Big Brothers Aren’t All Bad

Quite late in the game, in fact just before the decisive vote, some Senate supporters of California’s proposed mandatory seat-belt law discovered to their own satisfaction that the measure smacked of Big Brother government, and, shuddering at that thought, shifted sides to send the bill down to defeat. Their fears are, of course, warranted. Big Brother government is everywhere. It’s what forces construction crews to wear hard hats so that steel beams won’t crush their skulls, it’s what puts a railing around shop machinery to protect workers from getting mangled, it’s what keeps typhoid carriers out of restaurant kitchens. A vicious thing, this kind of Big Brotherism, intruding as it does to safeguard people from danger.

The seat-belt controversy, now as before, tends to bring out the worst in political behavior. Last week the Assembly passed a bill, strongly supported by the insurance industry, to require both the mandatory use of seat belts and the installation of air bags in all new cars. But the seat-belt requirement would be rescinded if the federal government exempted auto makers from installing air bags, something that is planned if states representing two-thirds of the population adopt mandatory seat-belt laws. The Assembly’s attitude--play by my rules or I’ll take my ball and go home--falls somewhat short of demonstrating a mature concern for public safety.

How far the government should go to try to protect people from dangers, including those brought on by their own carelessness, is a fair question. Requiring seat belts in cars certainly is legitimate. Making their use mandatory, as New York’s recent experience proves, will save additional lives. To require air bags in addition would marginally improve protection, though the cost of that benefit seems to us too high to justify it. The common-sense course is to encourage the use of seat belts by imposing fines on those who fail to do so. It’s time for the Legislature to show some common sense and adopt that position.