Above the Law and Beyond the Pale
What is it that makes public officials think they are above the law?
The latest poster child for this affliction is New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who is being put back together after a life-threatening crash on the Garden State Parkway that was much, much worse because he was not wearing a setbelt.
That is against the law in the state Corzine leads, but he is notorious for never buckling up.
Had Corzine been belted when his state police SUV swerved to avoid an apparently out of control driver on the Parkway and hit a guardrail, it is probable that he would have been shaken up but would have walked away in one piece.
As it was, it appears that the governor ping-ponged around the interior of the vehicle, breaking his left leg, sternum, collarbone, six ribs on each side and a lower vertebra. So serious were his injuries that instead of being flown to Robert Wood Johnson in New Brunwick, the state’s leading medical center, he was medevaced to the closest Level One trauma center — Cooper University Hospital in Camden, where he received seven units of blood and had a metal rod inserted in his leg during a two-hour operation, the first of several he will have to endure.
It is somehow fitting, if unfortunate, that the accident occured on one of the two most notorious highways in a state that is nearly paved over. And that he was going (and probably speeding) to a sitdown between disgraced shock jock Don Imus and the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.
More here.
What is it about New Jersey governors? There have been seven of them in full and acting capacities since 1994, and one guy has served four times.
Christine Todd Whitman left the job in 2001 to go to Washington where she was eviscerated by the White House as head of Environmental Protection Agency.
Donald DiFrancesco took over and served for two years before John Farmer, John Bennett and Richard Codey briefly served as acting governors.
Jim McGreevey was elected in 2002, but resigned two years later when he revealed that he was gay. Codey again served as acting governor and then governor.
Corzine, a multi-millionaire U.S. senator who was bored in Washington, was elected in 2006. Codey was again sworn in as acting governor when the gravity of Corzine’s injuries became clear.
39 Responses to “Above the Law and Beyond the Pale”
From now on, I’ll bet he wears a seatbelt.
It’s Jersey… does it surprise that the Governor wasnt following the law (even one as minor as a seatbelt law)?
As I recall the issue with McGreevey was not that he was Gay, but rather that he was corrupt and cheating on his wife, besides lying to her about himself.
Lynx- dont forget the fact that he tried to appoint his gay friend to a national security position in jersey, tho he had no qualifications and could not get an FBI clearance!
Lynx:
You are technically correct, but McGreevey’s secret life was behind his cheating.
I do not believe that his resignation was an admission of corrupt behavior and he continued to defend for some time the appointment of his lover to be the state’s homeland security director despite having no experience.
Yes, Corzine has paid for a bad habit. But as one who has the very same bad habit, I can’t condemn him, but only hope that he has a complete recovery and that the Acting Governor performs competently in the meantime. Yes, he broke the law, which in my state, gets you a 25$ fine and no points on your license.
Of course, no one but rich Democratic Party officials ever fail to wear seat belts, law or no law, and not wearing a seat belt is a sure sign of arrogance that will likely lead to corruption and abuse of public office.
Sure.
Maha, kindly point to the place in the post where the idea that seat-belt evasion is implied to be the dominance of “rich Democratic Party officials” or even that it’s a sure sign of further lawbreaking down the road.
Oh and when you find that, do you think you could come over to my house and find me all my missing socks? Thanks!
Contributory negligence! The driver at fault for the crash is *** NOT *** at fault for any injuries caused by Corzine’s negligence.
My Gawd. Missed in all this is the outrage of the Libertarians because I guess he is democrat so its Mums the word.
The Libertarians would scream the government has no right to make us wear seatbelts. If we want to be seatbelt free then it is our constitutional right.
Where are the libertarians on this issue.
Right hes a democrat. Will ignore this and let it go away. But will the New Jersey 2 billion dollar budget deficit go away?
> The Libertarians would scream the
> government has no right to make
> us wear seatbelts. If we want to be
> seatbelt free then it is our constitutional
> right.
>
> Where are the libertarians on this issue.
I’m quite libertarian but not shackled irrationally to ideology where it’s out of line.
There is no Constitutional “right” to not wear a seatbelt (or a helmet if you are operating a motorcycle).
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and state and local government may regulate driving in ways you may not like as well as those you may (such as prohibiting driving while under the influence of drugs).
In addition, state and local government require provision of emergency care as a rule and they may regulate practices that are proven to increase the risk and severity of injury.
Furthermore, people who don’t use safety equipment are negligent and should pay for all the costs of injuries arising or made more severe as a result of their negligence. (They deserve a Darwin award except that this negligence is commonplace in some places, still, in 2007, believe it or not.)
The real-world question at issue here is how practical and costly it is to enforce seat-belt use laws — would it approach the follies of our Drug War?
Post-crash proof of no seat belt use? Contributory negligence. Burden of proof for claims arising from injuries lies with the negligent “victim.” No valid claim in the case of injury caused by negligence or for extra severity caused by negligence.
As to the person and event here — typical corrupt Cyanide Nation Dim politician, ignoring the law foisted on everyone else.
DLS- Your compassion for the guy is overwhelming-is permanent injury enough of a consequence for “gasp” failing to buckle up- or do you really need to pile on and point out how he arrogantly believed he was above the law……wait that sounds like the current occupants of the WH!
On the tragically-long list of “beyond the pale” actions by New Jersey politicians, I doubt this one even cracks the top 500…
The man suffered severe multiple trauma and is lying in a Camden hospital with a tube shoved down his throat. Commenters, some compassion please!
Idiosyncrat:
I wid you, as they say in North Jersey.
I too can only hope that Corzine makes a full recovery, something that will not be the fate of the victims of gun violence in Newark, Trenton and Camden, as well as the many state residents who cannot afford health insurance.
What is the point of this article? To mock a governor for not wearing his seat belt? We have some actual criminals in the gov’t. People peddling influence, selling away the public good for personal interest and we take the time to bitch someone out over not wearing a seatbelt. I’m a bit out of it this morning but I hope there is a layer of sarcasm I’m just too hung over to appreciate in there.
Sam:
I cannot help myself. It’s New Jersey for cryin’ out loud.
I sum up this phenomenon in an eassay called A New Jersey State of Mind. I suggest not reading it sober.
Another ‘above the law’ incident (also minor) is unfolding in Dallas, where police officers not in pursuit have been told they will be held accountable and ticketed for running red lights when caught on automatic cameras. The union has responded, stating ‘(m)any police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.’
I agree, Idiosyncrat- outrage seems a little out of place at the moment- I can think of many more actions of politicos that are much more worthy of it than not wearing one’s seat belt!
> What is the point of this article?
> To mock a governor for not
> wearing his seat belt?
“public officials think they are above the law”
Richard Codey says: “Here we go again!”
Being Dick Codey means never having to be elected governor
K. Ritter said:
> DLS- Your compassion for the guy is
> overwhelming-
I have contempt for his contempt for the law, but have not wished that he were injured. Don’t accuse me of doing what I have not done at all.
> is permanent injury enough of a
> consequence for “gasp� failing to
> buckle up-
Well, he hopefully learned a lesson from his negligence.
> or do you really need
> to pile on and point out how he
> arrogantly believed he was above
> the law……
I wasn’t piling on, K. Take another look at the original article: This above-the-law point was the original point raised by the article and is the main subject here.
> wait that sounds like the current
> occupants of the WH!
No, if anything, more like the Kennedys. Laws of the land, laws of nature, even (flying beyond your abilities).
Hahahaha. Poor guy, but such is the world in which we live. : )
Not wearing a seat belt is not the only issue here. The state police spokesman said that “speed did not appear to be a factor in the accident”, but did not deny that the state policeman who was driving was in fact speeding. While not wearing a seatbelt might only endanger one’s own self*, speeding certainly endangers others — particularly when the driver loses control of his vehicle as this state trooper clearly did.
I have never seen a civilian convoy with police escort EVER travel at anything remotely near the speed limit, nor individual vehicles with police or “homeland security” plates. This is illegal, plain and simple. Arguably, it might be legal if the roads are closed, as they are for presidential convoys, but not for your garden-variety politicians.
*The news reports state that Corzine “bounced around like a ping-pong ball”, which makes me wonder if he bounced into the driver along the way, preventing him from maintaining control of his vehicle. It’s possible that Corzine’s choice not to wear his seatbelt was also responsible for injuries suffered by the other members of his party.
> the state policeman who was driving was in fact speeding
I believe Austin Roth, who mentioned red-light running by police, could also mention (as could anyone else) that it seems that being a police officer grants one “license to speed” given how much speeding by police we see all the time.
> speeding certainly endangers others
Yes, it does, and I have encountered tiresome arguments from people who deny speed does not kill, that they have a right to decide for themselves what speed they can (i.e., wish to) travel, and so on. There’s nothing wrong with setting some absolute speed limits on the highway (even on the Autobahn), in the 110-125 mph range and installing speed limiters in vehicles with reasonable absolute speeds. The last two vehicles I have owned have fuel cutoffs to accomplish this function (not advertised in the poorly-written owners’ manuals, but they are there, all right, as I have confirmed. The newer cutoff is more troublesome than the older model, but both accomplish what is intended.) Nobody deserves to be able, much less needs, to drive 140-150+ mph with other vehicles on the road.
In addition, the activist movement you’ve seen in Europe to reduce in-town vehicle speeds in some places from approximately 30 mph to 20 mph is perfectly reasonable where collisions with pedestrians and cyclists are particularly likely. There is a huge difference in fatalities vs. survival between being struck at 20 mph and being struck at 30 mph by a motor vehicle.
I agree about the speed part-that does make a difference on the impact-but at this point everything but the seat belt part seems to be speculation. I think being hooked up to a breathing tube with numerous broken bones is enough of a price to pay for not wearing his seat belt. Its not a felony offense, and many have done the same thing. (including myself- but I don’t speed) DLS- are you trying to say that you’ve never gotten into the car and gone over the speed limit or not worn your seatbelt?
> I agree about the speed part-
> that does make a difference on the impact-
For interested readers:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1127572
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/320/7243/1160.pdf
> but at this point everything but
> the seat belt part seems to be
> speculation.
That it’s against the law not to wear the belt?
http://www.state.nj.us/oag/hts/seatbelts.html#2
Is the Governor officially exempted?
> DLS- are you trying to say that you’ve
> never gotten into the car and gone over
> the speed limit or not worn your seatbelt?
I’ve exceeded the speed limit (on the highway, not in town), but not failed to wear my belt. (And no, I don’t drive at a grossly excessive speed. I stay with the traffic flow and let other people get the tickets.)
A frined of mine called me just after the accident as he had witnessed the troopers getting on the parkway and taking off, fast, up the parkway in the left lane. He characterized the speed of the SUVs as reckless. They shot off and disappeared from his sight. However, about a minute later he came upon the accdent scene. It was obvious to him that the speed at which the SUVs were travleing was the major cause of the accident.
Besides, he noted a trooper car behind him that also took off behind the SUVs. You can’t tell me that the troopers on the scene would allow a hit and run to get away form that scene.
Bill:
Your friend’s account jives with my own experience as a fellow . . . er, frequent traveler on the Parkway. Traffic typically moves at 65-75 miles an hour if there isn’t congestion, and that is true from Cape May all the way to the New York state line. Official vehicles move much faster.
Now, I’d like to put wheels on the X-15 and leave nothing for people following me to see but a streak of smoke all the way to the horizon. Actually, I’d like to elevate sustained highway speeds from the existing common 75-85+ mph to the 110-120 mph range. As someone who routinely takes thousand-mile-and-more day trips I could then enjoy a tradeoff between shortening existing travel time and being able to take even longer trips (2000+ miles in well under 24 hours). That would be more costly (due to higher power requirements), however, if the roads permitted such speeds, it would be certainly desireable.
But yes, despite the denials of the dishonest, there is such a thing as going too fast for the road’s design speed as well as for other circumstances, like weather and … traffic (such as in New Jersey) and slower vehicles?
“But extreme speeds, even on the Autobahn, present their own problems. A slight curve that seems straight at 160 km/h (99mph) becomes quite challenging at twice that speed. Second, no matter how well-behaved German drivers are, there is traffic. Slower cars in the right lane have trouble judging closing speeds of really fast-moving cars because they have not experienced them — 250 km/h (155 mph) maybe, but not 320 (199 mph). A driver may glance in his rearview mirror, see you as a dot in the distance and then leisurely pull into your lane to pass the car in front of him, thinking he has ample time. Truth is when approaching at 320 km/h, you close on a car traveling 160 km/h as if you’re doing 160 km/h and he’s standing still!”
http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/driving-the-autobahn/20060817155409990001
> on the Parkway. Traffic typically moves
> at 65-75 miles an hour if there isn’t congestion
at least until the *** STUPID *** toll booths are reached.
(No modern highway should have any obstacle on it or require stops.)
As kritter said, the man is paying a more than appropriate price for not wearing a seatbelt, especially considering he wasn’t the instigator of the accident. Now then, if not wearing a seatbelt constitutes a risk to anyone other than yourself, then it’s serious. If it’s just you, I’m all for making it optional, it’s your life to waste and in the US you aren’t going to be costing the taxpayer serious cash in public healthcare to keep you alive and pay your rehabilitation (unlike Europe). Sounds cold, but while you’re only playing with your own life, it should be your choice.
Now then, I can see it as pretty logical that, especially in the case of less serious crashes, the driver wearing or not a seatbelt can mean the difference between controlling your car and losing control entirely…which can mean a lot to the other car, and especially to your passengers (y’know, people like your kids). If that’s the case then not wearing a seatbelt seriously endangers the lives of others and is therefore highly irresponsible. Doesn’t mean plenty of people don’t do it, they do, and they all know they shouldn’t.
One word for people who would double speed limits. I understand that there are people who drive a great deal, who are used to driving and can control their car to perfection even at high speeds. The problem is that you are not ALONE on the highway. Elderly grannies are out there, pimply teens are out there, they can barely drive as is, they are bound to make mistakes. Mistakes can be rectified at certain speeds, but not at others. If you raise the speeds too much on the highway, you practically prohibit unexperienced drivers from using them, for fear of encountering a torpedo.
and there are a fair number of cars going 80-85. I traveled the parkway between Atlantic City and Ocean City every day this past summer for work, as well as other trips to visit friends and what not, and I was always right around 80 and in a line of 4 or 5 cars. I was passed by cops many times, and they were usually going much faster than me. Now make it the governor’s motorcade and not just a police car… can only imagine how fast they were going.
Hope the guy recovers, but I’m really no fan of him. This is just emblematic of the bigger picture of all jersey politicians (republican and democrat)… they believe they can just flaunt the law. The law doesnt really apply to them, so they can have corruption and all that but not worry bout getting caught because every other politician is doing it.
Lynx said:
> in the US you aren’t going to be
> costing the taxpayer serious cash
Oh, yes, you frequently are.
Example:
“Researchers who studied 105 injured motorcyclists in Washington State have found that public money was used to pay for 63 percent of their care even though they were not receiving public assistance at the time of the accidents. …”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0D9143DF937A25754C0A96E948260
> One word for people who would
> double speed limits.
Please note that I would raise them from the current de facto standard of 80 mph (90 in the desert and other open parts of the West, and parts of the South) only if the highway design speed were suitable, i.e., if we upgraded thousands of miles of Interstate highway, and only to the 110-125 mph range. (That is not merely a cost-benefit trade-off but has other reasoning behind it, why I would only elevate to that range rather than to a higher range.)
> The problem is that you are not
> ALONE on the highway. Elderly
> grannies are out there, pimply
> teens are out there, they can
> barely drive as is, they are
> bound to make mistakes.
I’m aware of that. Part of the solution is to remove the slow and the incompetent from high-speed roads, of course. Note that even those of us who are perfect (thump, thump) would still face traffic in the form of other perfect (thump, thump) drivers.
And then you have to contend with other hazards like animals (hit a deer at N miles per hour and effectively it hits back at the same speed!). Truly high-speed highways, in addition to having other improvements made to them, would have to be fenced (and likely have motion detectors alongside the roadways as a defense in depth). Obviously this is too expensive (as are fuel costs for high speed, and frontage service, emergency, and slow-vehicle roads alongside the main highway) to make sense for the population at large.
It might be cheaper in the long run to build a high-speed rail line where higher land speeds were most suitable (city pair connecting routes).
> If you raise the speeds too much on the highway,
and do everything else related to that, including build much longer entrance and exit ramps, and other little non-cheap trivia like that,
> you practically prohibit unexperienced drivers
> from using them, for fear of encountering a torpedo.
bwahahahaha
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Medium/EC65-884.jpg
I hope someone shows you the same amount of compassion you are showing to New jersey’s governor. Earlier that day he attended a funeral for a killed FBI officer, attended a scheduled meeting across the state and was offering his services to mediate between our great Rutger’s Women’s basketball team and Mr. Imus. You intimate that he was out on a joy ride. Shame on you. I hope that when you need to swerve out of the way of a white car attempting to avoid a speeding red truck that you are not injured. Compasion, that is what is missing in our country today. Don’t like our great state? Drive around us, we won’t miss you.
> I hope someone shows you the same
> amount of compassion you are showing
> to New jersey’s governor.
In no way has this been an issue of a lack of compassion, and that so many people are being childishly emotive as well as inaccurate about this has already begun to be annoying.
The same BS could be said about what’s commonly said about JFK, Jr., that he was another Kennedy who thought what applies to ordinary people didn’t apply to him.
We are not gloating over either Governor Corzine’s critical injuries or over JFK’s death, or saying we don’t feel bad for either. THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE HERE, ANYWAY.
Those of us with an intelligence quotient above the dullard level merelyly have been made aware once more about how authority (and celebrity) figures practice a double standard, and as normal, intelligent people, of course we are going to remark about that fact, WHICH IS THE REAL ISSUE HERE. And yes, it does, to normal, intelligent people, moderate sympathy or what you demand constitute a (not reasonable) amount of “compassion.” (What do you want, to see Obama cry for him on TV?)
grrr
> no one but rich Democratic Party
> officials ever fail to wear seat belts
“Evil, wealthy Republicans” are flown, not driven. Heh.
DLS – and I bet the private planes they fly in are paid for by some corporate donor, who just wants some face time for their lobbyists while the pols are aloft in the air. Actually both sides do this quite frequently- though the 110th has changed some of the ethics oncorporate-sponsored travel.
In any case lets hope the pilots don’t fly recklessly through their airspaces- I’d have to make a note of it if any GOP legislator was injured because of it.
Side notes:
1) “Slower cars in the right lane have trouble judging closing speeds of really fast-moving cars because they have not experienced them — 250 km/h (155 mph) maybe, but not 320 (199 mph). … Truth is when approaching at 320 km/h, you close on a car traveling 160 km/h as if you’re doing 160 km/h and he’s standing still!â€?
Lynx and others no doubt realize that this is a hazard for much smaller closing (relative) speeds when in traffic, too. A maximum of 30 mph differential is probably desireable and a 20 mph differential is better.
2) I’ve always wanted to see high-speed rail with the Greyhound bus’s dog on the locomotive…
As I mentioned high-speed rail as a possible substitute (if one really wants to travel fast on land — to the point where you start describing speeds in meters per second), here is the latest news from Alsthom.
(Not that this is a suitable city pair for high speed rail, but) imagine going this fast from Newark to Cape May.
“The V150 trainset reached 574,8 km/h ” [357.16 mph, 159.67 m/s]
“V150 is the code name for the event organised by Alstom and its partners, the SNCF et RFF. It refers to the expected speed of 150 metres/second.”
“AGVâ„¢ (Automotrice Grande Vitesse), the fourth generation of very high speed trains, independently developed by Alstom Transport, should allow a commercial speed of 360km/h to be attained.” [223.69 mph, 100 m/s]
http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/news/Hot_events/v150/frontiers/28714.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/home/news/Hot_events/v150/frontiers/
Also –
“Except when increasing the speed to 405 km/h during the car body performance tests, in principle the maximum speed during the running tests will be between 275 km/h and 365 km/h.”
http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/press/20050302/
ProudJersian- I hope he recovers- and don’t think that whether or not he was wearing his seatbelt should be the main focus of the media reporting. In a life or death situation, it seems like a very petty point indeed. You are correct that many people would rather point out tiny errors of others, rather than show compassion. I am not religious, but if I were that is how I would see the role of religion.