On the website from which I pulled the “Nannygate” story (i.e. the topic of the previous post), there is a poll relating to the article. The question posed to readers is this:
Should people be banned from using an MP3 player, cell phone or Blackberry while crossing the street in New York City?
An overwhelming majority of people opposed the measure. 73% of respondants (1595 of them) agreed with the option “No, it’s a free country”; an additional 11% responded “No, there’s no real risk for anyone”. This puts the percentage of people in opposition at 84%. This is compared to the 17% in favor (responding 11% for “Yes, they’re putting themselves at great risk” and 6% for “Yes, they’re putting drivers at great risk”).
I find the wording of these options to be particularly interesting. While, thankfully, 84% of people apparently recognized that this legislation is ridiculous, there’s still 17% of the population that seems to believe that either “putting oneself” or “putting others” at “great risk” warrants legislation by that fact alone.
Granted, the belief that putting others at “great risk” is far more valid than the notion that legislation should be enacted to prevent an individual from putting his- or herself at great risk, it’s still somewhat disturbing. Perhaps the best example of why this is silly is this: sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus which leads to AIDS (AIDS isn’t communicable, it’s a condition; HIV, the virus which precipitates the condition, is communicable) — are on the rise in the United States. Since having sexual intercourse without wearing protection greatly enables the transmission of these diseases and putts both individuals and others at “great risk”, should the government either prohibit sexual intercourse before marriage or mandate the use of condoms during sexual intercourse? Of course not. Anyone who proposed such a ridiculous measure would (likely) be laughed out of any legislature.
