Seat belt law is bull

[smitbret]

You can't be zero tolerance because literally every law ever passed infringes upon freedom in some way. That's the whole point of laws.

If you aren't an anarchist, you can't be zero tolerance.

I'm all for laws that protect me from directly having my personal rights infringed on by someone else. And no, being struck by a body thrown from a car doesn't count. How did the old saying go? Something like.....

"Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins" or something like that.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm all for laws that protect me from directly having my personal rights infringed on by someone else. And no, being struck by a body thrown from a car doesn't count. How did the old saying go? Something like.....

"Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins" or something like that.

So you don't mind paying for other people's hospital bills? And please don't say 'I would just leave them to die', because we all know that's not how our country works. (thank god, think how monstrous we would have to be)

 

[nonlnear]

So you don't mind paying for other people's hospital bills? And please don't say 'I would just leave them to die', because we all know that's not how our country works. (thank god, think how monstrous we would have to be)

We have a lot of charities who do amazing work, and I reserve my right to decide which ones receive my money. Until the government gets out of the business of forced charity, I feel no obligation to go out of my way to comply with donate to the government's fundraising programs.

 

[smitbret]

So you don't mind paying for other people's hospital bills? And please don't say 'I would just leave them to die', because we all know that's not how our country works. (thank god, think how monstrous we would have to be)

Don't be ridiculous, of course not. The actual amount of money that the gov't coughs up for non-belted occupants that are injured in car accidents is completly insignificant compared the the amount of money they spend on public health programs to treat overweight diabetics, cancer-ridden smokers, alcohol induced cirrhosis, limitless ailments and accidents due to drug abuse, benefits paid for errononeous disability benefits, able-bodied food stamp recipients, etc.......

 

[smitbret]

...... but the single strongest reason is that repealing seat belt laws would help remove idiots from the gene pool.

 

[Zargon]

How many people on this board would support a law that jams cell phone signals, making them unusable in a motor vehicle?

atleast one nutjob apparently

Good. Using a cell phone while driving - hands-free or not - is equivalent to driving drunk in impairing the driver.

hey genius, the guy in the passenger seat is perfectly able to use a cellphone. same with those in the back seat. you shouldnt be jamming cell signals in cars just in case the driver might use it.

let alone that studies show its negligibly more distracting than talking to a passenger, which of course no one in their right mind would try and ban

 

[JEDIYoda]

Don't be ridiculous, of course not. The actual amount of money that the gov't coughs up for non-belted occupants that are injured in car accidents is completly insignificant compared the the amount of money they spend on public health programs to treat overweight diabetics, cancer-ridden smokers, alcohol induced cirrhosis, limitless ailments and accidents due to drug abuse, benefits paid for errononeous disability benefits, able-bodied food stamp recipients, etc.......

another village idiot...answer the damn question....don`t try to deflect the question with examples of how it pails in signifigance....sheese....

 

[SpongeBob]

My position:

Seat belts = good thing, I always wear them in front seat and most times in back seat. I do not do this because it's the law, I do it because I'm not a complete idiot.

Seat belt law = dumb, you should be able to decide for yourself.

Insurance companies decide whether to provide coverage for non-seat belt wearers or possibly increase premiums.

Get into an accident while not wearing a seat belt = no medical attention beyond basic life saving measures or services that you can afford to pay for. You get what you deserve for not wearing them.

 

[fskimospy]

My position:

Seat belts = good thing, I always wear them in front seat and most times in back seat. I do not do this because it's the law, I do it because I'm not a complete idiot.

Seat belt law = dumb, you should be able to decide for yourself.

Insurance companies decide whether to provide coverage for non-seat belt wearers or possibly increase premiums.

Get into an accident while not wearing a seat belt = no medical attention beyond basic life saving measures or services that you can afford to pay for. You get what you deserve for not wearing them.

Almost all of that medical attention will be basic live saving measures, and they are really expensive. Being against seat belt laws = dumb.

How exactly would the insurance company know if you wore a seat belt or not, considering in your world there would be no tickets for not wearing one, etc?

 

[SpongeBob]

I'm talking about basic life-saving such as that performed by EMTs at the scene of an accident such as CPR. Not emergency surgeries.

There will be a police report as in the case of every accident. It should be clear in 99.9% of cases whether a seat belt was being worn or not.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm talking about basic life-saving such as that performed by EMTs at the scene of an accident such as CPR. Not emergency surgeries.

There will be a police report as in the case of every accident. It should be clear in 99.9% of cases whether a seat belt was being worn or not.

It most certainly is not clear in 99.9% of accidents whether a seat belt was being worn or not. What on earth are you basing that on? Are you saying policemen are trained to examine injuries in order to determine seat belt use? What are you basing that on?

You want to give someone CPR at the scene and then just leave their body there? That has to be the most bizarre of all possible scenarios. How would you even go about implementing this? What if the person is unconscious and you don't know if they have medical insurance or not? Do you not perform emergency surgeries unless they have their medical insurance card on them?

I get the feeling you haven't thought this through.

 

[SpongeBob]

There is no question that seat belts save lives. My opinion is that seat belt laws are unnecessary. It is ridiculous to think that we have to have seat belt laws when we went many years without them. How did we function?

You have your opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no question that seat belts save lives. My opinion is that seat belt laws are unnecessary. It is ridiculous to think that we have to have seat belt laws when we went many years without them. How did we function?

You have your opinion.

It's not a question as to if we MUST have them, it's a question as to if they are a good idea or not. The evidence pretty clearly shows that they save lots of lives and lots of money.

We functioned for many years without them, we just function much better with them. It's a no-brainer.

 

[Zargon]

There is no question that seat belts save lives. My opinion is that seat belt laws are unnecessary. It is ridiculous to think that we have to have seat belt laws when we went many years without them. How did we function?

You have your opinion.

um people died more

most older people that arent safety conscious that I know, never wear their seatbelt

and guess what, most of them, their kids dont either.

thats the sad part, it becomes a habit before the child can think enough on their own to do it

not saying I think the laws are 'right' or not, just an observation

 

[SpongeBob]

um people died more

most older people that arent safety conscious that I know, never wear their seatbelt

and guess what, most of them, their kids dont either.

thats the sad part, it becomes a habit before the child can think enough on their own to do it

not saying I think the laws are 'right' or not, just an observation

I have no problems with seat belt laws for minors. Some people are idiots. The difference is, when you are an adult you are allowed to be an idiot so long as you don't harm others in the process.

My parents always made me wear my seat belt because they are good parents and understood that seat belts save lives, not because it was the law. It became habit for me and I'm glad for it. Again it had nothing to do with being the law.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no problems with seat belt laws for minors. Some people are idiots. The difference is, when you are an adult you are allowed to be an idiot so long as you don't harm others in the process.

My parents always made me wear my seat belt because they are good parents and understood that seat belts save lives, not because it was the law. It became habit for me and I'm glad for it. Again it had nothing to do with being the law.

But again, you DO harm other people in the process. We end up paying to keep these people alive.

 

[SpongeBob]

But again, you DO harm other people in the process. We end up paying to keep these people alive.

Before we had seat belt laws WE were paying to keep a bunch of people alive that had been in accidents without seat belts on? I think insurance companies may have been. Have coverage premiums dropped since the laws?

 

[fskimospy]

Before we had seat belt laws WE were paying to keep a bunch of people alive that had been in accidents without seat belts on? I think insurance companies may have been. Have coverage premiums dropped since the laws?

Yes, we were.

Insurance premiums are governed by much more than just whether or not people are wearing seat belts, as should be obvious. The more medical care an insurance company must pay for, the more premiums will be.

I really don't understand what the argument is.

 

[SpongeBob]

So if seat belt laws were eliminated, insurance premiums would go up? I doubt it. Where would the money come from to take care of these people?

There is nothing to argue really, it's just a difference in philosophy. I like less laws. I belive most people would still wear seat belts without the law. Those that didn't might die. Oh well, people die every die. If they die because they are idiots and didn't wear a seat belt when they had the choice, I'm ok with that.

 

[fskimospy]

So if seat belt laws were eliminated, insurance premiums would go up? I doubt it. Where would the money come from to take care of these people?

There is nothing to argue really, it's just a difference in philosophy. I like less laws. I belive most people would still wear seat belts without the law. Those that didn't might die. Oh well, people die every die. If they die because they are idiots and didn't wear a seat belt when they had the choice, I'm ok with that.

Why do you doubt that insurance premiums would go up? What are you basing this on?

You appear to be arguing that there isn't a cost to society here when the facts clearly show you to be wrong. If you're just arguing that you understand seat belt laws to be beneficial to society in both costs and lives saved, but prefer to not have them anyway due to a philosophical disagreement...well.... okay.

 

[SpongeBob]

Why do you doubt that insurance premiums would go up? What are you basing this on?

You appear to be arguing that there isn't a cost to society here when the facts clearly show you to be wrong. If you're just arguing that you understand seat belt laws to be beneficial to society in both costs and lives saved, but prefer to not have them anyway due to a philosophical disagreement...well.... okay.

I 100% believe they are beneficial in lives saved. I don't necessarily believe that costs have to increase if the laws were removed. I don't have any facts to base that off of other than a general feeling that costs were not higher to the average person when seat belt laws did not exist. I do not feel like insurance premiums would increase if the laws were removed because I don't believe people would be willing to pay higher premiums. The insurance companies would figure out a way to deal with the situation without increasing premiums, which would probably be some form of denial of care in certain situations.

 

[fskimospy]

I 100% believe they are beneficial in lives saved. I don't necessarily believe that costs have to increase if the laws were removed. I don't have any facts to base that off of other than a general feeling that costs were not higher to the average person when seat belt laws did not exist. I do not feel like insurance premiums would increase if the laws were removed because I don't believe people would be willing to pay higher premiums. The insurance companies would figure out a way to deal with the situation without increasing premiums, which would probably be some form of denial of care in certain situations.

That seems like an awful lot of wishful thinking.

 

[nonlnear]

I 100% believe they are beneficial in lives saved. I don't necessarily believe that costs have to increase if the laws were removed. I don't have any facts to base that off of other than a general feeling that costs were not higher to the average person when seat belt laws did not exist. I do not feel like insurance premiums would increase if the laws were removed because I don't believe people would be willing to pay higher premiums. The insurance companies would figure out a way to deal with the situation without increasing premiums, which would probably be some form of denial of care in certain situations.

People generally have no idea what the real prices of their risks are. You can have auto insurance selling for 50% more by just crossing a state line. Did the physics of crashes change? No. The simple fact is that the largest determinant of insurance rates is the regulatory environment. The presence of seat belts is pretty minor compared to that. It wouldn't affect your PD, UM, UIM, comprehensive, or collision premiums. It would increase BI, MP, and PIP (in PIP states) a little bit. (Strictly speaking there could be some interaction with UM/UIM premiums but it would be so minimal it's not worth talking about.) I would be surprised if a proper statistical analysis could even support a 10% differential. Probably a 0.1-1% difference that would turn into a 5% rate hike when it came time to file...

If you were talking about health insurance premiums that could get more complicated, but it still might be negligible.

 

[Rock Hydra]

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.

Honestly, I don't get into the debate since I like wearing my belt and make my passengers buckle. The thing is that a seatbelt ticket as far as I can tell is not a valid cause of action. No injured party, no damage, and no redress-ability of the courts...so if you know how to play it...dismissed. So, instead of complaining though, convince people to fight seatbelt tickets. I think you may get more desirable and gratifying results.

Also, you do have a choice to wear one or not. Whether or not you get harassed for it is another deal.