Local man dies for freedom of choice

[3RRL]

Just go to Finland... they let you pay a couple of hundred Euro fines if they see you holding a phone in your hand while driving.... They dont even ask if you were actually using it or not....

I think all the cops in Europe are tough like that.
I remember seeing that scene when Steve Martin was given a sobriety test in The Man With Two Brains.

 

[Soundguy]

Just go to Finland... they let you pay a couple of hundred Euro fines if they see you holding a phone in your hand while driving.... They dont even ask if you were actually using it or not....

many places here also have hands-free laws concerning cell phone use.

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

The forgoing is a generalization intended to communicate a general idea to everyone EXCEPT NARROW MINDED CLILNTONESQUE types who exhibit the misguided opinion of their personal perfection in communications.

Pat

I know that wasn't directed at me...

Clinton was debating the definition of a standardized state of being...

My statements were about talking in context.. IE.. it's hard to lay blame/judgement on a past experience for not having knowledge available only in the future time frame... unfair at least.. and paradoxical at most.. IE.. you wouldn't call a doctor in the 1800's uneducated or stupid because he did not use pennicillin or other advanced life saving techniques not available to him at the time. that knowledge simply was not available yet, and it would be unfair to judge him based onhis use and practice of knowledge available at his time, vs moder practice and knowledge. As a stretch you can say that he was ignorant of the knowledge.. but thatat is implied. After all, it goes without saying... we are all ignorant of things not yet known..

as for the comparison...I'm just about as anti-bill as you can get...

soundguy

 

[sugarmaple]

I suspect this has already been written, but I will say it anyway. I find using a seatbelt keeps me better planted in the seat and less tired after a long spell in the saddle. I put a rops, seatbelt and wheel spacers on my old B-8200for working in the woods and it feels so much more secure which translates to more work done with less fatigue. I am willing to take a hit on personal freedoms in the service of better efficiency, however that is measured.

Be safe everyone, bad luck can rear up and whack even the most careful. Hubris will eventually do in those whose pride blocks reason and care.

 

[Soundguy]

I am willing to take a hit on personal freedoms in the service of better efficiency, however that is measured. .

I think you are confusing the issue here.. having a rops and seatbelt on your tractor does not infinge on your personal freedom... .. however.. if it were mandated that you had to use or have them.. then that would be a technical infringement on personal freedom... Merely posessing them, whether you use them or not, as long as you are not forced to own or use them, is no encroachment upon your free choice.

I see no usefullness of continuing in this thread at this point. About 98% of the participants fall into 2 sides.. those that like government control and the safe warm fuzzy automaton feeling it generates to not be in control of ones own life and freedom from personal responsibilities.. and those that at least want the choice to do, or not do something..and are willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions... I don't see too many people crossing camps even though a good 2 pages of arguments have went either way specifically on the subject. With a small % amount of detractors throwing in the occasional red herring just to keep the pot stirred.

soundguy

 

[riptides]

Your not going to be able to enforce mandatory use of safety devices on operating farm equipment anyway. In the here and now, of course. So it comes down to the operator and the equipment.

 

[riptides]

... I find using a seatbelt keeps me better planted in the seat and less tired after a long spell in the saddle....

And I find the use of the seat belt uncomfortable and painfull to wear as I am being bounced around on parts of the farm. I still use it, but the design of the locking mechanics on my particular model could be better.
Planted, yes, painful - somewhat, comfort level - poor. Mine needs tweaking.

 

[ray66v]

I think you are confusing the issue here.. having a rops and seatbelt on your tractor does not infinge on your personal freedom... .
soundguy

If you want to get technical, it does. Your being forced to pay for them when you purchase your machine. Whether you want them, or not. Seat belts are relatively cheap, but a ROPS is not.

The do gooders don't care about cost, once they take up a cause. They become determined to save that one person, who will likely find an alternate way, to receive the Darwin award.

Every mandate made by the government, equates to a loss of freedom of some sort. Most are insignificant. The concern is, they don't know when to quit.

I am not against having a ROPS on my tractor, I just wonder how much they considered the effect of this on the overwhelming majority, who will never need it....... I suspect very little.

 

[Soundguy]

I guess from a financial standpoint, the consumer protection laws do add an overhead to cost as you are paying for dozens of safety devices, and warning labels that tell you to not stick your body parts into moving blades and such...

soundguy

 

[keeney]

There are valid reasons for government involvement here. The biggest is to protect consumers from being taken advantage of by the equipment manufacturers and the market forces. Same reason as why we have laws against tricking dumb people out of their life savings all sorts of other unfair trade practices.

The manufactures, and government safety standards groups know a lot more about what is safe and what is not than any individual buyer (they have all the stats from all the lawsuits they get hit with). They also know how much the safety equipment costs to add to the product (ROPs, belt, interlock, etc). Without some kind of regulations, there most certainly would be manufacturers who would make the decision that selling the cheapest product is more important to their success than selling a safe product. Pretty soon, price competition would make it impossible for any manufacturer to offer safety equipment. Even if they did, it would be an expensive option that was a hassle to order, and most purchasers would be very tempted to skip it.

Meanwhile, the low-price manufacturers would have a huge incentive to lie about how safe the equipment is even without the additional safety equipment.

By having government regulations, it sets a reasonable minimum level of safety so that the manufacturers can compete on real features and cost reductions, and not compete on how good their marketing is at making you believe something is safe enough when for a few bucks more, it could be a lot safer. Then, smart people who know the value of safety over a few bucks can be assured of even having that choice available in the market.

If pure market forces are allowed to rule, unfortunately, most people make the poor decision to sacrifice the value of human lives (their own, or others) at much too low of a price.