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

[Dele]

As I mentioned earlier, you can injure other passengers by not wearing a seatbelt. Think side collision, with skulls fracturing each other.

But then again it's not your call since it's (propably) not your car.

My guess is that the government do it to 'show' people they 'care about our safety' in order to try and get re-elected. It also reduces 'Road' deaths' which looks good for them to say they've improved traffic safety.

Please tell me how these laws reduce road deaths. How many people actually wear seatbelts because it's required by law and not because it's the smart thing to do? Since it's almost impossible to monitor whenever the driver is using it or not, what is there stopping them from not wearing seatbelts if they dont want to?

 

[joystickjunki3]

This seems like it will be my last post on this thread, so I'll try to make myself as absolutely clear as possible.

I admit that I was wrong on at least a portion of my argument (specifically on the topic of passengers in the car). I'd like to think that I'm reasonable to at least a degree and can see when I've made a faulty decision.

That being said, I still don't think I'm completely wrong on the matter, nor completely right either.

I'd also like it to be repeated that I don't have a problem w/ seatbelts/helmets/etc. or encouraging people to wear them. I'm more worried about where will draw the line on personal freedoms in the future. In short, it's the laws that bother me.

Most all of us that have posted on this thread have provided legitimate arguments, some more legitimate than others, and I tried very hard to acknowledge those who did while also attempting to prove my own correct. If I offended anyone, then I'm sorry. I tried not to. But let it be known that I harbor no ill will or grudges toward anyone on the issue, even if they disagreed w/ me vehemently, mostly because I admire people who defend their beliefs.

If anyone wishes to have a civil debate on this or any other issues, I'll be more than happy to try and satisfy the request.

 

[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.

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

Doesn't have to be the driver. Could be any passenger who isn't buckled in. Picture, if you will, a collision from the side. An unrestrained passenger's body clubs another's skill with enough force to kill. You can kill other people in your car by not wearing a seatbelt - and it'd be your fault, not either of the drivers. If you were wearing the proper restraints the other person would not have been clubbed to death.

@joystickjunki3: No worries, it's cool.
@dwightsteel: He seems like he'd be a personable prof.

 

[dwightsteel]

A big point people seem to be hitting on is the responsibility of the driver to protect their passengers.

Certainly from a legal standpoint, the responsibility falls on the driver should anyone in the car be injured and they weren't wearing their seat belt.

But at the end of the day, this is no different from the personal choice of the driver to not wear a seat belt. The passenger(s) has acknowledged that the person driving is human, and that through unforeseeable circumstances (or not so much depending on how good the driver is), that a traffic accident may occur. The risk is equal for both the passenger and the driver. Should they choose not wear their seatbelts, what makes them any different from the driver?

 

[Agayek]

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.

The difference between them, in the context of this argument, is that one harms only the self, while the others harm others. The entire crux of the argument as presented here is that the government should not be protecting stupid people from doing stupid things and getting themselves killed.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

A big point people seem to be hitting on is the responsibility of the driver to protect their passengers.

Certainly from a legal standpoint, the responsibility falls on the driver should anyone in the car be injured and they weren't wearing their seat belt.

But at the end of the day, this is no different from the personal choice of the driver to not wear a seat belt. The passenger(s) has acknowledged that the person driving is human, and that through unforeseeable circumstances (or not so much depending on how good the driver is), that a traffic accident may occur. The risk is equal for both the passenger and the driver. Should they choose not wear their seatbelts, what makes them any different from the driver?

Well, I'm not only worried about the driver wearing his seatbelt. Ideally, if you're not wearing your seatbelt, you'd be responsible for the potential deaths of yourself and your fellow passengers. I would think it would be negligent to forgo a safety mechanism that ensures the safety of others.

 

[Susan Arendt]

That sets me up to discuss an entirely different issue entirely; I think it is way, way too easy to obtain a driver's license, or at least it is in my state.

A friend of mine just got his license at the age of 20. He is on various mood-stabilizer medications and is not a very good driver in the first place. His mom got him a car and two weeks later he had a license. Before this time frame he had only driven a car a few times.

And even now, when he took the road test, he failed it the first time. They let him take again in the same day, which they aren't supposed to do in Illinois.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone is not capable of passing the road test in one shot, they shouldn't get to take it again for at least another month. They can come back when they don't suck at driving.

Couldn't agree more. I also tend to think that you should have to retake the test every so often to prove that you're still capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. You have to renew your license periodically, why not require a test along with it?

The negative effects of second-hand smoke on the body are greatly exaggerated and in fact the EPA report that began the whole demonization of tobacco smoking in the first place was thrown out by a judge in the nineties because it was full of falsified data. Aside from that, smoking bans are wrong for several reasons; in any region of the United States currently enforcing a smoking ban, there were ample numbers of establishments allowing and disallowing smoking at the owner's discretion prior to the bans. This is the way it should be; smokers and anyone who wasn't bothered by them could go to places that allowed smoking and whiners- er, non-smokers could to places that didn't allow smoking. Individual freedom.

Not only was that choice taken away from the patrons who frequent any private business, it was taken away from the owners of the private businesses. It sickens me that this would happen in a country that carries itself on claims of being "freer than any other country in the world." It is not up to the government what anyone does with their body or how anyone can run a business that belongs to them.

Non-smokers will cling to their health statistics and all their reasons why smoking is a "crime" against anyone who doesn't do it and is exposed to it, but you know what? You live in America, "land of the free" and before that bullshit anti-smoking legislation everyone had the choice to be around it or not to be around it, no matter how much non-smokers will deny that.

I have no problem with allowing restaurants, clubs, and bars to be designated as "for smokers." As much as you seem to think I'm a "whiner" out to crush your individual freedom, I see no reason you and others like you shouldn't be able to enjoy a night out, smoking to your heart's content. Personally, I think smoker's clubs would make a bloody fortune, and it seems silly to not allow them. To me, it's about choice - if someone chooses to enter a "smoker's bar," they give up their right to complain about inhaling anything. It's only when that choice is taken away that there's an issue.

 

[dwightsteel]

A big point people seem to be hitting on is the responsibility of the driver to protect their passengers.

Certainly from a legal standpoint, the responsibility falls on the driver should anyone in the car be injured and they weren't wearing their seat belt.

But at the end of the day, this is no different from the personal choice of the driver to not wear a seat belt. The passenger(s) has acknowledged that the person driving is human, and that through unforeseeable circumstances (or not so much depending on how good the driver is), that a traffic accident may occur. The risk is equal for both the passenger and the driver. Should they choose not wear their seatbelts, what makes them any different from the driver?

Well, I'm not only worried about the driver wearing his seatbelt. Ideally, if you're not wearing your seatbelt, you'd be responsible for the potential deaths of yourself and your fellow passengers. I would think it would be negligent to forgo a safety mechanism that ensures the safety of others.

Remember, you can only be charged with negligence if something actually goes wrong.

EDIT: Also, it's only negligent if the risk was foreseeable by you and not the person(s) you are being negligent of.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Remember, you can only be charged with negligence if something actually goes wrong.

Or if you're still alive afterwards.

 

[dwightsteel]

Remember, you can only be charged with negligence if something actually goes wrong.

Or if you're still alive afterwards.

Also see the amendment to my last statement.

 

[_Serendipity_]

Why the government makes you wear a seatbelt -

People are stupid and will get themselves killed if no-one stops them. We don't like people dying, even if they are idiots.

Getting into all these arguments about unrestrained bodies popping through windshields are somewhat irrelevant, in my opinion. As has been pretty damn established, and I think not even argued against by the OP, wearing a seatbelt will save your life in the event of a crash, which raises the question of why the hell wouldn't you want to wear one?

And, yet, there are people that are either stupid, lazy or ball-poppingly arrogant ("Crash? Me? Nah mate, I'm the best fookin' driver in the world! Look. I'll show you, see how fast I can go!") enough not to wear one, so, alas, we have to force them.

Yes, in a perfect world, we would force things on no-one, we would all be our own boss and everything would be great.
Ain't going to happen though, is it?

As for your statement of 'But where will they stop?'... Well, you have a vague point, but you're taking things to a ridiculous extreme here.

 

[Agayek]

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.

Freedom and the pursuit of happiness is always worth risking your own life for. Otherwise, you're merely surviving.

Also, the law exists to protect people from others, not from themselves. If people wish to do stupid things and get themselves hurt/killed, it's no one's fault but their own and it's no one else's business.

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).

He's not saying he's exempt. He's saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. I, personally, think such laws are absolutely retarded. The government should not be saving people from themselves, it's a waste of time and it very much hurts the process of natural selection.

Personally, I find seat belt laws rather foolish. Anyone with half a brain will wear a seat belt whenever they drive. If someone in a car with you doesn't, you slap them upside the head until they get the picture. Neither you, me, or the government have the right to interfere with that.

Now, if a collision occurs, someone doesn't wear they're seatbelt, is thrown through the windshield and kills someone in the other car, they should be convicted posthumously for manslaughter.

 

[runtheplacered]

TITLE EDIT: I have been made aware that my original title may have been the wrong phrasing. For reference, the original title was "Could someone provide a legitimate argument here?"

Recently there have been an exceedingly large amount of seatbelt commercials ("Click it or Ticket").

Now I'd like to hear a legitimate argument for pro-seatbelt laws because I find that forcing people to participate in something like that is infringing on individual freedoms.

I wear my seatbelt most of the time because it's safer in general, but shouldn't it be a personal choice?

EDIT: I suppose this argument also applies to helmets for motorcycles, etc.

EDIT EDIT: Just to make sure we're all clear, I'm not arguing about the practicality of seatbelts/helmets/etc., I'm just debating the constitutionality and implications in the long run (where to draw the line in the future) of laws forcing individuals to wear them.

EDIT x3: I concede that if others are in the car, then my initial argument is often invalid. Not all the time (see my example involving my aunt), but often enough that I admit defeat in that battle. But what if you're the only individual in the car? Most autos nowadays provide enough secondary safety equipment to prevent your body catapulting out the window.

Nobody has said this yet?

If you and I are in an accident, and you end up dying when you could have been saved by a seatbelt, how is it fair that I have to live the rest of my life with your death on my conscience? How is it fair that I'm going to have to pay your family every penny I have because I killed you, even though with your seatbelt on you may have just had a bit of a bruise on your head?

It's not about you, it's about the other drivers on the road.

You want to talk about infringing on peoples rights for no reason? Then start a topic about why the hell is marijuana illegal?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Remember, you can only be charged with negligence if something actually goes wrong.

EDIT: Also, it's only negligent if the risk was foreseeable by you and not the person(s) you are being negligent of.

Hmm. I'm not sure about foreseeable. It is foreseeable that if you're going to get hit while you're unrestrained, you're going to injure others. But are we concerned with whether it's foreseeable or not that the car will get hit? I want to say "no." It seems like you're needlessly putting other people in the car at risk.

 

[Winter Rat]

Because we all have to pay for emergency services to scrape your mangled gob off the sidewalk after you are ejected from your vehicle, and then for the ICU that keeps you breathing so you can one day rehabilitate into a quadriplegic recieving disability forever? [I am not disparaging the disabled in any way, nor am I suggesting that they are responsible for their injuries, and I think the disabled SHOULD recieve disability payments, don't have a hissy fit]

Restraint/safety devices are proven to drastically reduce injuries in crashes. Tax money pays for emergency services to respond to those incidents. Further, if you are severely disabled in an accident, tax money subsidises you therafter. Therefore its reasonable for the government to require you to take safety precautions to reduce the cost burden of the EMS system.

Speaking as an American, you have no constitutionally protected right to engage in risky behavior, so the government is not restricted from making such laws. Pretty sure there's no "right to be an idiot" precedent in English Common Law either.

 

[Therumancer]

When you get down to it any "law" is an infringement on personal freedom. Anyone who thinks about things sensibly does not want to deal with anarchy. I see it as being sort of like vaccinations of children, blood tests before marriage, and similar things we try and enforce in law (and honestly I think we should be more forceful about some of those things than we already are).

Consider also that laws like this are not just about the people not wearing the seat belts or the helmets. As "ruthless" as it is, consider that a lot of hospitals and such have no real choice about treating people. This is because they accept funding from the goverment to do this (hospitals that can turn down patients are 100% privatly funded).

Some goober gets into a crash and gets thrown out a windshield, has the misfortune to live, but is crippled for life, and guess what? Society picks up that bill. The goverment winds up paying the medical bills, if not directly, through donations to the hospital. The guy presumably goes on disabillity when he otherwise wouldn't have been disabled (I have no problems with being disabled in of itself, being disabled personally, but it's something to be avoided if at all possible), and it's a giant mess.

Seat belts, helmets, etc... do not prevent this kind of thing from happening entirely, but they do reduce the risk.

The thing is that a lot of so called "victimless crimes" have victims other than the person pepetuating them, just not directly.

People who protest laws about helmets, seat belts, and other things mostly tend to pay attention to the side they personally want to see succeed (it's like this on a lot of issues). They don't actually research, or think about what the other side of the arguement
is other than in the most superficial sense.

For obvious reasons we can't pass a law where if you get into a car accident without a seatbelt we refuse to let emergency workers from partially goverment funded hospitals assist you. Or "oops, well you crippled yourself for life in a motorcycle accident without a helmet? Well go starve to death on the streets. Goverment assitance is for people who became disabled for reasons other than their own idiocy".

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Darkmaster127]

As I mentioned earlier, you can injure other passengers by not wearing a seatbelt. Think side collision, with skulls fracturing each other.

But then again it's not your call since it's (propably) not your car.

My guess is that the government do it to 'show' people they 'care about our safety' in order to try and get re-elected. It also reduces 'Road' deaths' which looks good for them to say they've improved traffic safety.

Please tell me how these laws reduce road deaths. How many people actually wear seatbelts because it's required by law and not because it's the smart thing to do? Since it's almost impossible to monitor whenever the driver is using it or not, what is there stopping them from not wearing seatbelts if they dont want to?

I'm not suggesting they reduce deaths, i'm suggesting the government do it so the statistics show they've 'reduced' deaths. I suspect not many wear them because of the law, and wear them because it's sensible (Myself included), but it doesn't stop the issue that they have no right to force us to wear them.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Because we all have to pay for emergency services to scrape your mangled gob off the sidewalk after you are ejected from your vehicle, and then for the ICU that keeps you breathing so you can one day rehabilitate into a quadriplegic recieving disability forever? [I am not disparaging the disabled in any way, nor am I suggesting that they are responsible for their injuries, and I think the disabled SHOULD recieve disability payments, don't have a hissy fit]

Restraint/safety devices are proven to drastically reduce injuries in crashes. Tax money pays for emergency services to respond to those incidents. Further, if you are severely disabled in an accident, tax money subsidises you therafter. Therefore its reasonable for the government to require you to take safety precautions to reduce the cost burden of the EMS system.

Speaking as an American, you have no constitutionally protected right to engage in risky behavior, so the government is not restricted from making such laws. Pretty sure there's no "right to be an idiot" precedent in English Common Law either.

Man, wouldn't it be awesome to start a religion where wearing seatbelts prevents one from pursuing happiness in the afterlife?

 

[Agayek]

Nobody has said this yet?

If you and I are in an accident, and you end up dying when you could have been saved by a seatbelt, how is it fair that I have to live the rest of my life with your death on my conscience for the rest of my life? How is it fair that I'm going to have to pay your family every penny I have because I killed you, even though with your seatbelt on you may have just had a bit of a bruise on your head?

It's not about you, it's about the other drivers on the road.

You want to talk about infringing on peoples rights for no reason? Then start a topic about why the hell is marijuana illegal?

Because there's a whole lot of dumb people in the world, and since marijuana is smoked, it's obviously terrible to everyone.

On a quasi-related note, we should really just make any and all narcotics legal.