Why not end all deadly traffic?

Justin had a thought about AB 1634 (more infra -- here, here, here, here, and here) which seemed to merit a post all by itself. However, if I wait around for Justin to write it, AB 1634 may have been passed and signed into law. So I thought now would be a good time to share Justin's thoughts, as amplified and expounded upon by me. (Justin, FWIW, owns no animals of any kind, so he has no, um, dog in this, um, race.)

Anyway, it struck Justin that spaying and neutering all dogs because a minority of dog owners won't control theirs was a lot like enacting prohibition because of alcoholism, drunken driving, and drinking by minors.

Good point. And I suppose drunk driving could also be curtailed by a moratorium on the issuance of drivers licenses. For that matter, why not just eliminate the proliferation of cars?

Now, if we apply the AB1634 model, the sponsors would have to first declare that there was a severe "car overpopulation crisis" (there is), that it causes "traffic" (it does), and that many cars end up being abandoned by their owners (they do), that they therefore often have to be impounded at taxpayers' expense (how true!). And that tragically, many of these impounded vehicles are "unwanted" and never find new owners, and have to be destroyed!

The sponsors of the "Healthy Car Initiative" could simply require that all existing cars would have to be rendered incapable of highway travel, and that no new cars could be manufactured except for rare, certified collectors cars, along with specially built cars to be used at NASCAR events. Any such cars could not be sold or licensed in the future unless they were "neutered" in such a manner as to prevent their ever being used on the highways. True, there'd still be plenty of cars in private hands, but there'd be fewer and fewer over time.

Let's turn to cars as a public health issue. By any standard, the public health would benefit far more by getting rid of cars than by getting rid of dogs. Cars killed 4225 Californians just last year, while dogs killed only 30 Californians in the entire period of 1979-1995. Considering that California has around 24 million cars, and 8-10 million dogs, it becomes clear that cars are a far, far, more significant public health issue than dogs -- and by an enormous ratio.

So what are we waiting for?

Why isn't Lloyd Levine turning off the larger spigot?

posted by Eric on 05.03.07 at 07:47 PM










Comments

That is just brilliant!

M. Simon   ·  May 3, 2007 10:37 PM

Shhhhh,

Please don't give Levine any ideas!! He has already stated that he thinks The State is better able to decide what is good than it's citizens,and we all know how the California legistature feels about cars!

We will all be afoot! (and petless!)

flicka47   ·  May 4, 2007 2:09 AM

If compared to guns, cars are much more likley to kill or injure someone.
Where is the anticar labby?
Hugh

Hugh   ·  May 4, 2007 11:33 AM

What about all the sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted children what is the cost to public heath and the tax payer ?

Anonymous   ·  May 4, 2007 1:55 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits