Older Duers : we often see the meme that in the old days, we didn't

[hedgehog]

have all these nanny state safety regulations, and we all survived. Do you recall any accidents/deaths that might have been prevented by today's regulations?

I can recall 2:

1. the little girl down the street who fractured her skull falling off a skateboard - no helmet.

2. the family devastated at the loss of an infant in a minor traffic accident. No one else in the family was hurt, but the baby went flying though the windshield - no car seats in those days.

BTW - i have one daughter who has a brain today because she was wearing a bike helmet, and another who was spared serious injury because she was wearing a set belt!

[HappyMe]

1. Fortunately, no. nt

[tridim]

2. I hit my head hard on a tree root while snowboarding

My helmet probably saved my life. I don't care if it makes me a "poser".

[Greybnk48]

3. Highly flammable kids P.J.'s and clothes.

Kids poisoned by lead paint chips; fogging our streets with DDT foggers (we used to run behind the truck in the cloud); and who knows how many kids flew through the windshield of the family car. My brother, in the early 60's, used to stand on the front seat next to my dad (no belts of car seats).

I'll let other chime in. If I thought about it I could think of a lot more.

[Scuba]

4. Take a look at mining and other industries. Examples abound. n/t

[myrna minx]

5. Eliminating leaded gasoline and paint and asbestos surely extended life expectancy.

[Greybnk48]

19. Our house had asbestos siding when I was a kid. We lived

in the house from 1956-1960 (Levittown, PA...asbestos everywhere).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. Hey, isn't that where O'Liely is from? Ever know him?

[csziggy]

67. The house I grew up in had asbestos siding

When the house was moved and reassembled in 1952 asbestos siding was sold to my Dad as being fire resistant and that it would never need painting. Sure enough, that house has never caught fire or had any paint applied. Up until the day it was torn down it was the same ugly ass mottled green and white - an advantage not mentioned as a selling point was that the algae and mold that grew on it would blend into the color of the siding.

[AngryAmish]

34. getting rid of lead upped IQ and lowered criminality

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. Yep. And the industry bitched and moaned even though they knew they were killing people.

From The Ethyl Poisoned Earth on Damninteresting.com

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/
In 1923 the Bureau of Mines conducted tests for General Motors, under the stipulation that GM management reserve the right of “comment, criticism, and approval” for all findings prior to their publication. Various animals were exposed to leaded gasoline exhaust from a small engine, and the results stated that the animals were “without harm of any kind.” Some scientists decried the inadequate experiments, pointing out that the animals were only exposed to a passing stream of lightly leaded exhaust, but not to lingering accumulations.

Following the death of one worker and irreversible derangement among others at an Ethyl factory in October 1924, the chief chemist there told reporters, “These men probably went insane because they worked too hard.” Within days, four additional workers from the plant died, and thirty-six others were crippled with incurable neurological damage. The plant, it seemed, had employed many hard workers.

Meanwhile, Ethyl vice president Thomas Midgley addressed the press. “I’m not taking any chance whatever,” he is said to have told gathered journalists as he drizzled Ethyl fluid over his hands and inhaled the fumes. “Nor would I take any chance doing that every day.” The reporters dutifully passed this comforting anecdote on to their readers, and consumers’ concerns were calmed.

[raccoon]

6. Battered women's shelters? The phrase didn't exist then, nor were there shelters.

Anyone who was a victim of a battering spouse or other relative was just screwn if they had
no friends or neighbors to help them out.

Alcoholic parents and other relatives drove to buy their booze with preschool kids in the car.
I know, I was one of those kids. And the amount of times parents and other relatives were driving
around under the influence, with or without kids in the car, I'm sure that happened LOTS.

[yardwork]

7. Sure. The father of a young family who drove his motorcycle off the road and into a tree

weeks after Ohio repealed the helmet requirement for motorcycles. He wasn't wearing a helmet and was killed. The emergency responders said that he would have survived if he had been wearing a helmet. That was back in the late 1970s.

My five classmates who drove their car at high speed into a tree late one night. Four were killed instantly, the fifth was permanently disabled. The seatbelts had been removed from the car. Mid 70s.

The brother of my close friends who drove his car off the road and suffered permanent severe brain damage at the age of 20. The seatbelts had just been removed from the car. Early 70s.

My classmate driving home from a sports event that she had just won, who drove across railroad tracks at the same moment as a train and was killed instantly. No seatbelt, no warning lights or barriers at the railroad crossing.

My father, dead in middle age from a cancer caused by exposure to chlordane. He heard that EPA (damn gubmint) was going to ban chlordane, so he ran out and bought a bunch of it and sprayed it all around the house to control ants. That one nobody can pinpoint an exact cause and effect.

Etc.

[frazzled]

8. I am soooo for helmet laws.

When I see young people commuting on their bicycles in heavy traffic on deteriorating roads with debris, obstructions, and potholes, and wearing no helmets, I hold my breath. I too recall the days before helmets when the daughter of my sister's neighbors became permanently brain damaged after a bicycle accident. My own spouse survived a serious bicycle accident (hit a gas cap on the road and went body surfing down a hill for 100 yards until his fall was stopped by his head hitting the curb). The emergency room doctors told him he was the "poster boy for helmets": he would have been dead without it. As it was, the helmet was cracked apart and full of blood. Thank god it took the impact instead of my husband's skull.

Seat belts? I remember when the first seat belt laws came into effect in New York State, where we were living at the time. People bitched and complained, but it soon became second nature.

Some things make me wonder, however. I'm not sure this total ban on baby crib bumper pads is fully warranted. What about the baby rolling over and hitting their head on the hard sides of the crib. I need more info on that one.

[CanonRay]

9. The guy who was burned to death

in and unlicensed/uninspected plastics manufacturing plant on my corner.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. My parents were injured in a car accident, no seat belts.

Not that they'd failed to wear them; the car, built in the early '60s, didn't have them. If they'd had seat belts to wear they probably wouldn't have been hurt at all. Fortunately the injuries weren't life-threatening but they suffered from after-effects for quite awhile.

[RebelOne]

29. My stepfather was killed in an auto accident in the '50s.

He was thrown out of the car. No seat belt, of course.

[Javaman]

11. I'm an "older DUer" but I wear a bike helmet.

one saved my life 20 years ago.

[bhikkhu]

12. Anyone in a mechanical field owes OSHA

...I've been turning wrenches, putting cars on lifts, and every sort of related thing for 25 years without a single injury worse than bashed knuckles. We don't often think of it, but the whole array of safety lock-outs and controls built into the workplace is what makes that possible...and that's not even getting into all the noxious chemicals we used to have to deal with that we don't any more.

[hedgehog]

13. My FIL is now crippled up as a result of a lifetime working in

a repair shop that OSHA would have shut down - lifting things that were too heavy took out his back and knees, stepping on an uneven surface while carrying too much weight broke the bones in his foot, etc.

[jberryhill]

14. Children tended not to be told about "disturbing" things

That's why the people going on about how "In my day..." have their heads up their asses. They weren't very well informed, and people tend to insulate their children from tragedies.

I have a number of scars from an accident with a non-safety-glass storm door. Only 36 stitches and close enough to care that I didn't bleed to death, unlike many other children.

That type of glass is not permitted in doors and windows of low height anymore.

[raccoon]

15. Good point. I think that's also a reason why many people view the time of their childhood through

rose-colored glasses.

[hedgehog]

17. Come to think of it, my husband still has the scar from putting his arm through a storm door!

[kestrel91316]

16. If the marketing of cigarettes had been regulated back in the 40s,

my dad might never have smoked, and then not have died of lung cancer when I was 23. And my life might have been very different. In a good way.

[kctim]

18. Not really an Old Duer, but I recall a few

Thankfully, I also recall the mandated loss of choice these laws result in and keep fighting against them.

[Whiskeytide]

23. Wait a minute...

...The "mandated loss of choice" these laws result in? What does that mean?

Most of the laws we're talking about either require mfrs to comply with certain safety conditions in their product, or correct some asshole making a stupid choice for the ultimate victim.

If you think "safety" - which costs money - would even be a consideration for most mfrs if not mandated by law, you are living in an alternate reality. Most of them dodge such requirements as best they can anyway.

And, the last time I checked, 2 year old kids aren't "choosing" whether to be in a car seat or not. Their parents are making that choice for them. The law mandating that children be in a car seat protects that child from a stupid parent. That's ok with me.

Flame retardant kids pajamas? Do you object to that as taking away your right to decide to dress your children in accelorant soaked kindling, you know, if you "choose" to? Most parents would not understand or take the time to research clothing labels, material safety data sheets and manufacturing quality control measures to make sure the Buzz LightYear PJs their kid wants are "safe" to sleep in. That has to be done through regulation. By the way - ever seen a burned child? The interest in preventing that outweighs you inconvenience every time, in my book.

We can all point to silly-ass laws over the years in every civilization since the dawn of man. But on the whole, modern consumer protection laws - the "nanny laws" - are pretty damn legit.

[kctim]

24. The nanny laws people most object to

are the ones that take away their choice, not workplace or product safety. The OP gave examples of such laws, not consumer protection laws.

So, do you approve of mandates dictating what you can and cannot do regarding your own body?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Let's hear it. Which laws are you against?

[kctim]

30. I am pro-choice, so pretty much all of them

helmet laws, seatbelt laws, anti-smoking laws for individuals, anti-smoking laws for private businesses, drug laws etc...

[uppityperson]

27. You don't like mandatory seat belt laws. Why?

[kctim]

31. Because it is none of my business, or the governments

if you wear a seatbelt or not.

[pipi_k]

35. I guess it's a matter of perspective...

I for one am glad there's a seatbelt law. It was hard enough back in 1995 to see my daughter's face all cut and bruised when she went through the windshield in a head-on accident with another car.

She wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. It's my business if you get knocked out of your seat position and lose control of your car.

Besides protecting your ass, you also are protecting other drivers from your loss of control in the event of an accident.

I know this for a fact. As a licensed pilot, I should have known better to even move while un-buckled but I once was involved in a minor incident, that almost turned in to a major incident. When pulling out of my parking spot before buckling up, I clipped a retaining wall/curb with my wheel which caused the truck to lurch forward - sending me sliding on the leather seats depressing the gas to the floor. The truck shot across the alley before I could regain control. Had there been another car or, worse yet, a pedestrian, it would have been a tragedy.

While in a moving car, everyone, passengers included, need to be kept in their seat in the event of an incident.

[uppityperson]

42. Indeed. Those who want no limitations to any choice are amazing

There are many limitations, some of which make sense in a broader way, some of which do not. Seat belts make sense, safety for more than the one involved as well as not wasting my taxpayer dollars providing emergency care for people who are in accidents without seat belts or insurance.

[kctim]

46. Freedom of choice makes the most sense

And, FWIW, trying to justify taking away choice by saying your taxes are paying for it, only gives strength to those who do not favor taxes paying for health care. ie, if government can dictate one thing because it pays for it, who's to say government won't try to dictate other things.

[uppityperson]

51. You want no limitations, absolute "freedom of choice"? Serious question there

You not only use money but resources, by getting in an accident while wearing no seat belt.

Having a law mandating seat belts, not leaving you the "choice" of risking your neck unduly, gives strength to those who don't want their taxes to pay for health care? How?

[kctim]

56. Yes, absolute freedom of choice

for everything that does not harm others. I believe in free choice for everything, not just abortions.

How? Think about it.
Local or federal governments pay for the idiot who rides without a helmet and gets in an accident. To prevent those costs or keep them lower, they mandate helmets must be worn when riding. So, if governments are paying for health care, what's to prevent it from dictating what we eat, how we live etc...?

Sorry about switching to helmets, I'm a biker and was habit. Same thing though.

[uppityperson]

57. Um, they do dictate what we eat. There are rules and laws regarding food.

They also dictate how we live. There are building codes, etc.

[kctim]

60. There are no nanny-state laws

that mandate what you can or cannot eat. At least not yet.

[kctim]

45. Sorry, but I don't play the 'if' game when it comes to rights

Especially when people use the rare as if it were the norm. Next thing will be that there should be a law requiring two drivers because what 'IF' one of them has a heart attack.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. Oh bullshit. Most of our traffic laws are there for the reasonable "what if"

Almost everybody will be involved in a traffic accident. It's not unreasonable to ask they are strapped in to be able to control the vehicle and not make things worse. Almost no-one will have an incapacitating heart attack while driving.

But if you want to make an argument for dual drivers, I'm sure we can give it the attention it deserves.

[kctim]

61. Pu-leez

The majority of our traffic laws are there to collect revenue and to protect motorists from other motorists, not themselves.

Most people are able to control their vehicle without being strapped in, and almost no-one is so careless to go sliding across their leather seat while somehow also keeping the gas pedal pushed down and run someone over. And then blame a seatbelt rather than their own carelessness.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. LOL. You make my argument for me but you can't seem to grasp that concept -

"protect motorists from other motorists"

An unsecured driver IS a threat to other motorists.

"sliding across forward in their leather seat while somehow also keeping the gas pedal pushed down"

There. I fixed it for you. You seem to be a little slow on the up-take.

[uppityperson]

41. What about using lead based paint? What about speed limits?

You sound like you don't believe in public safety rules or public health rules. I think that some things, like seatbelts, are part of public safety/health and the rules mandating them are ok. Though I do understand why some might disagree.

[kctim]

50. Only in the rare occassion

is not wearing your seat belt a risk to the public. Unlike lead based paint and speed limits.

[uppityperson]

53. So you are ok with taking away some free choice. Thank you.

[kctim]

63. Sigh

You have a really hard time understanding the difference between public safety laws and nanny state laws, don't you.

You stated I was an absolutist over free choice and I agreed, as long as it was of NO HARM TO OTHERS. I know it is easier to just ignore my whole statement to try and prove some point to yourself, but that is hardly anything to be thankful for.

[Whiskeytide]

28. No, the OP...

... gave examples of consumer protection laws - helmets for kids, and seat belts in cars - and most of the follow-up posts went in that direction. I suspect you're talking about State mandatory seat belt use laws that say you have to use a seat belt when you might not want to. But, in practice, people seldom get ticketed for that by the state. It really only comes into play if you have an accident and are seeking to sue someone because you were hurt. The lobby for it was insurance industry driven, not "nanny state". Take that one up with Allstate.

And, on your inquiry, if society has an interest that legitmately outweighs my interest in my body, then I would probably be ok with some reasonable limits on what I can do with it. But, necessarily, it depends on the law. What, specifically are you taking about?

.

[kctim]

33. Really?

What consumer protection law requires skateboard manufactures to provide helmets? The same one that requires auto makers to provide car seats?

Back then there were no laws saying you had to wear a helmet, you did as you chose to do. Someone making that choice for you nowadays, is like having a nanny following you around and dictating what you do.

IF the OP is about consumer protection laws and not nanny state laws, then I stand corrected and apologize.

Doesn't matter who lobbys for it, the government enforces it and it is a nanny state type of thing.

I am specifically talking about nanny state laws, like helmet laws, drug laws, anti smoking laws etc...

[Whiskeytide]

40. But the real question is whether...

... the State has a legitimate interest to protect, and if the imposition on your interest is reasonable in relation to the State's interest. Concerning child bike/skateboard helmets, the interest is in protecting a child who probably wouldn't appreciate the value of wearing a helmet, and therefore is not making an informed decision. That outweighs a 13 year old's interest in looking cool by not wearing a helmet. Now, mandating that adult motorcycle riders wear a helmet might be another question. I suspect that the State's interest is in not having people walking around acting like Gary Busy, and frankly I applaud that effort. But I can understand why someone might feel that law over reaches.

Drug laws - This probably won't be too popular here, but the State certainly has an interest in that, whether you like it or not. I support the repeal of drug laws, but on economic grounds and ineffectiveness, not privacy rights. Simply put, the State has an interest in controlling substances that alter your judgment and perception because there is a risk you will hurt someone else while you're fucked up. (Alcohol got a pass on this because they were already a powerful lobby when mainstream drugs came on the scene - whether you think that's important or not -, and probably because Budweiser is mentioned in the Bible, I think).

If you want to smoke a little weed, I'm probably going to be OK with that so long as you're not relaxing before performing neurosurgery on my kid, or on break at the Air Traffic Control Center. You have to sort of apply something like a standard of care for drug use - you know - "Toke Responsibly". On the other hand, if you want to cook and smoke meth, you have a higher standard of care. If you can do it (1) without creating a risk that you'll blow up a portion of your neighborhood, (2) without destroying the lives of your family, and (3) without becoming a burden on the State for healthcare costs associated with its use, go for it. If you can't, then I have no problem with your ass being busted for it. The problem for the State is that even if YOU can meet those standards of care for meth use, most people cannot. Those laws are not passed for the responsible drug user - they're for the 92% who can't control their addiction.

Smoking - last time I checked, you can smoke in this country. You may not be able to smoke in a public place where other people are because it irritates them and is potentially bad for their health - but if you're smoking around unappreciative non-smokers already, then your problem is not that the State is babysitting you, its that you're already an asshole. (Note: - I enjoy a cigarette or cigar often, but not around anyone who is bothered by it - its just not that hard to be polite and accommodating). Like it or not, we still live in an illusion of a democracy, and "majority rule" remains the facade. If the majority in a community have decided they don't want people smoking in restaurants, bars, parks, office buildings and the like, then either respect that or leave. You simply don't have a right to smoke at the expense of others.

[uppityperson]

44. good post, thank you. nt

[uppityperson]

43. You can smoke, just not where the smoke will affect others.

your "right to chose to smoke" ends at your "right to chose" to affect me with your smoke.

[seabeyond]

20. no one i knew, no one in my family were touched by any tragedy.

highschool a gal committed suicide. later i knew someone drinking and driving going thru stop lite. a cousin in the 80's drinking fell asleep at wheel and died.

that is about it for me.

[surrealAmerican]

21. It's a very silly meme, isn't it.

Obviously the people who didn't survive aren't going to contradict the people saying that.

[Historic NY]

22. Fire proof furniture fabrics.....tip over brackets.....

electrical & appliance standards.

Sadly a new one people overlook securing large appliances with manufacturers brackets to keep children from tipping them over. We just had a 3 yoa killed when a large older tv fell off the stand, she wanted to reach the vcr to turn it on. Most new applicances come with L-brackets(tip over)

http://www.totsafe.com/

http://www.nachi.org/anti-tip.htm

[EmeraldCityGrl]

32. My son died because airbags were required

only on the drivers side. A family from New Hampshire that
lost their daughter in the same make and model of car, sued
FORD. They knew they would never win against the corporation
but took them on none the less. Airbags are now required on the
passenger side.

[dana_b]

37. omg - I am so sorry

Thank God for brave souls like that family.

[dana_b]

36. yes, I remember a little boy riding on the floor in the backseat

of his mom's car when she got into an accident. He must have been 2-3 years old. He was a bloody mess when the ambulance came. I love car seats!!

[Liberal_in_LA]

39. We stood on the seats while dad drove, no seat belts but I can't remember any personal

knowledge of injuries / death in car crashes. Doesn't mean the stats showed otherwise, though.

[pipi_k]

49. Yeah, we did too. The cars seemed like tanks

back when I was a kid. We even got up in the rear window space and rode there as long as we could fit.

[tblue37]

48. When my now 65-year-old sister was 12, a schoolmate died when she

hit a small rock while biking and was thrown from her bike. She hit her head and died that same night from the injury. A helmut would have saved her life.

I know of many such cases.

That was my first directly personal experience of the reality that kids could die.

[Quantess]

54. How about all those kids in the bygone days who liked to snack on lead paint chips?

Then when they got to be about 9 or 10 they bought cigarettes "for their mom" and smoked 'em themselves.

[PotatoChip]

55. Going down the freeway in the back of a pickup truck

Two of us sitting on each tire well hump no less. :crazy: All 4 of us kids were under 12 at the time.

Uncharacteristic lack of judgment on my father's part, since he was usually quite safety conscious.

[loyalsister]

58. I knew a girl whose family wishes helmets were used

In the 80s, she was biking and crashed and ended up with a internal injuries and a head injury that killed her very slowly.

[Nay]

59. Mr Nay and his stepsister were rear-ended in their dad's truck --

the doors flew open and they were tossed out (no seatbelts). His sister (age 13) died in the ditch when the truck ran over her. Mr. Nay (age 16) was in a coma for months and suffered a broken back.

[Nye Bevan]

62. If people were intelligent we would not need seatbelt and helmet laws.

But we do need these laws to protect stupid people from their own irrational behavior.

[yesphan]

64. About 6 years old, I was climbing around

on the hood of our Rambler station wagon in '62 or '63, I slipped and tried to grab the hood ornament
which was made of steel, shaped like a shark fin and hard mounted to the hood. I missed and wound up
hanging by my arm from that ornament. Ripped my arm open quite nicely.

[Xithras]

66. When I was a kid...

...my town had a community pool with a high dive and a low dive. The high dive had a ladder going up the back of the board, and no handrails. When I was about 8 or 9, a kid in my class lost his balance and took a backward tumble off the board, falling onto the concrete sidewalk from about 8 or 9 feet up (it seemed like 50 back then, but I'm sure it was under 10). It didn't kill him, but the brain injury was so severe that none of us ever saw him again.

Nowadays you couldn't get a permit to build a diving board like that. Those annoying nanny state regulations would require handrails.

[era veteran]

68. I know quite a few people that drank themselves to death.

I knew one boy, Bo, that was killed by a car, no helmet. A High School pal, Steve, killed in a car wreck right after graduation,no seat belts.

Lots of toxic chemicals in use. Dogs running around, no leash laws. Did not have listen to the priest talks yet.