Itīs "we the people" who mandate wearing a seat belt

[Angela Shelley]

This is a post about society, not about political parties.

Imagine a society whose citizens are as healthy as possible, and willing and able to work.

When one person has a sickness or a disease, or when a person has an ailment because of an accident, or when a person is not able to work because of excess alcohol consumption, for example, then the rest of the citizens "carry" this person through.

When, for example, someone gets in a car accident, and is not wearing a seat belt, then the probability of excessive injuries is higher, meaning that the whole society carries more risk when people donīt use seat belts.

So, logically thinking citizens will realize that itīs better for everyone if everyone wears a seat belt while riding in a car.

Wearing a seat belt and demanding that other people wear a seat belt is an example of social responsiblity.

Itīs not the government who wants you to wear a seat belt, itīs your FELLOW CITIZENS who want you to wear a seat belt, so that you will stay healthy and the risks of injuries are reduced.

Peace :-)

[Patriot Abroad]

1. And it's the law.

Most places, anyway.

Here in Ireland they show horrific slow motion crashes as road safety messages on TV - especially good one shows a teenage girl, not buckled in, killing the other three occupants of the car as her head slams around during an accident.

Other greatest hits include the car that flies over a wall and crushes a kid (driver had been drinking), and showing people in rehab.

Seat belts saves lives.
Not drinking before driving saves lives.

[lligrd]

2. I'm Really Torn On This - I Hate Unnecessary Laws

especially one that curtail freedom but I also don't want anyone (especially loved ones) hurt, even if the choice was theirs. Still, I err on the side of freedom and education.

[bushmeister0]

3. Wearing seat belts isn't an acedemic exercise.

Fly somehwere and just try refusing to wear a seatbelt.

Back in the olden days, before seat belts, people were regulary impaled on the steering wheel. Folks in the back seat, like rock star Eddie Cochran, for instance, were beheaded when they went straight up as their vehicle stopped abruptly.

Info from something called caraccident.com

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html

"On average, inpatient hospital care costs for an unbelted crash victim are 50 percent higher than those for a belted crash victim. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved. Every American pays about $580 a year toward the cost of crashes. If everyone buckled up, this figure would drop significantly. By reaching the goal of 90 percent seat belt use, and 25 percent reduction in child fatalities, we will save $8.8 billion annually."

Btw, I've been in a few accidents myself (through no fault of my own, naturally) and that 60 mph header I took into a Florida Turnpike guardrail once would most certainly have been fatal if not for a seatbelt.

[lligrd]

4. I Agree That They Save Lives Just Don't Agree That

risking one's own life should be a criminal offense.

[bushmeister0]

7. In principle I agree with what you're saying with the whole freedom guestion

it's a tough one, but ultimatly, I think that yes, risking your own life should be a criminal offense, although we're
talking about a ticket here, not incarceration.

The government, which issues permits to operate a motor vehicle, has a right, an obligation to assure that people operate those vehicles do so in the safest manor possible. Again, we get back to the airplane scenario, you want to fly, you buckle up.

[DangerDave921]

63. And . . .

The speed limit should be 10 MPH on the highway, because that would certainly reduce traffic fatalities. And everyone should be required to wear race helmets while driving as added protection.

[maui9002]

68. No, it's a matter of cost/benefit

Taking your argument to even further extreme, we could just outlaw cars which would also dramatically reduce auto accidents. But in a modern democratic society, laws are passed all the time that impinge on our right to do whatever we want to protect the public good. Setting the speed limit at 10 miles per hour has very adverse consequences for society. What the reasonable speed limit should be is left up to a legislature, which, in a ideal world, is responsive to its constituents. In fact, prohibiting drinking altogether would reduce traffic accidents, but as a society, we've elected to allow drinking but prohibit drinking and driving, which is another example of weighing the cost and benefits associated with the issue.

[DangerDave921]

70. Seat belt laws do not protect the PUBLIC good.

They protect me only. So F that.

[maui9002]

75. I disagree;

The injuries caused by not wearing seat belts have a huge cost to society; through increased insurance premiums, strain on medical providers, etc.--costs that are borne by all of us and not just the person injured. And that doesn't take into account the loss of what each person injured or killed provides to society.

[DangerDave921]

76. Sorry

That is such a lame argument. And if you follow that logic to its conclusion, the government would have unfettered right to control any of your actions based on nothing more than you are a part of society.

There's no way to get through to people who are willing and eager to turn over personal decisions to the government.

[maui9002]

81. Government would not and does not have an "unfettered" right

to control any action. All laws enacted have to pass constitutional muster and need to be supported by voters, presumably because they regard the law as having a greater benefit to society than a detriment. If voters are really upset about seat belt laws, which you seem to be, they will vote out the legislators who support those laws. And it's simply not true that people who are killed or injured don't impose a cost on the rest of us.

Do you support seat belt laws for infants? Following your argument, I assume you'd say no, because what right does the government have telling you how to protect your children.

[seabeyond]

77. do we all have to drive hummer, cause those itty bitty teeney cars in accident cause a lot more

damage to a body than if a person got in an accident in a big ole hummer.

[Echo In Light]

22. $tate revenue trumps concern for the common good. Plus it allows cops to search = BIG bonus!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. Cops searching, excellent point. My son was stopped for not wearing his seat belt and

the state trooper started to look inside of his car. He was with his girlfriend and in the backseat was her mom's cable box. Her mom had just moved down to Texas and the kids were going to return the box to the cable company and they got the third degree from the trooper. She (the trooper was a she) then started to ask them about drugs. When they returned home they were both visibly upset and like most kids around here, had more distrust for the police than before.

My son's girlfriend comes from a family with cops. Her grandfather a retired NYC cop and her uncle a cop in a small local city. Oddly, they were upset that my son and his girlfriend were treated the way they were.

BTW...her grandfather the retired NYC cop believes that 9/11 was an inside job, pours over the Internet and has boxes of files....

[Echo In Light]

33. In some instances the lack of seat belt serves as the excuse to get em pulled over

I've been though that scenario plenty of times myself.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. Probable cause............

[Echo In Light]

43. Especially when you have all the long hair and tatts that I have :)

I really gave this small town Deputy Dawg the bit once though ...had me pulled over for the rear license plate bulb being out { :eyes: }, and knowing that I had absolutely nothing to hide, decided to espouse some of my political views. The Public Servant didn't much care for that at all. The dick searched the car only half assed though as I'm sure he figured I wouldn't have been nearly as talkative had I had a pot pipe on me, or roach clip in the ashtray...LOL

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. You made me laugh here! My friend Tony was a cop magnet. Although no tattoos, he had very long

blond hair, and was forever being stopped. A couple of times I had to bail him out of jail because his lack of restraint when confronted with "authority". In the 5 years we were together (he has since passed over), I had never had as much contact with police in my entire life, nor been in court as often. I remember one morning, we were in a parking lot of a large shopping center here, outside of my car, watching a hawk being chased by a flock of starlings, and Sgt. Local Cop, just had to stop to see what we were up to... geeze!

I on the other hand, when stopped for "probable cause", have always driven away without a hassle nor a ticket. I'm a bit more charming. ;)

[Echo In Light]

56. Ha, well my wife insists I'm not without my charms...

Hard to explain, I guess ... once you begin bucking authority early on it can become, as it did in my case, central to your entire mindset.

I've had both good and bad experiences with cops, but mostly bad. Aside from traffic violations when I was much younger, and a possession charge, I got through relatively unscathed compared to many. The thing for me was, I used to play in heavy metal bar/club bands, which began of course as practicing in numerous people's garages/basements, which would invariably lead to someone calling the cops on us...strangely enough it was during such incidents that I recall cops being at their worst ...as in very provocative, picking fights, hoping to justify leaving with more than issuing a warning, etc

From what I hear from some of the younger folks I work with, the cops nowadays are much more redneck/belligerent. One kid recently was issued a costly ticket for not having the current ins card in his wallet - he had the ins, but not the up to date id, still got the ticket...which I believe he can beat, but still, apparently warranted the ticket. And this kid looks straight as an arrow.

In my youth, many transgressions, and worse, were literally ignored/glossed over by many cops ...and I was very reckless in many instances; driving with a headful of blotter acid, bongs and steamrollers in the car, anybody who'd be with me would have at least a half oz or more on em, you know the scene ... but even then, if you got busted, they'd either take your weed, or dump it, or simply allow you to go with a warning. We took to camping a lot as it was a great way of not having to worry about being mobile while under the influence. But that was many yrs ago. These days the cops pretty much leave me alone - I still look like a "cop magnet" as you put it, but around here they see a regular family man who goes to work, cuts the grass, shoots the shit with neighbors...who are surprisingly tolerant of my drumming and high decibel rock. {keep those windows closed during good weather!}

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. Cops are more beligerent now than when I was younger. Over the past years I've known many teens

that have been really hassled here.

I was brought up mostly in a borough of NYC and never had much of a problem with cops personally. There was an incident when I was in high school. Four friends of mine were living in one of their mom's apartments (the mom moved to California), and another friend's mother thought there was massive drug use going on there. The apartment was kept "immaculate" of all drugs and the narcs showed up for a bust. I was there at the time and no matter how much they turned the place upside down, not even a seed was found. The narcs were actually as nice as narcs could be and I don't recall feeling intimidated at all.

Yet, around the same time, my distrust for uniformed cops grew. It had nothing to do with being a teen but being anti-war. I was at a huge anti-war march in Manhattan. This was in the late 60s. I was at the back of the march (with Dr. Spock..loved him). The march ended with violence created by the cops. The cops led the front marchers to a dead end, trapping them and started to beat them up. A friend of mine was severely beaten. That friend I learned later on, became a civil rights lawyer. :)

My best cop anecdote.. In the early 60's after graduating HS, my brother went out west during the summer to sell magazines and see the country. On his 18th birthday he got very drunk and went to a local sheriff to test for a driver's license. My brother got in the car with the sheriff, and started to drive. The sheriff told him to stop and then said, "if you can get down from the curb, I'll give you your driver's license". My brother did, and got a driver's license from the state of Washington. :) Can you imagine a cop doing that now? I don't think so.

[PVnRT]

24. It's a misdemeanor, hardly an "offense"

You pay fine, and move on. If you still don't want to wear it, it's not like you get felony charges and jail time.

[RC]

14. I was flying to KCMO and the guy in the seat next to me just laid the

seat belt buckle over his lap. He made no attempt to fasten it. The stewardess made her trip checking that we all were buckled in and just kept going. I don't think she even noticed and he never did fasten it.

[seabeyond]

23. hang him. then as we the people, wouldnt it be your responsibility to tell on him n/t

[Iris]

37. Do you think those seatbelts in airplanes would really do anything?

I always think it's just an exercise in trying to give the appearance of safety.

[maui9002]

69. Yes, they do something

As one who's been in a midair "bump", which caused the flight attendants and some unbelted passengers to hit the ceiling of the plane I was on, they very definitely have their benefits. It's like all accidents that occur; they occur rarely, but you don't know when they'll occur so you need to be buckled in all the time. Likewise in sudden decompressions. Of course, I understand your point that if the plane drops out of the sky and crashes, seat belts are unlikely to help, but those incidents happen far less often than extreme turbulence and similar instances.

[Iris]

80. I'm glad to know that they do work for some things! Thanks!

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[goddess40]

54. insurance companies could handle this issue

by setting different rates of coverage for those that wear seat belts and those that don't.

[taterguy]

5. Actually it's the insurance companies

They lobbied for the law to minimize the amounts they'd have to pay out.

[zanne]

21. Yup. And now they're working on anti-fat people legislation. nt

[malaise]

6. Actually we the people should thank

Ralph Nader. He fought both the government and the car industry.

[bushmeister0]

9. Absolutly correct! And Robert McNamara.

[DangerDave921]

8. So wrong.

The extent to which people are eager to give up personal freedom astounds me. I always wear a seatbelt myself. But if you agree that wearing a seatbelt should be mandatory because it reduces the risk of injury to society then you are giving the government virtually open-ended control over your behavior. Under this same logic, the government could require you to wear a life preserver every time you go in a pool for a swim. The government could ban swimming altogether to save lives. Wouldn't that reduce the cost to society?

There's virtually no end to what the government could do to reduce injury and death, if they chose to do it. And you'd be just fine with any of it, because hey -- it's to help people.

[bushmeister0]

10. Oh please, the government that brought you FEMA is going to waste

it's time preventing people from swimming? The only reason they went to all the trouble of enforcing seatbelt laws is because it makes SENSE. Why don't you spend your time worrying more about all the miriade things the government is doing to threaten your health like giving companies like Cargill Meat Solutions, for example, a pass to poison all of us?

[DangerDave921]

11. Not worrying

I didn't start this thread. Someone else did. So don't act like I'm the one worrying about this issue. I was responding to the OP. As for what the government may or may not do in the future, that is not really the issue. I was responding to the OP's logical argument that the government was justified in passing seatbelt laws because it reduces the risk to society. I think that is a flawed argument, which if you truly believe in it, could allow the goverment to pass virtually any law it chose to. So I was debating the logic of such an argument.

I think seat belt laws (and helmet laws) are unwarranted intrusions on personal freedom.

[bushmeister0]

13. Yes, and I was debating your opinon

You say: "I think seat belt laws (and helmet laws) are unwarranted intrusions on personal freedom."

Then don't drive. The government has the right to regulate what you do in the a car since, as has been oft said, 'driving is a privilege, not a right.'


How about all the information every corporation has on your buying habits? The NSA compiling lists of who you call and who you e-mail? Yahoo/AOL/Google selling your on-line habits to the highest bidder ect. Again, focus on what's really important, all I'm saying. I believe seatbelts are not a freedom issue, they're a safety issue.

If you're convinced you shouldn't be "forced" to wear a seatbelt then maybe we should legislate opt-out provisons for those who wish to play the odds on suviving an accident witout a seatbelt. You crash, you deal with the consequences? How about that? There's real freedon for you, although that's not the kind of society I'd like to live in.

[DangerDave921]

30. OK

Would you be OK with a law requiring you to wear a helmet while driving your car? I assume so, since your position is that the government has the right to regulate what you do in a car.

I already deal with the consequences of having an accident. I have car insurance and health insurance. And I DO wear a seatbelt as any right-thinking person does. I just don't believe the government should require it.

And yes, there are far more important things in this world to worry about. But I didn't start this thread.

[Angela Shelley]

60. Hi DangerDave, itīs me, I started this thread.

The point is that itīs NOT a group of government officials who are telling you to wear a seat belt in order to reduce your freedoms and to control you.

Itīs your FELLOW CITIZENS who are demanding that you reduce your risks, so that they donīt have to carry the costs of a terrible accident.

Itīs a law "from the people", not from a tyrannical government.

Peace :-)

[pitohui]

72. yes and your argument is just ignorant and contrary to fact

my fellow citizens didn't demand any such thing, and if you knew how highway laws were implemented in america you would already know that

maybe go back to high school civics class?


the feds manipulate highway funds to push thru whatever laws they like, period, end of sentence

what i want and what my fellow citizens want is of no bearing

[zanne]

36. Then complain to the insurance companies...

They're the ones lobbying the government for seat belt and helmet legislation.

The government isn't trying to keep us "safe". It's trying to appease insurance companies.

[Angela Shelley]

61. Who is asking you to wear a seat belt?

Itīs "we the people". We want to reduce the risks of damages being done in an accident.

[zanne]

66. I agree with that, but your original post doesn't. nt

[pitohui]

73. no it isn't "we the people"

and if you knew anything about the law, you would know that

"we the people" don't make highway law

lobbyists decide on what they would like, apply pressure to federal politicos, the feds in turn won't release highway funds to the states unless they fall in line

there is no place in there for "we the people" to have any input


but keep pretending that "we the people" are all powerful, i would only ask, with 70 percent of "we the people" opposed to the war in iraq, why isn't it over by now?

the truth is "we the people" have no power and i'm tired of "spinners" pretending we have any say in the matter when anyone with an eyeball in their head can see the truth

[Mojorabbit]

53. I agree with you

I am a responsible adult. I have the ability to decide on my own whether I need to wear a seatbelt or not.

[PVnRT]

25. I didn't realize not wearing a seat belt was a fundamental right

I mean, who cares about all that Patriot Act stuff, THIS is true government intrusion!

[DangerDave921]

28. Fundamental Right

What exactly does that mean?

Also, I didn't bring this topic up. The OP did.

[zanne]

67. Am I the only one confused by the intention of the OP?nt

[LanternWaste]

49. (non causa pro causa)

Logical fallacy-- slippery slope (non causa pro causa).

[Buzz Clik]

12. Some of my fellow citizens want Americans to pray in school because it's healthier.

Knowing where to draw the line is sometimes elusive.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. "Show me the science (or the money)"

If it can be statistically proven that prayer saves health expense, then it might be a good idea.

Meanwhile, feel free to pray all you want.

My school prayers were always fairly low-brow: "Please, God, let the answer to this question be 'C'", or "Please, God, have her say 'yes' to a date". :)

[Buzz Clik]

46. The libertarian in me wants to tell you that I can engage in self-destructive activities if I want.

I can smoke cigarettes.

I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

I can put unsafe chemicals in my body.

As long as I am not DIRECTLY harming others, I want you to leave me alone. (I am not addrressing anyone specifically -- "you" means anyone who supports legislation/regulation that thwarts my freedoms in these cases.)

For the record, I don't smoke, ride without a helmet, or take known toxins. But I should be able to if I want to.

And, going back to the OP, it really pissed me off when I was caught in a "sweep" for seat belts. If I want to risk driving my skull through the windshield, I should have the privilege to be that stupid.

EDIT: Anybody should be able to pray to whomever they please whenever they want, as long as it doesn't get in the way. Just don't tell me it's time to bow our heads and thank Jeebus for the pesticide-riddled food we're about to consume.

[seabeyond]

47. just as an older person risks that red meat, they should have the privilige

to be that stupid.

the odds are not a whole lot different dying of heart attack and dying with skull thru windshield

[Buzz Clik]

48. Indeed. Very few innocent bystanders are killed by severed heads flying through windshields.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

58. The libertarian in me feels the same way

except that if I go head-over-handlebars without a helmet, I hope the collective (govt, public, family, insurance co) will help pay to reassemble my Humpty-Dumpty skull. That financial part is not very "libertarian" of me.

I always wore a helmet on the motorcycle, it was the law. Now I wear one on a bicycle, but I don't like it much.

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

82. We draw the line at what is constitutional and what isn't

Organized prayer in schools is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. The constitution gives the states the power to regulate their public roads. The right to driving on a public road comes with conditions like having a drivers' license, having insurance, and not driving drunk. Adding other conditions like waring a seat belt is perfectly constitutional.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

15. No, it was not We The People. We didn't mandate the government to impose seat belt laws over us, nor

made the government hold state highway funds hostage unless there was compliance.

I put on my seat belt as I make sure everyone that rides with me, but this is a slippery slope. The next post might be We The People wanted RFID chips planted in all of our children, because if they are kidnapped and we can track them..then everyone will be chipped.....

[RB TexLa]

17. No, it's the auto insurance companies that forced the passage of these laws to save themselves

money on claims. That's the only reason they exist.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. There are a few laws like that

and I agree with most of them. Just because it saves money. Public money that goes to rescue, surgery, rehab.

Helmet laws in many states. Brain buckets are a pain, but they do save money when skulls meet pavement. MI mandates them for motorcycles, but not for bicycles, and not for scooters with motors under 50cc.

Life jacket laws (I don't know how prevalent these are). In MI, most boats need a life preserver per person on the boat. This doesn't seem to be the case on rowboats and canoes, but it's still not a bad idea. But I think the boat just needs to be equipped. The people don't actually have to wear the life preservers, which is a sort of dumb exception. It would be good to wear the thing BEFORE the boat flips.

[seabeyond]

19. yeee...uuuk. i dont like your post at all. rub me the wrong way, feels bad, smells bad

hugest of yuck.

not all people are the same. some may feel all comfy and warm in your dictate, but not all people want to be little zombies controlled by we the people

horrible post, lol

and no i am not into seatbelt law or wearing seatbelt. i dont see life the same as you, responsibility the same as you or wearing a seatbelt the same as you

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. The OP was a bit too totalitarian for my taste. It gave me the creeps too.

[Echo In Light]

27. Always be wary of those who insist that 'their way' is for YOUR own good

[seabeyond]

29. isnt that the truth. and then some n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. My bullshit meter goes way off the scale when I hear/read things like this.

[zanne]

20. "We the People" of Bulgaria? nt

[bean fidhleir]

34. Everyone should always use their seatbelt. But society shouldn't demand it.

Physics's penalty for not wearing a seat belt is so awful and so well-documented that anyone who doesn't wear their seatbelt is obviously a fool. And society has no business demanding that people not be fools (where would we stop?)

When we demand that everyone wear seatbelts, we're only being selfish. We're saying we don't want to be inconvenienced ("Why should my taxes go up to support some jerk who chose to be totally disabled?") Far better that we not interfere with people's personal choices. If they don't have good sense, and get in a wreck, at least they're out of the gene pool and what's left of them can serve as a warning to others not to make the same stupid choice.

[seabeyond]

40. every person should have the choice to eat that donut

health penalty for eating that donut is so awful and so well-documented that anyone who eats the donut is obviously a fool.

ya ya ya

we act like the seat belt is the be all end all in saving lives. odds of accident way low. odds of serious injury in a accident way low. odds of death in an accident, even lower

we take risks in our lives all over the place. seat belts is one of the few places we can visibly see in maybe helping us out ergo this unrealistic need for all to grab on

[bean fidhleir]

42. You seem to have misread my post (nt)

[seabeyond]

45. no. i am just not into calling people fools for making a choice different than what i may

i do not see those that chose a diet of unhealthy foods as fools, nor those that ride motorcycles or that smoke or live in a highly poluted area or crime ridden area or any other number of things that may put risks to our body in whatever ways.

there are risks all over the place in all kinds of manners. i may not understand a persons choice. even if i may disagree i understand they may be seeing it a different way than i. hence, individuality

i understand you are stating, allows fools to be....

[bean fidhleir]

57. I see: all choices are equally good because there is no single reality

Someone failed -or chose not- to understand the scope of phenomenology, and a lot of fools rushed in because that misconstrual sounded so liberating, even Libertarian. But as Feynman pointed out, Nature cannot be fooled. Especially not by arrogant fools.

[Orsino]

38. Agreed.

People can complain about tyranny all they like. I don't see a requirement to wear a safety belt, or to consent to testing for alcohol, as intrusive. Seat belts do save lives in many situations, and if you demand the right to pilot a ton of metal at 60+ mph, well, there are easier ways for you to die that don't endanger others.

[seabeyond]

41. what a bogus argument. seatbelt has nothing to do with endangering others

if there is an accident, nothing to do with seatbelt unless it is trying to put on while driving and get distracted. the accident of itself isnt relevent to wearing the seatbelt. that is what is endangering others.

seatbelt has nothing to do with ability to pilot a ton of metal at 60 mph...

[RB TexLa]

44. How does my not having a seatbelt on endanger anyone else?

[Orsino]

50. Not quite what I said.

Accidents endanger other drivers. Not wearing a seatbelt in an accident endangers oneself. Not demanding the use of seat belts in the car endangers one's passengers.

My suggestion was that not wearing seat belts indicates a bit of a death wish, and for that, I'd advocate staying home and killing oneself quietly.

[Bandit]

39. And yet we allow smoking in public

400,000 deaths a year because of tobacco but we must insit you wear a helmet on a motorcycle or a seatbelt in a car. It is no wonder America selected Bush*

[Orsino]

51. I actually understand that part.

Smokers don't explode in a mass of mangled flesh; their deaths are less spectacular. Factor in decades of Big Tobacco's disinformation, and you have reluctance to legislate against what is less visible.

[dysfunctional press]

55. you're wrong.

"we the people" didn't decide on it- the paid representatives of the insurance/auto industries in congress(i.e. congressmen) pushed it through at the behest of their benefactors- NOT any kind of public demand.

why don't "we the people" require motorcycle helmets?

[Angela Shelley]

62. Thatīs a really good idea,

because motorcycle helmets save lives, without hurting anyone else.

I realize that you may be motivated by the idea of ultimate personal freedom, but you donīt live alone on an island. You live in a society with other people, and if you are the least bit interested in carrying the least bit of social responsibility, then wearing a seat belt should be the results of logical thinking.

Wearing a seat belt, adhering to traffic laws, and stopping at a red light to avoid an accident are good for everyone, not just for the insurance companies.

[dysfunctional press]

78. how much of the kool-aid have you drank?

quite a bit would be my guess.

you might want to do a little research into where/how seat-belt laws originated.

how does my wearing a seatbelt protect others?

by your logic, all cars should have governors on their transmissions, so as not to exceed the legal speed limit. after all- it would be the socially responsible thing to do.

:eyes:

[Fireweed247]

64. Bacon Kills!

There should be a law against eating bacon. Everyone knows we should not eat it, why not make a law for our own good.

I thought everyone knew by now that the Insurance companies are responsible for the seat belt laws. The Government went along with it because they work for the Corporations and it was an easy way to collect revenue and enforce the police state.

[Angela Shelley]

65. Hi MartyL, thanks for your reply.

I honestly didnīt know that we have seat belt laws in order to enforce the police state.

I honestly support the seat belt laws because Iīve seen the extreme bodily damage which is done when people are involved in car accidents and werenīt wearing a seat belt.

I do not support a police state.

I agree with you, if everyone did everything which was good for them, the world would definitely be a better place.

[pitohui]

71. "we the people" didn't mandate any such thing for any such reasons

if you remember when the law came about, the argument was made that people wearing seat belts were more likely to survive a serious accident == people who SURVIVE with serious injuries cost society and health insurers WAY more than people who are killed dead on the spot

before making an argument, instead of just making shit up, you could investigate a little into the past and see what reasons were actually given at the time

the argument for the law was that survival rates were higher with seat belts, but higher survival rates can mean MUCH higher costs for the families, for the insurers, and for society at large -- it was not an argument that people not wearing seat belts had worse injuries, it was an argument that people not wearing seat belts were KILLED

now if by "logically thinking" you mean "emotionally thinking" then fine, but i would respectfully ask you not to use the word "logic" if you don't know what it means, thanks

having more people survive with horrific, life altering, finance destroying injuries is not a win win for everyone or even necessarily a win for the accident victim -- it is just not true that wearing a seat belt is the best thing for "everyone"

i think you're going to find if you make big bogus claims about what is best for "everyone" you're going to get called on it

we have a society that fears death and would rather keep people alive in horrific circumstance (not coincidentally to the profit of the hospitals and nursing homes) and the argument at the time of the law was about DYING -- there were even lies printed in press releases, newspapers, and so on about that apocryphal state trooper who claimed never to have cut a dead person out of a seat belt :eyes:



you say:

When, for example, someone gets in a car accident, and is not wearing a seat belt, then the probability of excessive injuries is higher, meaning that the whole society carries more risk when people donīt use seat belts.

So, logically thinking citizens will realize that itīs better for everyone if everyone wears a seat belt while riding in a car.

[Jed Dilligan]

74. Quite a slippery slope you're standing on

Does "caring" about me give my fellow citizens the right to circumscribe any behavior of mine that they think is unsafe or unhealthy to myself?

What's next? A national bedtime? A War on Drugs? (Oh wait, we already have that.)

[Solon]

79. You know, I find all these "libertarians" fascinating...

railing against seat belt laws, motorcycle laws, etc. by saying they are a restriction on personal freedom. However, there is one thing they forget, you don't HAVE to wear anything when driving a car or motorcycle, just stay OFF our fucking public roads, you stupid fucking libertarians. At least be fucking consistent here. Oh, and that's part of the reason why all those analogies and comparisons to donuts and shit fail, you don't need a 2 ton vehicle to get a donut, and you are free to do whatever the fuck you want on your private property, within reasonable limits, what happens in the car, while on a public road, however, doesn't compare.