Do you agree with mandatory seatbelt laws?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I feel it should be your choice whether you want to be killed in an accident or not. On the other hand, taxpayers would end up paying the medical bills of the ones who don't have insurance.

What do you think?

[Sandpiper]

1. For children, yes

For adults, no.

[Melodybe]

7. Yes, we have to pay for the dumbasses that get super fucked up

when they get into an accident without wearing their seatbelts.

[Sandpiper]

11. Yes, god forbid taxes be used on medical care

n/t

[Melodybe]

16. I'm all for helping to pay medical bills

but I think that wearing a seltbelt is a no brainer, insurance is breaking people as it is.

Not wearing your seltbelt is stupid, why make more people pay even more to insurance companies, if you can save us all a lot by buckling up.

[Horse with no Name]

18. Not foolish to use on medical care. Foolish to use on UNnecessary

medical care.
Trauma is costly and is draining the hospitals dry. A majority of it is uncompensated.
It just drives the healthcare costs up for everyone and creates necessary non-essential personnel cuts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Why should melodybye's taxes

Why should melodybye's taxes go up because you knowingly refused to wear your seat belts, got in an accident and got "superfuckedup"


I am assuming for the sake of discussion you are uninsured...


I'm in favor eliminating seat belt and helmet laws for adults if they sign a waiver that if they get in an accident and get "superfuckedup" they will not seek taxpayer provided medical care...

[Sandpiper]

I see

So medical care should be reserved only for those who "deserve" it?

I must ask then. Since heart disease is the number one cause of death in this country, should we pass a law against fat people buying potato chips?


And if they have a heart attack, I for one say, let 'em croak in the emergency room. They had it comin'! Why should taxes go toward saving fatties. They made themselves fat after all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Causal Link

The causal link between not wearing seat belts and having an accident and getting "superfuckedup" is much clearer and more instantaneous than the link between diet and heart disease...

[Sandpiper]

48. So what?

The crux of the seat belt argument is dollars and cents. And the fact is that roughly 7 times as many people die every year from heart disease than from accidents, and far more money is spent on their medical care.

And since there is a causal link between obesity and heart disease, would it not make sense under the seatbelt rationale to restrict the access of obese people to foods that contribute to obesity?

[Wilber_Stool]

2. It just gives the cops

one more reason to stop you.
Insurance comp. should limit their liabilities on injuries if belts are not used.

[pitohui]

43. they already do

Insurance comp. should limit their liabilities on injuries if belts are not used.

i was rear-ended & injured & it's the first thing the driver's auto insurer asked, the cruel fucks

yes, btw, i was wearing my seatbelt

they are looking for any way to cheat the injured, it's sickening

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. I voted yes

because an unseatbelted passenger is a lethal object in the car. So it just isn't your own life you are taking chances with.

And I REALLY think that parents with un-belted kids in the car need the book thrown at them. whatever that means...

[Whoa_Nelly]

26. Yes, TG, "a lethal object in the car"

When people ride in my car, I always make sure all are belted. Have had a few, ususally guys who like to act macho, glare at me defiantly, but I tell them, "It's my car. I choose that you don't get to have your body go flying and kill me. Buckle up or get out." They always buckle up.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Yep.

Safety.
You are correct, but not only medical bills, you have to also include Social Security payments to the idiot who goes through the windshield for children and spouse.
Life insurance...because it would be double idemnity, which means that everyone's premiums will go up.

[Pithlet]

10. Not to mention

A person unbelted in the car becomes a projectile that can harm others in a serious accident. People have been killed because an unbelted person slammed into them.

I just don't understand what the big deal is. It takes about a second to put a seat belt on. If you're going to get into an operating vehicle, there are rules to obey. There are safety rules that are far more burdonsome that people don't get nearly as upset about. It makes no sense to me. People who are against seat belt laws generally strike me as childish. I always picture a little kid pouting "Don't tell me what to do!" It is stupid to insist that you have the right to do something stupid and deadly and dangerous to others when it costs you virtually nothing not to do so.

[ET Awful]

20. Don't forget the poor unfortunate emergency responder that has to

scrape that non-seatbelted persons' mangled corpse up off the pavement when they're thrown clear of their vehicle. They deserve some compensation and recognition.

[Horse with no Name]

25. absolutely.

You are correct.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. Yes, for children...

Because adults who don't wear seatbelts are just candidates for the Darwin Award. But kids need to be protected from stupid parents.

[Kolesar]

6. Friends of mine were orphaned in the 1970s

They ended up in an orphanage in Pennsylvania. Mom refused to wear a seat belt.

[Lowell]

8. Not only do I support seat belts

I also think there should be a mandatory helmet law for drivers of all AUTOMOBILES. The worse injuries are always head injuries in automobile and motorcycle accidents. If drivers were required to wear helmets in their cars it would cut down on head injuries and cell phone usage.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Would also cut down on their peripheral vision.

I think we can safely rule out helmets as being necessary.

[Pithlet]

19. I agree. What a stupid argument that is.

No one is arguing that we should have to wear full body armor. Putting on a seatbelt takes a second and costs nothing both monetarily or in the physical effort invested.

I'm against unnecessary laws, or laws that needlessly restrict my actions with no benefit. Since wearing a seatbelt does neither, I don't understand the opposition. If you don't like being told what to do, don't drive a car. Because if you drive a car, there are going to be rules, and you aren't going to agree with all of them. It's that simple. It just isn't worthy of all this libertarian outrage.

[calico1]

Peripheral vision and also hearing is impared.

I used to date a guy that had a Harley. This is one of the arguments bikers have--that it takes away peripheral vision and diminishes hearing--both things you need to rely on more if you are on a bike.

[democracyindanger]

73. Dumb argument.

All motorcycle helmets provide more than adequate peripheral vision. Restricted hearing is also a fallacy--I can hear more through my helmet on my bike than I can in my car.

A Harley rider concerned about being able to hear? Hilarious.

[Pithlet]

92. Driving a car and riding a motorcycle are different

aren't they? I mean, isn't the reason a rider wears a helmet is because they aren't surrounded by additional vehicle? There are no seat belts on a motorcycle, are there?

I think the argument that requiring a seatbelt is the same as requiring a helmet is a dumb argument. Because driving a car and riding a motorcycle are two very different things as any motorcycle enthusiast will tell you. The dangers are different. The only similarities are that they're both high powered vehicles on wheels. For example, being involved in a fender bender inside of a closed vehicle is much different than while riding on a motorcycle. You're much more likely to be flung off the vehicle if it is a motorcycle. Therefore, the additional protection of a helmet is warranted on a motorcycle where it is not in a closed vehicle.

[democracyindanger]

101. Don't get me wrong

Making helmets mandatory for cars is just a silly attempt to make mandatory seatbelts look ridiculous. I just wanted to dispell the notion that motorcycle helmets (and race car helmets for that matter) restrict vision. It's a falsehood put forth by anti-helmet law people.

[Pithlet]

105. Okay, I got ya

We are definitely in agreement on both issues.

[calico1]

111. Never mind. n/t

[Lowell]

134. Then the same applies to motorcycles

Head injuries are the most grievous of injuries in both auto and cycle accidents, yet only bikers are required to wear them. This cuts down on the bikers ability to see and hear objects to their sides, but they learn to live with it. I see no reason that auto drivers can't wear them also. Look at your NASCAR drivers. They all have helmets. They know that it is not safe driving without them.

[napi21]

9. I think it's a great thing to promote, but it's wrong to mandate it!

I don't know if they are doing it in every state, but in Ga. they are giving out tickets if they see someone driving or riding without their belt on. I believe, in most cases, they save lives, and I think they are a good idea, but what gives the State the right to continue to trying to save people from themselves?

If they want to enact a law that states, if you are injured or killed in an accident, and you were not wearing your belt, you lose the right to sue no matter whose fault the accident was would be fine with me. That would be a personal choice, and the only one who loses is the individual making that decision.

[mitchtv]

13. not only lose the right to sue

But it should imply that you are a organ donor.

[Sandpiper]

17. And your children should be forced into prostitution

To pay for the medical bills.

And your body should be dumped into a mass grave for non seatbelt wearers.

:eyes:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

30. LOL n/t

[napi21]

24. I already agreed to be an organ donor. Is that supposed to be some

punishment? I don't understand your point.

[mitchtv]

38. no punishment implied consent

no law

[napi21]

60. I see no problem with that, as long as you can enforce "implied concent".

That's why I suggested a law. Seems like things get very muddy when the word implied enters the piture.

[Child_Of_Isis]

14. It's not about saving people, but

Taxpayers having to pay medical bills. God forbid we use our tax dollars on medical for us, the people, when the money can go toward Cheney's new heart.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. That's A Red Herring...

Nobody is denying that free medical care should be providied to accident victims who don't have insurance....


What some folks are arguing is that it is the height of self absorption to knowingly take a risk (driving without seatbelts) and then expect the taxpayers to happily pay for you because you get in an accident and the injuries are made worse by not wearing seat belts....

[Pithlet]

40. And it is also arguable

That to let people take that risk and then be punished for it by removing medical care and possibly plunging them and their families into debt (which also affects society, incidently) seems a bit harsh to avoid making a law enforcing people to click a seatbelt. I'm sorry, but putting on a seatbelt just isn't such an imposition to personal freedom that it requires such a draconian solution.

It's not as though it's required no matter what. You don't have to put one on unless you're choosing to drive or ride in a car. How is it any more of an infrignment on freedom than, say, not being allowed to watch tv, or put on makeup while driving? I just don't understand the opposition. Driving a car requires you to give up some of the personal freedoms you otherwise enjoy. Why should I cry about having to put on a seatbelt anymore than I should about not being allowed to sleep while driving?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Driving Is A Privilege Not A Right

I don't want to throw non-seatbelted, non-insured drivers who get in an accident into the poorhouse but I would think among the "enlightened" they would so that their actions have a negative effect on the rest of the community...

[Pithlet]

55. Absolutely

I will fight any law that makes me wear a seatbelt in my own home or walking down the street. Because that WOULD be an infringement on my personal rights. That is my concession to those against seatbelt laws.

[Book Lover]

80. That is bullshit

The ability to move freely is a right. Calling driving a privilege is wrong.

[Pithlet]

89. Moving about freely is a right.

Using a car to exercise that right is not. They can and will take away your right to drive legally if your enfractions are severe enough. Walking down the street, and operating machinery that hurls you forward at 60 miles per hour are two differnt things.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that just anyone should have the right to plow around in deadly machines no matter what. I do think that should be reserved for people who can do so safely. I'm not saying the right should be revoked at the first infraction. Going ten over the speed limit isn't nearly as dangerous as driving after 10 screwdrivers and shouldn't be treated the same. Taking away the right alltogether should only be done in extreme circumstances. But, treating driving as an absolute personal right and freedom is ludicrous.

[Book Lover]

90. I cannot agree with you at all

Every adult has the right to learn how to operate a vehicle and operate said vehicle. I can't back down on this one.

[Pithlet]

94. I never said otherwise

I agree with you. Every adult has the right to learn how to operate a vehicle and operate said vehicle. They absolutely do have that right. But in doing so they have the responsibility to do so safely and to observe the laws. People do not have the right to drive their car if they're drunk, for example.

Do you honestly think there should be no rules and regulations regarding driving a vehicle? That it is such an absolute right that anyone should be able to do so however they wish with NO regard to the safety of others?

[Book Lover]

100. Did you see my initial response in this thread?

I not only agree that it ought to be mandatory to wear a belt, it ought to be mandatory to be a 5-point belt.

[Pithlet]

104. I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I was only responding to your post

that driving is a right. I'm glad that you agree on the seatbelt issue :) I do believe, however, in the statement that driving is not an absolute right, which is what I thought you were arguing with the other poster. I'm sorry I misunderstood.

That is really my problem with the anti-seatbelt argument that claims it is an infringement on rights. While I may not agree with it, there are understandable arguments that the law isn't necessary. But the argument that it takes away our freedom is, to me, silly. The people who argue that they always wear their seat belts and think it's the smart thing to do but oppose the law anyway because of some weird idea that our cars are personal extensions of ourselves rubs me the wrong way, and I get a bit strident.

[Book Lover]

106. No, we're still missing each other here

I do support the unreserved right of people to drive, ride a horse, run, skateboard, surf, operate a boat or other watercraft, etc, etc. However, (and I'm sure to the consternation of folks who may see this as contradictory to my pledge stance) I'm not going to fight over this point because the safety point is bigger than the one we're discussing. :shake hands:

[Pithlet]

109. You're right

I don't understand.

[Sandpiper]

36. Not to mention

Every dollar that is squandered on medical care is a dollar that could have gone toward a new B2 Bomber or Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. First Principles

We all pay taxes so don't you think it's selfish to make everybody's taxes go up because you refused to wear your seat belts, got in an accident and got "superfuckedup"...

[pitohui]

46. wearing a seat belt is what makes the rates go up, actually

if you're dead, you're dead, dude

it's the person who survives who costs many thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands

my mom was wearing a seatbelt in an accident & i'm very glad she did, as she made a full recovery

however, as far as $$$ cost, the reality is that a funeral is 10 grand but reconstructing her face & body cost the insurer 100 grand

so your argument abt costs is quite, quite bogus

NOT wearing a seat belt can be the much cheaper choice

it totally depends on the accident

[Pithlet]

52. LOL

:)

[calico1]

33. I would agree with a "no"

if there were a way to require non users to sign some kind of waiver where they give up their right to sue, collect early Social Security or Disability payments, etc. or do anything else which would result in higher insurance rates or tax burdens on the rest of us. The problem is as the law stands now, it does affect the rest of us when a non seatbelt user gets in an accident.

[Horse with no Name]

128. But that would affect families who didn't have the choice

A widow with small kids that had a stupid husband shouldn't be punished and her kids shouldn't be made to suffer because he made poor decisions.
That's just my opinion.

[calico1]

131. Hmmm... I did not think of that.

You are right. Its a difficult issue no matter how you look at it I guess.

[Pithlet]

35. That makes sense

Write laws that will plunge people and their families into debt and ruin countless lives to avoid making people do something that takes a second and makes a nifty little clicking sound. That benefits society.

[Justice]

136. I would like a law that says lose right to sue

In MA you cannot be stopped for not wearing one. If you are stopped for something else and aren't wearing one - you can be cited. Big Whoop.

They should be mandated. Not only would it save lives, it would save money.

[Guaranteed]

145. Here in IL they're discussing it.

Personally, I totally agree with that idea.

Non-seatbelt-wearers who get totally messed up in car accidents are able to get big settlement bucks, even though it was mostly their fault that they got so badly hurt, after car accidents. It's ridiculous. But, at present, that's the law.

There is talk of changing it, though.

[mntleo2]

15. It Is Smart To Use Seat belts But....

...we are adults and we know this already. We do not need a freakin' law to make us, like most of us are "too dumb" to wear one.

This is just another way for insurance companies to raise our rates if we are caught without wearing one, as well as another way to raise revenues for our police departments (which I think PDs need, but there are other ways to get money, if our greedy rich would quit freeloading and actually pay taxes). Getting a ticket means insurance companies can come after us for paying more for our already-mandatory insurance payments. Paying mandatory insurance is one of the most ridiculous laws around. Now we "get" to pay a company money for refusing to offer the services they are being paid to give.

I do think it is very important to make kids wear seatbelt, but again most parents would do this anyway. Sheesh

Cat In Seattle

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Until recently I did not, but

I heard a really good explanation for them. If you are in an relatively minor accident and not wearing a seatbelt, there is much higher risk that you will be injured enough so that you will not be able to control you vehicle. If you cannot control your vehicle, you are more likely to hurt someone else.

[Pithlet]

29. Declining to wear a seatbelt can and does affect others.

You're absolutely right. It's not like we're being made to wear one while we're sitting at home watching American Idol. The second it takes to click before you drive or ride in a car is not such an imposition that risking others makes it worth it to allow people to choose not to do so. No personal freedoms are being violated, here.

[OhioChick]

22. Yes, Definitely.

What about those who ride motorcycles? Shouldn't they have a mandatory law requiring them to wear a helmet?

[Fatima]

121. There are mandatory helmet laws

in most states, including the one I live in. However, feelings about them are mixed. I don't mind them but they can get heavy and hot. I wear a full-face in winter and a shorty in summer.

What I do mind are cage drivers and their love affair with the cell phone.

[OhioChick]

138. Not sure what the helmet laws (if any)

are here. It ticks me off though, to see my neighbor flying down the street......on his motorcycle with no helmet, with his 4 year old daughter hanging on the back of him. (No helmet on her, either) I hear you on the cellphone issues.

[Horse with no Name]

27. The only good thing that comes out of not wearing a seatbelt

is that if you are an organ donor, then someone else can use your organs.

[walldude]

28. I didn't used to, but about 9 months ago

a truck lost it's retread in front of me, it flew up towards my windshield, when I swerved to avoid it I hit a soft shoulder and my truck rolled 3 times. If I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt I'd probably be dead.

[bunkerbuster1]

31. You shouldn't have to wear them

if you're driving on your own private property, I guess.

On a publicly funded road, damn straight you should be required to wear them.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. I Voted No, But. . .

. . .there are a couple of analytical reasons.

First of all, i don't support any intrusion into personal choice, that does not directly(!) harm others or their property. Now, i ALWAYS wear mine and have since the day i started learning to drive. So, i have made personal choice to wear one.

But, that being said, i'm fully aware of the argument that others pay the medical bills, etc. So, my analytical side looks into the data regarding such accidents, which can be found on the SAUS database.

Turns out that there is no evidence that the costs are really transferrable to the rest of us. IOW, there isn't any sound statistical evidence that you and i pay any more in premiums because some people are silly enough to drive without a seatbelt. In fact, given the high proportion of fatalities that result from accidents in which the victim was not wearing a seatbelt, and the fact that >50% of these accidents are caused by that same person, the medical costs incurred by the insurance firms is actually reduced! I know that sounds harsh, and i don't mean it to be, but in fact, insurance companies spend LESS in total medical benefits to those people who don't wear seat belts.

So, the law is not saving society money. It may save some families some pain, and that's not a bad thing, by any description. But, the law doesn't MAKE people wear their belts. People make that choice anyway. If that wasn't the truth, there would be no accidents at all in which someone wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The law is extant and some people make the personal choice to ignore it!

The law currently provides the police with another revenue stream and gives gov't one more excuse to ignore on the 4th ammendment. Now, we can be stopped to see IF we're wearing a belt. If we are, we have just been forced to prove our innocence, which is anathema to the basic premise of our justice system.

I am opposed to these laws in the abstract. And, the data seem to suggest that they are not accomplishing the task they claim, and are eroding rights. Those two reasons are plenty for me to oppose them.
The Professor

[Qibing Zero]

42. Great post - agreed completely. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Thanks - eom

The Professor

[Pithlet]

54. It does directly affect others

It is not true that it is a personal choice that directly affects no one. You can become a missile in the car and a danger to others, for instance.

But, even if the above weren't true, the argument that it is better to allow people to acquire millions of dollars of medical bills and suffer grave bodily injury or death in order to avoid making people take a second to click on a seatbelt or face a fine makes no sense.

[Qibing Zero]

68. News flash - your seatbelt doesn't save you from all harm.

In fact, in a severe accident, it may save you from death, but I think you're going to have a much greater sum of medical bills than if you weren't wearing one and were dead instead.

The only real argument I see for seat belt laws is for protecting people from themselves, and I just don't believe the government should do that in the form of laws or fines.

[Pithlet]

69. Newsflash

Failing to wear a seatbelt doesn't just affect you. It does endanger others as well. It is demonstrably so.

But, more to the point, the idea that our cars are an extension of our homes and that the personal freedoms we enjoy there extend to our cars is false. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to be fined for reckless driving for reading a newspaper while driving. When you are driving your car on public roads, you are bound by local and state laws to certain rules. Just because you think it's unnecessary doesn't make it an infringement on personal rights. I do happen to think it is a good law, but even if I didn't, while I would disagree with it, I couldn't claim that it is a personal infringement because I'm not being forced to wear a seatbelt.

[Qibing Zero]

72. By that logic,

I shouldn't be allowed to drive at all because I could possibly, if the conditions were right, endanger someone else. Also, I shouldn't be allowed to have anything in my car that isn't tied down, because of the off chance that those things could become missles as well.

Look, not wearing a seatbelt does not affect your performance driving a car negatively in any way shape or form. You could even argue that it could actually improve your chances of avoiding an accident in the first place. How is someone who is not wearing their seatbelt directly harming others?

Now, I personally happen to think not wearing a seatbelt is not too smart, but I really don't care if the guy next to me is or not. His kid, on the other hand, is a different story.

This just reminds me of all the arguments people bring up against drug use, and how they say 'well it's not just you, it affects everyone around you!'. Yes, well so does every facet of my existance, and even my non-existance if I were to die. So where do we draw the line?

[Pithlet]

85. No

The logic doesn't follow to that conclusion at all. Because telling someone they'll get a fine if they don't wear a seatbelt and telling someone they can't drive AT ALL have two very different consequences. Of course everyone would be safer if they didn't drive at all, but enacting such a rule for everyone would be such a grave impediment to daily life that it doesn't make it worth enacting. Fining people who don't wear a seatbelt, however, does no such thing. All it does is take away a second of a person's life they'll never get back. The law actually CAN tell you you can't drive if your infractions are bad enough. Drive drunk too many times, and they'll certainly revoke your ability to drive legally.

No, not wearing a seatbelt does not affect performance while driving, as long as an accident isn't occurring. If car accidents never happened, there would be no reason to enact seatbelt laws. In fact, seat belts probably wouldn't exist. But, accidents do happen, and frequently. And in an accident where your car is still moving and operable immediately afterwords, which is very possible, if you're a missile darting around your car getting knocked unconscious, or if one of the passengers in your car is one who knocks you unconscious, then you become an additional danger. Not to mention all the less direct ways your decision impacts people.

[Qibing Zero]

93. Here is your argument in a nutshell:

You can afford to sacrifice a little freedom for your own safety and perhaps, in rare circumstances that may or may not ever happen, the safety of others. Don't worry! It's not a big deal because it's not a drastic change to your daily life, so you should be okay with not only wearing the seatbelt, but the fact that if you don't do it, you can be fined.

This is a great argument for wearing a seatbelt, but a horrible argument for legislation. I just can't commit myself to legislating issues where the main argument for them is convience. The world's a dangerous place.

[Pithlet]

98. That's not my argument at all.

Because I do not believe that facing a fine for not putting on a seatbelt in a moving car is infringing on my freedoms. I'm NOT free to do whatever the hell I want to in a moving car the way I pretty much should be able to do in my own home, becaue my actions in the car can affect others. Make me wear a seatbelt on my couch? Freedom issue. Make me wear one in a car on a public road? Not a freedom issue.

THAT is my argument. And your argument that this is merely a convenience issue falls apart when considering that the decision can affect other people.

[Qibing Zero]

107. So it's now a property issue?

Let's recap. You say:

-Seatbelt laws should be enforced because of the off chance you may become a human projectile and end up causing even more trouble
-Seatbelt laws do not infringe upon personal freedoms because you're on a public road


I say:

-It's beyond silly to legislate on this fact alone, because you might as well legislate that you should not be allowed to have any objects over a certain weight in your car, unless they are tied down. There are thousands of potentially more dangerous situations to think about before this.
-Last I checked, your personal freedoms were not all limited to the privacy of your own home. Hell, even in my own home I can't do a lot of things that don't harm other people. Also - why don't I have to wear a seatbelt in a bus? Perhaps if we were talking about having sex in a car this would be an issue, but it's not.

So...

[Pithlet]

113. No

I'm not really arguing for seatbelt laws, although I agree with them. I'm arguing AGAINST the notion that it is a rights issue. I understand, even if I may not agree, with the arguments against seatbelt laws that come from a necessity standpoint, which is the type of argument the projectile argument is.

I hope this clarifies my position. I may not argue in favore of a law that limits the objects in your car and tying them down, etc. I'd probably argue against it depending on how restrictive. I would NOT argue, however, that it is a rights issue. I think arguing that position from a rights standpoint is pointless. Argue it from a It's-Ridiculous-And-Unnecessary standpoint.

In an nutshell: If a law is passed that prevents you from doing something that has direct negative consequences on others, be it in your car, in your home, or on the street, then the personal freedom argument doesn't apply. Note I'm not saying it isn't okay to disagree with that law. But you can't argue for personal freedoms that harm other people. Otherwise it's Big L Libertarian claptrap. You can argue that the law is unnecessary, or the restrcitions outweigh the benefits, or even that it is unnecessarily restrictive. But no one should have an absolute right to do anything that can harm other people. You know, the whole "your right to swing your fist..." thing.

[Qibing Zero]

115. That's the gist of it

It's unnecessarily restrictive, and we live in a society that works to uphold as many freedoms as possible (or at least claims to). You'll notice not once did I claim rights, but freedom instead.

The problem comes in your definition of 'directly harming other people'. You have to draw a line somewhere, because every action you take can potentially harm other people. Not wearing a seatbelt is not the direct cause, the fact an accident happened in the first place is. You could then say, 'but in certain cases, not wearing a seatbelt caused even more problems', but like I said, where do you draw the line? Are you going to legislate against having fireworks in your car because they caused additional harm after an accident in a few instances?

[Pithlet]

116. I think it can be argued

that enough car accidents happen that seatbelt laws are not unreasonable. Of course you have to draw the line somewhere. I do believe that there absolutely has to be a reason to restrict things. Laws shouldn't be passed just for the hell of it. Too many unecessary laws that restrict us in a bunch of petty ways would be awful. I'm certainly not advocating that. If, indeed, failure to wear a seatbelt posed no danger to others, then I would absolutely be agasinst such a law. It would be an unnecessry restriction. But, I do think that the pro-seatbelt law side of the argument has demonstrated that the benefits to the restriction outweigh the imposition that such a restriction poses.

In otherwords, putting on your seatbelt isn't such an imposition that it justifies leaving off a law that WILL save lives. I do wear my seatbelt anyway. I just don't think that my "right" to decide that is worth all the lives, all the heartache, all the bills, all the taxpayers money, that it costs to NOT have the law. Does that make sense? Those that say "To hell with all the people that will die, I want to have the choice to do something I was going to do anyway?" I don't understand that.

[Qibing Zero]

118. I'm not sure who all these people who die are

Are you talking about others who die, or the people not wearing their own seatbelts?

Also - what do you think about the fact officers can (and do) use this as a reason to pull over people on speculation? That presents itself a whole load of problems.

[Pithlet]

119. The people who die in car accidents because of lack of seatbelt use

whether their own or someone else's. I just don't think that my right to drive without a seatbelt is more important than them.

Look. If the requirement to put on a seatbelt was a big deal. If it cost extra money. If it took 20 minutes to do. If seat belts only came on expensive models. If they drained the life force out of you. I'd rethink my position. But; Reach Down. Pull Across. Click. All modern cars have them. Why on earth is that such a big deal that fining someone who doesn't do that is such an imposition to people, most of whom would probably already do it anyway? Really, the argument against them seems to just boil down to "don't tell me what to do!". Well, you're told what to do every day. We all are. Get over it, and buckle the damn seat belt. Not you you, general you, of course. More people have buckled up since these laws have been enacted, and lives have been saved. To me, the reasonable response to lives saved is "Yay! Lives saved". Not "Don't tell me what to do! I was going to buckle up anyway, but Don't force me to do it!" Gah...

I do not believe that officers should use this law as a reason to pull over people. I think that is wrong, and any police officer found to be abusing such a law should be punished.

[ProfessorGAC]

140. Elucidate Please

You did nothing to dissuade me. You just used your opinion to rationalize your opinion. I used facts to support mine. You don't have to change your mind, but to suggest that my opinion, supported by the facts, makes no sense, is simply obtuse.

Instead of just supporting your opinion with the pre-existing opinion, YOU make some sense. Also, explain to me where i said it was "better". You will, if you read carefully, notice i ALWAYS wear a seatbelt. I made that personal choice to protect myself.

BTW: I would appreciate you finding some FACTS that support your missile theory.
The Professor

[wildhorses]

81. I concur

and thank you for stating this analytically and using facts instead of raw emotion to justify your decision. I work in the ER so I know what happens first hand with and without seatbelts. Living "vegetables" are more expensive to society than corpses. I don't mean to sound coldhearted but, facts are facts.

[pitohui]

39. why are we fighting abt this

mandatory seat belt laws are to extract revenue

ppl die just as good strapped in as when not wearing seat belts

for a time our local newspaper got on a kick, they were going to publish whether or not the person dead in the auto accident was wearing seat belts

it being the area where it is, EVERYONE who died in an auto accident was wearing her seat belt

it became an embarrassment & they quietly dropped the policy
i too "feel it should be your choice whether you want to be killed in an accident or not," certainly, if the choice was permanent paralysis or death, i would choose death

unfortunately god or fate does not agree that it should be my choice

it's random, there are ppl dead who wore seatbelts, there are ppl paralyzed who wish they had died & forever regret wearing the seatbelts

if the choice was real, if we could guarantee that wearing a seatbelt meant we would only have injuries from which we could fully recover, everyone would be in agreement & there wouldn't be a problem

unfortunately the world is as it is
there are no guarantees in life

so it ain't worth fighting abt

[LostinVA]

45. How does this extract revenue?

Am not flaming you, I'm really just curious.

[pitohui]

50. $85 click it or ticket

don't you have a teevee set?

you get caught driving w.out a seatbelt anywhere in the lower 48, you pay

BIG TIME

[Yupster]

110. Kaching

My wife just got caught for her $ 85 driving from my office to home which is all of two blocks.

I gave a lecture to the idiotic cop and then his apologetic sargeant who I demanded to see in my office.

They put my wife's health at risk for their $ 75.

It did however get me out of jury duty as the assistant DA asked me if I had any problems with the police and would I hold it against them.

Only that they didn't care whether my wife lived or died just as long as they got their $ 75 got me thrown out of the jury pool.

[Pithlet]

51. I agree

It's not worth fighting about if a person doesn't understand physics. People who don't understand it are excused from this argument.

[pitohui]

57. i have a degree in physics

do you

[Pithlet]

58. I do! n/t

[pitohui]

61. then we're all in agreement here

there is no law of physics that sez god has to run the world the way i would run it

now if only the clueless would figure it out

[Pithlet]

62. There is also no law of physics

that says laws aren't allowed. There are no laws of physics that say you have the absolute right to do whatever you want while driving or riding in a car.

[mvd]

47. For personal use..

I only support regulation of things like drugs created by the pharmaceutical companies and the most dangerous street drugs. And to a degree, guns. I don't consider seat belts my business. I say no, but there are definitely more laws to be concerned about than seat belt laws.

[cynatnite]

53. Absolutely!

I've seen what happens to too many people who didn't wear them and the fines should be higher when they don't buckle their kids in.

Even if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt doesn't mean they deserve to get in an accident.

Getting killed is a strong possibility, but most of the patients I've seen who didn't wear their seatbelt had traumatic brain injury which required years of rehabilitation and even then, few ever completely recover. It's devestating not to just themselves, but to their families who are left to care for their loved one for the long term.

I see little reason not to require seatbelts. For those who are looking at this from a financial standpoint, think of how much money can be saved when someone wears their seatbelt.

[GreenArrow]

56. why not make everything mandatory?

Legislate all dangerous behaviours. Legislate standing under a tree during a lightning storm.

Sickening paternalism.

[Sandpiper]

59. Things like this are what make us get tagged with...

The "Nanny State" label.

Legislating behavior for "their own good."

[GreenArrow]

66. exactly

nanny state rules for babies, a mandating of virtually every single aspect of a person's life. It's all part and parcel of the "ownership society."

[Pithlet]

67. If that were the reason behind seatbelt laws

You would have a point.

And we should definitely worry about what everyone else thinks of us. Let's not do anything that might upset people of a different political ideology. In fact, let's just become like they are. It's easier that way. :sarcasm: I'm sorry, but I hate the "It Makes Us Look Bad" argument. Generally speaking, if a law is right, then a law is right, opposition be damned. After all, opposing the DAMA makes us look bad to many. Should we have abandoned opposition to it? It's a weak argument.

[Sandpiper]

117. Self-delete

[Guaranteed]

144. Nuh-uh. Not this one.

I know exactly what you're saying, but this- THIS issue- is total, common sense. This law is justified and needed.

There are NO valid arguments against wearing a seatbelt.

Doing COCAINE has better justifications than not wearing a seatbelt.

Why people argue over this, I have no clue.

[Pithlet]

65. Of course we shouldn't legislate standing under a tree

during a lightening storm, unless you're doing so while driving a car. In that case, it would be too much of a distraction, and I think it should be illegal. It also shouldn't be illegal to sleep in my own bed, but I wouldn't extend that to my car. I don't think I should be able to sleep while driving a car. And, I definitely don't think I should be forced to wear a seatbelt while sitting on my couch. But, I do not extend that to driving a car, because my failure to do so can harm others. Because if my actions can have consequences to others, then it it is no longer just my own personal business.

How is a law requiring the use of a seatbelt any more paternalistic than one requiring you to look out the windows while driving? Failing to do either one can have consequences to others.

[GreenArrow]

70. how is it paternalistic?

Because it treats people like property, statistics, and children.

It's not possible to drive safely without looking out the window, but it is possible to drive safely without a seatbelt.

Educate people to the safety aspects of seat belts, encourage their use, but draw the line at legislating it. However, if the powers that be want to ensure that people wear their seat belts, they can insist that all new vehicles made be made with some sort of anti-start mechanism that prevents the car from starting when safety belts are unlatched. Of course, it's easier to impinge upon individuals than it is to impinge on corporations.

[Pithlet]

76. Aha

Reading a paper while driving and not wearing a seatbelt do indeed pose different levels of risk. That is why one is deemed reckless driving while the other is not. I certainly wouldn't advocate making driving/riding without a seatbelt on par with driving recklessly. Most laws, to my knowledge, don't.

It's perfectly understandable to think that the law treats people the way you say. But, because you feel that way doesn't mean the law is absolutely wrong. Because you think it's paternalistic doesn't mean the reasons behind the law are paternalistic. Whether you agree with it or not, there are arguable reasons to enact fines against people who choose not to wear a seatbelt, because in making that choice they ARE endangering others as well as themselves. Put another way, if you were correct, and choosing not to wear a seatbelt in absolutely no way affects anyone but yourself, then I would be more inclined to agree that it is paternalistic. But the very fact that it can and DOES affect others removes that, unless you think it is also paternalistic to tell someone that can't do anything that may harm others.

And, paternalism aside, no one in this thread has demonstrated to me how it is an impingement on individual rights to tell someone they will get a fine if they don't wear a seatbelt while driving or riding in a car. Because a car is not an extension of ourselves, and it is not our domicile. Therefore, rules can apply that wouldn't otherwise. Which is why I brought up reading a paper. Edited to remove editing orphan.

[GreenArrow]

120. what exactly are the reasons behind the law/s?

As best as I can determine they are a) money making schemes, or b) paternalistic in nature, i.e., we know better than you do what's good for you. People must be saved from themselves.

The mere act of wearing a seat belt does not make one a better or safer driver. It does not make one more or less likely to be involved in an accident. Simply not wearing a seat belt does not in and of itself endanger drivers of other vehicles; wearing the safety belt accords a measure of security to the person wearing it only. I fail to see how not wearing a safety belt endangers anyone other than the one who chooses not to wear it.

[Qibing Zero]

114. Remember that old time travel theory about stepping on a blade of grass?

ALL of your actions have consequences on others. You have no personal business. ;)

[Zodiak]

77. I call it....

"safety nazis".

I really think that the some of the left's obsession with nanny-state policy hurts us in elections...big time!

I know a lot of people in Texas who STILL are mad at Democrats for the safety belt and helmet laws.

[PatriotMom]

88. If you appear not to be wearing a seat belt even if you are..

the police can stop you ask a million questions, get every thing including your finger prints in some states, all because they didn't see the seat belt you were wearing, or so they said. Another tactic for invading your privacy and putting you in some data base you were not in before. Tin foil hat time or not?:tinfoilhat: :shrug:

[The Gunslinger]

63. My car ,my choice

It hurts no one else. This is just a money maker for the police and the insurance companies. The Police need to stop violent crimes instead of setting up speed traps and seat belt road blocks that do nothing but generate a buck for themselves.


I always click it though.

[wildhorses]

83. me too

it shold be a choice not a mandate but I choose to click it

[Mr_Spock]

64. Yes, but only for children.

They are my responsibility. I am my responsibility and I will not be told by the government to wear a seatbelt. I wear it because I want to.

[DS1]

71. Absolutely

[msrbly]

74. Absolutely not

Mandatory seatbelt laws are the work of the insurance company lobby. It is my choice to wear a seatbelt or not. If my own insurance rates go up because I choose not to then I will suffer. Where do we draw the line? Someday will the sunscreen police check each of us as we step outside to make she we put on our sunscreen? Surely if everyone wore sunscreen incidents of skin cancer would decrease and all of society would benefit (but none more than the insurance companies). It's time that big businesses stopped writing our laws.

[Greyhound]

96. Hear, Hear...

[Meatwad]

75. No. Not for adults.

It should me my choice whether or not I want to be killed in a car accident. I know the dangers of not wearing a safety belt.

[Book Lover]

78. Yes, but make them 5-point belts

I like fast cars and fast driving, and I *always* wear my belt. I will say unreservedly that you all should, too.

[Meatwad]

79. No.

I think there are more important laws to enforce than seatbelt laws.

[MarsThe Cat]

82. Mandatory Helmet Laws for Motorcyclists.

Any state that DOESN'T have Mandatory Helmet Laws, Has NO BUSINESS enacting/enforcing mandatory seatbelt laws...(I'm looking at YOU, Illinois!)

that being said-
I favor both- mandatory seatbelts(for cars/trucks) AND Mandatory Helmets(for motorcyclists)

[slackmaster]

84. When driving on public roads, absolutely Yes.

Driving on public roads is a privilege and subject to reasonable conditions. The public health costs from people who are injured in traffic accidents justifies stringent car safety standards and compulsory seat belts IMO.

[Hello_Kitty]

86. Wearing a seatbelt enables the driver to have better control

of the vehicle in a collision or near-collision. Therefore, wearing a seatbelt could possibly save others. That's the standard for me. As for adult passengers, I'm more inclined to think they should have the choice. But I would encourage everyone to wear them, regardless of the law. Seatbelts are proven to save lives.

[newscott]

87. Definitely for children

The rest of you are on your own.

Oh, and thanks for the organs.

[titoresque]

91. NO! n/t

[Greyhound]

95. No, because it's just used by insurance companies to continue their

enforced scam. I am personally against everything the insurance bastards are in favor of.
Just wait until you see what they do to the Katrina victims. :grr:

[TahitiNut]

97. Require the equipment, not it's use - except for children.

I'm against the criminalization 'victimless' acts. Period.

Product safety is about ensuring the product CAN BE USED in a safe/safer manner, and driver's education shows HOW, but the only victim is the person who makes the choice.

Unemancipated persons (children) should be required to use seatbelts as long as they're not able to obtain their own drivers license. A drivers license should be 'emancipation' from the requirement.

[sweet_cobun]

99. No for adults, yes for children

Adults can choose whether they want to wear one or not, but they ought to have to belt in their children until they're old enough to really make an informed decision.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Absolutely. It saves lives.

Only idiots drive without seatbelts which should disqualify them from driving at all.

[GreenArrow]

126. I think that it's safe to assume

that there are plenty of idiots who drive with seatbelts. Simply wearing a seat belt doesn't make one a good driver.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

139. Well, I would prefer that the idiots wear seatbelts.

No doubt you're right. I see seatbelted idiots driving without their lights on rainy, foggy, days; idiots who are too lazy to use their turn signals; and a whole new breed of idiots yakking on cellphones.

[GreenArrow]

148. "too lazy to use their turn signals"

Yeah, that's a REAL pet peeve of mine. It's just common courtesy. FWIW, there is no shortage of idiots just about anywhere you care to look.

[meow2u3]

103. Yes. They're based on the laws of physics

We move as fast as the vehicle we're in is moving. When the vehicle stops suddenly, the occupants do not; they're still moving as fast as the car was going. The occupants, therefore, will end up catapulting out of their seats, and the lighter you are, the sooner you'll go flying. Seatbelts stop this by restraining the body.

[LincolnMcGrath]

108. "and the lighter you are, the sooner you'll go flying"

Are you sure about that?

[jmowreader]

112. A seat belt kept me OUT of a crash

I was driving down one of the back roads around here doing 55. I was about 100 feet from the entrance to a gas station and saw a semi sitting there getting ready to pull out onto the road. When I got to about 80 feet from the gas station, the dumbass driving the semi decided this was the perfect opportunity to pull out. Oh shit. I just got out of the gas, whipped into the first entrance road, coasted to the second entrance road, went back out on the road, got back on the gas and went on my merry way. (Helpful hint: if this happens to you, stay out of the brakes.) When I washed up later that night, I noticed that I had bruises where the seat belt went across me and some bruises on my left arm. Apparently the forces were so great that they slammed me into the door when I turned into the gas station and into the seat belt when I turned toward the second entrance road. But because the seat belt kept me in place, I didn't lose control of the car.

[B Calm]

122. Insurance companies lobbied for this law. That point alone

makes me ill!

[Loge23]

123. who cleans you up?

Not only is irresponsible public behavior a potential drain on tax dollars, it also frequently results in a public employee cleaning up the mess - and not wearing a seat belt in a car, or a helmet on a motorcycle is irresponsible behavior.
I'm no fan of more laws, but some laws are in place because many people are basically idiots who have no idea how their actions affect others: take the moron in front of me today who chose to throw her cigarette pack wrapper out of her car window.
Virtually every fatal accident that I hear of involves drivers/passengers who did not wear a seatbelt. A simple measure that probably would have saved a life - and saved a firefighter/cop/paramedic/passing motorist some serious horror.

[SammyBlue]

124. Not at all. . .keep the police out of my car

And out of my life without probable cause.

[Deja Q]

125. You missed the option where you end up WORSE THAN DEAD.

[B Calm]

127. I'm also against random drug testing at work. What the hell I do

on my own damn time, is of no business to my employer!

[jzodda]

129. I do agree with them: although I never wear mine

I realize it helps save lives

but I do not like wearing it and refuse to do so most times. Just because its more comfortable to not have it on. If I ever get a ticket I will just pay it and then continue to not wear it :)

[RC]

130. For all of you that think that seat belt use be mandatory...

Walt Disney, back in the late 50's when he was setting up his original Disney land in CA. did some research on how fast to let his bumper cars go before the risk of injury. The speed was something like 7 1/2 miles per hour.

So to save 10's of thousands of lives each year, the speed limit should be a governor controlled 7 mph everywhere, even in our interstate system. :sarcasm:

http://www.hiddenmickeys.org/Disneyland/Secrets/Tomorrow/Autopia.html

[Guaranteed]

143. Problem is that there is practical reason to go faster than 7.5 MPH.

There's no practical reason not to wear your seatbelt.

The arguments against this law just bite on granite. It's STUPID not to wear your seatbelt. It is SO easy, and there is just NO reason not to. And combined with the possibility of flying through the windshield?

Gimme a break. Wear the damned seatbelt. The law is totally appropriate.

[TheCowsCameHome]

132. Yes. And if you don't use them, sign a waiver with your insurance

carrier that absolves them of any responsibility for payment if you get launched thru the windshield because you were too "independent" to buckle up.

If you're too damn lazy to buckle up then be prepared to foot the medical bills that you unnecessarily saddle the rest of us with.

[flvegan]

133. I do. Sure, it's the driver's right to choose to possibly

die in an accident by refusing to wear one. I however, don't want their death on my conscience, regardless of whose fault the wreck was.

[baldguy]

135. When your behavior effects me, then the govt should regulate it.

If fewer people use seat belts, more people die in auto accidents, insurance rates go up and *I* pay more.

[msrbly]

141. Silly logic.

Everything I do effects others around me. Whether I brush my teeth in the morning effects you (If I don't my teeth might fall out and I might suffer from other health related consequences causing your insurance rates to go up). Whether I have unprotected sex tonight effects you (if I get an STD or get pregnant, the cost will be your problem not mine, I don't have insurance or a well paying job). Whether I eat ice cream or broccoli for dinner effects you (Lord knows how the obese are a drain on our health care system). All of these decisions and more effect you in some way. Where do we draw the line.

Taking it to another level . . . What if I decide I'm not too keen on working and get myself fired. Now I have no job and no insurance (one problem solved - I don't have a car so my lack of a seatbelt is no longer your problem). Now who pays my bills (at least for a few months). Who puts food on my table. The government can't make people work just because "my behavior" effects you. Stop using this logic to justify mandatory seatbelt laws. Find something else and make sure it makes sense before you say it.

[baldguy]

146. Nothing silly about it.

This reasoning allows individual freedoms in a pluralistic society. When individuals act against the interests of society at large, then govt should act to curtail those actions - when its murder, the police & justice system steps in to punish the guilty. For the unemployed, there's unemployment insurance & job training available. For personal hygiene, primary school education & public service ads should be enough.

Trying to get people to act responsibly isn't a fascist plot, just common sense.

Stop using your personal freedom as an excuse for anti-social behavior. Being free doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.

[msrbly]

147. I apologize and respectfully disagree.

You cannot take away personal choice in the name of "acting responsibly" Everything I do and say is a personal choice, if it hurts you financially, you have to remember that some choices I make benefit you. Humans, for the most part, act in their own best interest. John Locke believed that my own best interests are also in the best interests of society. You have to allow individuals to make their own choices and have faith that those choices will benefit you and not harm you.

I have never been in an automobile accident. I have never needed my seatbelt. I don't know what statistics say about this but since I personally drive about 5 miles a day at about 25 miles an hour I doubt, statistically, a seatbelt will ever save my life (and save you money). On the other hand, I do brush my teeth because I will suffer immediate and not pleasant consequences if I don't. I have protected sex because although I have a job and insurance I don't really want an STD or to become pregnant at this point in my life. I also didn't eat ice cream for dinner because I prefer being healthier. This is how society works out personal decisions. You are being led artificially by insurance companies who should never be dictating what decisions society or individuals make. I apologize for my use of the word "silly" to describe your logic. You are right, there is nothing "silly" about this. I believe it is very serious and impacts numerous aspects of our lives. As a side note, when I asked my democratic senator why she voted in favor of the recent bankruptcy act, she said she believed it was necessary to teach society about personal responsibility. When my governments starts taking on the role of parent to teach me responsibility, I get very frightened. Again you have my apologies, this is a serious matter.

[kentuck]

137. And everyone should be required to wear a red or blue hat....

So we will know if they are worth living after an accident...

[Guaranteed]

142. Absolutely. That people should be wearing their seat belts is so absurdly

obvious, and so easy to carry out when getting in the car, with the consequences of people not wearing them being so devastating, that the law is totally justified.

There's no reason to even bother with the individual civil liberties stuff on this. Forget it.

It's just a no-brainer. Put on your fucking seatbelt, idiot. ESPECIALLY on your kids.

[AllyCat]

149. Do not agree with "social cost" argument. However, I voted yes b/c

other unbelted bodies in the car will injure other passengers or the driver. I do not agree with helmet laws for motorcycles, horsebackriding, bicycles (if there is such a thing), etc. etc, but I always wear one.

An unbelted rider in a car is lethal to others in the vehicle and getting thrown from the car might cause a hazard to other motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists.

Yes! to seatbelt laws for ALL passengers, not just those in the front seat. And for children? ALWAYS!

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

150. they'll always be mandatory in my car.