Peter Ratazzl East Essex County Council
The nanny state
Sir: May I add to your comments on compulsory seat-belts in cars ?
I have driven vehicles of many kinds for not far short of fifty years. I must have driven something of the order of 750,000 miles in four continents. I have never had a serious accident or (parking apart) been charged with a motoring offence. I drive most safely without any physical hindrances-1 prefer even not to wear an overcoat. This gives me the utmost flexibility and concentration in dealing with the succession of changing situations which driving involves. I have driven at 115 mph in suitable circumstances, but I always observe speed limits. When I slow down to observe a 40 mph limit, I am invariably overtaken by other vehicles, often including heavy lorries, 'executive' cars maintaining up to 80 mph, and commercial vans which have not been serviced for years.
I regard excessive speed in given circumstances as the root source of dangerous accidents. It reduces the time of reaction to a dangerous situation and multiplies the impact of a collision. This is simple common sense, but anyone who says it is at once assailed by motoring and road haulage lobbies who have a vested interest in speed.
Finally, what we used to call the minoritY of bad or inconsiderate drivers--the 'get out of my way, damn you' type, some of whom drive dangerously heavy vehicles—Is, in my observation, no longer a minority. There is a danger that they will be encouraged in their irresponsibility by the idea that if everyone wears seat-belts there is nothing to worry about. The recent case in which a long vehicle hit a gar which was not even on the motorway, propelled it over 200 yards, and assassinated its inmates showed clearly how irrelevant seat-belts are in relation to the proper enforcement of speed limits.
George Gretton Savage Club, London
Sir: I would like to comment briefly on your leading article of 6 March: 'Onwards the nanny state'. You elevate a practical matter— compulsory seat-belts—to make it a test case for a principle. I had thought that it was only communists who had such a pedantic concern for principle. By committing their sin, you not only reject a useful measure on partisan grounds, but you also damage the future position of those defending freedom. For by crying 'Wolf, wolf', on such small matters, you will dull the ears of your audience, so that due attention will not be paid to you when there is a real threat to freedom. You quote lain Macleod 5 phrase—`the nanny state'—but you forget that a nanny is almost always a useful person. The child who objects to a nanny 5 control is often an inadequate child who feels that his pride is threatened by obedience. I hope that the Spectator's petulance is only a passing cloud, and that it will become again the sensible 'child' it usually is. R. W. F. Holmes
Campbell College, Belfast BT4
Previous page
