mayo Clinic:

Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia ... This produces pain and can lead to serious complications.
There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and prevent further problems.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sickle-cell-anemia/DS00324

There is no cure...

What is a "life-year"? I know what a man-hour is. Is this a year per person? 769 life-years would be one average lifetime for each of 10 people, or an additional 7.7 years for each of 100 or an extra 8 months for 1000 people. Does this mean that for 50 cents a dose, we can extend the life of an African-American born with sickle cell anemia an extra 8 months... of pain? at age 77? That does not sound good...

According to the Sickle Cell Anemia Council of America:"Treatment of complications often includes antibiotics, pain management, intravenous fluids, blood transfusion and surgery all backed by psychosocial support. Like all patients with chronic disease patients are best managed in a comprehensive multi-disciplinary program of care." (http://www.sicklecelldisease.org/about_scd/)

That sounds like more than 50 cents a dose to me.

But, ok... if we want to treat them, then fine, I suppose, I don't mind paying taxes for the space shuttle, so I guess I can pay taxes to help African Americans born with a characteristic genetic defect, but then I have to ask, why is Al Sharpton on about sex and not ranting about sickle cell anemia?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/05/sharpton.agenda/index.html
Commentary: Sexually-based issues dividing black churches
By Rev. Al Sharpton
Special to CNN
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Posted: 6:58 p.m. EDT (22:58 GMT)
"... Yet, some high-profile black ministers continue to employ an agenda focused solely on sexually-based themes, like denying a women's right to choose an abortion or a gay couple's right to marry, to rally their congregations and drive a wedge through our people."

So, maybe we should ask Al and not Ed, why curing sickle cell anemia is not more important than gay marriage, but the fact is that this so-called "statistic" that supposedley measures sickle cell anemia against school bus seatbelts is questionable at its root.

The goverment requires that we send our children to school. The kids ride school buses. The buses may not be safe. That can be addressed. You can send your kid to some other school. You can get your kid to a public school via some other mode. You can go to the school board and sponsor a bake sale for seatbelts.

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic trait which actually protects against malaria -- which is why Negroes have it in their genes. And it is recessive. It is a fact of life, unfortunate, tragic, but real -- and known... People who have it in their families should not have babies, perhaps, as is true of diabetics, and other inheritable problems.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/05, 5:46pm)

Post 10

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 11:49pm