Mandatory seat belt laws are tyrannical

[Armoured]

Armoured is right in this.. you others are wrong.

Testify!

 

[aieyiamfu]

Armoured is right in this.. you others are wrong.
I covered this subject in depth a long time ago.

When you are injured or killed in an auto accident, consider all the other people who are affected.. Just from a pure financial viewpoint.
If we remove the seat belt law the it would only be fair to remove the requirement for an insurance company to pay out coverage.. Life insurance, medical coverage, etc.
We should also then remove or severely limit any liability of the automotive companies for defects of the vehicles..

Wearing a seat belt is not about you or your rights.. its about everyone else.

Your insurance company has every right to require an insured to wear a seatbelt as this is a voluntary agreement you have the choice to enter into. In my opinion personal liberty trumps cost to society, when it does not there is no personal liberty. I don't understand folks who want the government to control every aspect of their lives because some boogeyman might get them.

 

[Armoured]

Your insurance company has every right to require an insured to wear a seatbelt as this is a voluntary agreement you have the choice to enter into. In my opinion personal liberty trumps cost to society, when it does not there is no personal liberty. I don't understand folks who want the government to control every aspect of their lives because some boogeyman might get them.

What part of "reasonable" don't you get?

I'm happy for people to own guns, that doesn't mean I support it being legal to fire them randomly with no concern for who or what's downrange, even if that requires curtailing some people's "personal liberties".

 

[Murby]

Your insurance company has every right to require an insured to wear a seatbelt as this is a voluntary agreement you have the choice to enter into. In my opinion personal liberty trumps cost to society, when it does not there is no personal liberty. I don't understand folks who want the government to control every aspect of their lives because some boogeyman might get them.

Its a lot deeper than that.. Consider that your death would have a high probability that society would then be required to take care of your children when you die.. That means the financial penalty falls to everyone else..

Consider the medical resources alone when you're injured.. you're using up medical resources that are subject to limited supply like blood, organs, etc . Should society be allowed to deny you these things based on your seat belt use?

Should society tell your children they won't get welfare like food or other medical care because their parent(s) died in an auto accident and were not wearing their seat belts?

Should we also limit or excuse any liability on another driver if they are at fault but you did not mitigate the potential consequences?

Keep thinking about how your liberties start to have an effect on others...

 

[Murby]

What part of "reasonable" don't you get?

Easy there tiger.. Be nice. The guy just needs to think outside his own box..

 

[aieyiamfu]

Once upon a time I had a Suzuki sx4 (not really my thing, but the wife really wanted one) and my son and we're on an afternoon outing in mid March (both wearing seatbelts) and an unexpected snow storm made the roads pretty slick, and even though I used an abundance of caution and drove very slowly we slid off the road and over a steep bank, front of car collapsed like an accordion and broke my hip, messed up my son's knee. Had I been in my F-350 (hindsight being what it is) it is unlikely we would have sustained any injuries, there is obviously a huge benefit to society to outlawing small cars, mayhap we should have the government undertake that endeavor on our behalf. I personally will never purchase or drive a small car again, that's me using common sense.

 

[Armoured]

Its a lot deeper than that.. Consider that your death would have a high probability that society would then be required to take care of your children when you die.. That means the financial penalty falls to everyone else..

Consider the medical resources alone when you're injured.. you're using up medical resources that are subject to limited supply like blood, organs, etc . Should society be allowed to deny you these things based on your seat belt use?

Should society tell your children they won't get welfare like food or other medical care because their parent(s) died in an auto accident and were not wearing their seat belts?

Should we also limit or excuse any liability on another driver if they are at fault but you did not mitigate the potential consequences?

Keep thinking about how your liberties start to have an effect on others...

An unrestrained person in a car has become a lethal missile in more than one car accident I know of. Although it's pretty far down the list of causes of death, avoiding entries in the "killed by the guy in the other car coming through my windshield at 100kph" subcategory seems a compelling enough reason to make seatbelts mandatory.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Its a lot deeper than that.. Consider that your death would have a high probability that society would then be required to take care of your children when you die.. That means the financial penalty falls to everyone else..

Consider the medical resources alone when you're injured.. you're using up medical resources that are subject to limited supply like blood, organs, etc . Should society be allowed to deny you these things based on your seat belt use?

Should society tell your children they won't get welfare like food or other medical care because their parent(s) died in an auto accident and were not wearing their seat belts?

Should we also limit or excuse any liability on another driver if they are at fault but you did not mitigate the potential consequences?

Keep thinking about how your liberties start to have an effect on others...

Stuff happens. A law won't make society impervious to any problems.

 

[aieyiamfu]

An unrestrained person in a car has become a lethal missile in more than one car accident I know of. Although it's pretty far down the list of causes of death, avoiding entries in the "killed by the guy in the other car coming through my windshield at 100kph" subcategory seems a compelling enough reason to make seatbelts mandatory.

Sounds good in theory, break out the government issued bubble wrap.

 

[Armoured]

Easy there tiger.. Be nice. The guy just needs to think outside his own box..

It's the " folks who want the government to control every aspect of their lives" strawman I'm objecting to.

Seeing how seatbelt laws are a good idea doesn't mean I want a nanny state.

 

[Armoured]

Stuff happens. A law won't make society impervious to any problems.

It's not about making society "impervious". It's about reducing risk. Nothing is 100% effective all the time. That doesn't make something non-worthwhile.

 

[Murby]

Once upon a time I had a Suzuki sx4 (not really my thing, but the wife really wanted one) and my son and we're on an afternoon outing in mid March (both wearing seatbelts) and an unexpected snow storm made the roads pretty slick, and even though I used an abundance of caution and drove very slowly we slid off the road and over a steep bank, front of car collapsed like an accordion and broke my hip, messed up my son's knee. Had I been in my F-350 (hindsight being what it is) it is unlikely we would have sustained any injuries, there is obviously a huge benefit to society to outlawing small cars, mayhap we should have the government undertake that endeavor on our behalf. I personally will never purchase or drive a small car again, that's me using common sense.

Its not good form to duck a debate by creating another irrelevant debate.
I understand the reasoning behind your arguments and you are not entirely wrong with them.. But the seat belt laws were not enacted without a whole lot of public debate. When you become aware of the other sides arguments, your eyes will open and begin to see certain issues that must be addressed.

 

[Murby]

It's the " folks who want the government to control every aspect of their lives" strawman I'm objecting to.

Seeing how seatbelt laws are a good idea doesn't mean I want a nanny state.

Ya I know.. He just needs to be shown the outside of his box to see how his liberties don't just affect him but affect things that are also important to him.

I was actually in the same boat as this guy when they past the laws in my state long ago.. But as the years went by and my knowledge of things expanded, I began to realize the law is justified and does way more good than harm to our liberties.

 

[Murby]

Stuff happens. A law won't make society impervious to any problems.

Sounds good in theory, break out the government issued bubble wrap.

Now you're just ducking the argument with irrelevant replies.

 

[aieyiamfu]

It's the " folks who want the government to control every aspect of their lives" strawman I'm objecting to.

Seeing how seatbelt laws are a good idea doesn't mean I want a nanny state.

Sorry, I may be a bit obtuse, but I simply cannot understand this bit of logic, or from my point of view illogic. Any new law that does not address a real crime (ie..damage to person, property, or freedom) is a step towards a nanny state, just because it is a good idea does not in any way make legislating it a good idea, there are thousands of things people can do that may have a negative effect on society at a given time, arbitrarily selecting seatbelts laws really makes no more sense than legislating how much food one can eat or what type.

 

[farout]

What right does the government have to force me to wear a seat belt? I am an adult. I own my body and am responsible for assessing risk and acting accordingly. If I choose not to wear a seat belt for myself, what basis does the government have to force me to wear one?

It's a violation of my personal liberty and right to privacy.

Btw, I always wear a seat belt. But I do so because I choose to. The state has no right to force me to comply with its laws about safety, when I am the only one who would suffer harm from failure to comply.

Discuss.

If people that did not ware the seat belt had very good health insurance that that would be ok. But often these stupid people get is bad wrecks, go into the windshield, ejected and run over by their own car and often hurt other drivers. Yep no one has the right to make you ware a seat belt by law.

I totally disagree. Who pays for the fire rescue squad, the EMT and the ambulance, the hospital and doctor bills when a large percent of non seat belt users are uninsured or underinsured. Only ignorant or just plan dumb people don't use seat belts.

 

[Murby]

Only ignorant or just plan dumb people don't use seat belts.

I don't think that's his argument..
It's dumb to do a lot of things, he just want's the liberty to do them.

 

[farout]

Sorry, I may be a bit obtuse, but I simply cannot understand this bit of logic, or from my point of view illogic. Any new law that does not address a real crime (ie..damage to person, property, or freedom) is a step towards a nanny state, just because it is a good idea does not in any way make legislating it a good idea, there are thousands of things people can do that may have a negative effect on society at a given time, arbitrarily selecting seatbelts laws really makes no more sense than legislating how much food one can eat or what type.

This is a far bigger issue that personal freedom or legislating your rights away. Do speed laws, or rules of the road take away your rights? There is such a thing as the general rights of people to be safe.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Now you're just ducking the argument with irrelevant replies.

Here is the argument at a very logical level. If I chose not to wear a seatbelt and am in a terrible accident where I am badly damaged or badly damage someone due to my behavior (ie.. not wearing a seatbelt) the fine will be inconsequential and obviously did nothing to deter my behaviour or mitigate it's consequences. If however I am riding down the road and am pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (which is not possible in my state as it is not a primary offense, but I understand it is in some states) and receive a fine after having done no damage with my behaviour, it amounts to revenue generation. Laws to generate revenue are immoral and if you are into the constitution I think they would be seen as unconstitutional ( I have little regard for the document myself so try not to base arguments on that).

 

[Murby]

Any new law that does not address a real crime (ie..damage to person, property, or freedom) is a step towards a nanny state,

Might want to reconsider the nanny state argument when your children are being taken care of by the state because you're dead. That's a true nanny state.

just because it is a good idea does not in any way make legislating it a good idea, there are thousands of things people can do that may have a negative effect on society at a given time, arbitrarily selecting seatbelts laws really makes no more sense than legislating how much food one can eat or what type.

There must be a balance between liberty and reason. Should I have the freedom and liberty to yell BOMB on an airplane?