UPDATE x2: Could someone show me why I'm wrong?

[AtomicKitty]

There is one argument people keep bringing up that you keep ignoring: The danger you are to others.

Let's do some simple maths to comment on the video linked earlier :
Assume the boy weight 70kg (~154 pounds). A standard adult.
Assume the car drives at 50km/h (~31 mph), which is around 14 meter per second. The maximum speed allowed in town in most western europe.

The Kinetic energy the boys has when the car stops brutally is : 1/2 * mass * speed²
So in this case : 1/2 * 70 * 14 *14 = 6860 Joule

This energy is equivalent to a mass of 700 kg (~1543 lbs) falling from a distance of 1m (~39 inches).

So the impact this boy has on his mother is roughly the same as if a cow fell on her neck from 39 inches. A neck would definitely not be strong enough. By not fastening his seat belt, he is a danger to the person sitting in front of him.

A standard windshield would obviously break, too, so this guy is also a danger to persons around.

Notice that the energy is linked to the square of the speed. These values are correct if the car crashes against a solid, immoveable object. If you double the speed, the energy would be 4 times as much.

So on a highway (if I remember correctly, american highways are limited at around 65 mph), it would be like a BIG truc falling on your neck.

Let's now imagine a frontal crash between 2 cars, face to face ...

 

[dwightsteel]

Every law is an infringement on our freedoms.
We still need them for our society to work.
Where to draw the line? More difficult to answer.
Whatever the actual answer may be, it's not at "seatbelts".

A lot of people, myself included, would debate that freedoms are afforded to us through our social contract. Most people don't consider the the freedom to kill someone a legitimate freedom. Freedoms are concepts that we as a society of human beings decided upon, in a sort of unwritten code of conduct. Certain conflicts we outlaw for the sake of the preservation of humanity as a species. Things like seat belt laws are frivolous pieces of legislation that are meant to look like socially conscious and well meaning rules, but the truth of it is, they are scapegoats for police officers to be able to pull you over without having to trip over themselves with "probable cause".

A few years prior to the enactment of the seat belt laws, Police Departments across the country were ordered to outfit their vehicles with cameras, in part to protect themselves from people claiming police brutality, but in big part because not only were cops beating people up, but they were pulling people over for no discernible reason (though the fact is that many departments receive less funding if things like traffic violations plummet. It's true folks, your police departments have quotas to fill). In response to this, buckling your seat belt became a law. A few years later, Police Officers were given permission to stop cars if they believed that seatbelts weren't being worn. Effectively, all a police officer has to do to pull over your vehicle is claim that he, in passing, did not believe that you were "buckled up". If you've ever watched a reality television show that features footage from the camera's in police vehicles, you'll know that as far as camera's go, they aren't much better than a security camera, and can't by any means tell whether a driver was buckled up. In other words, the legitimacy of the pull over is all on the honesty of the officer.

If this doesn't bug you, then I implore you to talk to one of your local police departments detectives. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the mantra of the court system, not law enforcement. For those of you who have never been interrogated by a police officer, they will go out of their way to coax you in to incriminating yourself. I could go on all day about the psychological games that the police use, from the intimidation that Beat Cops are literally dressed to instill, or from the comfort zones new interrogation rooms are designed with to loosen up suspects.

People who wish to use their seatbelts for their own protection should do so. But the fact of the matter is, that seatbelt laws are merely a tool to give cops a loophole to continue to pull people over for no discernible reason.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

No, you're saying that something is going against your right to try and be happy, and not giving any explanation as to WHY it is stopping you from trying to be happy. Key word in the constitution is 'pursuit'. Wearing a seatbelt cannot stop you from *trying* to be happy, no matter if it may stop you from *being* happy.

I see your point, but it seems like you're just arguing semantics. If it stops me from being happy, then it has effectively prevented me from pursuing happiness.

No, it hasn't. Not in the slightest. You can TRY and be happy in a situation that you have no possibility of happiness in, F/E, at the death of a loved one, you can say that they're in a better place and all that shit, but it doesn't stop you from being upset.

Interesting. But I think your example of a loved dying is a bit of a bad one.

Help me out w/ this one: someone stops you from posting on FictionPress indefinitely. If your happiness was posting on that site and you're prevented from doing so, can you really pursue it any longer? Keep in mind that I said "indefinitely," so in this hypothetical world there are no ways around the situation.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

You're right, expression doesn't always make people happy per se, but if they choose to express then they choose to put happiness at risk. Pursuit of happiness is a 2-way street. And I don't think it's entirely reasonable in every situation to be forced to explain anyone's pursuit of happiness or their actual happiness.

Super. That's irrelevant though because, as I've argued, not wearing a seatbelt has nothing to do with the pursuit of happiness. Please, explain how being forced to wear a seatbelt prevents you from pursing happiness.

OK, but as I've argued, it does have something to do w/ it.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If this doesn't bug you, then I implore you to talk to one of your local police departments detectives. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the mantra of the court system, not law enforcement. For those of you who have never been interrogated by a police officer, they will go out of their way to coax you in to incriminating yourself. I could go on all day about the psychological games that the police use, from the intimidation that Beat Cops are literally dressed to instill, or from the comfort zones new interrogation rooms are designed with to loosen up suspects.

People who wish to use their seatbelts for their own protection should do so. But the fact of the matter is, that seatbelt laws are merely a tool to give cops a loophole to continue to pull people over for no discernible reason.

Duh, talk in court. Don't talk to the cops. Nothing you tell the police can help you, it can only hurt you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

OK, but as I've argued, it does have something to do w/ it.

You haven't argued. You've only claimed. An argument supports a claim. Please, provide an argument.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

If that's the case then this entire thread is an exercise in futility, isn't it?

Why start a thread entitled "Could someone provide a legitimate argument here?" and then argue that it'd be impossible for you to present a legitimate argument.

I think I'm finished with this thread.

Edit: If you're in the car by yourself, go crazy.

No no, I think either miscommunicated my statement or you misread it. I never said either of our arguments was illegitimate. I was just defending the legitimacy of my own.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

No no, I think either miscommunicated my statement or you misread it. I never said either of our arguments was illegitimate. I was just defending the legitimacy of my own.

Which is, near as I can tell, "being forced to wear a seatbelt goes against my pursuit of happiness because being forced to wear a seatbelt goes against my pursuit of happiness." Dude, if that's legitimate, we're in a sad state of affairs.

 

[Mechanical Cat Fish]

Making people follow safety regulations is no more an infringement on personal freedom than forbidding theft or murder, and having parking regulations; we have rules in place to stop people from harming both themselves and others. I'm pretty sure a crash would send most people out of the front window regardless of airbags, and if its some form of safety glass then they'd probably just injur themselves horribly, which, in England at least, is going to clog up the NHS (National Health Service), divert emergency services and make lots of needless paper work. Not good for anyone involved.

 

[dwightsteel]

If this doesn't bug you, then I implore you to talk to one of your local police departments detectives. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the mantra of the court system, not law enforcement. For those of you who have never been interrogated by a police officer, they will go out of their way to coax you in to incriminating yourself. I could go on all day about the psychological games that the police use, from the intimidation that Beat Cops are literally dressed to instill, or from the comfort zones new interrogation rooms are designed with to loosen up suspects.

People who wish to use their seatbelts for their own protection should do so. But the fact of the matter is, that seatbelt laws are merely a tool to give cops a loophole to continue to pull people over for no discernible reason.

Duh, talk in court. Don't talk to the cops. Nothing you tell the police can help you, it can only hurt you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

It's funny you should post this video. I've had a long discussion with Prof. Duane about this topic after this video surfaced on the net. My brother is pretty good friends with him.

 

[Spartan Bannana]

Well if you stop enforcing a law there, where does it end?
Isn't murder a personal choice as well? And rape? Everything is personal choice, friend, because we have free will.

I think getting rid of seatbelts is a long way from murder or rape and those things are affecting other people, while wearing a seatbelt isn't. Also you don't need that many commas in your post.

No matter how far off murder and rape are from seatbelts, it's still personal choice.
Also, 3 commas in my post, all used correctly; not that many.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It's funny you should post this video. I've had a long discussion with Prof. Duane about this topic after this video surfaced on the net. My brother is pretty good friends with him.

Oh, that's very cool. What'd he have to say?

 

[joystickjunki3]

No no, I think either miscommunicated my statement or you misread it. I never said either of our arguments was illegitimate. I was just defending the legitimacy of my own.

Which is, near as I can tell, "being forced to wear a seatbelt goes against my pursuit of happiness because being forced to wear a seatbelt goes against my pursuit of happiness." Dude, if that's legitimate, we're in a sad state of affairs.

That's not completely it, and I still don't understand why the hostility is present. I'm trying very hard to make sure I haven't insulted anyone or crossed any lines.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

That's not completely it, and I still don't understand why the hostility is present. I'm trying very hard to make sure I haven't insulted anyone or crossed any lines.

It's more mild annoyance than hostility.

 

[clicketycrack]

I don't think that we should be forced to wear one even though I usually do anyway, but the laws don't annoy me nearly as much as the loud obnoxious beeping sound that my car makes that only gets faster and faster and louder and louder the longer that both people in the front seat don't have their seatbelts on.

 

[kawligia]

The stated purpose of the law is that insurance costs and state expenses go down for everyone when fewer people are injured.

The unstated purpose is people who like to tell other people how to run their lives want to institute a Nanny State.

I always wear seatbelts (and helmets when I ride my motorcycle) and I think you are a fool not to. But I don't think we should force people to do things that are good for them. The government's job is to STOP people from hurting others, not to force them to do what's good for them. What's next? Will the government regulate a national bedtime or maximum fatty food intake levels?

If costs of treating people go up by them not wearing seatbelts, then punish THOSE people, not everyone else. Exclude THEM from coverage and make them pay for their own bills. That way the costs are placed where they belong and the government can stop trying to be my mother.

 

[Lexodus]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

No, you're saying that something is going against your right to try and be happy, and not giving any explanation as to WHY it is stopping you from trying to be happy. Key word in the constitution is 'pursuit'. Wearing a seatbelt cannot stop you from *trying* to be happy, no matter if it may stop you from *being* happy.

I see your point, but it seems like you're just arguing semantics. If it stops me from being happy, then it has effectively prevented me from pursuing happiness.

No, it hasn't. Not in the slightest. You can TRY and be happy in a situation that you have no possibility of happiness in, F/E, at the death of a loved one, you can say that they're in a better place and all that shit, but it doesn't stop you from being upset.

Interesting. But I think your example of a loved dying is a bit of a bad one.

Help me out w/ this one: someone stops you from posting on FictionPress indefinitely. If your happiness was posting on that site and you're prevented from doing so, can you really pursue it any longer? Keep in mind that I said "indefinitely," so in this hypothetical world there are no ways around the situation.

What we're talking about here is the opposite situation. Somebody is making you do something, rather than preventing you from doing something. This FP situation does not work because the posting on FP (shameless advertisment: check out some of my stuff ) is the 'reaching' part, rather than the 'happiness part' as you claim. Posting is merely the transport between writing and having the state of 'posted', if you will. Therefore, preventing that IS an infringement. Preventing me from being happy when my work HAS the state of 'posted', however, is cruel and mean, but not an infringement on the 'pursuit' of happiness as opposed to the 'having' of happiness.


In the seatbelt situation, the government is making you do something, but that is not limiting your options other than that. Say, you like eating pizza in a car. Odd example, I know, but bear with me. In this case, the government says you are allowed to eat pizza in the car (as long as you're not driving), as long as you wear your seatbelt. So, you wear your seatbelt. This does not stop you from eating the pizza, which, in this case, is the happiness, or buying the pizza, or anything else. It merely says that, to be able to pursue that happiness, you must take this step. Not even a method, but a single step.

If you can understand that, I am very impressed, as I had incredible difficulty wording it. However, despite the odd wording, the point still remains.

 

[dwightsteel]

It's funny you should post this video. I've had a long discussion with Prof. Duane about this topic after this video surfaced on the net. My brother is pretty good friends with him.

Oh, that's very cool. What'd he have to say?

The talking points were much the same. Talking to the cops of any incident of which they you have even the remotest of possibilities of making you into a suspect is stupid, because they will use any mis-stated quote to make you look guilty. Something he brought up in conversing with him that kind of made the point a little freakier is that not only will they try to make you incriminate yourself for a crime they know happened, but they'll see what kind of criminal activity you'll admit to outside of what they're talking to you about, just for the sake of holding you, and if nothing else, they have something to prosecute. That's the big thing I remember. Other specifics escape me, but I remember I had a list of questions that I went through with him. He's a really nice guy.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

If you read through the thread, you'll see a few examples of how not wearing a seatbelt can severely injure passengers in the car.

 

[Iron Mal]

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

Surely saving your own life should be more than enough incentive to get you to wear a seatbelt?

It's a hassle and a pain in the ass but if you'd rather be an unrecogniseable, bloody smear on the road then by all means feel free to drive seat-beltless.

But that's the point. I'm choosing to not protect my own life. I wear my seatbelt most of the time, but should I have to if I'm in the car by myself and I know what I'm giving up by doing so?

Normally the law is interested in protecting the lives and property of those who live in a particular country, so I'm afraid you'll have to follow these rules whether you like it or not, sometimes freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness is a fair sacrifice for keeping all of your blood and organs inside of your body.

If you don't to protect your own life (which is a bizarre idea to most) then we are free to critisise you for your apparant lack of any hint of self preservation, if we need a legitimate reason to force you to protect yourself then you also require a legitimate reason as to why you believe you are exempt to the laws put in place to ensure your safety (and I'm talking pragmatic, practical reasons, not 'because I feel like it' reasoning).

 

[kawligia]

*snip*

If you read through the thread, you'll see a few examples of how not wearing a seatbelt can severely injure passengers in the car.

Then those people would have a remedy in court for damage done by the driver's negligence.