[Nemesis Destiny]

Whee! That sounds like fun, doesn't it? I love Big Brother.

No, that doesn't sound like fun, but what you are advocating is the other extreme: near anarchy. You seriously think it would be a good idea to leave things up to discretion? Soooooo much potential for abuse. Not everyone is a lawyer and some are very naive, ready to believe anything the officer says. Even if the fine is, say, sexual favours. You don't think that wouldn't happen?

Is there anyone here who loves emissions testing?

Yes. I do. Have you no regard for environmental concerns whatsoever? These mandates are necessary to keep the millions of older vehicles on our roads from becoming mass polluters. The drivers of said vehicles otherwise don't care as long as they have their cheap wheels, but environmental responsibility is far more important in the long run than somebody's selfish desires for cheap transportation. Can't afford to drive clean? Then you shouldn't be driving.

When was the last time you enjoyed driving behind someone in a car so badly in need of a tuneup that you had to inhale a black and blue plume of smog?

Did I somehow miss the part about how our current laws prohibit lights that glare and affect oncoming drivers?

No you didn't, but leaving all laws to discretion is a bad, bad, bad idea, and will actually lead to more problems than well-worded new laws that actually protect the interests of the citizens while more carefully targeting offenders.

I'm angry that I can't ride my motorcycle without a helmet. I don't wear it because the law requires that I do, but rather because it's the smart thing to do. I'm angry that I'm now forced to wear my seatbelt. I wore it before there was a law, but I'm furious that my personal freedom would be infringed in such a bold and blatant manner.

Well, congratulations, you are more sensible than a lot of people then, but others are not. The laws are there, at least partially, to protect those not smart enough to figure out that helmets and seatbelts are life-saving devices. The other reason, of course, is to generate revenue from the foolish.

I don't want more laws. We have enough lousy ones already.

How about the not-so-lousy ones? Like against murder? assault? embezzlement? conflict of interest? collusion (corporate price-fixing)? child abuse? toxic waste dumping?

My friend, there are many, many things, horrible things, that people would do were there not laws to prohibit them from committing these acts. Do not forget: not everyone has the good sense that you or I do about these things.

I don't want a bloated system of vehicle inspections for minor modifications like Britain and many other countries have.

Me either. Laws can be done in a way such that they are not bloated and without relying on the dangerous and corruption prone "officer's discretion" clause. How many kids do you think get pulled over just because they are kids living within the letter of the law, if not within its spirit, as the officer sees it at the time? Now THAT's Big Brother for you.

I can't think of any recent laws that actually improved anything. I'm sure there are some, but I can think of many that we'd be better off without.

You'd better believe there are some. Of course that depends on what you mean by recent. At least in Canada, and some of the less backward states, there are. Like laws protecting gay and lesbians from human rights abuses while allowing them the same status as all the other homosapiens on the planet.

I am not blowing this out of proportion.

Yes, you really are. You are soooo concerned for your precious rights that you have no concern for the rights of others not to have their freedoms infringed upon by people being stupid. I'll explain shortly.

Is the world getting more dangerous? No. Then why all the new laws?

To try and improve things, naturally. Even if it doesn't always work out that way. If we never did that, we'd still live in a world where slavery is commonplace, jews would likely be extinct, and many would be uneducated because you wouldn't be forced to send your kids to school, instead you'd be allowed to keep them on the farm, have as many as you like, and use them for virtual slave labour. All the kids would know is whatever their parents had them to do... where's the freedom in that? Sounds suspiciously like communist USSR...

Why do we have a jay-walking law?

I'm going to assume that you know that jay walking is an old law and that this is not connected to your previous statement about new laws...

Are you incapable of crossing the street without special lines to guide you? My dog can cross the street safely, AND HE'S A DOG!

Many dogs have worse judgement than your dog apparently. Many people have worse judgement than your dog has.

Anyone who is oblivious to the fact that roads are full of fast-moving, dangerous vehicles wizzing back and forth is also quite likely to be unaware of the jay-walking law.

That may be true but in that case, the law helps to protect the liability, at least somewhat, for the person that hits the jay walker with their car. The person was driving the speed limit, obeying all the rules of the road, when some jackass decides to excercise their freedom to use their bad judgement whenever they want, and jumps out in front of the car. Who is at fault here? Were it not for the jaywalking law, the fault would point to the driver of the car, when in fact (s)he has done nothing wrong.

I'm insulted that somebody thinks I'm too stupid to cross the street without my own little lane. It concerns me that someone might actually ticket an adult for crossing the street without the assistance of a timed light.

As I have said, not everyone has judgement and perception as keen as yours. Laws must be made for the lowest-common-denominator or they become inherently unfair, tokens of an elitist society. Is that what you are? An elitist?

Besides, can you imagine how chaotic urban thoroghfares would be if you had a hundred crackerjacks crossing the road indiscriminately, not at every intersection, but through them? Or all along the road? Roads and sidewalks are an infrastructure. Emphasis on structure which means that they are designed to do something, that being, conduct both pedestrian and vehicular traffic in an efficient and safe manner. There is nothing efficient or safe about chaos. Just ask my friend who visited Jakarta recently.

Bicyclists must now wear helmets. How long until pedestrians will also be required to wear them?

Bicyclists wear helmets because they are technically driving a vehicle and are therefore subject to the same laws as a motorcycle. Cars have room to build in safety equipment, whereas bicycles and motorcycles do not.

Likewise, pedestrians will never be required to use a helmet. Cars will simply be made safer for pedestrian impacts. This is occurring in europe already. While I tend to disagree with this as an extreme, other such measures have already come to pass, in the form of softer front and rear bumpers, which while they hurt freedom of styling at first, are a good thing in the long run. Designers will always find a way to meet the standard while improving the way things look.

More than 50% of fatalities in car accidents are a direct result of head trauma. How soon until we'll be required to wear helmets in our cars?

The idea is not to make people in cars wear helmets, but rather to make the cars safer from the inside. You will probably never see a law requiring passengers in a car to wear a helmet. That would be like admitting defeat on the airbags, etc. front. You have to look at the way things are going. To make an extrapolation like you just did is absurd. If 50% of fatalities were caused by head trauma, why do you think then that so much is going into side-curtain airbags for your head?

Imagine cutting fatalities in half! We don't need more laws.

If everyone was like you, content to simply stay where we are in terms of safety, we would never make any advances. How many fatalities are 'acceptable'? People do imagine a better world, where fatalities ARE cut in half, so they mandate (there's that word again) automakers to implement safety features like airbags and seatbelts. Don't forget, many people are not as sensible as you. How many do you think would volunteer to pay extra for seatbelts and airbags? More importantly, how many wouldn't. That's why these things start off as optional, 'luxury' equipment, then become mandatory on all vehicles.

So you see, that laws are not a blatant attempt to rob you of your precious 'freedoms' but an attempt to protect everyone else's freedoms from the lowest common denominator. Or would you prefer wild-west justice? That is what 'officer's discretion' amounts to in the end, and THAT would be a scary world. Would you like Freedom Fries with that? *shudder*