Confusing legislative intent with legislative effect

By -
It is hardly a secret (at least among anyone remotely serious about the study of politics) that the fact that a piece of legislation is well-intentioned does not go very far towards guaranteeing it will have good results. But I heard a particularly blatant example of confusing intent with effect on the radio today.

Governor Cuomo has proposed legislation in New York allowing municipalities to lower their speed limit from 30 to 25 mph. The goal is to prevent pedestrian deaths.

This is a worthy goal for which I have some personal feelings: since my son began kindergarten nine years ago, he has had two classmates killed by vehicles on the streets of New York City. So I strongly support the intention of this legislation.

But on the radio I heard some legislator arguing for its passage as follows: "When the speed limit of a car is reduced from 30 to 25 mph, the chances of a killing a pedestrian strikes are reduced by half."

Oy vey! Cars don't have a "speed limit" with which they strike pedestrian; they have a speed that they hit them at. And all the law can do by itself is reduce the speed limit, and not the speed. For the law to have its desired effect, it must be combined with some means of actually producing lower driving speeds. Ticketing is one way, but a better one is traffic calming devices and mixed use roadways. But putting those in place costs money; it is a lot cheaper to just talk and pass legislation.



Comments

  1. The Arthurian3:45 PM

    It is hardly a secret (at least among anyone remotely serious about the study of politics)...

    ... But putting those in place costs money; it is a lot cheaper to just talk and pass legislation.

    And thus is the economic core of the problem exposed.

    Good post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more