Learning From Minor Misfortunes

Without delving too far into the world of athletics, I believe the recent incident with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger illuminates two important discrepancies. The first regards the inconsistent legislation dictating personal safety, and the second highlights the ill-logic of many conservatives on the topic of individual freedoms.

According to reports, Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle when he collided with another vehicle and suffered severe injuries. Witnesses also claim that Roethlisberger was not wearing a helmet, an observation consistent with Roethlisberger’s claims that he does not wear a helmet while riding a motor cycle on various sporting news programs. Roethlisberger was within his legal rights to refuse a helmet in the state of Pennsylvania, along with in his home state of Ohio. But, imagine if big Ben had been caught without a seat belt. He would have been ticketed, labeled irresponsible, and told to straighten his ways.

There’s the incongruity. I cannot attest to the rationale behind the law that mandates seat belts. My guess is that it has been so legislated because sufficient evidence has been revealed to show that injuries caused by a refusal to wear a seatbelt impose costs on society that are greater than what society is willing to bear. Those costs include direct dollar costs of lost wages and productivity, increased expenditures on additional medical treatments, and increased litigation costs, along with indirect negative externalities imposed upon society in the forms of parents unable to parent while medically incapacitated, greater preponderance of disabled and maimed individuals, and emotional duress sustained by multiple parties as a result of the injuries—which in turn can impose direct dollar costs in lost wages and productivity. You can see how once one explores the potential costs of unnecessary injuries resulting from traffic accidents that could otherwise be avoided by something as simple as a seat-belt, the exercise can be both illuminating and absurd. The point it leads to, however, is much simpler. If the costs of noncompliance with seatbelt laws are so significant as to warrant national enforcement, why are motorcycle helmets not the same? Perhaps the answer is that motorcycle enthusiasts are not as valuable to society as typical motorists, and the loss of such arrogant pigs is not as significant.

Of course, that’s merely a smug and inflammatory response to what is basically an incongruity in legislation that will be corrected over time. But it leads me to my next point. Conservatives are wont to identify their freedom to not wear a helmet while motorcycling, or a seatbelt while driving as personal liberties that have been unjustly denied them by an imposing governmental system. Those same conservatives are likely to identify their right to be reckless as one that affects no one other than the individual refusing to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Those are the likely to be the same conservatives who identify homosexuals as participating in an unacceptable behavior that should be prohibited by law. They may claim that mainstream homosexuality taints a culture and corrupts the family system vital in rearing children capable of making good moral and economic decisions in their adult lives, but that refusing a seatbelt harms no one but that person refusing.

If that juxtaposition does not simplify the matter enough, I’ll simply state my point. Conservatives must understand that when they identify acts or traits that they consider unpalatable and deplorable, they must be willing to acknowledge some of their own behaviors have comparable ramifications. I don’t mean to say that conservatives should give up on their agenda, but understand when compromise is necessary and accept consistency in legislation. It’s not about passing legislation that aims to serve one end of the political spectrum; it’s about appealing to the middle—something the greatest conservatives of our time like President Reagan understood.