How many times during the cell phone, texting and driving discussions have you heard the phrase, "Well if the ban (restrictions, or whatever) saves one life, it is worth it."
This is a bad way to legislate because it eliminates the risk/reward analysis that needs to take place before implementing any legislation. If we legislated by the idea that a life cannot be lost because of any action, then we as a nation would be paralyzed.
Let's look at a very simple action and then you decide if the risk of a death are warranted versus the reward.
The national speed limit on most open road interstate highways is 70 miles per hour. Speed is the leading cause of death in accidents. If we could assume that we could eliminate 90% to 95% of all speed related deaths by lowering the speed limit on interstate highways to 20 miles per hour, would that be a good choice? Maybe we never allow passing on any two lane roadway. That would eliminate lots of fatality accidents. But what is the risk/reward factor?
Get the point? If we only make statements like "If it saves one life" and we live by that motto, this country will move backwards at a very high rate.
Just think of the restrictions on business and commerce if you live by that creed. It is endless.
Risk versus reward should always be the guiding light on legislation, not politically correct comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment