Showing posts with label Safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Safety. Show all posts

Friday, April 12, 2013

What Liberals Believe About Security

Fifth in a series about the liberal perspective on human rights.

Liberals have an expanded idea of human rights that includes a reasonable level of security from the adversities of life.  We feel it is part of the community’s responsibility to its own members, a basic function of our democratic government, to afford protection and safety to people in time of need.  To an extent, conservatives agree with us on some of the basic human rights such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.  They are big on the freedoms “to” do this or that.  They agree that government should protect people, but apparently only from military or criminal attack.    Where we often part company is in our desire also to achieve some insurance and  freedom “from” the negatives life can send our way, negatives like disaster, disease and unemployment.   
Liberals have used government to provide security for people in many ways.  Franklin Roosevelt got congress to pass the Social Security retirement program for senior citizens in 1935.  Seniors went from the most to the least impoverished age group as a result.  It provides a majority of their retirement income to 70% of American seniors, who earned it by paying into it their entire working lives.  Social Security also provides survivor aid to orphans, disability assistance to those with handicaps and unemployment assistance.  Medicaid, for the poor, and Medicare, which people also pay into while they work so it will be there when they reach 65, were passed in 1965 under Lyndon Johnson so that medical care to the needy and the elderly (over age 65) would be assured.  Liberals tend to think of medical care as a human right.  Everyone needs it at some time or other, but the working poor were not getting it with their employment.  Among the elderly, only a very few could afford to pay the mounting medical bills of old age out of their own pockets or the inflated rates private insurers needed to charge the oldest and sickest members of society in order to make a profit.   
 Rather than leave the poor and elderly to sicken and die without hope, a liberal president and congress acted.  Conservatives were mortified.  Conservative icon and future President Ronald Reagan wailed, “It will be the end of freedom in America!” Instead, Social Security and Medicare, which people also pay into while they work so it will be there when they reach 65, remain the most popular and among the most effective federal programs ever instituted, saving, prolonging and improving the quality of millions of lives at a cost far below that provided by private insurers.  Along with Medicaid, they strongly fit Abraham Lincoln’s prescription, “The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities.”  People’s retirement and health security are every bit as important to them as security against fire, flood, crime or military attack.  They are essential for life, and are necessities people cannot so well secure on their own.  So, just as firefighters, flood control, police and armed forces are part of securing human rights, so are making sure society’s health needs are met.  That’s how liberals see it.

We collectively take action as a society to insure ourselves in innumerable ways against harm.  Think of air and water quality controls, meat inspection, weather satellites, the air traffic control system, workplace health and safety regulations, car, plane, bus and ship safety requirements, inoculations against illnesses, engineering requirements and inspections for roads and bridges, residential and commercial building standards, and the testing of drugs, medicines, toys and consumer goods of all sorts.  Would you like to see any of these protections curtailed?  Liberals support these efforts to provide security for public health and safety.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Let's Stop Distracted Driving

As I drive around I'm seeing enough distracted drivers that it's got me genuinely concerned.  It's a real safety hazard and I'd like to see some very stringent enforcement before too many more are injured and killed.  Thirty years ago drunk driving was fairly prevalent and more or less accepted by many.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving was formed, public attention was focused, and those attitudes all changed.  Now it's treated as a serious offense.  Distracted driving, especially texting, is the contemporary equivalent: a driver is twenty-three times more likely to cause an accident while texting.

California made talking on handheld phones and sending and receiving text messages while driving illegal in 2008.  A first offense got you a ticket for $20 and subsequent violations dinged you for $50.  The amounts are now up to $159 and $279 respectively.  These are steps in the right direction, but more is needed.

Research shows that driving while texting increases the risk of accident and death equivalent to driving above the legal limit for alcohol.  This is serious stuff.  Statistics from the Transportation Department  found that 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries were linked to distracted driving in 2009.  Ominously, they also show that especially among younger drivers, the practice is becoming highly common, perhaps even prevalent. 

survey of 5000 San Diego area college students released this month found that 50% reported texting while driving on the freeway, 60% while in city traffic, and 87% while at red lights.  Only 12% marked that they "never" text while driving.   

As of yet, the penalties do not seem to be having much effect among young people.  The California Highway Patrol issued 168,000 citations in 2011.  The same survey earlier cited found that majorities of the young drivers said they would curtail their proclivities if heavier penalties were imposed, such as a 3-month license revocation, adding a point to one's driving violations record, or exempting insurers from having to cover accidents in which their insured was engaged in distracted driving behavior.

I hope to see more strict enforcement of these rules and much heavier punishments for violating them.  I don't know about you, but I feel quite unsafe when I'm on the road around people who are looking down at their hands rather than paying attention to me and the other cars around them.  I hope soon to see the cops nailing people left and right and the violators seeing their insurance rates go through the roof.  Then it will become "not ok" to text, tweet, or even chat with one hand holding a phone to one's ear while behind the wheel.  Until then, I can report that I have never driven more defensively than I now do.  I hope it's enough.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Don't Text and Drive

You probably remember hearing the news about these two fatal accidents. On June 28, 2007 four teenage girls died in a head-on collision with a tractor/trailer rig in western New York state when their SUV crossed the line into oncoming traffic. On September 12, 2008 25 were killed and 135 injured when a Los Angeles Metrolink commuter train operator drove through a red light and collided with a freight train. You probably also remember another detail about these accidents: both drivers had been sending text messages up to the moment they died. A Virginia Tech study now pinpoints the risks of texting while driving. The bottom line: if you want to live and don't want to kill anyone else, you should never text while in control of a vehicle.

In the VT study, cabs of long haul trucks were fitted with video equipment and the drivers were monitored over an 18-month period. Text messaging while driving is currently illegal in only 14 states. In the other 36, drivers can text all they want. The truckers were tracked for a total of 3 million miles. The results? The collision risk was 23 times greater when the drivers were texting than when they were not. By comparison, other studies estimate the risk of a collision is four times higher than normal when a driver is drunk or talking on a cell phone.

The AAA has polling data that shows "87% of people consider drivers texting or e-mailing a 'very serious' safety threat (roughly equal to the 90% who consider drunken drivers a threat.)" Yet though 2,501 drivers surveyed this spring said "that texting was unacceptable behavior" 21% said they had texted or e-mailed behind the wheel recently themselves. The behavior is disproportionally common among the young. Nearly half the drivers 16 to 24 years old said they had done so, while only 22% of the 35-44 age group had.

It is obvious that reading or composing copy is a huge distraction for someone trying to operate a motor vehicle, with all the split-second judgments and reactions that activity entails. Now you know just how hazardous it is. For all our sakes, be smart and don't do it. If you just can't wait until the end of your trip to read a message or write one, pull over. The few seconds you spend may literally save your life.