bdp (12/13/82)
From rabbit!ark Fri Dec 10 23:06:43 1982 ... one of these days we will start to realize that people are responsible for their OWN well-being. Trying to legislate "safety" is inconsistent with personal freedom. You have hit the nail on the head. The exercise of one's personal freedom is wonderful so long as it does not cause physical damage to others. It is precisely at this point that personal freedom should be ignored in favor of community well-being. In particular, if you want to wear headphones, you should be willing to accept the risks this involves. On the other hand, you put me in terrific danger by forfeiting one of your more valuable senses to traffic. Am I the one responsible for your behaviour? Of course not. Yet it is the exercise of your personal freedom which directly affects my well-being. So the question comes down to a matter of how well can or do folks respond to traffic while, how shall we say, aurally impaired? My experience has been that they respond quite poorly. This is not to say that the problem is inherent to headphones or even a car stereo; one's ability is also determined by a number of other factors -- how easily a person is distracted by the stereo, one's driving or walking skill, one's reliance on other senses, volume of the stereo relative to one's hearing ability. Folks have enough trouble driving and walking through traffic as it is. Let's not condone this anesthetic. My last thought would be from Ray Bradbury's introduction to Fahrenheit 451. He thought that his vision of the future would occur some time off until he saw a couple walking down the street one day. The woman's entire concentration was focused on the transistor radio she was listening to. The man led the woman since she was oblivious to anything around her. Headphones simply take this one step further. Bruce Parker BTL Pissthataway