• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are seatbelt laws neccessary?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: 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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Sure you could go to those extremes.
Oh and I do believe I read about a town who used private fire protection and private law enforcement. I read it a while back so I'll have to see if I can find it so you can move there😉

Anyway - you have it right - where is the line? I think the line was crossed along time ago and others think we need more gov't control. We started transferring personal responsibility to the gov't and society a long time ago and it's time it reversed course.

CsG
 
I don't know if the line has been crossed or not, but that's not to say some things - either way - are too extreme. People do need to take responsibility, but some things work overall better for us all if they are forced. There is a line somewhere.....where it's at, nobody knows.

Oh, and I personally think the seatbelt law is here to stay and worth it. 😉
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

How do you plan to make a person who is now dead, handcapped, vegtable, etc. be responible for his part of that 10 billion. Or do you think that only people who can afford say multi-million dollar accident should be allowed to drive. There simply can not be full personal responiblity when it is possible for a person to incur dets they can't repay.
 
Gaard's personal opinion...

Seatbelts are a good thing. Everyone should wear it when driving or riding in a car. Should it be a law? No.

^replace "seatbelt" with "helmet" and you have my viewpoint on that subject.

PS - How does the requirement for passengers to wear a seatbelt fit into the pro-law equation?

PSS - The "it affects others" argument can also be applied to smoking, yes?
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Gaard's personal opinion...

Seatbelts are a good thing. Everyone should wear it when driving or riding in a car. Should it be a law? No.

^replace "seatbelt" with "helmet" and you have my viewpoint on that subject.

PS - How does the requirement for passengers to wear a seatbelt fit into the pro-law equation?

PSS - The "it affects others" argument can also be applied to smoking, yes?
Click to expand...

:Q :Q :Q

Well dip me in S#!t and call me a turd - Gaard not only offered his opinion up front but we actually agree?

:Q :Q :Q

It's a good thing it's the last day of the year. I don't think I could go a whole year knowing we agree.😛

CsG
 
Hypothetical situation: Seatbelt law removed, but..Insurance company (both Auto and Medical) adds clause stating any accident resulting in injury while not wearing a seatbelt will result in no or little benefits, would you agree? Should everyone pay?

On the cigs, I saw where the US (everybody) pays $40 per pack that is smoked.

If we're going to go personal responsibility, isn't that a big ole pile of sh!t to start with?

Now back to OP....See insurance ? above.

Oh, and CAD, you're a Turd and I'll be happy to dip you in Sh!t! 😀

😉
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Hypothetical situation: Seatbelt law removed, but..Insurance company (both Auto and Medical) adds clause stating any accident resulting in injury while not wearing a seatbelt will result in no or little benefits, would you agree? Should everyone pay?

On the cigs, I saw where the US (everybody) pays $40 per pack that is smoked.

If we're going to go personal responsibility, isn't that a big ole pile of sh!t to start with?

Now back to OP....See insurance ? above.

Oh, and CAD, you're a Turd and I'll be happy to dip you in Sh!t! 😀

😉
Click to expand...

As long as the gov't doesn't mandate insurance.

Also, along the same line as cigarettes and other "costs to society". How about gambling? How about Drinking. How about promiscuous sex? How about.... and ... and...
Maybe I'll PM Rip with this notion...😉

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Engineer
Hypothetical situation: Seatbelt law removed, but..Insurance company (both Auto and Medical) adds clause stating any accident resulting in injury while not wearing a seatbelt will result in no or little benefits, would you agree? Should everyone pay?

On the cigs, I saw where the US (everybody) pays $40 per pack that is smoked.

If we're going to go personal responsibility, isn't that a big ole pile of sh!t to start with?

Now back to OP....See insurance ? above.

Oh, and CAD, you're a Turd and I'll be happy to dip you in Sh!t! 😀

😉
Click to expand...

As long as the gov't doesn't mandate insurance.

Also, along the same line as cigarettes and other "costs to society". How about gambling? How about Drinking. How about promiscuous sex? How about.... and ... and...
Maybe I'll PM Rip with this notion...😉

CsG
Click to expand...

Not just society, you and me. WE actually pay more because of some of that stuff. I do think that YOU should be responsible for your own actions and ILLNESSES from some of that stuff.

Gambling? Can't take that away - two Native American Political! :Q

 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Gaard's personal opinion...

Seatbelts are a good thing. Everyone should wear it when driving or riding in a car. Should it be a law? No.

^replace "seatbelt" with "helmet" and you have my viewpoint on that subject.
Click to expand...
I would suggest, however, that an un-helmeted motorcyclist does NOT pose a materially greater risk to others, even in the case of an accident or emergency maneuver. An unbelted auto driver does. The same argument about medical costs does apply to both.


PS - How does the requirement for passengers to wear a seatbelt fit into the pro-law equation?
Click to expand...
An unbelted passenger flying around inside a car can interfere with the driver's control almost as surely as an unbelted driver.


PSS - The "it affects others" argument can also be applied to smoking, yes?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but there are other mitigation strategies for avoiding the dangers of second-hand smoke. To offer just one example, a person can usually choose to avoid smokers, e.g., by selecting the No Smoking section. A driver cannot choose to be surrounded only by people wearing seatbelts.


Do you disagree that the "cost" of requiring seatbelt usage is minimal compared to the benefits?
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Gaard
Gaard's personal opinion...

Seatbelts are a good thing. Everyone should wear it when driving or riding in a car. Should it be a law? No.

^replace "seatbelt" with "helmet" and you have my viewpoint on that subject.
Click to expand...
I would suggest, however, that an un-helmeted motorcyclist does NOT pose a materially greater risk to others, even in the case of an accident or emergency maneuver. An unbelted auto driver does. The same argument about medical costs does apply to both.


PS - How does the requirement for passengers to wear a seatbelt fit into the pro-law equation?
Click to expand...
An unbelted passenger flying around inside a car can interfere with the driver's control almost as surely as an unbelted driver.


PSS - The "it affects others" argument can also be applied to smoking, yes?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but there are other mitigation strategies for avoiding the dangers of second-hand smoke. To offer just one example, a person can usually choose to avoid smokers, e.g., by selecting the No Smoking section. A driver cannot choose to be surrounded only by people wearing seatbelts.


Do you disagree that the "cost" of requiring seatbelt usage is minimal compared to the benefits?
Click to expand...

An unhelmeted driver doesn't pose a greater risk yet you claim an unseatbelted one does?:roll: What is the rider gets smacked by a pebble thrown by another vehicle and gets nailed in the head. Come on now - atleast be consistent with your nonsense.

A driver sure as hell can choose that in his own vehicle. Now as for other cars on the road. Can you choose their level of driving skill? NO Driving skill presents a bigger total net risk to you than your little seatbelt bouncing scenario would by many thousand times.

I can't wait to use this newly acceptable "cost" vs "benefit" argument...😀

CsG
 
Do you disagree that the "cost" of requiring seatbelt usage is minimal compared to the benefits?
Click to expand...

No, I don't disagree Bow, but I don't really think that "cost" should weigh into whether or not something should be law.
 
Originally posted by: 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.
Click to expand...


So, by this you mean that airbags do endanger others?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...






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.




:cookie:
Click to expand...

So if seatbelts prevent loss of control and should be the law and airbags assure that the driver will lose control, then airbags should be outlawed?

 
If its not a 5 point harness it probably does diddily squat in helping control the vehicle.

Sitting properly while one drives probably does more than a simple lap restraint in those regards.

Most accidents I've seen reported involve distractions which are normally caused from someone disregarding the traffic laws altogether. The benefit I see of seatbelts is that it keeps the people in the front seat from leaving the car. Unfortunately most people forget that they need to lock the doors or they get squished by them. In those cases the seatbelts tend to let them slide into the door jam during a turnover accident just enough to get crushed.
 
You people miss the point. The seat belt laws are put into effect so the state can use it as another source of revenue. I live in NJ and its AWEFUL! You can be pulled over and fined for not having a seatbelt on. If you get a ticket now you have to pay an additional 300 penalty. The government doesn't give a rat?s ass about your safety. Al they care about is making money and that what the seat belt law is... It's a moneymaker for the state.

I always wear my seat belt by the way.
 
Originally posted by: sierrita

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

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

The jackass isn't a hero, and I'm sure Cad would never say that he would be. What Cad would probably say is, that jackass shouldn't have been drinking, falling asleep at the wheel, etc. I highly doubt that the driver lost control because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and because of that, ended up jacknifing another vehicle.


Which brings me to my question: Can someone provide some statistics on how not using a seatbelt causes loss of control? Or at least a few specific incidents where an accident was caused by the driver's lack of control due to not wearing a seatbelt?


The "burden to society" argument is too much of a slippery slope, but I'll take a ride anyway: What about the burden of society caused by not eating healthy? An overweight man has a massive heart attack, and now society has to foot the bill. So should we now legislate what we can and can't eat?

I am interested in the "loss of control" argument, though, if someone would be able to state some facts.


It does seem like some people in here are assuming that because I think there shouldn't be a seat belt law, that I am advocating not wearing seatbelts. That is simply not the case. That's like saying that because I think the police shouldn't search your house without a warrant, stockpiling narcotics and dead bodies at home is ok.
 
I agree with you 100 %. If you choose to not wear a seatbelt, should you get into an accident and your face become seperated from your body, travel through the air and splat aginst a tree or a building. That your decision. However I think that if proven that the driver did not wear a seatbelt then as far as injury claims, the driver should not be granted anything.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Engineer
Hypothetical situation: Seatbelt law removed, but..Insurance company (both Auto and Medical) adds clause stating any accident resulting in injury while not wearing a seatbelt will result in no or little benefits, would you agree? Should everyone pay?

On the cigs, I saw where the US (everybody) pays $40 per pack that is smoked.

If we're going to go personal responsibility, isn't that a big ole pile of sh!t to start with?

Now back to OP....See insurance ? above.

Oh, and CAD, you're a Turd and I'll be happy to dip you in Sh!t! 😀

😉
Click to expand...

As long as the gov't doesn't mandate insurance.

Also, along the same line as cigarettes and other "costs to society". How about gambling? How about Drinking. How about promiscuous sex? How about.... and ... and...
Maybe I'll PM Rip with this notion...😉

CsG
Click to expand...


Only reason it might make sense to require some form of insurance is if you hurt someone else and cash needs to be paid for medical bills. It wouldn't really be fair to rely on someone who might claim bankruptcy to be paying expenses like that.
 
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Engineer
Hypothetical situation: Seatbelt law removed, but..Insurance company (both Auto and Medical) adds clause stating any accident resulting in injury while not wearing a seatbelt will result in no or little benefits, would you agree? Should everyone pay?

On the cigs, I saw where the US (everybody) pays $40 per pack that is smoked.

If we're going to go personal responsibility, isn't that a big ole pile of sh!t to start with?

Now back to OP....See insurance ? above.

Oh, and CAD, you're a Turd and I'll be happy to dip you in Sh!t! 😀

😉
Click to expand...

As long as the gov't doesn't mandate insurance.

Also, along the same line as cigarettes and other "costs to society". How about gambling? How about Drinking. How about promiscuous sex? How about.... and ... and...
Maybe I'll PM Rip with this notion...😉

CsG
Click to expand...


Only reason it might make sense to require some form of insurance is if you hurt someone else and cash needs to be paid for medical bills. It wouldn't really be fair to rely on someone who might claim bankruptcy to be paying expenses like that.
Click to expand...

Is it really "Insurance" once it becomes mandated? I understand there are many issues surrounding this one but it doesn't change the principle of the matter.

CsG
 
Also, along the same line as cigarettes and other "costs to society". How about gambling? How about Drinking. How about promiscuous sex? How about.... and ... and...
Click to expand...

That'd be discrimination right 🙂

Personally, I have no problems with it. It don't drink or smoke. I already know smoking is the worst thing in the world (close to it). Gambling is kind of stupid, it depends on how you "define" gambling. There is plenty of skill involved in poker. As for being slutty, don't know who is going to keep track of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top