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

[Pimppeter2]

I don't think anyone really argues that they save lives and prevent injury. That has been pretty much established. Why force it?

Economics. "Seatbelts save lives" is not quite as important as "seatbelts help prevent injury" when you look at the cost associated with an accident. In otherwise minor accidents, not having a seatbelt on can lead to a hospital stay, which is expensive. For the uninsured (or poorly insured) the cost goes to the taxpayers. That is why you should be forced to wear your seatbelt. I don't want to pay your hospital bill when you don't wear it.

This

 

[Nmil-ek]

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?

If there are others in the car you are also risking their life, a body crashing around can be very dangerous for others in an accident.

How often does a body crash around in the car enough to harm others in the car?

Regardless of that, airbags generally minimize movement of bodies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-9JR2P4wWI&feature=PlayList&p=81A4D25DE7E892E2&index=4

/thread

How in the name of hell was she supposed to die from that she was going about 10 mph there, so her son lurched forward banged his head slightly he seeminly broke out into random hemorages and the mild discomfort of moving an inch or two caused her to die?

 

[Ventuquies]

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.

When you crash into my car front by front, I prefer you would wear your seatbelt rather than having your ass catapulted into my face with 90km/h

 

[ix_tab]

...It's still horrifying to me that there are places where seatbelts aren't mandatory.

I am the survivor of two severe car crashes, both of which I had to be cut out of the car with the Jaws of Life. Either time, if I hadn't been wearing a seat belt, I'd be dead.

There's no reason, no reason at all not to wear a seatbelt, ever.

 

[joystickjunki3]

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?

If there are others in the car you are also risking their life, a body crashing around can be very dangerous for others in an accident.

How often does a body crash around in the car enough to harm others in the car?

Regardless of that, airbags generally minimize movement of bodies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-9JR2P4wWI&feature=PlayList&p=81A4D25DE7E892E2&index=4

/thread

Scary video. I'd label it as propaganda, but I'll try to humor your argument.

My aunt was in an accident like this and my cousin was also not wearing his seatbelt. He crashed into her seat, the seat barely budged, my aunt's airbag inflated and no one was significantly injured.

EDIT: Maybe it's an issue w/ respective countries' cars.

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.

But the purpose of laws is to infringe on people's rights. Doesn't the law against murder infringe your right to kill? Doesn't the law against stealing infringe your right to kill?

Laws are designed to infringe our rights for security. If you say that this law is stupid for infringing people's rights then you would have to go against every other law as well.

Laws against murder protect an individual's right to life. My rights end where others' begin. And stealing doesn't always involve killing.

I had made a post about this already earlier in the thread.

I don't think anyone really argues that they save lives and prevent injury. That has been pretty much established. Why force it?

Economics. "Seatbelts save lives" is not quite as important as "seatbelts help prevent injury" when you look at the cost associated with an accident. In otherwise minor accidents, not having a seatbelt on can lead to a hospital stay, which is expensive. For the uninsured (or poorly insured) the cost goes to the taxpayers. That is why you should be forced to wear your seatbelt. I don't want to pay your hospital bill when you don't wear it.

This

Let's shoot for a record. 4th time:

Maybe the solution to this is to exempt any who weren't wearing seatbelts or helmets from government health care in the case of the accident.

 

[joystickjunki3]

...It's still horrifying to me that there are places where seatbelts aren't mandatory.

I am the survivor of two severe car crashes, both of which I had to be cut out of the car with the Jaws of Life. Either time, if I hadn't been wearing a seat belt, I'd be dead.

There's no reason, no reason at all not to wear a seatbelt, ever.

Never said there was.

 

[joystickjunki3]

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.

When you crash into my car front by front, I prefer you would wear your seatbelt rather than having your ass catapulted into my face with 90km/h

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but airbags and the like seem to exist for a reason. Also, I'm not quite sure how fast 90 km/h is, but if it's as fast as I estimate, then it's not very often cars crash head-to-head going at those speeds.

Although I suppose 90 km/h in a head-to-head crash is really just the 2 cars going at an average speed of 45 km/h. So I guess I retract my statement.

 

[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.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

I wear my seat belt all the time. I don't see why not. Also, people ride motorcycles without helmets? DARWIN AWARD!!!!!

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-9JR2P4wWI&feature=PlayList&p=81A4D25DE7E892E2&index=4

/thread

Scary video. I'd label it as propaganda, but I'll try to humor your argument.

My aunt was in an accident like this and my cousin was also not wearing his seatbelt. He crashed into her seat, the seat barely budged, my aunt's airbag inflated and no one was significantly injured.

EDIT: Maybe it's an issue w/ respective countries' cars.

Maybe your aunt was lucky. That video's probably not the most likely scenario but consider this:

What if there were multiple passengers in the back and the car was hit from the side? That'd be a very direct threat to the passengers: skulls and limbs crashing against one another. If you don't wear a seatbelt with other passengers, you're a direct threat to their safety.

What do you lose while wearing a seatbelt? As far as I can tell, being forced to wear a seatbelt while driving in a car doesn't infringe on any of your rights.

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

I will start by saying that the first thing I ever do any time I get into a car, whether it is mine or someone else's, is put my seatbelt on.

However, seatbelt laws, like any other similar law (smoking bans, the prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of all other illegal drugs) are a complete infringement on personal freedom. If some asshole really thinks it's a good idea to not wear his seatbelt, that's his right to be a dumbfuck and it's none of my concern. If something happens to him, well, hey. Shoulda worn your seatbelt.

The laws themselves are just an underhanded way of further taxing the public beyond the taxes that are explicitly in place. There is no reason why money should have anything to do with seatbelt violations or speeding tickets or anything like that. Those laws should function only to keep people from breaking them, and it is a legal and social fact that a fine has never, EVER stopped anybody from committing what the law defines as a crime.

EVER.

 

[Agayek]

It's just another example of the nanny-state mentality the US has been gradually adopting over the last few decades. It's rather dumb from my perspective. If people are dumb enough to drive around without seatbelts, they should die and not spread their tainted genes. We shouldn't have the government trying desperately to save them from themselves.

 

[Sparrow]

They're to save others.

My uncle was killed when a man didn't wear his seatbelt behind him, and when the car crashed it hit the seat and crushed him alive.

 

[joystickjunki3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-9JR2P4wWI&feature=PlayList&p=81A4D25DE7E892E2&index=4

/thread

Scary video. I'd label it as propaganda, but I'll try to humor your argument.

My aunt was in an accident like this and my cousin was also not wearing his seatbelt. He crashed into her seat, the seat barely budged, my aunt's airbag inflated and no one was significantly injured.

EDIT: Maybe it's an issue w/ respective countries' cars.

Maybe your aunt was lucky. That video's probably not the most likely scenario but consider this:

What if there were multiple passengers in the back and the car was hit from the side? That'd be a very direct threat to the passengers: skulls and limbs crashing against one another. If you don't wear a seatbelt with other passengers, you're a direct threat to their safety.

What do you lose while wearing a seatbelt? As far as I can tell, being forced to wear a seatbelt while driving in a car doesn't infringe on any of your rights.

Your scenario is much more likely I think. And there's almost always exceptions to issues. I agree partially w/ argument.

Once again, though, it's not the seatbelts I have a problem w/.

If I'm forced to wear one, then it might be against my pursuit of happiness.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Feel free not to wear one, but don't expect any medical attention that could be given to someone who got injured in a less idiotic manner.Hm.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Here's the thing - there are plenty of things that you CAN get a ticket for, but likely won't unless the police a) feel like punishing you, and/or b) need to hit their quotas. For example, it's illegal in PA to have anything hanging from your rearview mirror. Or have any stickers on your back windshield. Yet you'll see countless cars with both because those laws aren't enforced. Driving barefoot is illegal, too.

The seatbelt law gets enforced, particularly at this time of year, to scare young and new drivers into being safe. When the weather turns warm and everyone's out of school, safety becomes a real issue. Where I grew up, for example, it was relatively common for kids to get a car for high school graduation, and an alarming percentage of them ended up wrecked by July.

However, seatbelt laws, like any other similar law (smoking bans, the prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of all other illegal drugs) are a complete infringement on personal freedom. If some asshole really thinks it's a good idea to not wear his seatbelt, that's his right to be a dumbfuck and it's none of my concern. If something happens to him, well, hey. Shoulda worn your seatbelt.

Not quite. If you're smoking, one assumes you're exhaling, and then your personal choice is ending up in my lungs. If you're drinking and get behind the wheel, your choice is quite possibly killing someone. I understand what you're saying, but the analogy simply isn't accurate in this case. I liken it more to motorcycle helmets. I've never understood that law, personally. (Some states require you to wear one, others do not.)

 

[joystickjunki3]

Feel free not to wear one, but don't expect any medical attention that could be given to someone who got injured in a less idiotic manner.Hm.

I've already suggested that 4 times in this thread, but it still doesn't stop the fact that a law exists where if I don't wear one then I have to pay a fine.

 

[MrPop]

Seat belts take away my freedom to have a higher chance to die in a car accident. And I like that freedom!

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Your scenario is much more likely I think. And there's almost always exceptions to issues. I agree partially w/ argument.

Once again, though, it's not the seatbelts I have a problem w/.

If I'm forced to wear one, then it might be against my pursuit of happiness.

I'm tempted to label that as an absurd argument. Okay, tempted is a poor choice of words. Let's use "going."

"I have to wear a seatbelt while I'm in a car. Man, this goes against my pursuit of happiness!"
"Why?"
"I'm unhappy because I'm forced to wear a seatbelt!"

I don't think the pursuit of happiness works this way. It's not like wearing a seatbelt will prevent you from achieving your goals and ambitions. (If you insist that your life's ambition is to drive a car without a seatbelt, so help me...)

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

Here's the thing - there are plenty of things that you CAN get a ticket for, but likely won't unless the police a) feel like punishing you, and/or b) need to hit their quotas. For example, it's illegal in PA to have anything hanging from your rearview mirror. Or have any stickers on your back windshield. Yet you'll see countless cars with both because those laws aren't enforced. Driving barefoot is illegal, too.

The seatbelt law gets enforced, particularly at this time of year, to scare young and new drivers into being safe. When the weather turns warm and everyone's out of school, safety becomes a real issue. Where I grew up, for example, it was relatively common for kids to get a car for high school graduation, and an alarming percentage of them ended up wrecked by July.

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. I'm honestly very uncomfortable to be in his car with him driving because of all the glaring mistakes he makes and just the manner in which he drives. Not recklessly, just as if he isn't exactly sure of what it is he's doing, and the funny part is I know he isn't. I can tell.

There are way too many C and D grade drivers on the road who very obviously don't know what they're doing, which can often be discerned from a short five-second encounter with one of them as you drive your own car. Only people who have demonstrated that they are legitimately capable of being an efficient and courteous driver should get a license. I passed my road test in one shot the first time I took it and since then the worst infraction I have experienced was a speeding ticket under specific circumstances. And this is coming from someone who drives regularly not only while high, but often while in the act of smoking itself. Most people think they're better drivers than the majority of others; I know I am.

Not quite. If you're smoking, one assumes you're exhaling, and then your personal choice is ending up in my lungs. If you're drinking and get behind the wheel, your choice is quite possibly killing someone. I understand what you're saying, but the analogy simply isn't accurate in this case. I liken it more to motorcycle helmets. I've never understood that law, personally. (Some states require you to wear one, others do not.)

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.