Seat belt law is bull

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>

I would wear a seat belt whether or not it was legally required. Imagine that - in the land of the free, I can choose to make an informed decision for my own benefit rather than having the government mandate my every move! If you want to save people using government, and government is the sole entity able to issue drivers' licenses, make people actually learn how to drive before licensing them. That will save a lot of people as well.

One is supposed to take a driver'stest before obtaining a license.

The problem with that it they driv very very carefully so as to not make any mistakes to pass the test.

One thing they do is to put on a seatbelt!:\

It is after they get their license, that they may never have to do another road test again. And they will also forget good habits and learn bad habits.

Maybe they should require a road test for renewals and also when a license is re-instated.

 

[Macamus Prime]

You can start a movement; don't wear a seat belt, get into a car accident and then show us all how it should be done.

Be sure to tag on a note to your body before it becomes a broken bloody carcase, in case you die and are not able to communicate what your exact message is.

Good luck!!

 

[her209]

Hell yeah they should. If they mandate seatbelts to protect the citizens, then they are hypocrites if they don't ban motorcycles. .

I was semi joking when I posted the question, but, really, what's the difference between someone not buckling up in a car and having their brains/guts splattered all over the road or becoming a paraplegic AND someone not buckling up on a motorcycle and having their brains/guts splattered all over the road or becoming a paraplegic?

 

[Murloc]

I thought this was a troll post based on a article scanned from a newspaper from the 70s.

I can't believe there still are first world countries that are so backwards.
In a third world country I expect people sitting in trailers and stuff. In a developed country I expect fines for those people.

I was semi joking when I posted the question, but, really, what's the difference between someone not buckling up in a car and having their brains/guts splattered all over the road or becoming a paraplegic AND someone not buckling up on a motorcycle and having their brains/guts splattered all over the road or becoming a paraplegic?

buckling up in a car doesn't require any effort or limits your freedom in any way. It's just an habit, you get so used to it that you feel weird without a seatbelt.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is what I mean about libertarians versus the theory of libertarianism. This is why people perceive the typical libertarian as essentially an anarchist. This is why libertarian candidates do not win elections and never will. Here we have a restriction which:

1. Is in effect on public roadways, not private property.
2. Is proven to save a significant number of lives yearly.
3. Saves the public costs in healthcare and emergency services.
4. Is minimally intrusive.

Then there is the ubiquitous slippery slope fallacy that is stock in trade of the libertarian, a line of reasoning that inevitably leads to anarchy as the only possible logical conclusion.

If you don't want to be perceived as extremists, stop behaving like extremists.

- wolf

 

[her209]

buckling up in a car doesn't require any effort or limits your freedom in any way. It's just an habit, you get so used to it that you feel weird without a seatbelt.

OK, so what's the difference between being ejected onto the pavement because you didn't put your seat belt on when riding in a car versus riding a motorcycle? Why is one not okay and one okay?

 

[piasabird]

Get a 3 wheeled car and it will probably be called a motrocycle in most states.

Personally, I think all car owners should be required to wear a full face helmet.

 

[smitbret]

One of the best pieces of legislation that has ever been enacted. OP should do a little research and stop being so ignorant.

Really, you are popping off like you know something and telling the OP to do some research? Nice. Why don't you do the research and discover that seat belt laws were enacted after pressure from lobbyists by the insurance industry.

It IS all about the $$$. No two ways about it.

 

[piasabird]

It is called bribery. If your state does not have a seatbelt law, then your state does not get any federal money for roads! Bribery Works.

I have sat in a lot of cars with lousy seatbelts that come accross my throat or were not long enough to get around my stomach/chest.

 

[woolfe9999]

Really, you are popping off like you know something and telling the OP to do some research? Nice. Why don't you do the research and discover that seat belt laws were enacted after pressure from lobbyists by the insurance industry.

It IS all about the $$$. No two ways about it.

Saving insurance companies money reduces everyone's premiums. And this saves lives, so even if pure greed was the only motive, it doesn't matter because we're better off with it than without it. This is a rare situation where an corporation's desire to boost its bottom line is actually in line with the public interest.

 

[piasabird]

It is an unfunded mandate. If the government writes a law it should pay for it? One good thing is that Seat Belts are somewhat inexpensive.

 

[her209]

Saving insurance companies money reduces everyone's premiums. And this saves lives, so even if pure greed was the only motive, it doesn't matter because we're better off with it than without it. This is a rare situation where an corporation's desire to boost its bottom line is actually in line with the public interest.

Motorcycle insurance premiums must be through the roof then.

 

[smitbret]

Saving insurance companies money reduces everyone's premiums. And this saves lives, so even if pure greed was the only motive, it doesn't matter because we're better off with it than without it. This is a rare situation where an corporation's desire to boost its bottom line is actually in line with the public interest.

Yes, because the insurance companies always give the money back in the form of reduced premiums.

We're all ultimately better off if metal blades are outlawed except for government and bindustrial use, too. Think of the number of lives and visits to the emergency room that we could save. A sturdy serrated plastic knife will get the job done for just a small amount of extra inconvenience.

While we're at it, let's outlaw being overweight. It is a drain on medical costs which ends up costing the insurance industry and government a lot of $$$$. Naturally, by saving the insurance industry these costs, it will reduce everyone's premiums. Not to mention that a heavier car wears the road out and uses more gas.

Have you ever been struck by an overweight person that is flying through the air because they weren't wearing their seat belt? Lemme tell you something, it hurts.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, because the insurance companies always give the money back in the form of reduced premiums.

Actually, at least in California, and probably most other states, yes they do. Our auto insurers are regulated and these savings have to be passed on to consumers, at least in part. So this point is a fail.

We're all ultimately better off if metal blades are outlawed except for government and bindustrial use, too. Think of the number of lives and visits to the emergency room that we could save. A sturdy serrated plastic knife will get the job done for just a small amount of extra inconvenience.

Restricting what people do in public roadways /= restrictions on what people do in their own homes. Furthermore, using metal blades doesn't result in anywhere near the number of deaths and serious injuries as driving without proper restraint. Less compelling interest + more intrusive = failed analogy.

While we're at it, let's outlaw being overweight. It is a drain on medical costs which ends up costing the insurance industry and government a lot of $$$$. Naturally, by saving the insurance industry these costs, it will reduce everyone's premiums. Not to mention that a heavier car wears the road out and uses more gas.

As a practical matter you cannot "outlaw being overweight." I'll charitably convert your ludicrous hyothetical into something that is actually possible: banning or taxing fattening foods or drinks. What people eat/put in their bodies is highly personal, much more so than their degree of restaint while driving a car in public. The seatbelt law is a minimal restriction on choice.

- wolf

 

[KK]

Have you ever been struck by an overweight person that is flying through the air because they weren't wearing their seat belt? Lemme tell you something, it hurts.

Here's an idea, don't ride with fatasses.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think all car owners should be required to wear a full face helmet

hahahaha yeah right.....

 

[smitbret]

Actually, at least in California, and probably most other states, yes they do. Our auto insurers are regulated and these savings have to be passed on to consumers, at least in part. So this point is a fail.



Restricting what people do in public roadways /= restrictions on what people do in their own homes. Furthermore, using metal blades doesn't result in anywhere near the number of deaths and serious injuries as driving without proper restraint. Less compelling interest + more intrusive = failed analogy.



As a practical matter you cannot "outlaw being overweight." I'll charitably convert your ludicrous hyothetical into something that is actually possible: banning or taxing fattening foods or drinks. What people eat/put in their bodies is highly personal, much more so than their degree of restaint while driving a car in public. The seatbelt law is a minimal restriction on choice.

- wolf

You really think household knives and razor blades account for fewer serious injuries and deaths than driving without proper restraint? Are you just blindly assuming things?

What makes my eating and drinking habits any more personal than whether or not I wear a seat belt in my car? The guy just used the defense that unrestrained driver cost the insurance companies and the government so much $$$$. Well, smoking and being fat cost waaaaayyyy more.

 

[smitbret]

Here's an idea, don't ride with fatasses.

That would be discriminatory.

 

[p0nd]

You really think household knives and razor blades account for fewer serious injuries and deaths than driving without proper restraint? Are you just blindly assuming things?

Driving: 40,000+ people per year die on average. 2.9 million are injured. This is in the United States alone.

Want worldwide statistics? WHO estimates ~1.2m deaths and 50m injuries for the year of 2004.

Since I don't expect you to go find statistics on how many people are killed or injured by "household knives and razors," I'll quote you a handy list of most common preventable causes of death in the US, in terms of deaths/year:

Smoking tobacco: 435,000 -18.1%
Being overweight and obesity: 111,909 - 6%
Alcohol: 85,000 - 3.5%
Infectious diseases: 75,000 - 3.1%
Toxic agents including toxins, particulates and radon: 55,000 - 2.3%
Traffic collisions: 43,000 - 1.8%
Firearms deaths: 29,000 - 1.2% (Suicide: 16,586; homicide: 10,801; Accidents: 776; Legal intervention: 270; Unknown: 230)

Sexually transmitted infections: 20,000 - 0.8%
Drug abuse:17,000 - 0.7%

There you go, traffic collisions account for 1.8% of deaths each year. Wolf is correct and you are being an ass with respect to this point, considering you didn't even bother looking anything up and then accused him of "blindly assuming things."

You are correct about obesity/overweight being a more prevalent problem than car accidents. Ultimately though I think that it should be a separate issue - being required to wear a seat belt isn't comparable to what you eat or how much you exercise, in terms of both how easy it is to enforce and the nature of the acts themselves.

 

[Murloc]

OK, so what's the difference between being ejected onto the pavement because you didn't put your seat belt on when riding in a car versus riding a motorcycle? Why is one not okay and one okay?

because most victims of motorcycles are the bikers themselves, and to solve that you would have to forbid motorcycles, and that would be an intrusive measure.
It all depends on intrusiviness and effectiviness. Seat belts are highly effective and not intrusive.

On a motorcycle you can't smash the seat of the driver with your body, killing him.
You just fly around.

In cars the best thing is to let the car absorb the impact instead of your body, in motorcycles accidents the best thing is to fly away instead of letting the bike smash you on a wall.

 

[woolfe9999]

You really think household knives and razor blades account for fewer serious injuries and deaths than driving without proper restraint? Are you just blindly assuming things?

What makes my eating and drinking habits any more personal than whether or not I wear a seat belt in my car? The guy just used the defense that unrestrained driver cost the insurance companies and the government so much $$$$. Well, smoking and being fat cost waaaaayyyy more.

Pond more or less covered your first point. Traffic fatalities and serious injuries are quite common. How often do people, say, slip and accidentally stab themselves in the heart with a kitchen knife?

Your second point seems to be that what you eat is no more personal than whether you wear a seatbelt. Rather than have me try to articule the distinction, which I know will devolve to a semantic argument with you quibbling with whatever I say, let's put it this way. Ask the average person, any person, or group of people, the following question. If you had no choice but to endure one of the following two restrictions, which would you choose. 1) the state says you have to wear seatbelts when you drive on public roads, or 2) the state tells you what you can and cannot eat. Which would you choose? Be honest.

- wolf

 

[DrPizza]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...w-20110627_1_quinn-signs-seat-passengers-belt


I can understand WHY it is require in the front sit but at the back too? It is fucking bullshit. Whatever happen to free choice? This is nothing fucking more than a stupid money grab; I never understand WHY it is against the law to not buckle up; why is it up to the state that decide they will fine you if you don't?

People SHOULD have a choice of wearing seat belt or not? If they happen to die.... too bad.... people die all the time; it shouldn't be against the law it don't harm anyone else. This sick bastard SHOULD be the one being haul off to jail, not Blago.

Hey! Look who's old enough that mommy and daddy don't have to make him sit in the car seat any more! Awwww, but does poor baby not want to wear his seatbelt?

 

[KK]

because most victims of motorcycles are the bikers themselves, and to solve that you would have to forbid motorcycles, and that would be an intrusive measure.
It all depends on intrusiviness and effectiviness. Seat belts are highly effective and not intrusive.

On a motorcycle you can't smash the seat of the driver with your body, killing him.
You just fly around.

In cars the best thing is to let the car absorb the impact instead of your body, in motorcycles accidents the best thing is to fly away instead of letting the bike smash you on a wall.

so you are saying if no one else is in the car it's fine not to wear a seatbelt.

 

[smitbret]

Pond more or less covered your first point. Traffic fatalities and serious injuries are quite common. How often do people, say, slip and accidentally stab themselves in the heart with a kitchen knife?

Your second point seems to be that what you eat is no more personal than whether you wear a seatbelt. Rather than have me try to articule the distinction, which I know will devolve to a semantic argument with you quibbling with whatever I say, let's put it this way. Ask the average person, any person, or group of people, the following question. If you had no choice but to endure one of the following two restrictions, which would you choose. 1) the state says you have to wear seatbelts when you drive on public roads, or 2) the state tells you what you can and cannot eat. Which would you choose? Be honest.

- wolf

I know several people that have had to go to the hospital or emergency room because of a slip up with a knife or razor. Many of them end up with severed tendons or other injuries that require things like PT and OT, as well as the thousands of dollars in medical bills that are accrued in the process of recovery. I know far more people that have been injured by a knife, razor etc., than I do people who have been injured in a car accident. Far more people die from household accidents than automobile accidents.

This failure to understand scale is the reason many people freak out about airliner crashes. Even though it is relatively safe, the gruesome nature and media coverage give automobile accidents far more "legs" than common, household accidents.

The only reason it seems no more personal now is because it has been engrained in our culture as an accepted thing (as this thread demonstrates). Ask your grandfather the same question and most likely he'll see no difference in the two.

 

[DrPizza]

I know several people that have had to go to the hospital or emergency room because of a slip up with a knife or razor. Many of them end up with severed tendons or other injuries that require things like PT and OT, as well as the thousands of dollars in medical bills that are accrued in the process of recovery. I know far more people that have been injured by a knife, razor etc., than I do people who have been injured in a car accident. Far more people die from household accidents than automobile accidents.

This failure to understand scale is the reason many people freak out about airliner crashes. Even though it is relatively safe, the gruesome nature and media coverage give automobile accidents far more "legs" than common, household accidents.

The only reason it seems no more personal now is because it has been engrained in our culture as an accepted thing (as this thread demonstrates). Ask your grandfather the same question and most likely he'll see no difference in the two.

Are you trying to claim that accidents with knives and razors result in more victims who are life long burdens on society? I don't know of anyone, nor have I ever heard of someone who is spending the rest of their life on disability, unable to walk, as a result of an accident with a razor or knife. Knife or razor injury - even if there are 5 times as many people, the cost of medical care is negligible compared to just one severely injured car accident victim (whose injuries mostly resulted from lack of a seat belt.)