NationStates Jolt Archive

Much to my dismay, many self-described liberals and Democrats favor seat belt laws. Under cute names like "Click it or ticket", the government is plainly stating it can force you to avoid hazardous situations.

Ladies and gentlemen, life is hazardous. Anything you do involves some level of risk, and I'll be damned if the government has any say in whether or not I put myself at risk of personal harm (with no possible danger to anyone besides myself). It's Big Government in the worst way, a stepping stone to a police state, and I'm pissed the ACLU reaction has been low compared to their high profile suits against the Boy Scouts, etc.

I have the right to harm myself. I assert that strongly, and can't understand how anyone in their right mind could disagree. They say it's gonna reduce fatalities, and you know what? They're probably right! But dammit, I'm not gonna support government regulation of our private lives in the interest of saving said lives. Freedom trumps all.

Even more disgusting is how the feds bribe the states with federal money (highways and such) contingent upon passing seat belt laws. They did that when they raised the drinking age to 21 to get around a constitutional amendment, and it's an abuse of federal power. Cops are now pulling over drivers "just to check" if they're wearing a seatbelt. Do we REALLY need our cops wasting valuable time protecting us from ourselves, when they could be protecting us from each other?

Every day I grow more libertarian. The government is in our bedrooms, in our cars, and in our bodies. And the Republicans, who like to pretend they are for "small government", do nothing but expand federal power and take away even more of our rights. And the Democrats aren't much better in some areas (smoking bans and inane gun regulations).

Liberals and conservatives both must agree that our civil liberties are important, and being constantly threatened by an increasingly powerful and intrusive government.

Where I live it is mandatory to wear a seat belt, but is is illegal for a cop to pull you over just to check if you are. It is a "2ndary" offense only chargeable at all if you get charged with something else first. Secondly, it is illegal, during a civil trial for personal injury as the result of a car wreck, to even mention who, if anyone, was wearing a seatbelt, UNLESS, an expert (such as a bio-mechanical engineer) testifies to exactly what injuries were due to the failure to wear a seat belt and/or to what extent injuries were exacerbated or caused completely by the failure to wear a seat belt.

I have the right to harm myself. I assert that strongly, and can't understand how anyone in their right mind could disagree. They say it's gonna reduce fatalities, and you know what? They're probably right! But dammit, I'm not gonna support government regulation of our private lives in the interest of saving said lives. Freedom trumps all.
You have the right to harm yourself, yes. However, if you don't wear a seatbelt you are risking more than yourself. If you are in a collision you become a projectile with a very large amount of force behind you. That risks every person sitting in front of you, and potentially other automobiles depending on circumstances. The Libertarians believe that your rights end where another person's begin. If you truly are Libertarian, I hope you will see the wisdom in my words.

For christ's sake, seatbelts save lives. Wear one, they might save your's. You're not a rebel or a hardass if you don't, you're simply a moron and a dumbass.

Seatbelt laws are not big government in the worst way, they aren't a stepping stone to a police state, they aren't restricting your personal freedoms or civil liberties, and they aren't an example of the federal government abusing its powers.

Murder laws take away your personal right to murder too don't they? Tax laws take away your liberty to rip off the federal government too, right? While we live in a world where people fight wars over something as foolish as religion, and a country where so many people forget that no matter if you're a democrat or republican, you're still an American...you choose to complain about...seatbelt laws?

Grow up.

Jesus Christ, the first 5 people to vote and they all voted for Big Government.

Some background:

49 states have seat belt laws. The only holdout is famously libertarian New Hampshire, which up until recently was heavily Republican. I think this says something about the status of the two mainstream parties.

Of the 49, 22 have what are called primary laws:

ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, D.C, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS , INDIANA, IOWA, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WASHINGTON.

As you can see, they are not limited to any geographical region or primary political persuasion. This is a wide-ranging assault on our civil liberties, not confined to one side or the other.

Primary laws mean you can be pulled over simply for not wearing a seat belt.

Secondary laws (the remaining 27 states) mean you can only be pulled over for another offense before being cited and fined for not wearing a seat belt.

I think it might as well be mandatory. Anyone who thinks that their own death, due to stupidly disregarding safety, only affects themselves is foolish.

It's amazing how you're the only one who sees this as a big deal. You do not have the right to injure yourself and potentially others. As Stroudiztan said, stop being selfish. As I said, find something important to bitch about.

You have the right to harm yourself, yes. However, if you don't wear a seatbelt you are risking more than yourself. If you are in a collision you become a projectile with a very large amount of force behind you. That risks every person sitting in front of you, and potentially other automobiles depending on circumstances. The Libertarians believe that your rights end where another person's begin. If you truly are Libertarian, I hope you will see the wisdom in my words.
What what what?! You might become a projectile???

You're sitting in the drivers seat. You crash. You fly through the windshield. And you might somehow intercept another car and cause another accident? Please.

For christ's sake, seatbelts save lives. Wear one, they might save your's. You're not a rebel or a hardass if you don't, you're simply a moron and a dumbass.
I always wear a seatbelt, but that should be my own damn choice.

Murder laws take away your personal right to murder too don't they? Tax laws take away your liberty to rip off the federal government too, right?
I've already said, not wearing a seatbelt hurts only yourself. Murder and taxes are quite a different thing now aren't they?

While we live in a world where people fight wars over something as foolish as religion, and a country where so many people forget that no matter if you're a democrat or republican, you're still an American...you choose to complain about...seatbelt laws?

Grow up.
It's attitudes like that which have let the feds slip this over us.

I'm for personal freedom and the correspoding personal responsibility.

No seatbelt laws, but you pay the bills for your own stupidity if you crash and get injured as a result.

Craig

What what what?! You might become a projectile???

You're sitting in the drivers seat. You crash. You fly through the windshield. And you might somehow intercept another car and cause another accident? Please.

Yes, you will become a projectile if you are involved in a collision. If you are the driver, you may interfere with other automobiles. If you are a passenger, you might fly into the driver or another passenger. Even a 100 pound person travelling a mere 35 mph can do a lot of damage. I say again: your own rights end where another person's begin. If there is even a relatively small chance that you might do bodily harm to someone, the government has every right to step in. And this is coming from a fellow Libertarian.

What what what?! You might become a projectile???

You're sitting in the drivers seat. You crash. You fly through the windshield. And you might somehow intercept another car and cause another accident? Please.


I always wear a seatbelt, but that should be my own damn choice.


I've already said, not wearing a seatbelt hurts only yourself. Murder and taxes are quite a different thing now aren't they?


It's attitudes like that which have let the feds slip this over us.

Why should wearing a seatbelt be your choice? So that the "man" doesn't keep you down? Obviously the "man" did something right by putting seatbelts in cars and informing you about their benefits. Why not simply enforce it? Giving someone a ticket may save their life someday.

It's attitudes like yours that make me question our school system. The "feds slipping this one over us?" You act like they just took away your right to free speech.

Not only that, but you say that you wear a seatbelt. What are you even complaining about? I have never heard such a crazed opinion on such a worthless topic.

I think it might as well be mandatory. Anyone who thinks that their own death, due to stupidly disregarding safety, only affects themselves is foolish.
So are you against rock-climbing? You might hurt yourself, and possibly affect someone else. Let the government pass a few laws, raise taxes to pay for a larger police force, and divert funds to routine checks to see if you might be rock-climbing.

It's amazing how you're the only one who sees this as a big deal....As Stroudiztan said, stop being selfish. As I said, find something important to bitch about.
This IS important. I'm not going to argue abortion or gay marriage or capital punishment anymore unless I'm really bored. This issue just slides in under the radar. It isn't selfish to desire the right to manage your personal life.

You do not have the right to injure yourself and potentially others.
First off, the "potentially others" line is BS. Seat belt laws ONLY affect you.

Steel Butterfly, do you think the government should ban smoking?

So are you against rock-climbing? You might hurt yourself, and possibly affect someone else. Let the government pass a few laws, raise taxes to pay for a larger police force, and divert funds to routine checks to see if you might be rock-climbing.
You do realize that you need proper equipment to go rock-climbing, yes?
First off, the "potentially others" line is BS. Seat belt laws ONLY affect you.
Please read my previous post for a response to this.

So are you against rock-climbing? You might hurt yourself, and possibly affect someone else. Let the government pass a few laws, raise taxes to pay for a larger police force, and divert funds to routine checks to see if you might be rock-climbing.


This IS important. I'm not going to argue abortion or gay marriage or capital punishment anymore unless I'm really bored. This issue just slides in under the radar. It isn't selfish to desire the right to manage your personal life.


First off, the "potentially others" line is BS. Seat belt laws ONLY affect you.

You know what? Rock-climbing is legal, not wearing a seatbelt isn't. Get over it.

Forcing you to wear a seatbelt is not taking away your right to manage your personal life, it's attempting to take away the possibility of you severly injuring yourself.

Frankly, no one here cares about your opinon on the "potentially others" "line," as you've proved that you care little about our logic. If there is a slight possibility (which there is and denying it is just ignorance) of you injuring someone else, then the law effects more than you.

First off, the "potentially others" line is BS. Seat belt laws ONLY affect you.

When you are getting sued for a quarter million bucks because the guy in the car you hit broke his neck, and it could have been prevented, tell me it only effects him.

I think the people above me touched on this, but what I meant when I said it affected more people than yourself goes like this: Try telling the wife and kids of the guy that died because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt that it only affected him. Tell the same thing to the couple whose only son was hurled off the interstate into a ravine.

Steel Butterfly, do you think the government should ban smoking?

You're damn right it should. Smoking is a major problem which causes cancer not only for those who smoke but for those around those who smoke.

I'm for personal freedom and the correspoding personal responsibility.

No seatbelt laws, but you pay the bills for your own stupidity if you crash and get injured as a result.
Then the government gets to define "stupid", and suddenly you are paying your own bills for any possible behavior which could be considered risky.

Bad idea, but better than an authoritarian police state.

Forcing you to wear a seatbelt is not taking away your right to manage your personal life, it's attempting to take away the possibility of you severly injuring yourself.
Can't you see where that line of reasoning leads?

If there is even a relatively small chance that you might do bodily harm to someone, the government has every right to step in. And this is coming from a fellow Libertarian.
Well...how small is too small a chance? Seems like the government could get into far more than just seat belt laws based on the logic that there might be a relatively small chance of you harming someone.

And a seat belt may trap you in a burning vehicle. Just throwing out another argument for personal choice.

Well...how small is too small a chance? Seems like the government could get into far more than just seat belt laws based on the logic that there might be a relatively small chance of you harming someone.

And a seat belt may trap you in a burning vehicle. Just throwing out another argument for personal choice.

"Too small" would be "unlikely to happen," but people becoming projectiles because they don't wear seatbelts certainly isn't too small of a chance, because it happens with alarming regularity. The seatbelt trapping you in a burning vehicle is "too small," though, because the odds of that happening are about equal to your odds of winning the lottery.

I'm curious: for those of you who do not support seat belt laws, do you think the government should force parents to put kids in child seats or buckle up?

You're damn right it should. Smoking is a major problem which causes cancer not only for those who smoke but for those around those who smoke.
Ah. I see now. I was gonna keep going, "Should the government ban alcohol too?", but I think I know the answer (causes liver disease, etc). We simply have fundamentally different views on authoritarianism versus libertarianism.

I think the people above me touched on this, but what I meant when I said it affected more people than yourself goes like this: Try telling the wife and kids of the guy that died because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt that it only affected him. Tell the same thing to the couple whose only son was hurled off the interstate into a ravine.
I've had family members die from smoking-related lung cancer. Yes, it does affect other people, but it's simply not the government's place to ban such things. It should come from personal responsibility.

One day the police may come to me and say, "Chodolo, your excessive drinking is harming yourself. You may die from liver poisoning, and your family will be greatly affected. You are being fined."

I'm curious: for those of you who do not support seat belt laws, do you think the government should force parents to put kids in child seats or buckle up?
Actually, that is a completely different topic: Rights of Minors.

I'm talking about rights of full adult citizens here.

But on that topic, I think it is important for adults to teach their children to use seat belts, and that they understand the safety aspect, but as soon as the government starts throwing fines around I get nervous. So no, I would not support mandatory legislation of that nature.

But rights of minors are constantly in question, and not defined in black-and-white terms. In some states, 15 year olds have the right to have sex. In other states, they don't. Most states I believe ban ciggerettes from minors. When a minor does something wrong, sometimes the parents are implicated for negligence. It's a really different topic.

While I don't mind smoking bans (second-hand smoke does damage lungs, and smoking bans aren't enforced in places like bars where you expect smokers to be usually, so it makes sense to me), seat belt laws shouldn't be enforced. If they're stupid, the stupidity will only hurt them. Serves to clean out the gene pool, anyway.

Normally I wouldn't be so rude, but it's been a bad night. No matter what, seat belt laws bother me.

While I don't mind smoking bans (second-hand smoke does damage lungs, and smoking bans aren't enforced in places like bars where you expect smokers to be usually, so it makes sense to me), seat belt laws shouldn't be enforced. If they're stupid, the stupidity will only hurt them. Serves to clean out the gene pool, anyway.

Normally I wouldn't be so rude, but it's been a bad night. No matter what, seat belt laws bother me.
Unfortunately, my friend, you are incorrect. As I have stated before, anybody not wearing their seatbelt will become a projectile in the case of a collision. This means passengers riding in the back seat have a great likelihood of hurting not only themselves, but the driver and front passenger as well. The driver and front passenger are less likely to hurt someone else by not wearing seatbelts, but the risk is still there.

Unfortunately, my friend, you are incorrect. As I have stated before, anybody not wearing their seatbelt will become a projectile in the case of a collision. This means passengers riding in the back seat have a great likelihood of hurting not only themselves, but the driver and front passenger as well. The driver and front passenger are less likely to hurt someone else by not wearing seatbelts, but the risk is still there.
Perhaps the driver is alone in the vehicle? The law makes no distinction (and most people do drive alone, I understand).

Perhaps the driver is alone in the vehicle? The law makes no distinction (and most people do drive alone, I understand).
Laws that start writing exceptions in usually get too wordy and don't get passed, because legislators will start thinking of all sorts of exceptions, then exceptions to the exceptions, etc. While it is not entirely fair, the blanket seatbelt law is not confusing and the infringemet on rights is kept at a bare minimum, from what I have seen.

I personally think that forcing a child to wear a seatbelt or sit in a child car seat is a violation of his own rights, for he or she can decide for themselves if they want to get hurt.

PLEASE...anyway...

So you support enforcing laws to seatbelt minors...so...you go into your car, put on your children's seatbelts (or enforce them in their seats) then go and not fasten your own seatbelt because you are making a stand. Your child gets curious, because he or she most likely does not want to wear seatbelts, and you explain to them the imporance of doing so. Then they see that you do not fasten your seatbelt. What do they learn?

I'll tell you right now. Go ahead and don't buckle up, then try to tell the officer that he is breaching your civil rights. Personally I think it is a lot easier to just buckle the damn thing. It takes me an average of 2-3 seconds.

And don't give me this rhetoric that you are free to harm yourself, because first of all, you may be harming anybody else in your car or outside (projectile) and could potential orphan any children in the back when you fly through your windshield. Referring back to the rights of minors.

Not to mention that the paramedics and surgeons will probably hav a much easier time treating your wounds if you stay in the car, then if you fly out of your windshield into a ravine. By law they are obligated to treat you, and not buckling your seatbelt is making their job potentially harder, drawing on our resources.

Not buckling your seatbelt is a hazard to everybody around you. It is much easier to buckle up (if you do not, most modern cars will warn you, or if you have an old car, put up a sticky if you have troubles remembering) than face the consequences of not doing so. Stop whining, you have so many freedoms that most people in the world could not imagine, and you are complaining about a common sense law. Shame on you.

Laws that start writing exceptions in usually get too wordy and don't get passed, because legislators will start thinking of all sorts of exceptions, then exceptions to the exceptions, etc. While it is not entirely fair, the blanket seatbelt law is not confusing and the infringemet on rights is kept at a bare minimum, from what I have seen.
Well the problem is the exception is fairly important against the argument that you're somehow harming others by not buckling up.

But anyways, the infringing of rights may not be too bad considered to other grievances I take with authoritarians, but the implications are bad. The money involved is just dangerous. Back when I was living in Hawaii, they brought in a company to put up vans on the side of the road with cameras to take pictures of licence plates on speeding cars, and then they mailed you a nice $75 fine. Too bad the company got a high percentage on each ticket. The conflict of interests was pretty bad. It's less about safety than making money.

Just so everybody knows, the reason seatbelts became standard issue in cars was because of a citizen action crusade started by Ralph Nader and his famous Unsafe At Any Speed study on vehicles of the time specifically if i recall correctly the Chevy Corvair. To make them the law is sensible, as would be a no-cellphone law (that goes for cars with handsfree capability as you are just as likely to get into an accident not holding a cellphone as if you were), and a mandantory catalytic converter law. Sensible laws are by nature utilitarian which means they aim to make life better for the maximum amount of people while possibly 'degrading' life for others. The law is ineffective if it hurts more people than it benefits. In this case the seatbelts and no cellphones and all that actually make everyone's life better except for the small amount who feel this is a violation of the personal rights or some such. Those are Right-wing Libertarians. They would have us remove the lines in the road as they inhibit our personal choice of how we should drive. And they are right, but what many of these people dont understand is that a law especially a minor offense such as these dont take away your rights in any significant way. Whereas mandantory minimum laws that say if you are caught with 20g of cannibas is an automatic five years in jail is ridiculously outrageous stripping of rights. But no matter what you always have the choice to excerise your right, but there are legal consequences to it. Do i think seat belts should be law? No. Do i think everyone should wear them? Yes. Do i Wear mine all the time? No. But there are much important injustices that should be fought for (marijuana laws only one example) and illegal wars fought around the world, than something as insignificant as a fricking seatbelt law!

Seat belts are irrelevent when you have the protection of your holy lords

Not to mention that the paramedics and surgeons will probably hav a much easier time treating your wounds if you stay in the car, then if you fly out of your windshield into a ravine. By law they are obligated to treat you, and not buckling your seatbelt is making their job potentially harder, drawing on our resources.
So we should ban smoking and drinking, since those lead to lung cancer and liver disease, which drain our resources. While we're at it, let's ban skateboarding, I'm tired of my taxes going to stitching up the constant injuries they sustain. Let's ban EVERYTHING that can possibly hurt you.

Stop whining, you have so many freedoms that most people in the world could not imagine, and you are complaining about a common sense law. Shame on you.
Uh huh...*guards freedoms a little closer*

Not for long I fear...

There's other ways you can hurt somebody by not wearing a seatbelt, other than becomeing a projectile. Say, for example, you are driving along and somebody does something stupid and crashes into you. There are two possibilities:

1) You are wearing a seatbelt, and because of this you are not hurt and the worst that happens is a repair bill.

2) You're not wearing a seat belt, you are knocked out and lose control of the car. You plough into a group of people on the footpath.

I'm not saying that's exactly what would happen, but it's more likely you will lose control and hurt/kill innocent bystanders and other passengers if you're not wearing a seatbelt.

A car is a deadly machine and if the driver is not in control, it can do a huge amount of damage.

The answer to concerns about children and anyone not a fully competent adult, is to have laws that maintain that those who are responsible for the well being of the dependent person (for instance their parents) must take all due care to ensure their safety. Most law systems do already have such provisions.

With regards to adults endangering other adults, the answer to that is obvious, why would you let someone sit behind you if they are not wearing a seatbelt? Swap places so they are in front of you if someone refuses to wear a seatbelt. If its your car, refuse to drive until everyone in the car is wearing a seatbelt. The censorship of your friends, family and peers is more influential than a law, and frankly it is not the job of government to make your life a safetyzone. It's gotten to the point where if government doesnt restrict it and regulate it, people assume it is 100% safe, thus people pig out at McDonalds for 20 years then sue because their health is affected. No one warned them, so it must be safe and if it isnt, someone is to blame...

Forget the 'Big Government' concern, the problem is people forgetting how to make themselves safe unless someone puts a rule in place proscribing one behaviour, or prohibitting another. It's up to you to make sure that when you travel in a car, the car is safe, the driver is safe and other passengers are not endangering you, it's not the government's responsibility to regulate the behaviour of those you choose to travel in a vehical with. The government is stretched as it is trying to keep drunk people who pose a much more tangable threat to non-parties to their actions, off the road, without having to protect you from people you have chosen to travel with.

In a place like the United States insurance companies can make rules that nullify health, life, and wage insurance policies if claiments did not take reasonable steps to prevent injury (such as wearing seatbelts), the fact is between family and peer pressure, and economic incentives, most people have good reason to choose to wear seat belts, and I dont see why my tax dollars should be spent protecting those few idiots who wont take care of themselves, and that include adults stupid enough to choose to sit in front of someone who isnt wearing a seatbelt.

Just so everybody knows, the reason seatbelts became standard issue in cars was because of a citizen action crusade started by Ralph Nader and his famous Unsafe At Any Speed study on vehicles of the time specifically if i recall correctly the Chevy Corvair.
Well it's damn important to HAVE the seatbelts available, but I personally believe using them should be a choice. I believe Nader would agree?

To make them the law is sensible, as would be a no-cellphone law (that goes for cars with handsfree capability as you are just as likely to get into an accident not holding a cellphone as if you were),
No cellphones either? Damn! Can I still change the radio station while driving, or must I park to do so?

Those are Right-wing Libertarians. They would have us remove the lines in the road as they inhibit our personal choice of how we should drive.
And I always figured myself for a liberal. Maybe I need to go back and see what that word means. Anyways, the lines in the road keep us all safer. Seatbelts (regardless of your "projectile" arguments, which fall flat when the driver is alone) only keep the individual safer.

And they are right, but what many of these people dont understand is that a law especially a minor offense such as these dont take away your rights in any significant way. Whereas mandantory minimum laws that say if you are caught with 20g of cannibas is an automatic five years in jail is ridiculously outrageous stripping of rights. But no matter what you always have the choice to excerise your right, but there are legal consequences to it. Do i think seat belts should be law? No. Do i think everyone should wear them? Yes. Do i Wear mine all the time? No. But there are much important injustices that should be fought for (marijuana laws only one example) and illegal wars fought around the world, than something as insignificant as a fricking seatbelt law!
I say we should fight for all of our rights. I see the argument for freedom to do or not do drugs as similar to the argument for freedom to wear or not wear your seatbelt. You're only harming yourself. But you should have that right to, regardless of whether you hurt your family members by hurting yourself, or cause a strain on healthcare, whatever.

Well the problem is the exception is fairly important against the argument that you're somehow harming others by not buckling up.
The only way you are not risking someone else is if you are driving all by yourself in your car and there are no other cars on the road, and in that case the only way you'll be involved in a collision is if you drive into a tree or something. If there are any other cars nearby, you are putting them into potential danger as well as yourself. And before you say it, yes, a person can travel through two windshields if their force is strong enough.

Well, I don't usually jump in on debates such as this one, but I do have a bit of a personal involvement in this particular issue. See, a very sweet and funny young girl (I think between the ages of 13 and 15 now) that lives across the street from me had to start all over with practically everything she ever learned because she was brain damaged from being flung from the minivan she was riding in a few years ago. She still only has a vocabulary of a small selection of words and very few sentences. She and the other passengers *always* wore seatbelts but for some reason weren't, though her older sister (uninjured) who was driving was wearing one. The van flipped, the door opened, and she was thrown into the grass between the north and south lanes of the freeway. Her little sister broke her arm, and her friend had severe scratches and bruises.

Now, I'm not mentioning this to prove that seatbelts save lives, or that the lack of one can cause injury. I am assuming that this is apparent to most of you, or at least I would hope it is. Chodolo, while I can see why you might not want the government to control this aspect of your life--you see a slippery slope of events that might lead to increasingly ridiculous and alarming areas that are also under their authority-- I think, however, the correlation between seatbelt laws and a police state isn't a particularly strong one. I really do wish I could trust Americans to all buckle up without *needing* a law that tells them to do so. However.. well.. I don't. Ah, you say, but what about one's right to take a risk, to do what they please and deal with the consequences? Sure, okay. But listen to the voices around you. Even when it remains in its own vehicle, other passengers are in the way of a body set in motion by the incredibly powerful force of a crash. If it launches from a door, window, or windshield and ends up on the road for example, it could cause a car to swerve... yes, potentially increasing the cars involved in the accident.

In the end, I believe the enforcement is justified. Allowing the masses (especially young people too "cool" for restraints) to decide for themselves whether a seat-belt is something they want to use I can only see doing more harm than good. (The "good" being the return of supposed personal rights in this case.) And though I don't doubt it can happen, I've never heard of a cop pulling someone over randomly to "make sure" their seatbelt is on. Perhaps they might do that if they don't see the restraint that goes across the chest? Generally I think they have better things to do than to look for that, though..

In any case, as far as the "trapped in a burning car because of your seatbelt" thing goes... I don't personally know the probability for something like that occur. I won't say it can't happen. But by the same token, having your seatbelt *on* could prevent you from tumbling freely in a rolling car, possibly breaking a bone, being flung from the vehicle, or worse. Personally, I've heard of a lot more cars rolling than catching on fire with seatbelt restrained people trapped inside...

I'm not going to pretend that I read all the messages, so sorry if I am repeating something.

1. You are a complete moron if you don't wear a seatbelt. While yes, there are situations where if someone had been wearing one, they could have died (my girlfriends dad, for one), but the chances of that are so low that it isn't even really a factor.

2. If you don't think you are effecting others, try actually thinking, not just saying you are. First of all, everyone close to you gets hurt if you injure yourself/die. It is possible to become a projectile, and if those don't get you, how about this...I don't want my taxes paying for your stupid ass to be in the hospital for 6 months because you are too stupid to wear your damned seatbelt. I know plenty of people who complain about where their tax dollars get spent, climb in their car without buckling up and drive 100km in a 50 zone. Get a life man.

So we should ban smoking and drinking, since those lead to lung cancer and liver disease, which drain our resources. While we're at it, let's ban skateboarding, I'm tired of my taxes going to stitching up the constant injuries they sustain. Let's ban EVERYTHING that can possibly hurt you.


Uh huh...*guards freedoms a little closer*

Not for long I fear...

Well you seem to have omitted your attempts at contradicting all my argument...wonder why...

And about smoking. Taking it away would be too much of a breach of human rights, because it directly affects the smoker more than the person who recieves the second-hand smoke. Plus, it would close down entire industries, which would have desastrous consequences.

So, while there is no way to put in a law to ban smoking, (I am opposed to smoking, but think this is stupid) I believe that smoking is on the way out. We are educatig the youth more and more about the dangers, and enforcing more and more laws that prohibit smoking in public areas. The people themselves will take measures to diminish it slowly, eventually destroying the industry. Problem solved.

meh. natural selection. if you're too stupid to wear a seatbelt, then go ahead and die.


my bf's little brother would actually still be alive if either he hadn't worn a seatbelt or had his window rolled up. or you know, if his friends weren't being stupid and trying to make a mini-van catch air.

Well you seem to have omitted your attempts at contradicting all my argument...wonder why...
Sorry, it's a lot of the same as the others.

"you're harming your family cause you might die". Not the government's business.

"You're gonna cost the healthcare system more money". Oh well. If we banned everything that could cost the healthcare system more money we wouldn't be a very free society at all.

"You may be a projectile". I've already said that when you drive alone, that argument is complete bunk unless in the extreme instane you fly through the windshield and hit another car or cause another accident. Far more things are possibly dangerous to those around you (such as changing the radio station) that to legislate based on that is rediculous.

Well, I think the point of seat belt laws are to make sure you use them for your kids.
If your car crashes and you have a kid, whi is killed because they wern't buckled in, then what does that do for the rights of the child, espically their rights to life?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about seat belt laws, and think if you're over say, 18 (or even 16 if you wanna put it with drivers liscense laws here) then you can make your own decsion on wether or not to wear it, but younger then that should.
Of course, I'm greatful for seatbelts, and always wear them, but I've physicly rolled a rally car before, so it's not like I have no reason to want to be safe.

I believe that smoking is on the way out. We are educatig the youth more and more about the dangers, and enforcing more and more laws that prohibit smoking in public areas. The people themselves will take measures to diminish it slowly, eventually destroying the industry. Problem solved.
Like prohibiting smoking in bars? Which as we all know are heavily frequented by non-smokers. :p

Anyways, people have smoked for thousands of years. Don't think that's changing.

And drinking is more dangerous that smoking, but I only see the Prohibitionists still actively campaigning against that.

Normally I'd be against something like seat belt laws, but in this instance I think there should be a compromise.

People in the back should have to wear them because, let's face it, the only people who sit in the back are: the old; the infirm; the unemployed; and, the unemployable.

I'd hate to think of one of those work-shy burdens turning into a projectile and striking a productive member of society that is sitting in the front.

Edit: Of course, anyone in the front is free to do as they choose. Not being old, infirm etc.

I just want to ask a quick question here...

Am I arguing against liberals or conservatives?

Cause I've always considered myself very liberal.

I'm a coniberal.

I'm not arguing, (my political designation would be 'central leaning pragmatist'). ;) :p ;)

Like prohibiting smoking in bars? Which as we all know are heavily frequented by non-smokers. :p
umm... i go to bars quite often and i don't smoke.

they outlawed smoking in bars here and it's great. when i come home i don't stink of smoke.

It's a very simple matter: Buckle up, or the police catch you and give you a weighty fine. I cannot believe that this insignificant law is getting you worked up. Buckling up is not hard at all, so why argue? You would rather see the negative consequences of not wearing a seatbelt than keep the roads safer and the hospitals more efficient.

You have the right to harm yourself, yes. However, if you don't wear a seatbelt you are risking more than yourself. If you are in a collision you become a projectile with a very large amount of force behind you. That risks every person sitting in front of you, and potentially other automobiles depending on circumstances. The Libertarians believe that your rights end where another person's begin. If you truly are Libertarian, I hope you will see the wisdom in my words.
How many cases has this occurred in exactly?

Edit - By your logic motorcycles should be highly illegal.

It's a very simple matter: Buckle up, or the police catch you and give you a weighty fine. I cannot believe that this insignificant law is getting you worked up. Buckling up is not hard at all, so why argue? You would rather see the negative consequences of not wearing a seatbelt than keep the roads safer and the hospitals more efficient.
It's the implications. I've been using the argument that the government has no business preventing us from harming ourselves, particularly in the drug legalization threads, and saw it obviously applies to this. If the government is free to ban anything that could possibly harm you, there goes any hope of drug freedoms.

umm... i go to bars quite often and i don't smoke.

they outlawed smoking in bars here and it's great. when i come home i don't stink of smoke.
Oh well, another bad generalization bites me in the arse. In any case, I think the anti-smoking crowd has gotten too pushy, but that's another discussion.

It's a very simple matter: Buckle up, or the police catch you and give you a weighty fine. I cannot believe that this insignificant law is getting you worked up. Buckling up is not hard at all, so why argue? You would rather see the negative consequences of not wearing a seatbelt than keep the roads safer and the hospitals more efficient.
It should be simpler, buckle up or face the consequnces of your stupidity. Pay your own costs if necessary go into debt to do so, but dont expect the police to run around making sure you dont place yourself in danger because you are too stubborn or too stupid to put your safety belt on. I think our police forces have more pressing priorities, I'd rather resources were used to deter violent crimes, than used to protect idiots from themselves. If people want to act stupidly, no amount of laws will stop them. I think using laws to nanny adults degrades the law. There should not need to be a law in place for people to choose to do the sensible thing for themselves. Laws take responsibility away from people, in that they dont need to make good choices so often that they come to expect anything not prohibited or restricted is safe, and anything they need to fear, will somehow be controlled. People have become so complacent that they believe the only line between wanton stupidity and general self preservation for it's own sake, is the law...even insects have self preservation instincts, is there really a reason to assume that the majority of humans cant be 'retaught' to engage their own good sense in determining what is safe and reasonable behaviour, if we only would stop circumventing this ability by legislating against it's engagement?

How many cases has this occurred in exactly?

Edit - By your logic motorcycles should be highly illegal.

Exactly what I was wondering.

I think a major reason for the seat belt law is liability. If someone crashes into you, and its their fault, they can be responsible for your medical costs. But in that case, it isn't fair to them to have to pay the extra cost that your not wearing a seatbelt can incur.

Besides, if you get in an accident, someone's going to have to pay for it, and there's reasonable odds that for whatever reason you won't be able to (maybe you're dead and or broke). This just isn't a case where you're the only one affected by your decision.

While I agree with the basics of the steabelt law, I thimk it should be up to the driver if a child sits in the front or not, not to the government. As long as the child has a seat belt on, who cares...

I just want to ask a quick question here...

Am I arguing against liberals or conservatives?

Cause I've always considered myself very liberal.

I'm conservative, and authoritarian to a point, so we truely are opposites on the political spectrum.

Still, you've had liberals and libertarians argue with you because of the issue you have chosen.

the freedom to drive without a seat belt is insignificant. im sorry but only morons dont use the safety equipment provided with their vehicles. if you can't drive in a responsible manner you need to be off the freaking road.

there IS no freedom to use a deadly instrument in an unsafe manner.

guys guys guys
If I was an american, I sure would have better things to bitch about than seatbelt laws!!!!
england, you HAVE to ware a seatbelt, or you get fined, its as simple as that,
I ask you why should it be any other way?
why on gods earth would you NOT want to ware a seatbelt?
you think it makes you a better driver? you think that the belt holds you back?
whatever.
please. find another way to kill yourself.

Buckle up or get fined. Sounds agreeable.

Because when taking some serious sudden movements, if your body is not tied down to the car, you would lose control of it even worse than had you been wearing safety belt. Plus on impact, it's safer.

I don't understand why ppl don't wear safety belt. For me, it's like a response action, everytime i get into the car. If I drive without wearing it. I don't feel right.

what if u have children, and u decide not to wear a seatbelt? there ur kids are stuck without parents. if ur not gonna do it for yourself, do it for other people, ur friends, family, and society. like it was stated earlier, wearing ur seatbelts gives the hospitals less to worry about in terms of death and seriouse injury not to the point of death, when they could b working on something better, that might not have been preventable. unlike a deadly car accident wear seatbelts often save lives

And the Democrats aren't much better in some areas (smoking bans)
Sorry if i'm a bit late but what can you do. Seatbelts is a matter of personal safety, yes. But smoking, if you smoke in front of your child for example, you're exposing them to smoke, they're breathing in secondary smoke, which means that they are more likely to smoke. Same in public areas, you're harming the people around you as well as yourself, and that isn't ok. Thats me done, i'm out.

Driving in the USA is a privledge, not a right. Part of the privledge of driving is driving responsibly and safely. Buckling up make it safer for you and others. This isn't your right to freedom- getting behind the wheel is a privledge the government has grated you with a liscence based on your preformance in a test.
Be grateful all you get is a fine and not have your liscense revoked for being a dumba**.
I'm very liberal and I prefer less govenment involvement in our lives and choices- but this isn't one about our freedoms. I actually would support stricter enforcement of driving laws since driving is a privledge.

BTW- second hand smoke is proving to be as hazardous as smoking. Its one thing to be killing yourself, but how right is it to be inflicting it on someone who would choose not to?

You should do your research better than this. Youre wrong-not wearing you sealtbelt does not only affect you. I've seen news reports and video of crash tests. Like butterfly says- you become a projectile. i saw a video in which the person in the back seat pinned the person in the front againt the steering wheel....only after the force of his weight pushed the drivers chest into the steering column- piercing his chest. insurance investigation concurred that the driver may have survived ,had the person in the back been wearing theit seatbelt. also a person was thrown through the windshield and through the back of another cars back w indow, hitting the passengers of that car. maybe if you saw some of the crash test results or accident scenes-youd feel differently.

John Locke said "though this be a state of liberty, it is not a state of license"

It is not the issue of whether or not it takes away our personal freedoms, it is the issue that by not wearing a seat belt, one might cause problems for the community.

For example, some people complain about having to wear helmuts when riding a motorcycle or bicycle. The government doesn't necessarily care whether or not you as a person die, but what they care about is that when you go bike riding and you get hit by a car and you get seriously injured or die, an ambulance has to come and take you to a hospital and give you medical care...what if you don't have insurance? The tax payers end up having to pay for you because you were too much of an idiot to not wear your helmut. If you want to go out in the middle of nowhere and do that, fine. But when you are living in a community, you have to sacrifice certain freedoms. The same goes for seat belts. First of all, it is selfish because if you die, you are leaving family members behind with debt and emotional damage. Second, maybe because of you, insurance prices and taxes could be raised for thousands of people.

We need to ban gasoline as if you get wet from it and smoke a cigarette, you could burst into flames. Ban lightning as those bolts from the sky can harm you. Ban food as you could choke to death. Ban urine as it could sting your eyes. Ban street signs as they could become projectiles if you hit them while not wearing a seatbelt, but wearing a jockstrap. Ban school as a tornado or earthquake could make the school collapse, injuring those precious children. Ban bicycles as you could lose control, hit a curb and become a projectile, decapitating grandma who was driving her sit down scooter home from bingo. Hell, lets just kill ourselves now so nothing more could possibly kill (or turn us into projectiles) us.

I guess most of you people weren't around before seatbelts were used. I remember driving in my Uncle J's pickup (all 4 of his nephews up front) which had no seatbelts. None of us ever became projectiles or had to be re-trained because we were drooling brain-damaged retards. It should be your choice whether or not to wear them. Not the "man's".

BTW ban human cannonballs as they are actually projectiles.

You should do your research better than this. Youre wrong-not wearing you sealtbelt does not only affect you. I've seen news reports and video of crash tests. Like butterfly says- you become a projectile. i saw a video in which the person in the back seat pinned the person in the front againt the steering wheel....only after the force of his weight pushed the drivers chest into the steering column- piercing his chest. insurance investigation concurred that the driver may have survived ,had the person in the back been wearing theit seatbelt. also a person was thrown through the windshield and through the back of another cars back w indow, hitting the passengers of that car. maybe if you saw some of the crash test results or accident scenes-youd feel differently.

Yes I love that episode when those human projectiles (who were aflame) flew into the Brady station wagon, causing it to explode, killing all but Alice. Thank God she didn't wear her seatbelt thus allowing her to jump to safety. That's the episode where Sam the Butcher gave her his tubesteak in his walk-in cooler.

We also need to ban catapults as they could fling you, thus making you a projectile. :)

Wearing a seat belt protects everyone on the road. I think only the driver should be required to wear a seatbelt. Without one you can slide around on the seat during quick accelerations and therefore lose control of the car and kill someone else. As for anyone else, it's the driver's responsibility and everyone else's in the car to have other buckle up if they feel they could get killed by a 'human projectile' in an accident.

same as drunk driving, you can hurt others, therefore its illegal, in order to protect everyone else.

To quote a seatbelt awareness ad:

"I wear a seatbelt because I don't want to go through the windshield."

The funny thing is that when this legislation goes through (in all states) in will become normal and no one will remember it being any different. This happened i the UK years ago. Whats the problem? Oh and I think it was mentioned earlier about mobile phones being banned while a car is in motion. Believe me thats gonna happen like it has in the UK as well. All its gonna take is some kid to be knocked down all over a street because someone was on the phone. Peoples opinions will change then

Last time I checked Libertarian policies let the owner of the property make the rules (like smoking in a bar). The government owns the roads so they can make the laws regarding them. If you don't like it don't drive on government roads.

Since when did you have the right to hurt yourself? Your not complaining about illicit drugs being illegal, when some of them if used properly "only hurt yourself."

We need to ban gasoline as if you get wet from it and smoke a cigarette, you could burst into flames. Ban lightning as those bolts from the sky can harm you. Ban food as you could choke to death. Ban urine as it could sting your eyes. Ban street signs as they could become projectiles if you hit them while not wearing a seatbelt, but wearing a jockstrap. Ban school as a tornado or earthquake could make the school collapse, injuring those precious children. Ban bicycles as you could lose control, hit a curb and become a projectile, decapitating grandma who was driving her sit down scooter home from bingo. Hell, lets just kill ourselves now so nothing more could possibly kill (or turn us into projectiles) us.

I guess most of you people weren't around before seatbelts were used. I remember driving in my Uncle J's pickup (all 4 of his nephews up front) which had no seatbelts. None of us ever became projectiles or had to be re-trained because we were drooling brain-damaged retards. It should be your choice whether or not to wear them. Not the "man's".

BTW ban human cannonballs as they are actually projectiles.

I think is the first time I've ever agreed with you. :p

The funny thing is that when this legislation goes through (in all states) in will become normal and no one will remember it being any different. This happened i the UK years ago. Whats the problem? Oh and I think it was mentioned earlier about mobile phones being banned while a car is in motion. Believe me thats gonna happen like it has in the UK as well. All its gonna take is some kid to be knocked down all over a street because someone was on the phone. Peoples opinions will change then
And you don't see anything wrong with banning cell phones?!??!

Since when did you have the right to hurt yourself? Your not complaining about illicit drugs being illegal, when some of them if used properly "only hurt yourself."
I'm not complaining about drugs being illegal because I've already done that, numerous times, and it seems the majority of people here agree that drugs should be legal, as do I. ALL drugs, btw.

And enough with the projectile stuff already, you people would probably support mandatory helmets for motorcycle drivers. Is there anyone who does not support mandatory helmets but does support mandatory seat belts?

Against seat-belt laws. Don't really do much anyway and besides if you have half a brain, you'd buckle up.

Last time I checked Libertarian policies let the owner of the property make the rules (like smoking in a bar). The government owns the roads so they can make the laws regarding them. If you don't like it don't drive on government roads.

The government is not a private organization and the passing of laws by the government that infringe on liberties would be unacceptable. Hell, some libertarians are against speed limits (which is a whole other can of worms, they SHOULD be enforced because then you ARE directly putting other people at harm when you're cruising on the highways at 106).

Sorry if i'm a bit late but what can you do. Seatbelts is a matter of personal safety, yes. But smoking, if you smoke in front of your child for example, you're exposing them to smoke, they're breathing in secondary smoke, which means that they are more likely to smoke. Same in public areas, you're harming the people around you as well as yourself, and that isn't ok. Thats me done, i'm out.

Secondary smoke is a farce, really. Its effects are exaggerated if you ask me. You're more likely to become addicted if you smoke - so guess what? Take the responsibility not to smoke so you don't become addicted.

The government is not a private organization and the passing of laws by the government that infringe on liberties would be unacceptable. Hell, some libertarians are against speed limits (which is a whole other can of worms, they SHOULD be enforced because then you ARE directly putting other people at harm when you're cruising on the highways at 106).

Sorry, but I can't drive 55! (http://www.lewzworld.com/vanhalen/pics/sammy03.jpg)

55 (http://www.rocktoys.com/1987.jpg)

Drive 60, then. ;)

It's just this progression that worries me...

People should not drive so fast, they can hurt other people. Okay, speed limits, more cop activity, fines.

People should only drive if they've been certified. Okay, driving licences, more money, registrations.

People should not drive without a seatbelt cause they might hurt themself (and possibly others too). Okay, more cop activity, fines, road checks.

People should not drive while talking on the cell phone, cause they might get distracted. Okay, more cop activity, fines, road checks.

People should not ride bikes or motorcycles without helmets, cause they might hurt ONLY themself if they fall off, and strain the hospitals. Okay, more cop activity, fines.

People should not smoke because they might hurt themself. Okay, we raise exorbatant taxes on ciggerettes.

...

It's this nanny-state mentality that worries me. And what further worries me is that it comes from many self-described liberals.

Drive 60, then. ;)

No way, in my state the cops don't really pull you over unless your going over 100 or driving dangerously, or out of state. Just the other day I was driving from Shelby MT, to Glasgow Mt (near my hunting cabin)it's a normal 4 hour drive about 260 miles, but I made it in 2hours 20min. My average speed was 120mph and I still got passed by two cops. Actually the one was on my ass for a good 30 miles (think he was racing me cause my needle was buried at 140). He waved, then flew by me and left me in his dust.

All of this and I wasn't wearing a seatbelt. I was not a human projectile and I was not made retarded. If I would have wrecked at that speed, even with the seatbelt, I'd still be dead.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]I think is the first time I've ever agreed with you. :p


Glad to see you come to your senses! ;)

Seriously, I prescribe to the self reliance theory. When it comes to your self rights vs. what the government thinks is best, I choose the individuals choice. Sure they may be moronic at times and even potentially lethal to themselves, but it is their right. Sure driving may not be a right, but the government does not own your vehicle, thus it is private property. I totally agree with you (wow my first time) on your idea.

Now if you break a traffic law on public property (ie speeding) and you are pulled over, States should not have the right to fine the driver for adults not wearing seatbelts. An exception should be made however for gross child endangerment (ie an infant just laying on the backseat, kids riding in the back of a pickup truck without a cap) Police should worry more about catching violent criminals.

An exception should be made however for gross child endangerment (ie an infant just laying on the backseat, kids riding in the back of a pickup truck without a cap) Police should worry more about catching violent criminals.

Yes, because we all know that far more people die from violent crimes than from car accidents. :rolleyes:

It's just this progression that worries me...

People should not drive so fast, they can hurt other people. Okay, speed limits, more cop activity, fines. agree

People should only drive if they've been certified. Okay, driving licences, more money, registrations. agree, though I'd need to look into it a bit more.

People should not drive without a seatbelt cause they might hurt themself (and possibly others too). Okay, more cop activity, fines, road checks. disagree

People should not drive while talking on the cell phone, cause they might get distracted. Okay, more cop activity, fines, road checks. agree, sorta

People should not ride bikes or motorcycles without helmets, cause they might hurt ONLY themself if they fall off, and strain the hospitals. Okay, more cop activity, fines. disagree

People should not smoke because they might hurt themself. Okay, we raise exorbatant taxes on ciggerettes. disagree

My stances on the listed points.

Yes, because we all know that far more people die from violent crimes than from car accidents. :rolleyes:

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents.

Yes, because we all know that far more people die from violent crimes than from car accidents. :rolleyes:
I can control whether or not I get injured worse by wearing a seat belt.

I cannot control criminals breaking into my house, robbing me, stealing my car, etc.

The cops' purpose is the latter.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents.

not dousing yourself in gasoline and torching yourself doesn't cause fires. but they still occur.

not dousing yourself in gasoline and torching yourself doesn't cause fires. but they still occur.

What's the relevance of this? Because accidents occur we should make people wear seatbelts? Im sorry, I don't get your point.

Look I feel seat belts are an option, albeit and inteligent one, if for some reason you want to not wear something that could save your life hell thats your problem, the government shouldent have to waste their time saving the stupid from themselves...same opinion about drugs, ya wanna do em go ahead, just dont excpect me to pay for your funeral

The government shouldn't enforce seatbelt laws. It's a waste of money and an infringement on our personal lives.

On the other hand, people shouldn't be so stupid that they don't use the seatbelt.

In the end I really don't give a shit. There are more important things to argue about.

The government shouldn't enforce seatbelt laws. It's a waste of money and an infringement on our personal lives.

On the other hand, people shouldn't be so stupid that they don't use the seatbelt.

In the end I really don't give a shit. There are more important things to argue about.

yeah, but we are consistently arguing those topics every day so...

yeah, but we are consistently arguing those topics every day so...

Well its my first day so I didnt know...onwards with the senselessness! :D

I have to say, I feeling quite distraught at the moment.

On this site, I have agreed with the results of practically EVERY single poll ever done. The Gay Marriage poll was 75% in favor. Various abortion polls have consistently come out in strong favor of pro-choice. Capital punishment polls have come out in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Kerry always wins by a large margin over Bush. Drug polls always show strong majority support for legalization.

But now, suddenly, I am faced with a 70% opposition. :(

Tis fine. I voted "No." If that makes you feel better. :D

I, a staunch opponent of big govt., voted yes. Here is why;

The choice to harm yourself may be yours, but the blame is entirely different in modern USA. You do not have the ability to go to a rollercoaster park and choose to ride a coaster without the safety restraints. If you did and were injured or killed the park would be held responsible and sued.

In a car if a passenger chooses not to wear a seatbelt it is the driver who is help responsible. Fair enough, but what if a driver is alone and beltless?

Then the auto manufacturer (or other party in the accident) can be held responsible and sued.

Thus, the seatbelt law is intended not only to save lives but also reduce liability and 'ambulace chaser' attorney cases.

We live in a litigous society sadly. As more lawsuits are brought for unreasonable cases there will be more unreasonable results.

First off, you own your car. You do not own the roller coaster.

But I see where you're going with the litigation problem. Lawsuits against McDonalds for hot coffee simply indicates a lack of personal responsibility, thus the government gets to be your nanny.

An unfortunate result indeed.

I, a staunch opponent of big govt., voted yes. Here is why;

The choice to harm yourself may be yours, but the blame is entirely different in modern USA. You do not have the ability to go to a rollercoaster park and choose to ride a coaster without the safety restraints. If you did and were injured or killed the park would be held responsible and sued.

In a car if a passenger chooses not to wear a seatbelt it is the driver who is help responsible. Fair enough, but what if a driver is alone and beltless?

Then the auto manufacturer (or other party in the accident) can be held responsible and sued.

Thus, the seatbelt law is intended not only to save lives but also reduce liability and 'ambulace chaser' attorney cases.

We live in a litigous society sadly. As more lawsuits are brought for unreasonable cases there will be more unreasonable results.
It is nonesense to suggest that an automobile manufacturer who produced a safe product would be liable for damages resulting from it's misuse. If another party is liable, it is because they have acted or failed to act to reasonably avert danger to others, it's a matter of torts.

As it happens I think you have it all backwards, these laws dont stop lawsuites, they create the climate in which people believe that if they are somehow harmed, someone is liable and must pay. If cars are not 100% safe the government will make up legislation so we dont have to think for ourselves. That's why when people pig out at McDonalds every day for 20 years, and then find their health is effected, they think that someone must be liable, hey no one warned them, (and they've forgotten how to think for themselves), there are no government regulations to make McDonalds safe, yet still negative effects have occured, so someone must be liable....

I recommond we all give up on expecting the government to legislate our lives into safety zones and try relying on our own good sense. We might even find with a bit of practise that we are quite good at being responsible for ourselves, certainly government resources would be better spent eliminating dangers we cant easily choose to avoid (like criminals who break into your house and kill you). As pointed out earlier in the thread (by Dakini if I recall correctly), those who are too stupid to not take due safety precautions for their own benefit, are probably best removed from the collective gene pool anyhow... :rolleyes:

Just my two cents....

Basically I feel like if you want to do something that's only going to harm yourself, then that's fine. And the punishment, if applicable, will come to the irresponsible person. I mean, the government doesn't really even NEED to punish a guy who wears a seatbelt, because with an accident comes, he's going to receive a punishment anyway, and if he never gets in an accident, then I guess he's just a good enough or lucky enough driver to not need a seatbelt, which is also fine. The proof is in the pudding. If you're responsible, and wear a seatbelt, then you'll get rewarded with less bloody injuries, and if you're not then you have no one to blame for yourself when you end up getting really hurt.

Those who argue that this is "insignificant" will soon learn that a single strip of wood whittled off a log is only insignificant until you realize that the entire log is gone.

The argument that the government should enforce laws that protect us from ourselves because our deaths affect our families, etc., can be applied to almost anything we do in our lives. If that logic holds for seatbelts, then the exact same logic can hold for other examples cited here:

* Banning alcohol, banning cigarettes, banning motorcycles, banning rock climbing, banning ANY activity that MAY result in the death of the participants.

The argument that our injuries/deaths from not wearing seat belts because of the "taxpayer burden" can likewise be used to argue for all of the above bans (and then some). Are we not all paying for the care of those permanently paralyzed in football accidents? Ban football!!

Someone even argued that we do not have the right to harm ourselves. I will argue to my dying days that the right to harm ourselves if we so choose is absolutely a God-given right. If we cannot harm ourselves, then we have zero freedom. Period.

BTW, all that nonsense about "projectiles"...I've never heard of a person thrown through a windshield being the sole cause of a second accident or injury to some other person. And if this logic primarily applies to backseat passengers, then why does the law where I live apply *only* to front seat passengers? Yes, it is legal to not wear a seatbelt in the back seat of a car here.

To those that support seatbelt laws, what about supporting helmets in cars?

If everyone wore a polystyrene bike helmet while in a car it would drastically reduce head injuries. Or having to wear a neck brace to prevent whiplash.

After all, the compliance cost is low, and they only take a few seconds to put on.

Craig

To those that support seatbelt laws, what about supporting helmets in cars?

If everyone wore a polystyrene bike helmet while in a car it would drastically reduce head injuries. Or having to wear a neck brace to prevent whiplash.

After all, the compliance cost is low, and they only take a few seconds to put on.

Craig
SSSSSSSsshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! You'll give Washington ideas!

It's a very simple matter: Buckle up, or the police catch you and give you a weighty fine. I cannot believe that this insignificant law is getting you worked up. Buckling up is not hard at all, so why argue? You would rather see the negative consequences of not wearing a seatbelt than keep the roads safer and the hospitals more efficient.


1. Principle of the matter
2. The $36 million dollar price tag of advertising/enforcing

Yes, why argue? We should all just be good citizens and obey the government.

Safer?
Good story by those darn libertarians:
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5192

To those that support seatbelt laws, what about supporting helmets in cars?

If everyone wore a polystyrene bike helmet while in a car it would drastically reduce head injuries. Or having to wear a neck brace to prevent whiplash.

After all, the compliance cost is low, and they only take a few seconds to put on.

Craig


I read a story in a management text about car safety (bear with me).

GM brought in a team of engineers to help make their cars safer. The head engineer suggested (tongue in cheek of course) that they simply line the dash boards with razor sharp spikes. No one in their right mind would drive recklessly with such an obvious threat of death.

I read a story in a management text about car safety (bear with me).

GM brought in a team of engineers to help make their cars safer. The head engineer suggested (tongue in cheek of course) that they simply line the dash boards with razor sharp spikes. No one in their right mind would drive recklessly with such an obvious threat of death.


And here is another one.

Seatbelts with active tensioners (to tighten during a crash) are so good they make steering wheel and dash air-bags largely irrelevant. However because Americans are too fat and lazy (gross generalising stereotypes rule) to use a seat belt all car manufacturers must install steering wheel air-bags, or risk being sued out of existance for not taking all "practicable" steps to ensure safety. And as active tensioners cost more than normal these are left off or reserved for high end German or Japanese products.