 |
| Ken Webb on Channel Report |
Seat Belts and the Jersey Mensa Debate
In 1983, the following subject was lodged "au Greffe": Compulsory wearing of seat belts: preparation of legislation. P.128/83. Legislation was drawn up and a date fixed for debate. However Maurice “Dick” Buesnel opposed this and tried to get it withdrawn or delayed.
The next minutes show that:
THE STATES, having rejected an amendment of Deputy Maurice Clement Buesnel that a date for debate should not be fixed, acceded to the request of the President of the Defence Committee that the Proposition regarding the preparation of legislation to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts (lodged on 27th September, 1983) be considered on 13th December, 1983: Compulsory wearing of seat belts: preparation of legislation.
And in December :
THE STATES, adopting a Proposition of the Defence Committee, charged that Committee to prepare the necessary legislation to provide for the introduction, in Jersey, of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in vehicles.
Members present voted as follows – "Pour" (38)
Senators: Vibert , Le Marquand, Jeune , Averty, Binnington, Sandeman, Horsfall, Ellis, Baal, Rothwell.
Connétables: St. Ouen , St. Mary , St. John , St. Brelade , St. Lawrence , St. Martin , St. Peter , St. Helier
Deputies: Mourant(H), St. Ouen , Morel (S), Le Maistre(H), Quenault(B), Le Gallais(S), Roche(S), Le Brocq(H), Le Quesne(S), Trinity , St. Martin , Filleul(H), Vandervliet(L), St. Peter , Le Main(H), Le Fondré(L), Rumboll(H), Grouville , Wavell(H), Billot(S).
"Contre" (12)
Senator: Shenton.
Connétables: St. Saviour , Trinity , St. Clement .
Deputies: Perkins(H), Buesnel(H), St. Mary , Beadle(B), Thorne (B), Blampied(H), Norman(C), St. John
(incidentally another example of the lie that the Constables always voted in a block!)
So this duly became law with the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (Jersey) Order, 1986.
But as the legislation was being drawn up, there was a lively debate in the pages of “Thinks!”, the magazine for the Channel Island Mensa members. It had recently undergone a revamp under the new editor Ken Webb, and a fervent opponent of seat belts, he launched at attack on the idea of compulsory seat belts in the July 1984 edition. Ken was a friend of mine, but we did disagree on this matter.
THE SMOKE SCREEN
by the Editor.
So someone in the Jersey Evening Post decided it would be a good thing if every motorist in Jersey be forced to wear a seat belt. There followed a highly pressurised campaign all designed to convince people that wearing a seat belt is always a good thing. Of course, under certain circumstances it is good, it can save your life or prevent serious injury. But why has no mention been made of the other side of the coin? That, under different conditions, seat belts can kill you or seriously injure you. The duty of a responsible journal is to inform the public not to attempt to brainwash it. A good journalist reports the news, he does not try and make it.
Now, led by the nose, the Jersey States is to introduce a law forcing each motorist to wear a seat belt - even if it kills him/her! I object to legislation promoted by a newspaper irresponsibly taking advantage of its monopoly position. That there exist in Jersey people who, from their ivory towers of ignorance, have the arrogance to play at being God with your life and with mine - this I find most worrying.
"Contre" (12)
Senator: Shenton.
Connétables: St. Saviour , Trinity , St. Clement .
Deputies: Perkins(H), Buesnel(H), St. Mary , Beadle(B), Thorne (B), Blampied(H), Norman(C), St. John
(incidentally another example of the lie that the Constables always voted in a block!)
So this duly became law with the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (Jersey) Order, 1986.
But as the legislation was being drawn up, there was a lively debate in the pages of “Thinks!”, the magazine for the Channel Island Mensa members. It had recently undergone a revamp under the new editor Ken Webb, and a fervent opponent of seat belts, he launched at attack on the idea of compulsory seat belts in the July 1984 edition. Ken was a friend of mine, but we did disagree on this matter.
THE SMOKE SCREEN
by the Editor.
So someone in the Jersey Evening Post decided it would be a good thing if every motorist in Jersey be forced to wear a seat belt. There followed a highly pressurised campaign all designed to convince people that wearing a seat belt is always a good thing. Of course, under certain circumstances it is good, it can save your life or prevent serious injury. But why has no mention been made of the other side of the coin? That, under different conditions, seat belts can kill you or seriously injure you. The duty of a responsible journal is to inform the public not to attempt to brainwash it. A good journalist reports the news, he does not try and make it.
Now, led by the nose, the Jersey States is to introduce a law forcing each motorist to wear a seat belt - even if it kills him/her! I object to legislation promoted by a newspaper irresponsibly taking advantage of its monopoly position. That there exist in Jersey people who, from their ivory towers of ignorance, have the arrogance to play at being God with your life and with mine - this I find most worrying.
Only you know the circumstances of your driving - the type of car; its condition; your reflexes; re-action time; alcohol intake; speed of driving, etc. These decide the conditions of the crash. Seat belts play no part in the cause or prevention of crashes - they operate for good or ill only at impact with the windscreen. With a large engine and a heavy chassis in front of me and a petrol tank tucked away in the back, I reasoned that the probability of a ball of fire was not great; the probability of being impaled on the steering wheel was also not great; the probability that I hit the windscreen was greater. Knowing the facts I formulated a judgement - seat belts are fitted and I wear them. But that is my judgement and, I believe, it is an intelligent one.
The second car I drive is a light, rear engined run around. There is nothing in front of me but an empty space and a petrol tank six inches from the front bumper. The probability of a ball of fire is much greater; the probability of being impaled on the steering wheel is also much greater; the probability of contact with the windscreen remains the same. On balance I believe that I am better off not wearing a seat belt in this car and I do not. My judgement -my life - my decision.
Remember, seat belts can be both good and bad. Which ? - no one knows !
The issue is a very simple one:-
WHO DECIDES ?
You after an intelligent appraisal,
or
THE IGNORANT APEING THE ALMIGHTY ?
The Editor requests your views. (He can duck !)
And so in August 1984, this promoted a rejoinder:
SEAT-BELTS - WHO DECIDES?
Contributed by Peter Bryans
I must congratulate the new editor for conceiving a splendid plan to elicit a response from our generally silent readers. By choosing to write a deliberately provocative article, which brilliantly plumbed the pinnacles of banal naivety, he has demonstrated that at least one member of Mensa (me) will respond to an article which is intentionally lacking in objectivity, common sense and academic irrelevances such as facts and proof.
He asks a simple question - WHO DECIDES? On issues which affect all members of a community, single individuals could only be allowed to make their own individual decisiions if we lived in a society of anarchists. Because we live in a democracy the answer had got to be that the government elected by the community decides, after listening to and evaluating all points of view. This decision is then given the force of law to protect the innocent and persuade the ignorant.
A simple fact (which Ken very cleverly omitted so as to generate controversy where there need otherwise be none) is that since the wearing of seat-belts became compulsory in the U.K. the number of road deaths and serious injuries has decreased dramatically (a 31.23% overall decrease and a 28.72% decrease in areas governed by a 30 m.p.h. speed limit) (Jul - Dec 1983). Put another way, at this rate 2500 people are alive in July 1984 who would have died (statistically) had they not been made to wear seat belts in the previous months.
However, I am sure that investigative reporters angling for a career with the News of the World will eventually demonstrate that someone, somewhere has died because they wore a seat belt - just as instances can be shown of a pilot who was strangled by his own parachute, a Farmer whose skull was fractured by his tractor's safety cab and a hospi41 patient who had died from the side-effects of a "miracle" drug. All of these instances don't mean that we should ban parachutes, safety cabs, life saving drugs or seat belts - just that God sometimes has a sense of humour.
Mensa brains must be shown to be capable of supporting democratic measures (even paternal dictatorships) which demonstrably save large numbers of lives in the community. Membership of Mensa does not allow us to drink and drive, survive car crashes seat-belt less with impunity or walk on water.
Remember the cemeteries are full of people who knew better than to wear seat-belts - although their widows and orphans have now learnt by sad experience, that collective wisdom was better than their loved ones individual decisions. Ask them WHO DECIDES? they never got the chance.
Editor's Note: Upon Peter's views I will not comment. On his attack on my personal integrity I most certainly will. He made an erroneous and unwarranted presumption as to my motives for writing the article. I do not use a subject affecting the lives of my fellow humans for the triviality of eliciting a response from Members. Some years ago my life was saved because I was NOT wearing a seat-belt. I would like everyone -including Peter - to have the same choice. That was my sole motive.
The second car I drive is a light, rear engined run around. There is nothing in front of me but an empty space and a petrol tank six inches from the front bumper. The probability of a ball of fire is much greater; the probability of being impaled on the steering wheel is also much greater; the probability of contact with the windscreen remains the same. On balance I believe that I am better off not wearing a seat belt in this car and I do not. My judgement -my life - my decision.
Remember, seat belts can be both good and bad. Which ? - no one knows !
The issue is a very simple one:-
WHO DECIDES ?
You after an intelligent appraisal,
or
THE IGNORANT APEING THE ALMIGHTY ?
The Editor requests your views. (He can duck !)
And so in August 1984, this promoted a rejoinder:
SEAT-BELTS - WHO DECIDES?
Contributed by Peter Bryans
I must congratulate the new editor for conceiving a splendid plan to elicit a response from our generally silent readers. By choosing to write a deliberately provocative article, which brilliantly plumbed the pinnacles of banal naivety, he has demonstrated that at least one member of Mensa (me) will respond to an article which is intentionally lacking in objectivity, common sense and academic irrelevances such as facts and proof.
He asks a simple question - WHO DECIDES? On issues which affect all members of a community, single individuals could only be allowed to make their own individual decisiions if we lived in a society of anarchists. Because we live in a democracy the answer had got to be that the government elected by the community decides, after listening to and evaluating all points of view. This decision is then given the force of law to protect the innocent and persuade the ignorant.
A simple fact (which Ken very cleverly omitted so as to generate controversy where there need otherwise be none) is that since the wearing of seat-belts became compulsory in the U.K. the number of road deaths and serious injuries has decreased dramatically (a 31.23% overall decrease and a 28.72% decrease in areas governed by a 30 m.p.h. speed limit) (Jul - Dec 1983). Put another way, at this rate 2500 people are alive in July 1984 who would have died (statistically) had they not been made to wear seat belts in the previous months.
However, I am sure that investigative reporters angling for a career with the News of the World will eventually demonstrate that someone, somewhere has died because they wore a seat belt - just as instances can be shown of a pilot who was strangled by his own parachute, a Farmer whose skull was fractured by his tractor's safety cab and a hospi41 patient who had died from the side-effects of a "miracle" drug. All of these instances don't mean that we should ban parachutes, safety cabs, life saving drugs or seat belts - just that God sometimes has a sense of humour.
Mensa brains must be shown to be capable of supporting democratic measures (even paternal dictatorships) which demonstrably save large numbers of lives in the community. Membership of Mensa does not allow us to drink and drive, survive car crashes seat-belt less with impunity or walk on water.
Remember the cemeteries are full of people who knew better than to wear seat-belts - although their widows and orphans have now learnt by sad experience, that collective wisdom was better than their loved ones individual decisions. Ask them WHO DECIDES? they never got the chance.
Editor's Note: Upon Peter's views I will not comment. On his attack on my personal integrity I most certainly will. He made an erroneous and unwarranted presumption as to my motives for writing the article. I do not use a subject affecting the lives of my fellow humans for the triviality of eliciting a response from Members. Some years ago my life was saved because I was NOT wearing a seat-belt. I would like everyone -including Peter - to have the same choice. That was my sole motive.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment