Are seatbelt laws neccessary?

[daveymark]

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, so why does it need to be a legal issue?

btw, I wear my seatbelt at all times. And I think other people should wear them at all times too. I just don't think it should be up to the law to decide how safe I should make myself.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, so why does it need to be a legal issue?

btw, I wear my seatbelt at all times. And I think other people should wear them at all times too. I just don't think it should be up to the law to decide how safe I should make myself.

For children, yes definitely. For adults, no.

 

[BarneyFife]

I never wore a seatbelt until the law in my state passed making it mandatory. I was against it at the beginning but after wearing it for a few years it doesn't bother me and you have to be foolish not to wear one. I can't really blame the government because they are the ones that have to scrape you off the road when you go flying.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I can't wait for the New Stair harness model to come out. I mean if we really want to be safe - shouldn't we harness up everytime we scale a flight of stairs? I mean - what if you trip and fall back down. After all - they have to scrape us off the bottom if we fall -right?

:roll: nanny nanny nanny.

<-wears seatbelt by choice not because of the law.

CsG

 

[Engineer]

If the law were repealed and a person is fvcked up completely because he/she is thrown from the car during an accident, should the insurance be responsible (i.e. everyone pays because of higher rates)?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, so why does it need to be a legal issue?

btw, I wear my seatbelt at all times. And I think other people should wear them at all times too. I just don't think it should be up to the law to decide how safe I should make myself.

Your premise is flawed. Wearing seat belts does marginally improve a driver's ability to control his vehicle in an emergency situation, e.g., a collision or even an emergency maneuver. By securing the driver in place, he is less likely to be tossed around the vehicle. Similarly, by belting passengers, they are less likely to interfere with the driver by being tossed around the vehicle. Improving your control of your vehicle reduces risks to other drivers.

An even greater benefit is the societal benefit of reduced medical costs. Health care is subsidized by taxpayers in multiple ways. Reducing your medical costs benefits all taxpayers, at least a little.

Therefore, the more proper analysis is whether the benefits of requiring seatbelts outweigh the "costs". In order to perform that analysis, you must identify those costs and attempt to quantify their value. I would maintain that the cost of wearing seatbelts is virtually nil, while the benefits are great. While one can launch a great ideological debate about freedom of choice, in my opinion it's a smokescreen for people who are just too stubborn or too contrary to change old habits. Buckle up -- you won't even notice it after a couple of weeks, and the life you save may be your own.



If you want to have a more meaningful discussion, let's talk about air bags. While seatbelts deliver tremendous safety benefits at a nominal cost, air bags are relatively expensive and offer only marginal additional benefit to occupants who are properly belted. Why should all drivers have to pay several hundred extra dollars per vehicle just to protect a few idiots who aren't willing to buckle up?

Any thoughts?

 

[Steeplerot]

Not wearing a belt in a fast moving vehicle is just plain stupid. Anyone not wearing one moving above 25 should be very concerned. fine em whatever but it is not safe.
IMO If I was a cop I'd not fine someone but talk to em about how super important it is to not get flung like a ragdoll out of your car. (unless I caught your ass doing it afer I explained why eveyone who does it for a living knows why you MUST.)
(what if you were still slamming the breaks to keep from swerving into more traffic when impact hit? But yet you went flying? )
Thin kabout what other few times in public you move at a fast rate of speed besides driving?
Go o na carnival ride an you will NOT ride if you dont put the bar down or strap yourself in.
Driving is no diffrent IMO.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, so why does it need to be a legal issue?

btw, I wear my seatbelt at all times. And I think other people should wear them at all times too. I just don't think it should be up to the law to decide how safe I should make myself.

Your premise is flawed. Wearing seat belts does marginally improve a driver's ability to control his vehicle in an emergency situation, e.g., a collision or even an emergency maneuver. By securing the driver in place, he is less likely to be tossed around the vehicle. Similarly, by belting passengers, they are less likely to interfere with the driver by being tossed around the vehicle. Improving your control of your vehicle reduces risks to other drivers.

An even greater benefit is the societal benefit of reduced medical costs. Health care is subsidized by taxpayers in multiple ways. Reducing your medical costs benefits all taxpayers, at least a little.

Therefore, the more proper analysis is whether the benefits of requiring seatbelts outweigh the "costs". In order to perform that analysis, you must identify those costs and attempt to quantify their value. I would maintain that the cost of wearing seatbelts is virtually nil, while the benefits are great. While one can launch a great ideological debate about freedom of choice, in my opinion it's a smokescreen for people who are just too stubborn or too contrary to change old habits. Buckle up -- you won't even notice it after a couple of weeks, and the life you save may be your own.



If you want to have a more meaningful discussion, let's talk about air bags. While seatbelts deliver tremendous safety benefits at a nominal cost, air bags are relatively expensive and offer only marginal additional benefit to occupants who are properly belted. Why should all drivers have to pay several hundred extra dollars per vehicle just to protect a few idiots who aren't willing to buckle up?

Any thoughts?

Bow I will, I think it is much more important to have what little edge it is at control of the vehicle no matter what. For the safey of yourself and possibly others.

*I just lost a friend this month to flying out a window though. One of the only times she didn't have it on.*
So I may have a bit of a bias about it knowing if she had her belt on she would be still here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer
If the law were repealed and a person is fvcked up completely because he/she is thrown from the car during an accident, should the insurance be responsible (i.e. everyone pays because of higher rates)?

Do I pay for morons who fall down stairs and get completely "fvcked up"?

...ambulence...
...police...
...hospital...


Where does it end? Where does personal responsibility end and gov't protection (from myself) start?

To address your question though - shouldn't it be the person at fault in the accident who pays?

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, so why does it need to be a legal issue?

btw, I wear my seatbelt at all times. And I think other people should wear them at all times too. I just don't think it should be up to the law to decide how safe I should make myself.

Your premise is flawed. Wearing seat belts does marginally improve a driver's ability to control his vehicle in an emergency situation, e.g., a collision or even an emergency maneuver. By securing the driver in place, he is less likely to be tossed around the vehicle. Similarly, by belting passengers, they are less likely to interfere with the driver by being tossed around the vehicle. Improving your control of your vehicle reduces risks to other drivers.

An even greater benefit is the societal benefit of reduced medical costs. Health care is subsidized by taxpayers in multiple ways. Reducing your medical costs benefits all taxpayers, at least a little.

Therefore, the more proper analysis is whether the benefits of requiring seatbelts outweigh the "costs". In order to perform that analysis, you must identify those costs and attempt to quantify their value. I would maintain that the cost of wearing seatbelts is virtually nil, while the benefits are great. While one can launch a great ideological debate about freedom of choice, in my opinion it's a smokescreen for people who are just too stubborn or too contrary to change old habits. Buckle up -- you won't even notice it after a couple of weeks, and the life you save may be your own.



If you want to have a more meaningful discussion, let's talk about air bags. While seatbelts deliver tremendous safety benefits at a nominal cost, air bags are relatively expensive and offer only marginal additional benefit to occupants who are properly belted. Why should all drivers have to pay several hundred extra dollars per vehicle just to protect a few idiots who aren't willing to buckle up?

Any thoughts?

And seems the addition of side impact air bags are now being considered (already offered on luxury cars). If no mandate to wear the belt, why force the cost (to consumer and producer) of the air bags?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer
If the law were repealed and a person is fvcked up completely because he/she is thrown from the car during an accident, should the insurance be responsible (i.e. everyone pays because of higher rates)?

Do I pay for morons who fall down stairs and get completely "fvcked up"?

...ambulence...
...police...
...hospital...


Where does it end? Where does personal responsibility end and gov't protection (from myself) start?

To address your question though - shouldn't it be the person at fault in the accident who pays?

CsG

But you know that's not the case. We all pay. Does the seatbelt not cut down on such payments? It's much easier to legislate the wearing of a seatbelt than to legislate the exclusion of payment for those who get all fvcked up. And besides, it'll never happen on the force them to pay side. We don't even force them to pay if they're not wearing seatbelts now and it's currently "The Law".

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer
If the law were repealed and a person is fvcked up completely because he/she is thrown from the car during an accident, should the insurance be responsible (i.e. everyone pays because of higher rates)?

Do I pay for morons who fall down stairs and get completely "fvcked up"?

...ambulence...
...police...
...hospital...


Where does it end? Where does personal responsibility end and gov't protection (from myself) start?

To address your question though - shouldn't it be the person at fault in the accident who pays?

CsG

It's up to all of us to make sure people don't take the easiest route and endanger themselves and us.
Like taking the keys from your drunk friend.
Each person is responsible for themselves AND each other.
This life and world IS a group effort.
If you can help and you have the chance why would you not?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, so why does it need to be a legal issue?

btw, I wear my seatbelt at all times. And I think other people should wear them at all times too. I just don't think it should be up to the law to decide how safe I should make myself.

Your premise is flawed. Wearing seat belts does marginally improve a driver's ability to control his vehicle in an emergency situation, e.g., a collision or even an emergency maneuver. By securing the driver in place, he is less likely to be tossed around the vehicle. Similarly, by belting passengers, they are less likely to interfere with the driver by being tossed around the vehicle. Improving your control of your vehicle reduces risks to other drivers.

An even greater benefit is the societal benefit of reduced medical costs. Health care is subsidized by taxpayers in multiple ways. Reducing your medical costs benefits all taxpayers, at least a little.

Therefore, the more proper analysis is whether the benefits of requiring seatbelts outweigh the "costs". In order to perform that analysis, you must identify those costs and attempt to quantify their value. I would maintain that the cost of wearing seatbelts is virtually nil, while the benefits are great. While one can launch a great ideological debate about freedom of choice, in my opinion it's a smokescreen for people who are just too stubborn or too contrary to change old habits. Buckle up -- you won't even notice it after a couple of weeks, and the life you save may be your own.



If you want to have a more meaningful discussion, let's talk about air bags. While seatbelts deliver tremendous safety benefits at a nominal cost, air bags are relatively expensive and offer only marginal additional benefit to occupants who are properly belted. Why should all drivers have to pay several hundred extra dollars per vehicle just to protect a few idiots who aren't willing to buckle up?

Any thoughts?

Excellent post, Bow.

Jason

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer
If the law were repealed and a person is fvcked up completely because he/she is thrown from the car during an accident, should the insurance be responsible (i.e. everyone pays because of higher rates)?

Do I pay for morons who fall down stairs and get completely "fvcked up"?

...ambulence...
...police...
...hospital...


Where does it end? Where does personal responsibility end and gov't protection (from myself) start?

To address your question though - shouldn't it be the person at fault in the accident who pays?

CsG

But you know that's not the case. We all pay. Does the seatbelt not cut down on such payments?

Ofcourse I know that isn't always the case, however that is in part due to the lack of people taking responsibility for their own actions and risks. The "responsibility" has been transferred, either to the gov't or a risk pool scheme(Insurance). What's worse is when the two combine like in the state I live in. You have to have car insurance according to the law. Again, in this situation - I wouldn't ever be without car insurance because of the risk(just like I wear a seatbelt due to you "risks" on the road) but where does the gov't get off mandating my risk/responsibility level?

And thus begins the individual vs social fight. I believe in personal responsibility and others believe in "societal" responsibility.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

It's up to all of us to make sure people don't take the easiest route and endanger themselves and us.
Like taking the keys from your drunk friend.
Each person is responsible for themselves AND each other.
This life and world IS a group effort.
If you can help and you have the chance why would you not?

Ofcourse - Intoxicated driving puts others at risk. Driving sober without a seatbelt doesn't present other drivers on the road greater risk.
Oh and btw - no it doesn't take a village hillary.

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

Your philosophy is doomed to fail. It does take more then a self centered view of history and life to stay current.
Bush will be a sore page of US History. And you a cheerleader like him to be scorned and ignored like all the other shames of this country.
Buckle up were in for 4 more years folks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Your philosophy is doomed to fail. It does take more then a self centered view of history and life to stay current.
Bush will be a sore page of US History. And you a cheerleader like him to be scorned and ignored like all the other shames of this country.
Buckle up were in for 4 more years folks.

Ah yes, what's that old saying - something about attacking when losing the argument...

to keep you busy on the way back to your bridge.

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

Thats ok save it for your iraqi good news elves.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

It's up to all of us to make sure people don't take the easiest route and endanger themselves and us.
Like taking the keys from your drunk friend.
Each person is responsible for themselves AND each other.
This life and world IS a group effort.
If you can help and you have the chance why would you not?

Ofcourse - Intoxicated driving puts others at risk.
Driving sober without a seatbelt doesn't present other drivers on the road greater risk.

Of course it does. You slam on the brakes, get flung forward, knocked out and your car skids out of control along the road - how is that not presenting other drivers on the road with greater risk ?

Or you have to swerve to avoid something, and the person in the passenger seat is flung full into your face so you are swerving at high speed, can't see where you are going and can't properly move the steering wheel because you have someone lying on top of you.

Or for a more callous approach, if you smash into something and kill yourself because you weren't wearing a seatbelt it takes much longer to clean you up, thus inconveniencing everyone else for considerably longer, so you should wear one out of common decency 8)

 

[jhu]

no, because we don't have enough organs to go around.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ofcourse - Intoxicated driving puts others at risk. Driving sober without a seatbelt doesn't present other drivers on the road greater risk.
[ ... ]

Read the first paragraph of my earlier post. Yes, driving without a seatbelt, sober or not, increases risk to others. Now read the following paragraphs. Can you present a case that the "cost" of requiring seatbelt usage comes anywhere close to outweighing the benefits?

 

[Engineer]

Cad brought up an interesting point...

Insurance is mandatory as is seatbelt usage in many states (Ky included). Should the insurance company have to pay if you're fvcked up because you did not wear your seatbelt in an area which it is the law? i.e. you break the law, get fvcked up, and now because of the insurance law, we all have to pay because insurance goes up?

I know...slippery slope.....but had to throw it in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

It's up to all of us to make sure people don't take the easiest route and endanger themselves and us.
Like taking the keys from your drunk friend.
Each person is responsible for themselves AND each other.
This life and world IS a group effort.
If you can help and you have the chance why would you not?

Ofcourse - Intoxicated driving puts others at risk.
Driving sober without a seatbelt doesn't present other drivers on the road greater risk.

Of course it does. You slam on the brakes, get flung forward, knocked out and your car skids out of control along the road - how is that not presenting other drivers on the road with greater risk ?

Or you have to swerve to avoid something, and the person in the passenger seat is flung full into your face so you are swerving at high speed, can't see where you are going and can't properly move the steering wheel because you have someone lying on top of you.

Or for a more callous approach, if you smash into something and kill yourself because you weren't wearing a seatbelt it takes much longer to clean you up, thus inconveniencing everyone else for considerably longer, so you should wear one out of common decency 8)

Why are you slamming on the brakes/veering? Exactly - because of an external risk factor. That "extra" risk factor needs to be present for your situation to happen - and not wearing your seat belt doesn't increase that "extra" risk factor's potential. The potential is always there when a risk is presented. You can argue it lessens risk -but not buckling up does not INCREASE that risk.

And I've already addressed the clean up bit. Make sure you buy that new stair harness I hear is coming on the market....

CsG

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer
If the law were repealed and a person is fvcked up completely because he/she is thrown from the car during an accident, should the insurance be responsible (i.e. everyone pays because of higher rates)?

Do I pay for morons who fall down stairs and get completely "fvcked up"?

...ambulence...
...police...
...hospital...


Where does it end? Where does personal responsibility end and gov't protection (from myself) start?

To address your question though - shouldn't it be the person at fault in the accident who pays?

CsG

But you know that's not the case. We all pay. Does the seatbelt not cut down on such payments?

Ofcourse I know that isn't always the case, however that is in part due to the lack of people taking responsibility for their own actions and risks. The "responsibility" has been transferred, either to the gov't or a risk pool scheme(Insurance). What's worse is when the two combine like in the state I live in. You have to have car insurance according to the law. Again, in this situation - I wouldn't ever be without car insurance because of the risk(just like I wear a seatbelt due to you "risks" on the road) but where does the gov't get off mandating my risk/responsibility level?

And thus begins the individual vs social fight. I believe in personal responsibility and others believe in "societal" responsibility.

CsG

I agree that the individual must take responsibility for his or her own actions. But as other have pointed out society has to pay when you have people getting injured because they didn't wear a seatbelt and cannot pay their medical costs. Even if wearing a seatbelt only adds and extra 20% chance of surviving a car accident that equals out to a bunch of people that society does not have to pay for with higher health/auto insurance rates.

I believe in personal freedoms. I think it is the main thing that makes this country great, but when your choice makes me pay more for insurance, then it becomes a societal problem, which makes it a government problem (unless you want society to start writing the tickets).

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

It's up to all of us to make sure people don't take the easiest route and endanger themselves and us.
Like taking the keys from your drunk friend.
Each person is responsible for themselves AND each other.
This life and world IS a group effort.
If you can help and you have the chance why would you not?

Ofcourse - Intoxicated driving puts others at risk.
Driving sober without a seatbelt doesn't present other drivers on the road greater risk.

Of course it does. You slam on the brakes, get flung forward, knocked out and your car skids out of control along the road - how is that not presenting other drivers on the road with greater risk ?

Or you have to swerve to avoid something, and the person in the passenger seat is flung full into your face so you are swerving at high speed, can't see where you are going and can't properly move the steering wheel because you have someone lying on top of you.

Or for a more callous approach, if you smash into something and kill yourself because you weren't wearing a seatbelt it takes much longer to clean you up, thus inconveniencing everyone else for considerably longer, so you should wear one out of common decency 8)

Why are you slamming on the brakes/veering? Exactly - because of an external risk factor. That "extra" risk factor needs to be present for your situation to happen - and not wearing your seat belt doesn't increase that "extra" risk factor's potential. The potential is always there when a risk is presented. You can argue it lessens risk -but not buckling up does not INCREASE that risk.

The risk is not to you, the risk is to other people. Your wearing a seatbelt does not change the chance of say, a deer running in front of you at night, however your wearing of a seatbelt does decrease the risk of other people on the road having you slam into them because you knocked yourself out braking for the deer.

You follow the basic principle ?

1) Deer runs across road, driver knocked out, crashes into another car, kills them.
2) Deer runs across road, driver not knocked out, avoids crashing into another car, does not kill them.

Chance of deer running across the road remains constant, chance of being killed by out of control driver increases due to lack of seatbelt.