There's Got Not To Be A Law
Virginia Postrel put it so well:
Jerry Brown has many flaws, but he does understand one thing that most Californians seem to miss: "Not every human problem deserves a law."
Wyatt Buchanan and Marisa Lagos wrote on SFGate that Brown vetoed ski helmet and phone bill fine laws:
...Bills that would require that kids wear helmets when on ski slopes and increase fines for people who talk on cell phones or text while driving....In his veto message accompanying the helmet bill, SB105 introduced by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, Brown appeared to side with GOP critics who had characterized the measure as "nanny government."
Brown, a Democrat, wrote, "While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law."
...A bill aimed at getting drivers off their cell phones also fell under Brown's veto pen. The measure would have increased the base fines for texting or talking on a cell phone while driving by $50 on the first offense and $100 on subsequent offenses. The measure would have brought the total penalty to $328 for the first offense and $528 for subsequent offenses. It also would have applied to bicyclists, but with lower penalties.
Brown said that was too much. In explaining his veto of SB28, he wrote, "I certainly support discouraging cell phone use while driving a car, but not ratcheting up the penalties as prescribed by this bill. For people of ordinary means, current fines and penalty assessments should be sufficient deterrent."
I actual sorta support the helmet law since if kids get messed up it falls on the rest of us via the government to take care of them.
The Former Banker at September 8, 2011 11:23 PM
My experience with kids wearing helmets while skiing is that they're really fuckin dangerous. I don't know if it gives the kids a false sense of invulnerability or it cuts down their vision that much, but I've been plowed into more by kids wearing helmets than the toboggan-capped ones. Kids who don't have helmets actually learn how to stop. Plus there's nothing like getting a solar plexus full of ABS plastic while you get smacked in the face with a ski pole and then go careening into an icy hard packed snowdrift.
Elle at September 8, 2011 11:47 PM
Really Former Banker? Where do you draw the line. True a kid could get brain damaged and keeping said kid in jello and diapers takes money but who says the government is the one to take care of them. Yes compassion is nice but I bet if the safety net was taken away - people would be smarter and the law would not be needed.
Honestly a law is not needed here. What is needed is ski hills/ businesses need to step up. I think it would be better for a business to say hey you want to ski here - your kid needs a helmet. No helmet - no sking. Actually businesses should be the further back in line of responsibility. After parent, then individual kid, then maybe businesses (as the third party), government could step in only and only if the other three can not in any way step up to assume responsibility.
John Paulson at September 9, 2011 1:42 AM
I do applaud his sentiments. He's absolutely right. Not every human problem needs a law. However, regarding cell phone use, I support the penalties. If the driving-while-texting crowd were only a danger to themselves, I'd say let them do what they want. But since I've worked in a chiropractor's office and seen firsthand the kind of harm these idiots cause to innocent people, I support throwing the book at them. Much like drinking and driving. If roads were not shared property, I'd say "Good riddance" and let them do what they want.
Elle raises an excellent point about helmets. They obstruct field of vision. They don't make kids safer; they make them a greater hazard to themselves and others.
Patrick at September 9, 2011 2:40 AM
Mr. Paulson,
You said:
"True a kid could get brain damaged and keeping said kid in jello and diapers takes money but who says the government is the one to take care of them. Yes compassion is nice but I bet if the safety net was taken away - people would be smarter and the law would not be needed."
Do you honestly believe that someone would be happy to become paralyzed as long as they knew that their "jello and diapers" would be paid for by "big government"? (psst -- by the way -- it wouldn't. You may have heard that we don't have universal healthcare.)
This takes the cake for one of the silliest comments I've seen on here in a long time.
whistleDick at September 9, 2011 3:02 AM
No I do not think people will be happy with being brain damaged or having a child brain damaged. The question comes up is who says it the government to take responsibility for said actions or consequences.
There are many activities that I would like to try - scuba diving, parachuting diving,hunting, drugs, hiking or whatever. Now if I get hurt doing any of those and I need help who says the government is the one to pay for me. Heck I would like them to. But they might not. In knowing that I adjust my behavior and reconsider doing some of the above activities.
This also goes onto the Nanny state. If I can not assume responsibility for myself or my children, the government will do it for me. Even if I want them to or not. For good or for bad. And that choice that might get made is children can not ski or people can not go swimming in the Ocean or even to the idea of my children become wards of the state.
Still if the government takes away safety nets, people will adjust and modify behavior. Hopefully people will change, I know many people that do not and then expect everyone to help them when things go wrong.
I believe it is up to the parent or individual to think for themselves and say hey my daughter Tina is a little young and she might get hurt doing. So lets get some pads and a helmet on her. But what if that does not work hmm - let go do something else or give her another activity to do.
WhistleDisk - also have a Happy Chusok.
John Paulson at September 9, 2011 3:48 AM
I simply can't agree with wearing a helmet skiing, unless you're skiing fast in highly wooded areas. They simply aren't needed on an open ski slope. And they do make it harder to see. While I am all for carseats and seatbelts and lots of things we didn't have when kids, this is one area where I think the way I did it is just fine.
Cell phone users endanger the rest of us. And like my comment yesterday, your rights end when they start to affect my safety.
momof4 at September 9, 2011 5:15 AM
I wear a helmet when I snowboard, and I'll tell you that I planted that sucker good and hard more than once last season.
That said, I don't support helmet laws - they interfere with natural selection.
brian at September 9, 2011 5:36 AM
Who is this man in the Governor's office, and what has he done with the real Jerry Brown?
Rex Little at September 9, 2011 6:29 AM
"Elle raises an excellent point about helmets. They obstruct field of vision. They don't make kids safer; they make them a greater hazard to themselves and others."
Nope.
When's the last time you had a bicycle helmet on? Do you see out the top of your head or something? The brow subtends less of my field of view than my ball caps do.
You'll notice that professional motorcycle roadracers wear full-face helmets much like my Arai. I got mine, not because I was told to, but because I noticed what professionals were doing. The actual difference in impact forces isn't much for the bulk of accidents, track vs. street. I get improved weather protection. Insect impacts are eliminated. It's quieter than bare ears and holds my earplugs in.
Now, if you want to make the case that a helmet wearer derives an undue sense of security, OK - but it's not a "field of view" issue.
You know, I've often wondered if people actually notice that they can't see, and act accordingly. I bet they do, even as they apparently need warnings on the highway.
Lots of people make up arguments after being offended by a law. I like the one where, "The helmet company won't guarantee it will protect you!" My reply? "I will. Let me get my baseball bat - your choice, put it on or not."
Be sure you're not directing the result when you do research.
Radwaste at September 9, 2011 7:24 AM
I wear a helmet when I snowboard, and I'll tell you that I planted that sucker good and hard more than once last season.
Same here. I still don't agree there needs to be a law forcing people to wear them.
They simply aren't needed on an open ski slope.
Even on the bunny slope, you can get hit hard enough by someone else to get a concussion or worse.
Who is this man in the Governor's office, and what has he done with the real Jerry Brown?
Hah. See http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/08/the-riddle-of-jerry-brown
Christopher at September 9, 2011 8:19 AM
We have had a $200 fine for cell phone use while driving for over a year. At first, you didn't see many phones being used, but this summer, I see a lot. The prospect of a $200 ticket doesn't seem to be enough of a deterrent.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/09/08/man-dies-after-being-hit-by-texting-driver
Steamer at September 9, 2011 8:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/09/theres_got_not.html#comment-2467317">comment from SteamerRegarding the cell phone in cars thing, the law is immaterial to me because have a personal rule: I am only allowed to hit speed-dial when the car is stopped at a light or if I pull over. It is too easy to hit somebody or something if you are distracted for just a second, and I am terrified of hurting someone and I sure don't want to get into an accident, even if nobody is hurt. Also, I love my little car, and economic margins are tight these days, and I can't afford to pay a $500 deductible or have my insurance go up.
PS I say "hit speed-dial" because there are about five people I talk to on the phone: Gregg, and occasionally, Kate C., my little sister, and...I can't think of anyone else. (Kate was the second person I called when I got the TSA agent $500K letter of demand. I was driving home and Gregg wasn't picking up. It's actually thanks to an email that Kate sent out of her own volition to our girl posse, telling them to send some moral support my way, that I ended up with my terrific lawyer, Marc Randazza. One of them sent me more than that -- she sent me to her connection to Marc.)
Amy Alkon at September 9, 2011 9:00 AM
Really Former Banker? Where do you draw the line. True a kid could get brain damaged and keeping said kid in jello and diapers takes money but who says the government is the one to take care of them.
I don't know who says. It just seems to happen. And the law says that they have to be treated if it is an emergency - say they crack their head open and then are flown to the hospital the hospital has to take care of them. I am not say that is right, just that is the way it is. It is similar to the insurance argument.
The Former Banker at September 9, 2011 9:09 AM
감사합니다, John. Happy Chusok to you, too!
We definitely disagree on this silly Internet debate, but I certainly can't disagree with you on that infinitely more important point. Enjoy the holiday, buddy! I only learned that I had a three day weekend about ten minutes before leaving work this afternoon. What a treat! Stay off the roads Tuesday and Thursday my friend -- a lot of drunken revelers will be out and about.
건배
whistleDick at September 9, 2011 9:52 AM
brian at September 9, 2011 1:46 PM
Damn - screwed up the HTML again.
Also - just noticed that this was another Yee bill.
This is the same asshole that keeps trying to outlaw video game purchases by minors.
brian at September 9, 2011 1:47 PM
I grew up in the Rockies and skiied constantly and still go every winter I can, and was never once ran into by someone (nor did I ever run into anyone). Nor was ice much of problem. Some great wipe-outs, and ripped apart knees, but never a knocked head. Hmmm.
momof4 at September 9, 2011 2:09 PM
There's just two little words you'll need to learn for your transition from skier to snowboarder:
"Sorry, dood!"
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 9, 2011 2:48 PM
Wait, there's or there'r?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 9, 2011 2:49 PM
Cell phone drivers need to be caned in public.
jefe at September 10, 2011 12:22 AM
I wonder if he'll veto the gun bills that are about to hit his desk.
From the NRA ILA website on the bills:
Again -- they are blaming the law abiding gun owners for criminal activity. The laws add nothing but paperwork to the vendors and do absolutely nothing to prevent crime.
Jim P. at September 10, 2011 2:37 PM
Leave a comment