Mandatory seat belt laws are tyrannical

[Armoured]

Thread necromancy from a new member is bad form.

True, but this thread DOES have some of the best posts in the history of the forum in it.

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

 

[Maddox]

Well we could pretend it is new thread about mortal sin of pride that Armoured just initiated. Or just shuck some more earth on top of it. It is all good.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Driving a car on a public highway is not a right, it's a privilege. That's why licencing is involved, you can't drive unless you are licenced as well.

One of the conditions of driving on a public road is that you wear your seatbelt. You can drive without a seatbelt on private property all you want.

It's not a violation of your rights to have to follow the rules of a publicly maintained road.

 

[Tallguy88]

What is really interesting is that people who think that laws and functioning government are bad things limiting their rights still choose to live there instead of moving to some places with no functional laws and control.

There are some failed states around the globe where everyone can be free from the shackles of laws. Funnily enough nobody seems that interested in moving there.

Who doesn't like government? Please avoid strawman arguments. If you like seat belt laws, then I'm sure you can make a logical argument in favor of them and why they trump my personal bodily liberty.

 

[Tallguy88]

Driving a car on a public highway is not a right, it's a privilege. That's why licencing is involved, you can't drive unless you are licenced as well.

One of the conditions of driving on a public road is that you wear your seatbelt. You can drive without a seatbelt on private property all you want.

It's not a violation of your rights to have to follow the rules of a publicly maintained road.

There's still no good reason for it. It's just a cash grab by the government. I don't like police having that kind of petty power.

 

[Tallguy88]

I get it. Too many people can't be trusted to do the right thing, so they need the government to babysit them and everyone else by threatening them into doing the right thing.

Some of us are perfectly capable of doing the right thing without being threatened. I always wear my seatbelt. Not because Barney might catch me if I don't, but because it's the smart thing to do.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What right does the government have to force me to wear a seat belt?

The end of the book, Revelation of Jesus to John the Apostle,
describes this. (and some places in the book, earlier, describe this also)... IT is all expected.

And many other tyrannies , many.
It is not right, no.
We suffer them, we accept the fines, penalties, even death for our faith in Jesus, as is written thru Scripture.

 

[Tallguy88]

The end of the book, Revelation of Jesus to John the Apostle,
describes this. (and some places in the book, earlier, describe this also)... IT is all expected.

And many other tyrannies , many.
It is not right, no.
We suffer them, we accept the fines, penalties, even death for our faith in Jesus, as is written thru Scripture.

I wouldn't say this is an issue of faith. Other things maybe. But this is about personal liberty to make a choice about my body.

It is interesting that people who are anti-choice on this issue are pro-choice on other issues related to the body. But my choice here doesn't result in a guaranteed death, just a slightly increased liklihood of it if I chose not to wear my seatbelt.

I guess that's the difference between liberals and libertarians. Liberals (and Conservatives) like freedom of choice on certain pet issues, but libertarians are consistent that personal liberty and freedom of choice should be protected, so long as that choice does not infringe on someone else.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, since we are reopening this basket, here's another argument for mandatory seat belts: they help you stay in your seat.

I know, silly thought, but it's true. They can help you stay in your seat during stressfull movements or crashes. Not only do you thus not become a 75 kilogram projectile in your own car (endangering anyone driving with you, even those that wear seat belts), but they allow you to stay in a place where you can still have some control over your car and can steer it out of trouble.

 

[Tallguy88]

Well, since we are reopening this basket, here's another argument for mandatory seat belts: they help you stay in your seat.

I know, silly thought, but it's true. They can help you stay in your seat during stressfull movements or crashes. Not only do you thus not become a 75 kilogram projectile in your own car (endangering anyone driving with you, even those that wear seat belts), but they allow you to stay in a place where you can still have some control over your car and can steer it out of trouble.

I'm not against wearing searbelts. It's the smart thing to do.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm not against wearing searbelts. It's the smart thing to do.

No, but it's about mandatory seatbelts, because not wearing seat belts endangers others (those in your car and those you hit because you lose control of your car because you don't wear a seatbelt).

 

[Oafman]

OP, you have a rather broad definition of tyranny...

 

[Tallguy88]

No, but it's about mandatory seatbelts, because not wearing seat belts endangers others (those in your car and those you hit because you lose control of your car because you don't wear a seatbelt).

That's too much of a stretch to make a universal law. My passengers can also exercise their freedom of choice by not riding with me if they are afraid of this one-in-a-million scenario. And I'm way to big to go through the front window, I'd get mangled by the steering wheel first.

Of course, I choose to wear a seatbelt, so it's a moot point. But it's the nanny state at work that it's mandatory and a primary offense.

 

[Tallguy88]

OP, you have a rather broad definition of tyranny...

Unnecessary government infringement on the personal liberty of adults with sound mind. Not the worst example, but still an example. The War on Drugs is a worse example.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

For those old enough to remember,
seat belts costs much more than they are worth.
Steel bumpers saved many more lives than belts did,
and many deaths have been due to being trapped by a belt
and unable to get out of a vehicle.
spin, spin, spin when the politics, and money, and powers
to change the public view of all this -
and mostly they succeeded (not in saving lives nor money; but costing more of both, besides also personal liberty, freedom, and truth).

 

[Dave Ellis]

There's still no good reason for it. It's just a cash grab by the government. I don't like police having that kind of petty power.

Sure there is, emergency workers don't need to waste time scraping your body off the pavement when you were thrown out of the window. That causes unneeded costs and delays for everyone involved.

 

[Tallguy88]

Sure there is, emergency workers don't need to waste time scraping your body off the pavement when you were thrown out of the window. That causes unneeded costs and delays for everyone involved.

Statistically insignificant. Just because the law would go away, doesn't mean a significant number of drivers will suddenly decide to stop wearing seat belts. Those who do stop wearing seat belts won't be more likely to be in an accident (statistically, they are less likely to be in an accident). And not everyone who doesn't wear a seat belt and does have an accident will be thrown from the car and become mangled on the road.

It's a justification after the fact and an appeal to emotion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Statistically insignificant. Just because the law would go away, doesn't mean a significant number of drivers will suddenly decide to stop wearing seat belts. Those who do stop wearing seat belts won't be more likely to be in an accident (statistically, they are less likely to be in an accident). And not everyone who doesn't wear a seat belt and does have an accident will be thrown from the car and become mangled on the road.

It's a justification after the fact and an appeal to emotion.

And a reasonable basis for a seatbelt law.

Get over it, buckle up.

 

[tatteredsoul]

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.

Technically, you belong to the state since the day you received a serial/social security number.


But, I agree. I think all adults should have the right to completely obliterate themselves as sovereign, thinking agents of humanity. Nanny laws like drug, alcohol, gun and other laws do nothing for supposed law abiding citizens except put them in more of a nanny-state box.

However, I do believe laws do have benefits. You don't have to protect yourself from danger, but I do think it should be illegal to harm others in a significant way. That seldom applies to the individual choosing whether to wear a seat belt - unless the person is a suicidal psychopath that plans to take other with him/her. In that case, a law to a psychopath means nothing anyway (look at DC.)

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's great and all, until you're in a head on accident, and spend the next 47 years needing full time nursing care and about a million dollars worth of surgery.

Maybe so and maybe no but that should be the adult's choice. Laws like this are many times more about revenue than anything.