Sorry, There Is No Choice "C"
Boston Globe columnist, Steve "WAAAHHH! My pussy hurts!"* Bailey, is at it again. This time, he's offering up his suggestions for creating safer streets and lower insurance rates for the drivers of the Commonwealth. Needless to say, eliminating the subsidizing of insurance costs for bad drivers, at the expense of the state's good drivers, is not on the table for discussion.
How about we give up the state's regulatory power over insurance rates, and open the market to a little free competition among insurance prvoders?
Still doesn't explain why I have to help the folks causing all these accidents to make their insurance payments.
Um...you do know he was riding a horse at the time, right?
Yes we do. Thanks to our one-of-a-kind program of government-controlled, insurance lobby-influenced insurance premiums. What's your point, douchebag?
Perhaps, nothing in this column is more telling of his underlying philosophy and beliefs than his use of "scare quotes" around "personal freedoms".
Oh, is it?
Just because something is the "right thing to do" does not mean that having the government force you to do it is the best way to get people to go along. You want more people to buckle up behind the wheel? We can start by dismantling the current state-controlled auto insurance program we have here in Massachusetts and allow insurance carriers to offer significant premium discounts for drivers who buckle up.
In the event a driver who claims the "seat belt user" discount is injured in an accident while not wearing his or her seat belt, the insurnace company can simply deny any and all claims filed by the driver pursuant to said accident.
Imagine that - using capitalism and the free market to save lives. By all means, don't we owe it to the children?
OK, he's close on this one. It's talking on your cell phone while being a bad driver that's a bad idea.
And the results of thispublic safety revenue enhancement scheme?
But, hey...
See! It works!
They also installed some of these down in Virginia a while back. I'll give you one guess as to what happened.
Bailey concludes:
Well, I'd be willing to give up the freedom of convicted repeat drunk drivers, and do everything in our power to put these losers behind bars. It would be nice if the "progressive" leadership in our state legislature shared that desire, but they were understandably busy washing down their paella with a little Madeira on the Mediterranean while that bill was being debated.
I'd also be willing to make sure that only people who are in this country legally, and have demonstrated a respect for the laws of our nation and the Commonwealth, can obtain permission from the state to safely operate a motor vehicle on said highways.
Again, that opinion is not too popular with the "party of the people" enjoying their monopolistic control over the Commonwealth.
Yet, according to statist, big government-loving twits like Mr. Bailey here, the only options we have to make our highways safer are to surrender forthwith what little personal freedom we have left over to the state, or to maintain the status quo of paying through the nose for artifcially inflated insurance premiums.
Their definition of "pro-choice" - letting the pros tell you what your choices are.
*shamelessly "borrowed" from a commenter over at Kim's place
Everyone complains about Massachusetts' high automobile insurance rates. But what are you willing to give up to do something about it?
How about we give up the state's regulatory power over insurance rates, and open the market to a little free competition among insurance prvoders?
It is no secret why we have some of the highest rates in the country: Massachusetts leads the nation in accidents -- 40 percent higher than the state with the second-highest rate, Rhode Island.
Still doesn't explain why I have to help the folks causing all these accidents to make their insurance payments.
Since the day that maniac Paul Revere roared through the city's narrow streets at midnight, we Bostonians have considered bad driving a birthright.
Um...you do know he was riding a horse at the time, right?
And every year we get to pay for it come premium time.
Yes we do. Thanks to our one-of-a-kind program of government-controlled, insurance lobby-influenced insurance premiums. What's your point, douchebag?
There is plenty we could do that would make driving safer and lower rates -- though it sometimes involves surrendering a piece of our cherished "personal freedoms." Here are three ideas we should consider:
Perhaps, nothing in this column is more telling of his underlying philosophy and beliefs than his use of "scare quotes" around "personal freedoms".
Buckle up or pay up. The new push in the Legislature to require drivers to wear seat belts is a good place to start.
Oh, is it?
That Massachusetts drivers rank ahead of only those in Mississippi in wearing seat belts is an embarrassment, but says much about our attitudes about driving. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belt usage in Massachusetts stands at 64.8 percent, compared to 82 percent nationwide.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia allow the police to stop drivers solely for not wearing a seat belt. In Massachusetts, drivers can be ticketed only if they have been stopped for another offense. Everyone knows wearing a seat belt is the right thing to do. (Correction: New Hampshire, of course, has no adult seat belt law at all.)
Just because something is the "right thing to do" does not mean that having the government force you to do it is the best way to get people to go along. You want more people to buckle up behind the wheel? We can start by dismantling the current state-controlled auto insurance program we have here in Massachusetts and allow insurance carriers to offer significant premium discounts for drivers who buckle up.
In the event a driver who claims the "seat belt user" discount is injured in an accident while not wearing his or her seat belt, the insurnace company can simply deny any and all claims filed by the driver pursuant to said accident.
Imagine that - using capitalism and the free market to save lives. By all means, don't we owe it to the children?
Put down the cellphone. Talking on your cellphone while driving is a bad idea.
OK, he's close on this one. It's talking on your cell phone while being a bad driver that's a bad idea.
Use the technology. Running red lights is the leading cause of urban accidents, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, causing more than 200,000 crashes and 900 deaths every year.
In response, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation allowing cities and towns to use video cameras to ticket violators.
And the results of this
Washington Post: Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents
Analysis of accident data shows accidents doubled at intersections with red light cameras in the District of Columbia.
Since the District of Columbia installed its first red light camera in 1999, The Washington Post has championed use of photo enforcement technology on both its editorial and news pages. Now, five years into the program, the District's largest newspaper has discovered that accidents are up significantly as a result of their use.
But, hey...
In total, the city's photo enforcement program has issued two million red light and speed camera tickets worth $151 million.
See! It works!
They also installed some of these down in Virginia a while back. I'll give you one guess as to what happened.
Virginia DOT Study Shows Cameras Increase Injury Accidents
The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents.
Virginia DOTA brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light camera programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occurred where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The Virginia Transportation Research Council at the request of the state transportation secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia's camera law -- motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona).
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.
Bailey concludes:
What are you willing to give up to make the highways safer?
Well, I'd be willing to give up the freedom of convicted repeat drunk drivers, and do everything in our power to put these losers behind bars. It would be nice if the "progressive" leadership in our state legislature shared that desire, but they were understandably busy washing down their paella with a little Madeira on the Mediterranean while that bill was being debated.
I'd also be willing to make sure that only people who are in this country legally, and have demonstrated a respect for the laws of our nation and the Commonwealth, can obtain permission from the state to safely operate a motor vehicle on said highways.
Again, that opinion is not too popular with the "party of the people" enjoying their monopolistic control over the Commonwealth.
REILLY for GOVERNOR
100,000 Illegal Aliens Can't be Wrong
100,000 Illegal Aliens Can't be Wrong
Yet, according to statist, big government-loving twits like Mr. Bailey here, the only options we have to make our highways safer are to surrender forthwith what little personal freedom we have left over to the state, or to maintain the status quo of paying through the nose for artifcially inflated insurance premiums.
If the answer is none of the above, then stop complaining [baaaaa! - ed.] and send in your insurance premium.
Their definition of "pro-choice" - letting the pros tell you what your choices are.
*shamelessly "borrowed" from a commenter over at Kim's place
