Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Sociobiology]

or there is a difference between deadly projectile and being injured because you are projectile. You might want to go back and read the post that started this little tangent.

Also do you know what the word justification means?

You are aware that when someone flies out if their car (or in their car) and hits someone else, they can cause injury or death to the other person, correct?

what part of "I have never heard anyone use that as justification" is giving you trouble, because you seem to think it means I don't think it can happen?

[JeebusCrust]

I think the primary argument of the "Should be Mandatory," group should be "Why not make it mandatory?" No one's presented a logical argument as to "why not" other than sincerely unfounded feelings of entitlement. The government shouldn't have to do the job your parents should have done in teaching you to not be a fool, but if it has to protect it's people from your idiocy, then it needs to.

When you, as a backseat passenger, can achieve sufficient momentum to kill the driver in front of you by impaling him with your teeth through a headrest, I think the word "Physics" is enough to make this a necessary law. Thanks Driver's Ed classes for that imagery I'll never get out of my head.

As much as I've started to conform to Libertarian ideals, some of their extremes strike me as outright dumb, and severely undereducated.

Now if we protected people from idiocy, then only idiots would live.

I do think there should be some law in place, but make it less overarching (e.g. If you are the only person in the car or going very slow)

If you're driving incredibly slow, I find it unlikely a police officer would enforce the law anyway.

[Shilya]

We've decided as a society that we won't let people die even if their injuries are the result of their own stupidity, and that we pay for it if necessary.
We've also decided that people who are a serious threat to themselves can be stopped from harming themselves, if necessary by force.

Between those two, seatbelt laws are perfectly fine.

[Sibirsky]

You are aware that when someone flies out if their car (or in their car) and hits someone else, they can cause injury or death to the other person, correct?

what part of "I have never heard anyone use that as justification" is giving you trouble, because you seem to think it means I don't think it can happen?

The fact that it is so hard to believe, if you have heard any arguments for seat belts, to not have heard the biggest and most important one.

[Pharthan]

You are aware that when someone flies out if their car (or in their car) and hits someone else, they can cause injury or death to the other person, correct?

what part of "I have never heard anyone use that as justification" is giving you trouble, because you seem to think it means I don't think it can happen?

What, have you not bothered simply using Google? If you look up "seatbelt laws" it's pretty easy to find that being one of the primary reasons given.

You may not have heard that, but pretty much everyone else here has.

Reasons why seatbelt laws are valid:
1) So you don't become a projectile and kill/injure others.
2) Protect you from yourself.
3) Protect the taxpayers and/or hospital from having to pay for your injuries if you can't foot the bill yourself. Protecting the taxpayers from your stupidity, essentially. Increased insurance costs, medical, et cetera.
4) Why the hell wouldn't you buckle up?

[Sociobiology]

what part of "I have never heard anyone use that as justification" is giving you trouble, because you seem to think it means I don't think it can happen?

What, have you not bothered simply using Google? If you look up "seatbelt laws" it's pretty easy to find that being one of the primary reasons given.

You may not have heard that, but pretty much everyone else here has.

Reasons why seatbelt laws are valid:
1) So you don't become a projectile and kill/injure others.
2) Protect you from yourself.
3) Protect the taxpayers and/or hospital from having to pay for your injuries if you can't foot the bill yourself. Protecting the taxpayers from your stupidity, essentially. Increased insurance costs, medical, et cetera.
4) Why the hell wouldn't you buckle up?

I love that a simple statement about having not heard the particular ultra-rare occurrence ( bodies thrown from a car hitting people)used as justification for seatbelts, and somehow people make similar statement about how they can't understand how that could have happened. It has a weird symmetry.

Also 4 is not a reason to have a law.
why the hell would people put a gun to their head and pull the trigger, we don't need a law telling them not to.

[Llamalandia]

What, have you not bothered simply using Google? If you look up "seatbelt laws" it's pretty easy to find that being one of the primary reasons given.

You may not have heard that, but pretty much everyone else here has.

Reasons why seatbelt laws are valid:
1) So you don't become a projectile and kill/injure others.
2) Protect you from yourself.
3) Protect the taxpayers and/or hospital from having to pay for your injuries if you can't foot the bill yourself. Protecting the taxpayers from your stupidity, essentially. Increased insurance costs, medical, et cetera.
4) Why the hell wouldn't you buckle up?

I love that a simple statement about having not heard the particular ultra-rare occurrence ( bodies thrown from a car hitting people)used as justification for seatbelts, and somehow people make similar statement about how they can't understand how that could have happened. It has a weird symmetry.

Also 4 is not a reason to have a law.
why the hell would people put a gun to their head and pull the trigger, we don't need a law telling them not to.

I do believe you give people too much credit. But seriously, in the absent of such a law one might arguably be able to get away with life insurance fraud of some sort. I admit it's a stretch but given the way courts seem to entertain more and more ridiculous arguments these days.

Also 2 is an equally invalid reason for a law in this instance to be sure. and reason 1 just doesn't happen enough to my knowledge to justify legislation either (though I fully admit it could conceivably happen and no doubt there is anecdotal evidence to support out there.)
3 could likely be largely mitigated though, I admit it would be the easiest task ever undertaken. Perhaps some form of seat belt less insurance rider.

[Pharthan]

I love that a simple statement about having not heard the particular ultra-rare occurrence ( bodies thrown from a car hitting people)used as justification for seatbelts, and somehow people make similar statement about how they can't understand how that could have happened. It has a weird symmetry.

It's just kind of surprising. Seatbelt laws, for most people, are things driven into your head from the beginning of your actual physical memory by your parents, and usually associated with the dangers of becoming a human projectile as soon as you can understand basic laws of physics and the concept of death.

Also 4 is not a reason to have a law.
why the hell would people put a gun to their head and pull the trigger, we don't need a law telling them not to.

That's a poor parallel, unless people are actively trying to commit suicide by getting into a vehicular crash. People don't kill themselves out of laziness, rebelliousness, or sheer stupidity (i.e. "I don't want to wear it becomes it's not comfortable," when they actually make adjustment sleeves for seatbelts for that expressed purpose. Usually used for children.)

#4 was more intended as a point of 'why be against this law' as opposed to being a reason for it.

Also 2 is an equally invalid reason for a law in this instance to be sure. and reason 1 just doesn't happen enough to my knowledge to justify legislation either (though I fully admit it could conceivably happen and no doubt there is anecdotal evidence to support out there.)
3 could likely be largely mitigated though, I admit it would be the easiest task ever undertaken. Perhaps some form of seat belt less insurance rider.

For #1, It was always impressed upon me that it was prevalent enough, or at least horrific enough. I've got a fair number of graphic images burned into my brain by Driver's Ed scare tactics.
For #2, Depends on your views.
For #3, The way to mitigate it is to let seatbeltless accident victims deal with their injuries themselves, or die if it comes down to it.

[Sibirsky]

I love that a simple statement about having not heard the particular ultra-rare occurrence ( bodies thrown from a car hitting people)used as justification for seatbelts, and somehow people make similar statement about how they can't understand how that could have happened. It has a weird symmetry.

Also 4 is not a reason to have a law.
why the hell would people put a gun to their head and pull the trigger, we don't need a law telling them not to.

I do believe you give people too much credit. But seriously, in the absent of such a law one might arguably be able to get away with life insurance fraud of some sort. I admit it's a stretch but given the way courts seem to entertain more and more ridiculous arguments these days.

Also 2 is an equally invalid reason for a law in this instance to be sure. and reason 1 just doesn't happen enough to my knowledge to justify legislation either (though I fully admit it could conceivably happen and no doubt there is anecdotal evidence to support out there.)
3 could likely be largely mitigated though, I admit it would be the easiest task ever undertaken. Perhaps some form of seat belt less insurance rider.

Insurers don't need laws to prevent fraud.

[Liberaxia]

I do believe you give people too much credit. But seriously, in the absent of such a law one might arguably be able to get away with life insurance fraud of some sort. I admit it's a stretch but given the way courts seem to entertain more and more ridiculous arguments these days.

Also 2 is an equally invalid reason for a law in this instance to be sure. and reason 1 just doesn't happen enough to my knowledge to justify legislation either (though I fully admit it could conceivably happen and no doubt there is anecdotal evidence to support out there.)
3 could likely be largely mitigated though, I admit it would be the easiest task ever undertaken. Perhaps some form of seat belt less insurance rider.

Insurers don't need laws to prevent fraud.

Um, yes they do.

[Qeno]

what part of "I have never heard anyone use that as justification" is giving you trouble, because you seem to think it means I don't think it can happen?

What, have you not bothered simply using Google? If you look up "seatbelt laws" it's pretty easy to find that being one of the primary reasons given.

You may not have heard that, but pretty much everyone else here has.

Reasons why seatbelt laws are valid:
1) So you don't become a projectile and kill/injure others.
2) Protect you from yourself.
3) Protect the taxpayers and/or hospital from having to pay for your injuries if you can't foot the bill yourself. Protecting the taxpayers from your stupidity, essentially. Increased insurance costs, medical, et cetera.
4) Why the hell wouldn't you buckle up?

This is why the United states isn't the land of the free (in my opinion)
and I also have a counter argument

1) You can't kill or injure anyone if there is a hard sheet of safety glass in the way
2) Velocity goes in only one direction therefore the seat in front of you or the glove compartment would stop you from becoming a projectile
3) The taxpayers pay into the system anyway regardless if you wear the seat belt or not
4) Land of the free would allow people to make their own decisions, let him/her make theirs!

[Sibirsky]

Insurers don't need laws to prevent fraud.

Um, yes they do.

No, they don't. They can simply state what is and what is not covered in the contract. Do you understand how contracts work, or do we need to mandate that too?

[Liberaxia]

Um, yes they do.

No, they don't. They can simply state what is and what is not covered in the contract. Do you understand how contracts work, or do we need to mandate that too?

Meh. Contracts are only one part of the law and have always been a peripheral subject for me. I find the libertarian position of property+contracts to be a simplistic and uninformed view of law, totally leaving out other areas like IP, trademarks, aviation law, family, environmental law, privacy rights, personality rights, speeding, military law, and many areas of criminal law.

[Sibirsky]

No, they don't. They can simply state what is and what is not covered in the contract. Do you understand how contracts work, or do we need to mandate that too?

Meh. Contracts are only one part of the law and have always been a peripheral subject for me.

It shows.

I find the libertarian position of property+contracts to be a simplistic and uninformed view of law, totally leaving out other areas like IP, trademarks, aviation law, family, environmental law, privacy rights, personality rights, speeding, military law, and many areas of criminal law.

Oh and you're so well informed? All of those are covered. Insurers would protect themselves. This is not rocket science.

What the fuck are personality rights?

[Liberaxia]

What the fuck are personality rights?

See this

[Sibirsky]

What the fuck are personality rights?

See this

That's dealt with also.

You have a very poor understanding of libertarian philosophy and you troll libertarians in every thread.

[Imperializt Russia]

Um, yes they do.

No, they don't. They can simply state what is and what is not covered in the contract. Do you understand how contracts work, or do we need to mandate that too?

And fraudulent insurance claims break contracts and still pay out billions every year.
With legal protections in place.

Fraud laws are a way of protecting the industry and people who use the industry. In some insurance industries, literally everyone.

[Corumm]

OP is dumb, hope he crashes and is propelled out of the car's windshield.

[Benshir]

Ramifications go beyond person in question who does not want to wear a seatbelt. Other people may be affected.

Keep seat-belt laws.

[Tule]

I think the primary argument of the "Should be Mandatory," group should be "Why not make it mandatory?" No one's presented a logical argument as to "why not" other than sincerely unfounded feelings of entitlement. The government shouldn't have to do the job your parents should have done in teaching you to not be a fool, but if it has to protect it's people from your idiocy, then it needs to.

When you, as a backseat passenger, can achieve sufficient momentum to kill the driver in front of you by impaling him with your teeth through a headrest, I think the word "Physics" is enough to make this a necessary law. Thanks Driver's Ed classes for that imagery I'll never get out of my head.

As much as I've started to conform to Libertarian ideals, some of their extremes strike me as outright dumb, and severely undereducated.

Now if we protected people from idiocy, then only idiots would live.

I do think there should be some law in place, but make it less overarching (e.g. If you are the only person in the car or going very slow)

Even if you didn't become a projectile and hurt others directly, you are still hurting people by not wearing a seatbelt.

If you get into a car crash and are not wearing a seatbelt, you will be more severely injured than if you did.

Because you would be more severely injured, healthcare costs will be larger. Unless you are a member of the wealthy elite you will not be able to dish out the money needed to pay for your hospital visit so that money will have to come from the government or the insurance company.

Because you didn't wear a seatbelt, you were more severely injured and more money had to be spent to patch you together.

This means higher taxes or insurance premiums for everyone else in society and financial loss to your employer which will need to adapt with cost saving measures that costs other employees and customers money too.

Getting into a crash wearing a seatbelt hurts everyone, not just you.
Now, you can say that refusal to wear a seat belt is a victimless crime and shouldn't be punished. The thing is though that unlike many victimless crimes you can never eliminate the risk of getting into a car accident, no matter how carefully you drive and how well maintained your car is.

[Sibirsky]

No, they don't. They can simply state what is and what is not covered in the contract. Do you understand how contracts work, or do we need to mandate that too?

And fraudulent insurance claims break contracts and still pay out billions every year.
With legal protections in place.

Fraud laws are a way of protecting the industry and people who use the industry. In some insurance industries, literally everyone.

Laws do not prevent fraud.

[Liberaxia]

And fraudulent insurance claims break contracts and still pay out billions every year.
With legal protections in place.

Fraud laws are a way of protecting the industry and people who use the industry. In some insurance industries, literally everyone.

Laws do not prevent fraud.

Then neither do contracts.

[Sibirsky]

Laws do not prevent fraud.

Then neither do contracts.

I did not claim that they do. I merely claimed that contracts show what is and what is not covered.

[Liberaxia]

Then neither do contracts.

I did not claim that they do. I merely claimed that contracts show what is and what is not covered.

Either way, substituting contracts for actual law is a poor idea.

[Farnhamia]

OP is dumb, hope he crashes and is propelled out of the car's windshield.

Unofficial warning for trolling. Wishing bodily harm on other people is not acceptable here.