Are seatbelt laws neccessary?

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Can't pay taxes dead, can you?

Just because you died doesn't mean you paid taxes. Lots of people take money from the system and never pay a dime in.

And many more people do pay taxes.
You know how the saying goes. Only two sure things in life, death and taxes. They would rather have the latter.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Can't pay taxes dead, can you?

Just because you died doesn't mean you paid taxes. Lots of people take money from the system and never pay a dime in.

And many more people do pay taxes.
You know how the saying goes. Only two sure things in life, death and taxes. They would rather have the latter.

294 Million people in the US

Last count that I read...just over 100 million federal tax payers

(of course, sales taxes and other taxes are in there - so I guess they do pay taxes in once sense or another).

 

[spidey07]

As others have said - yes, one not wearing a seatbelt does endager others.

Many accidents are "secondary", meaning they occur after the original collision. Even in a small accident, being belted in and remaining in control of the vehicle could avoid secondary collisions.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Thats ok save it for your iraqi good news elves.

LMMFAO.

 

[ReiAyanami]

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

it hurts your insurance premiums like an SUV. an accident resulting in death will skyrocket your premiums faster than a non-death.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Most laws are the government teaching our kids responsibility. You have the responsibility not to hurt people. You have the responsibility not to steal. You have the responsibility not to burn things down. You have the responsibility not to drive before meeting certain qualifications. You have the responsibility to drive on the right side of the road, to not drive too fast, to stop at red lights, to wear seatbelts, etc.

Yes, and all those things affect other people - except for seatbelt use. Basically those things you listed(save seatbelts) create potential risk situations if not followed.

CsG

No. We have already established that using seatbelts does affect other people, by reducing risks and by reducing medical costs.

You also have yet to address how the cost of requiring seatbelt use exceeds its benefits.

Sorry Bowfinger but you have not established it affects others. Again you want to ignore the outside risk factor that put the max potential in place. The seatbelt didn't put that max in place - other factors did. I've already said that it may reduce risk but it sure as hell doesn't INCREASE risk. Max risk is factored without risk controls in place.(basically you coming up with wild ass "what if" scenarios). Now lessening that risk by wearing a seatbelt still only applies to a minute amount of scenarios. Medical costs are a whole different area that fall under the personal responsibility argument. Why does "society" pay for people who hurt themselves? Because our society has decided that people shouldn't pay for their own (bad) decisions and that the rest of us have to bear that cost. Basically it factors in only because people like you have demanded it be that way.
Yes I have addressed the "costs" - you might try reading what I posted again. And like with Engineer - I'll be sure to remember your line of thinking when it comes to other laws. Because the Patriot Act does alot more good than it has "potentially" bad things. So by your logic - it's acceptable - no? I mean what costs have you paid? I'm quite sure you've reaped the benefit of it's extra safety.😉

Anyway - you can continue with the false premise that not wearing seatbelts increase risk if you want but it's BS. A non-present risk control device does not increase risk - the risk was already there. It's really not that hard of a concept but I understand your desire to ignore it.

CsG

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Most laws are the government teaching our kids responsibility. You have the responsibility not to hurt people. You have the responsibility not to steal. You have the responsibility not to burn things down. You have the responsibility not to drive before meeting certain qualifications. You have the responsibility to drive on the right side of the road, to not drive too fast, to stop at red lights, to wear seatbelts, etc.

Yes, and all those things affect other people - except for seatbelt use. Basically those things you listed(save seatbelts) create potential risk situations if not followed.

CsG

No. We have already established that using seatbelts does affect other people, by reducing risks and by reducing medical costs.

You also have yet to address how the cost of requiring seatbelt use exceeds its benefits.

Sorry Bowfinger but you have not established it affects others. Again you want to ignore the outside risk factor that put the max potential in place. The seatbelt didn't put that max in place - other factors did. I've already said that it may reduce risk but it sure as hell doesn't INCREASE risk. Max risk is factored without risk controls in place.(basically you coming up with wild ass "what if" scenarios). Now lessening that risk by wearing a seatbelt still only applies to a minute amount of scenarios. Medical costs are a whole different area that fall under the personal responsibility argument. Why does "society" pay for people who hurt themselves? Because our society has decided that people shouldn't pay for their own (bad) decisions and that the rest of us have to bear that cost. Basically it factors in only because people like you have demanded it be that way.
Yes I have addressed the "costs" - you might try reading what I posted again. And like with Engineer - I'll be sure to remember your line of thinking when it comes to other laws. Because the Patriot Act does alot more good than it has "potentially" bad things. So by your logic - it's acceptable - no? I mean what costs have you paid? I'm quite sure you've reaped the benefit of it's extra safety.😉

Anyway - you can continue with the false premise that not wearing seatbelts increase risk if you want but it's BS. A non-present risk control device does not increase risk - the risk was already there. It's really not that hard of a concept but I understand your desire to ignore it.

CsG

It has been well established that wearing seat belts can prevent further loss of control in typical "over-correction" scenarios.

Typical CadBlather...Someone's grandmother falls down the stairs = They are Morons.

Some jackass not wearing a seatbelt kills others = Hero of personal responsibility.


Never seen someone so consistently have things completely backwards, yet argue ad-nauseum that he is correct.


Give it a rest, CAD.

 

[ReiAyanami]

only 1/2 of american drivers even experience a car accident in their lifetime. we should get rid of seatbelts altogether because it imposes an unfair cost on the other half of drivers that don't have accidents.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
only 1/2 of american drivers even experience a car accident in their lifetime. we should get rid of seatbelts altogether because it imposes an unfair cost on the other half of drivers that don't have accidents.

Oh really? What is the unfair cost to those who choose not to wear it? That they have to buy a vehicle that has them? OK - I'll buy that. I think I've already addressed this issue earlier in the thread.

But it was a nice attempt at sarcasm...

CsG

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Most laws are the government teaching our kids responsibility. You have the responsibility not to hurt people. You have the responsibility not to steal. You have the responsibility not to burn things down. You have the responsibility not to drive before meeting certain qualifications. You have the responsibility to drive on the right side of the road, to not drive too fast, to stop at red lights, to wear seatbelts, etc.

Yes, and all those things affect other people - except for seatbelt use. Basically those things you listed(save seatbelts) create potential risk situations if not followed.

CsG

No. We have already established that using seatbelts does affect other people, by reducing risks and by reducing medical costs.

You also have yet to address how the cost of requiring seatbelt use exceeds its benefits.

Sorry Bowfinger but you have not established it affects others. Again you want to ignore the outside risk factor that put the max potential in place. The seatbelt didn't put that max in place - other factors did. I've already said that it may reduce risk but it sure as hell doesn't INCREASE risk. Max risk is factored without risk controls in place.(basically you coming up with wild ass "what if" scenarios). Now lessening that risk by wearing a seatbelt still only applies to a minute amount of scenarios. Medical costs are a whole different area that fall under the personal responsibility argument. Why does "society" pay for people who hurt themselves? Because our society has decided that people shouldn't pay for their own (bad) decisions and that the rest of us have to bear that cost. Basically it factors in only because people like you have demanded it be that way.
Yes I have addressed the "costs" - you might try reading what I posted again. And like with Engineer - I'll be sure to remember your line of thinking when it comes to other laws. Because the Patriot Act does alot more good than it has "potentially" bad things. So by your logic - it's acceptable - no? I mean what costs have you paid? I'm quite sure you've reaped the benefit of it's extra safety.😉

Anyway - you can continue with the false premise that not wearing seatbelts increase risk if you want but it's BS. A non-present risk control device does not increase risk - the risk was already there. It's really not that hard of a concept but I understand your desire to ignore it.

CsG

It has been well established that wearing seat belts can prevent further loss of control in typical "over-correction" scenarios.

Typical CadBlather...Someone's grandmother falls down the stairs = They are Morons.

Some jackass not wearing a seatbelt kills others = Hero of personal responsibility.


Never seen someone so consistently have things completely backwards, yet argue ad-nauseum that he is correct.


Give it a rest, CAD.

:thumbsup:

Cadblather is right. That is about the most muddled drivel I have ever seen. Seatbelts can prevent loss of control. This reduces serious accidents. It is so simple a child can understand it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Most laws are the government teaching our kids responsibility. You have the responsibility not to hurt people. You have the responsibility not to steal. You have the responsibility not to burn things down. You have the responsibility not to drive before meeting certain qualifications. You have the responsibility to drive on the right side of the road, to not drive too fast, to stop at red lights, to wear seatbelts, etc.

Yes, and all those things affect other people - except for seatbelt use. Basically those things you listed(save seatbelts) create potential risk situations if not followed.

CsG

No. We have already established that using seatbelts does affect other people, by reducing risks and by reducing medical costs.

You also have yet to address how the cost of requiring seatbelt use exceeds its benefits.

Sorry Bowfinger but you have not established it affects others. Again you want to ignore the outside risk factor that put the max potential in place. The seatbelt didn't put that max in place - other factors did. I've already said that it may reduce risk but it sure as hell doesn't INCREASE risk. Max risk is factored without risk controls in place.(basically you coming up with wild ass "what if" scenarios). Now lessening that risk by wearing a seatbelt still only applies to a minute amount of scenarios. Medical costs are a whole different area that fall under the personal responsibility argument. Why does "society" pay for people who hurt themselves? Because our society has decided that people shouldn't pay for their own (bad) decisions and that the rest of us have to bear that cost. Basically it factors in only because people like you have demanded it be that way.
Yes I have addressed the "costs" - you might try reading what I posted again. And like with Engineer - I'll be sure to remember your line of thinking when it comes to other laws. Because the Patriot Act does alot more good than it has "potentially" bad things. So by your logic - it's acceptable - no? I mean what costs have you paid? I'm quite sure you've reaped the benefit of it's extra safety.😉

Anyway - you can continue with the false premise that not wearing seatbelts increase risk if you want but it's BS. A non-present risk control device does not increase risk - the risk was already there. It's really not that hard of a concept but I understand your desire to ignore it.

CsG

It has been well established that wearing seat belts can prevent further loss of control in typical "over-correction" scenarios.

Typical CadBlather...Someone's grandmother falls down the stairs = They are Morons.

Some jackass not wearing a seatbelt kills others = Hero of personal responsibility.


Never seen someone so consistently have things completely backwards, yet argue ad-nauseum that he is correct.


Give it a rest, CAD.

:roll: So much for reading comprehension - no?

If you'd actually read what I've posted you'd have seen that I've already stated that seatbelts do reduce risk. However the lack of using them does not increase risk potential.

Now as to where you get off claiming I call someone a hero because they don't wear a seatbelt? Sorry but you'll have to point out where I've stated that. Infact, I myself use them. However this issue is about the gov't mandating their use, by force of law.

So I guess if I was to be like you - I'd say that your post was the typical misrepresentation of what I say by a leftist because of their own ignorance and/or their purposeful deceit.

Try thinking for once.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir
:thumbsup:

Cadblather is right. That is about the most muddled drivel I have ever seen. Seatbelts can prevent loss of control. This reduces serious accidents. It is so simple a child can understand it.

Hey look - a fluffer of the ignorant.

Hello - I've stated they reduce risk. However for the hundredth time - the lack of their use does not increase risk potential. My 5 year old can grasp these concepts - why can't you people?

CsG

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
:thumbsup:

Cadblather is right. That is about the most muddled drivel I have ever seen. Seatbelts can prevent loss of control. This reduces serious accidents. It is so simple a child can understand it.

Hey look - a fluffer of the ignorant. I am not fluffing you.

Hello - I've stated they reduce risk. However for the hundredth time - the lack of their use does not increase risk potential. More Cadblather.

My 5 year old can grasp these concepts - why can't you people? Because you won't share your drugs with the rest of us. Your risk potential concept might seem rational if we were high. It is Cadblather when we are not.

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has the law helped us - both individual and/or societal - or hurt us?

If the benefits outweigh the damages, or visa versa, there's your answer.

^^^ Answer. Benefits outweigh the damages.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
:thumbsup:

Cadblather is right. That is about the most muddled drivel I have ever seen. Seatbelts can prevent loss of control. This reduces serious accidents. It is so simple a child can understand it.

Hey look - a fluffer of the ignorant. I am not fluffing you.

Hello - I've stated they reduce risk. However for the hundredth time - the lack of their use does not increase risk potential. More Cadblather.

My 5 year old can grasp these concepts - why can't you people? Because you won't share your drugs with the rest of us. Your risk potential concept might seem rational if we were high. It is Cadblather when we are not.

CsG

You were fluffing the ignorant sierrita.
Because you don't understand simple risk assessment doesn't mean it's blather.
It doesn't take drugs to join me in what normal people call reality.

Care to continue this pissing match or are you going to try understanding the concepts presented?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has the law helped us - both individual and/or societal - or hurt us?

If the benefits outweigh the damages, or visa versa, there's your answer.

^^^ Answer. Benefits outweigh the damages.

Staircase harnesses coming your way. I mean really - isn't it worth the cost for the extra protection?

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has the law helped us - both individual and/or societal - or hurt us?

If the benefits outweigh the damages, or visa versa, there's your answer.

^^^ Answer. Benefits outweigh the damages.

Staircase harnesses coming your way. I mean really - isn't it worth the cost for the extra protection?

CsG

Show me some statistics and I'm all for it! 😀

Show me the ratio of staircase falls vs people using stairs anywhere near the cost to EVERYONE when not using seatbelts?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
:thumbsup:

Cadblather is right. That is about the most muddled drivel I have ever seen. Seatbelts can prevent loss of control. This reduces serious accidents. It is so simple a child can understand it.

Hey look - a fluffer of the ignorant. I am not fluffing you.

Hello - I've stated they reduce risk. However for the hundredth time - the lack of their use does not increase risk potential. More Cadblather.

My 5 year old can grasp these concepts - why can't you people? Because you won't share your drugs with the rest of us. Your risk potential concept might seem rational if we were high. It is Cadblather when we are not.

CsG

You were fluffing the ignorant sierrita.
Because you don't understand simple risk assessment doesn't mean it's blather.
It doesn't take drugs to join me in what normal people call reality.

Care to continue this pissing match or are you going to try understanding the concepts presented?

CsG

Do you ever notice you are the only one in your reality? Psychiatrists have a name for this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Engineer
Has the law helped us - both individual and/or societal - or hurt us?

If the benefits outweigh the damages, or visa versa, there's your answer.

^^^ Answer. Benefits outweigh the damages.

Staircase harnesses coming your way. I mean really - isn't it worth the cost for the extra protection?

CsG

Show me some statistics and I'm all for it! 😀

Show me the ratio of staircase falls vs people using stairs anywhere near the cost to EVERYONE when not using seatbelts?

First off - Please provide the data on how much not wearing seatbelts "costs" to everyone.🙂

It's Canadian but aren't we supposed to be more like them and Europe?😉


Falls accounted for 74% of all incidents on escalators last year.

I can't wait to design the new escalator harnesses - It's a whole new market! Woot! Thanks gov't regulation! WHOO HOO!

Just think - when one of these people falls - they won't affect other people on the escalator if they wear a harness. I can't believe the gov't has been allowing these people to pose an "increased":roll: risk on other escalator users for so long...

CsG

PS- heavy dose of sarcasm was included on purpose.

 

[Harvey]

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.

I'm glad you use yours, but you're wrong about not buckling up not harming others.

1. You are far more likely to be able to keep control of your car if you survive after an impact, and you are far more likely to be able to react correctly for your own safety and others' once you come to a stop.

2. Survival rates are significantly higher, and injuries are lower for those using seatbelts. This saves money in medical expenses as well as overall insurance and public safety costs to everyone.

If the only ones hurt were those who refused to use the, I wouldn't mind them volunteering for Darwin awards, but that simply is not the case. 😛

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
:thumbsup:

Cadblather is right. That is about the most muddled drivel I have ever seen. Seatbelts can prevent loss of control. This reduces serious accidents. It is so simple a child can understand it.

Hey look - a fluffer of the ignorant. I am not fluffing you.

Hello - I've stated they reduce risk. However for the hundredth time - the lack of their use does not increase risk potential. More Cadblather.

My 5 year old can grasp these concepts - why can't you people? Because you won't share your drugs with the rest of us. Your risk potential concept might seem rational if we were high. It is Cadblather when we are not.

CsG

You were fluffing the ignorant sierrita.
Because you don't understand simple risk assessment doesn't mean it's blather.
It doesn't take drugs to join me in what normal people call reality.

Care to continue this pissing match or are you going to try understanding the concepts presented?

CsG

Do you ever notice you are the only one in your reality? Psychiatrists have a name for this.

Ah, I see you want to continue the pissing match instead of trying to understand the issue. Well, in that case, here is a

CsG

 

[Engineer]

The inpatient hospital costs to treat an individual who did not wear his or her seat belt is at least 50% higher than the costs associated with accident victims who were wearing their seat belts. NHTSA data reveals that Americans pay $14.3 billion per year in injury related costs for people who do not wear seat belts. On average, individuals injured pay for less than 30% of these costs. Thus, the remaining 70%, approximately $10.1 billion, are paid for through higher automobile and health insurance rates, and through public assistance programs funded by state and federal tax dollars.

It's just an extra $10 Billion or so....chump change! 😉

Now if those staircase harness's save me $10 Billion....Let's ramp up the production. Don't forget to buy stock in the harness company either! 🙂

Oh, and while looking around, Mass. has the lowest seatbelt utilization in the US at 56%.

 

[rickn]

the way ppl drive around my area like maniacs, hell yes they should be necessary

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

The inpatient hospital costs to treat an individual who did not wear his or her seat belt is at least 50% higher than the costs associated with accident victims who were wearing their seat belts. NHTSA data reveals that Americans pay $14.3 billion per year in injury related costs for people who do not wear seat belts. On average, individuals injured pay for less than 30% of these costs. Thus, the remaining 70%, approximately $10.1 billion, are paid for through higher automobile and health insurance rates, and through public assistance programs funded by state and federal tax dollars.

It's just an extra $10 Billion or so....chump change! 😉

OK, so since society has decided to burden themselves with these costs - that means we need laws to protect ourselves from ourselves?
Granted seatbelts save lives and cost - I've never stated it doesn't. However, just because our society has allowed ourselves to accept monetary responsibility for others means we need to have the gov't responsible for it too?

Anyway - I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make with this line of thought. But I'm sure others who can't understand simple risk assessments will be thoroughly confused.😛

It basically comes down to how much responsibility are we going to shift to society and our gov't. If we have car seatbelts - I want to see staircase harnesses. Sure staircase falls may not be as "costly" to society as the seatbelt issues but it's the same concept.

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

The inpatient hospital costs to treat an individual who did not wear his or her seat belt is at least 50% higher than the costs associated with accident victims who were wearing their seat belts. NHTSA data reveals that Americans pay $14.3 billion per year in injury related costs for people who do not wear seat belts. On average, individuals injured pay for less than 30% of these costs. Thus, the remaining 70%, approximately $10.1 billion, are paid for through higher automobile and health insurance rates, and through public assistance programs funded by state and federal tax dollars.

It's just an extra $10 Billion or so....chump change! 😉

OK, so since society has decided to burden themselves with these costs - that means we need laws to protect ourselves from ourselves?
Granted seatbelts save lives and cost - I've never stated it doesn't. However, just because our society has allowed ourselves to accept monetary responsibility for others means we need to have the gov't responsible for it too?

Anyway - I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make with this line of thought. But I'm sure others who can't understand simple risk assessments will be thoroughly confused.😛

It basically comes down to how much responsibility are we going to shift to society and our gov't. If we have car seatbelts - I want to see staircase harnesses. Sure staircase falls may not be as "costly" to society as the seatbelt issues but it's the same concept.

CsG

I can go the other way. I don't want seatbelts and I also don't want police and fire departments (at least government controlled and funded). People should take responsibility and protect themselves. The governement shouldn't do it?

Where is the line?