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

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

Yeah, but like I said, what does not wearing a seatbelt have to do with the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Malacandrian]

Why should seatbelts be enforced? Because if you aren't wearing a seat belt you are much harder to clean up. In a 30-30 head on collision body parts have a tendency of becoming unattached as you sail through the wind screen, and slide face-first across the road. If you die in your car then you don't mess up the road, but if you die on the road, the paramedics have to clean you off the road before they can leave; reopen the road. allowing traffic to resume; and move on to the site of further accidents to possibly save other lives.

By not wearing your seat belt you are running the risk of killing other people because the paramedics could not respond quickly enough, as well as costing thousands of pounds in lost labour due to people being late for work stuck behind your corpse. Any sensible government would do whatever they could to prevent this. Passing a law is that.

 

[joystickjunki3]

Thought I was done w/ this thread, but I have been called out a couple times now...

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.

Ah, the old "Change the premise of the argument when it's obvious I've no idea what I'm talking about" guise.

That wasn't the reason I did that at all. I was admitting that I am not all-knowing. Being snide helps no one, especially when I'm trying to be as deferential as possible here.

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 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?

Those threads about marijuana have already been done enough. I think it should be legalized along w/ a whole mess of other drugs that doesn't include meth.

As for your first point, I've already made my point on that issue.

 

[runtheplacered]

As for your first point, I've already made my point on that issue.

Uhh.. and that would be? What could you possibly say?

Actually, just reading a few more posts.. you've already been told why it's illegal about 13 different ways now. You just sound like you're not willing to concede for some reason.

 

[dwightsteel]

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.

Ah, the old "Change the premise of the argument when it's obvious I've no idea what I'm talking about" guise.

Incidentally, youre belief about what is "enough" secondary safety equipment does not seem to match the prevailing belief of safety experts and the doctors and workers who have to deal with the results. Given that, I think the smart people would tend to believe them rather than J.Random Internet Poster.

Now, let's get to the heart of your question, which is really the old libertarian thing of "Why can society dictate what I do." The answer is because society is a package deal. You like the protections, services, and capabilities that being in a civilized society provides you, you have to undertake some of the restrictions. It's called compromise. Personally, I feel I should be free to take a crap in front of your house. However, because I don't like it when you play Bad Brains at 4am at maximum volume, I agree to the compromise that I won't crap in front of your house if you don't play that music waking me up. If either one of us disagrees with this premise, the other has the ability to call the cops who will then enforce the compromise.

In this particular case, the compromise is that you get to drive, so long as you wear your seatbelt. Society, in general, has agreed that this is fair (even if certain niche groups of society are vehemently against it) so all of us get to live with this compromise.

This is the bottom line to your question. Where does the infringment stop? It stops where society, in general, says that it does. Believe it or not, you're living amongst other people. Part of that means that, gosh Billy, you really don't get to do absolutely anything you want, even if you're not living under mom's roof anymore.

Don't like it? Move to somewhere where there aren't laws or restrictions. Emigration is still allowed, and there are places, such as remote regions of Africa, or certain areas of Afghanistan, where there isn't a recognized rule of law to restrict you. Funnily enough, these places usually suck.

All of your logic on the argument at hand is all good and nice in a philosophical context. In a perfect world, where a representative democracy is just that, and not a preponderance of old, useless systems that make it so the people can't even vote for their own leaders, we would have made such a compromise with our duly elected leaders.

Compromise is all good in theory, but what compromise are we talking about here? We didn't negotiate down the premise of seatbelt laws. They were enacted (as I've previously stated) so cops could get away with pulling over Joe Everyman without having to explain in court why they thought they legitimately used probable cause. This clears all that up. All any cop needs to tell a judge any more is "in my best judgment, I believed he was not wearing a seat belt." BAM! There is no more any truly legitimate legal recourse should a cop start searching your car.

If seatbelt laws were so important, then why were they not enacted when cars were able to build up enough momentum to hurt anyone? Cars were coming off the production line for over 80 years before someone decided to make it a law to strap yourself in. This isn't a matter of doing anything one wants to. It's a matter of skipping steps in the legal system so cops can continue getting funding to buy new top of the line police vehicles every year.

Your view seems to be that of an overly optimistic American Government teacher. We understand how the government is supposed to work. But it seems like only a handful of individuals can truly navigate through the bureaucratic red tape that has become our legal system.

The truth is, it's pieces of legislation like the seat belt laws that made things like the Patriot Act get passed. It's proof that with a few good lobbyists and lots of fear, congress doesn't even feel the need to read pieces of legislation before passing laws.

 

[joystickjunki3]

As for your first point, I've already made my point on that issue.

Uhh.. and that would be? What could you possibly say?

Actually, just reading a few more posts.. you've already been told why it's illegal about 13 different ways now. You just sound like you're not willing to concede for some reason.

Harsh. I'm more than willing to concede if I believe that I have been proven wrong. In fact, I've said that.

As for the guilt of death and all, I have no way for anyone to deal w/ that. I've only dealt w/ hospitalizing someone, myself. But in regards to you having to pay my family money forever, the solution should be individual responsibility. If I died because I didn't have a seatbelt on, then why should you have to pay for it? I don't think you should, and I know for a fact that my family feels the same way.

 

[dwightsteel]

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.

How many thousands of traffic accidents happen a year? For negligence cases they have the totality of circumstances test, as well as the prior incident test. Basically, if you knew there was a risk and didn't take measures to call attention to it or remedy it, you're negligent. The seatbelt acknowledges that risk. It's a pretty clear indicator that there is a risk involved, and this device helps to counteract that risk. Should the people in the vehicle decide not to use it, it's on them, but I mean, can we really put stupidity on trial?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

Ah, but see, the problem here is that you're more worried about the potential abuse of the law than by whether or not it's just. Plus, the search of an entire car to determine if the passengers are wearing their seatbelts or not is unecesarry. All it takes is a glance inside your car. Police are allowed to see inside cars anyway - that's not searching.

Doesn't really seem like such an issue, does it?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

How many thousands of traffic accidents happen a year? For negligence cases they have the totality of circumstances test, as well as the prior incident test. Basically, if you knew there was a risk and didn't take measures to call attention to it or remedy it, you're negligent. The seatbelt acknowledges that risk. It's a pretty clear indicator that there is a risk involved, and this device helps to counteract that risk. Should the people in the vehicle decide not to use it, it's on them, but I mean, can we really put stupidity on trial?

Should we put stupidity on trial? In many cases, absolutely. When that stupidity harms others, for instance.

 

[dwightsteel]

*snip*

Ah, but see, the problem here is that you're more worried about the potential abuse of the law than by whether or not it's just. Plus, the search of an entire car to determine if the passengers are wearing their seatbelts or not is unecesarry. All it takes is a glance inside your car. Police are allowed to see inside cars anyway - that's not searching.

Doesn't really seem like such an issue, does it?

No, I certainly don't believe the law is just. I don't think it's asinine, but I think it's a step too far. How many traffic laws exist to regulate driving? Speed Limit enforcement, not using your turn signal, not coming to a complete stop at a light or stop sign. Hell, a cop can pull you over for being over the hard yellow line for half a second. All of these laws came about around the time that automobiles started becoming commonplace, yet, only 80 years later did the idea of enforcing the use of a seatbelt become a punishable offense. It is no different then making it illegal to not wear a hard hat at a construction site or wearing a helmet when you're skateboarding. These are common sense ideas that shouldn't be regulated. Yet seat belts are. If you get hurt as a result, then c'est la vie. We all know better, and we chose to brave the risk. This isn't the government regulating us from harming other people, it's the government regulating us from ourselves. The first amendment was built to keep the government from telling us how to live our lives as long as we weren't harming others in the process. To allow us to determine our own well being.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

No, I certainly don't believe the law is just. I don't think it's asinine, but I think it's a step too far. How many traffic laws exist to regulate driving? Speed Limit enforcement, not using your turn signal, not coming to a complete stop at a light or stop sign. Hell, a cop can pull you over for being over the hard yellow line for half a second. All of these laws came about around the time that automobiles started becoming commonplace, yet, only 80 years later did the idea of enforcing the use of a seatbelt become a punishable offense. It is no different then making it illegal to not wear a hard hat at a construction site or wearing a helmet when you're skateboarding. These are common sense ideas that shouldn't be regulated. Yet seat belts are. If you get hurt as a result, then c'est la vie. We all know better, and we chose to brave the risk. This isn't the government regulating us from harming other people, it's the government regulating us from ourselves. The first amendment was built to keep the government from telling us how to live our lives as long as we weren't harming others in the process. To allow us to determine our own well being.

But it's been demonstrated that your body, free of its seat-harness, can injure other people in your car. By not wearing a seatbelt you not only risk your own life, but the lives of the other people in the car. We've been over this, if memory serves.

Also, the length of time that a rule hasn't existed doesn't have any impact on whether or not the rule is valid. Appeal to tradition's a logical fallacy.

 

[The Rockerfly]

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.

Yes it is personal choice but you've completely missed my point. Those things affect other people. E.g. if I murder someone today, that is effecting the person I have murdered AND me
If I don't wear a seatbelt and die, it only effects ME
Yes they were used correctly, technically, but you would have sounded like you had a stutter.

 

[dwightsteel]

No, I certainly don't believe the law is just. I don't think it's asinine, but I think it's a step too far. How many traffic laws exist to regulate driving? Speed Limit enforcement, not using your turn signal, not coming to a complete stop at a light or stop sign. Hell, a cop can pull you over for being over the hard yellow line for half a second. All of these laws came about around the time that automobiles started becoming commonplace, yet, only 80 years later did the idea of enforcing the use of a seatbelt become a punishable offense. It is no different then making it illegal to not wear a hard hat at a construction site or wearing a helmet when you're skateboarding. These are common sense ideas that shouldn't be regulated. Yet seat belts are. If you get hurt as a result, then c'est la vie. We all know better, and we chose to brave the risk. This isn't the government regulating us from harming other people, it's the government regulating us from ourselves. The first amendment was built to keep the government from telling us how to live our lives as long as we weren't harming others in the process. To allow us to determine our own well being.

But it's been demonstrated that your body, free of its seat-harness, can injure other people in your car. By not wearing a seatbelt you not only risk your own life, but the lives of the other people in the car. We've been over this, if memory serves.

Also, the length of time that a rule hasn't existed doesn't have any impact on whether or not the rule is valid. Appeal to tradition's a logical fallacy.

Ok, your first point here is a good one. In a debate, it would probably flow through, because as it stands, I just don't have a argument readily available to combat it, and research at this point in the game would be cheating. So, you know, cheers.

Your second point though, length of time, in my eyes has a pretty clear impact on the validity of the law. If the issue was for a new issue posed by an old problem, I'd agree. But seat belts aren't new. And if anything, it should have been a bigger issue back when the majority of the cars on the road were death traps (Pinto anyone?). The very fact that it went so long without legislation is one of the many points that I consider proofs as to the invalidity of these laws. If it's so important, and it's clearly an issue of common sense, then either Congress suddenly feels like it's more important now then it ever was (which is clearly a faulty assumption), or there is something else at work here, to which I refer you to my diatribe on Police officers.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Your second point though, length of time, in my eyes has a pretty clear impact on the validity of the law. If the issue was for a new issue posed by an old problem, I'd agree. But seat belts aren't new. And if anything, it should have been a bigger issue back when the majority of the cars on the road were death traps (Pinto anyone?). The very fact that it went so long without legislation is one of the many points that I consider proofs as to the invalidity of these laws. If it's so important, and it's clearly an issue of common sense, then either Congress suddenly feels like it's more important now then it ever was (which is clearly a faulty assumption), or there is something else at work here, to which I refer you to my diatribe on Police officers.

Perhaps as a suggestion, but not as evidence. And, as I've said, a full car search isn't by any stretch of the imagination necessary to determine if you're wearing a seatbelt or not. It shouldn't be an issue.

 

[dwightsteel]

Your second point though, length of time, in my eyes has a pretty clear impact on the validity of the law. If the issue was for a new issue posed by an old problem, I'd agree. But seat belts aren't new. And if anything, it should have been a bigger issue back when the majority of the cars on the road were death traps (Pinto anyone?). The very fact that it went so long without legislation is one of the many points that I consider proofs as to the invalidity of these laws. If it's so important, and it's clearly an issue of common sense, then either Congress suddenly feels like it's more important now then it ever was (which is clearly a faulty assumption), or there is something else at work here, to which I refer you to my diatribe on Police officers.

Perhaps as a suggestion, but not as evidence. And, as I've said, a full car search isn't by any stretch of the imagination necessary to determine if you're wearing a seatbelt or not. It shouldn't be an issue.

I didn't mean to imply that a lack of seatbelt would warrant a full car search. I merely meant to imply it gives them cause to pull you over. Once you're on the side of the road, the cop can and will get away with whatever he wants. If you think I'm being overly paranoid, then I can refer you to me. I can think of three different times, in three different cities, where I was pulled over for random variances (ironically, none of them having anything to do with my lack of seatbelt) and in each of those instances, the police claimed they smelled marijuana in the car or alcohol on my breath, and not on any of those occasions were any of those claims true. As a matter of fact, the single time they made the alcohol claim, they didn't even bother to do a field sobriety test. He merely used it as an excuse to search my car. I fully believe that the biggest part of the reason that this has become law was to help circumvent the 4th amendment. You're absolutely right, I don't like the idea that this law get abused, and believe me, it does. But the fact still remains that with the safety standards on new model cars increasing with the rapidity they are, this law is an 80 year-too-late solution to a problem of self control.

 

[dwightsteel]

Your second point though, length of time, in my eyes has a pretty clear impact on the validity of the law. If the issue was for a new issue posed by an old problem, I'd agree. But seat belts aren't new. And if anything, it should have been a bigger issue back when the majority of the cars on the road were death traps (Pinto anyone?). The very fact that it went so long without legislation is one of the many points that I consider proofs as to the invalidity of these laws. If it's so important, and it's clearly an issue of common sense, then either Congress suddenly feels like it's more important now then it ever was (which is clearly a faulty assumption), or there is something else at work here, to which I refer you to my diatribe on Police officers.

Societies are not static. New information is found, new information is digested. Laws change to reflect the general will. Prohibition, for instance, came in -- and left -- based on the public will. Laws against smoking in public places are appearing more and more often. Have the dangers in smoking changed? Have we learned more recently about them? No. But society has increasingly moved to the point of view that the endangerment they cause is worth legislating against.

Your right. New information does often arise in wake of an old problem. I've already said that, and your smoking point is a good one. But as I've said before, there is no new information. This problem hasn't changed, evolved, or done anything new to merit this legislation. Oh, and prohibition was repealed when Congress realized how much money they were losing by not having alcohol be legal. It was a fiscal decision.

Incidentally, the danger in vehicle collisions has changed, as cars these days travel faster, and there's a larger mix of large SUVs with smaller sub-compacts on the road. But that's not even the critical point. The critical point is that Congress feels like it's more important than it ever was because more of the electorate are telling them it's important, and fewer of the electorate are disputing this.

Cars have been able to go over 100 mph for well over 20 years. The combat this problem, car companies have been increasing the safety standards on cars. Air bags aren't just in the driver's seat anymore. Cars are being built to handle more abuse and to help their passengers. Lets not forget that annoying little bell that won't turn off until you click your belt. Your critical point is a joke. If you don't think so, then ask why we still can't vote for our own president. All the old systems that only made sense in a technologically inferior time are still in place. The general populace that makes up the electorate either don't vote or don't care, so don't pretend that they are addressing the needs of the people, because no one is listening.

Trust me, self-interest in the American system works. When politicians get enough people calling them and saying "You need to do this for me to vote for you" then they do that. No matter what "this" happens to be.

Yeah, again, that's a rather overly optimistic view. The incumbency rate for members of congress is well over 90 percent. Many of these people keep their seats until death. And if you think an overload of American citizens are contacting their senators and representatives about things they don't like, then keep dreaming. My State, Alaska, even reelected a embezzling crook, Ted Stevens, back into Congress.

The fact that you are not among those people who have been urging this is irrelevant.

As for your argument so that it was to allow police to stop somebody for no reason, this is ludicrous, as police have always had that ability, simply on suspicion of driving while incapacitated.

I, alone, urging this would be irrelevent, but I'm not. I'm not alone. Not even close.

The funny thing, when Police Cameras were first installed in their patrol vehicles, the number of DUI charges dropped, and many were overturned, based solely on the footage of the incidents. During the mid-90's, a lot of cops lost their jobs because their own camera's proved that cops were harassing people. Look it up if you don't believe me. You won't think it's so ludicrous when at the end of some month down the road, a cop pulls you over for not being buckled up, despite your protests that you would never drive with out your seat belt. He'll then ask you to step out of the car due to suspicion of controled substances. It's happened to me friend. Three times in fact.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Trust me, self-interest in the American system works. When politicians get enough people calling them and saying "You need to do this for me to vote for you" then they do that. No matter what "this" happens to be.

Uh, in some cases. I'm not comfortable saying self-interested works wholesale, because sometimes it works against the system to. What happens is, you get politicians less concerned with a fair system and more concerned with crowd-pleasing rhetoric, sound-bites, and a focus on issues that distract from more important issues at hand.

I can't think of a better system, I'm not going to pretend I know more about creating a fair system of running a country than everyone else (that's where I draw the line ) but I have reason to be skeptical about self-interested politicians.

 

[Gruthar]

But seat belts aren't new. And if anything, it should have been a bigger issue back when the majority of the cars on the road were death traps (Pinto anyone?).

Actually, the Pinto would be one of the few cars where I would rather not wear a seatbelt. I would rather be vaulted from the car than burned alive, but I digress.

Going through the thread, I think the point about being a safety liability to others sans seatbelt has been beaten to death. I would like to revisit the point about taxpayers, hospitals, and insurance having to foot the bill for not wearing a seatbelt. The counter was the suggestion that medical coverage be suspended for those that don't wear a seatbelt. If opposition to seatbelt laws is based on the infringement of personal freedoms, why would you give up a much more important right to preserve a trivial freedom? I see the seatbelt fines as a way to pay for the idiots who still don't wear a seatbelt despite existing laws.

Nevertheless, here's a scenario: What if you are in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt, but the accident is not your fault. You are ejected from the vehicle, and are in need of urgent care. Does the insurance of the other driver pay for your (hefty, thanks to no seatbelt) medical bills? Are you refused care because you weren't a wearing a seatbelt? Does the ambulance driver/EMT wait for the cops to investigate who was at fault, and if you were wearing a seatbelt before administering treatment and taking you to the hospital?