Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Sibirsky]

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.

Contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more parties.

Laws are nothing of the sort.

[Liberaxia]

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

Contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more parties.

Laws are nothing of the sort.

And?

[Sibirsky]

Contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more parties.

Laws are nothing of the sort.

And?

And you make no sense. You cannot substitute one for the other.

[Castleara]

A law that can punish someone for NOT doing something that affects no one but the person choosing not to do it absolutely should not exist. It's as absurd as it is unconstitutional. The idea that the government gets to mandate something that I do or don't do inside a vehicle that I bought and paid for myself is sickening.
I, personally, am not a seat belt user. Never have been, never will be. Are they a good idea in some cases? Probably. Is it my choice to assume the risk by not wearing it? Absolutely.

I'm a driver and I've been in an accident on more than one occasion. Every time I was wearing my seat belt. If I hadn't been wearing it, I would have likely been seriously hurt because during one of those accidents my driver's side airbag did NOT engage when it probably should have.

Seat belts save lives, and this is one law NO ONE should have issues with. Seat belts are simple and relatively cheap to install. Complying with this one law is something that requires only a few seconds to do, increases your chances of avoiding injury in the event an accident happens, and has been proven to save lives ever since the law went into existence over fifty years ago.

Do what you want, but I can't stand it when people blatantly refuse to follow laws based on common sense. Partly because growing up I suffered unnecessarily because my mom was one of those types who constantly questioned authority and assumed that everything was a scam by the government, and partly because IRL I have to deal with the messes and hardships these attitudes often result in.

[Sociobiology]

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.

but they a do a better job of preventing it than contracts.
I don't see snake oil or colloidal silver in the stores anymore.

[Sibirsky]

Laws do not prevent fraud.

but they a do a better job of preventing it than contracts.

Because you said so?

[Sociobiology]

but they a do a better job of preventing it than contracts.

Because you said so?

because there is no way for contracts to prevent them, since they are entirely voluntary.

[Sibirsky]

Because you said so?

because there is no way for contracts to prevent them, since they are entirely voluntary.

So what if they are voluntary? Your explanation does not explain anything.

Contracts lay out the terms. They may also, lay out the penalties for breach of contract.

[Sociobiology]

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.
ok, I predate seatbelt laws, this may be the reason in and of itself.
as I said I have never heard the risk of killing other people, by hitting them with your body, used as justification until this thread.

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.

because I am against pointless, unnecessary laws.

oh and people kill themselves out of laziness, rebelliousness, or sheer stupidity all the time,

I don't need a law to tell me this is a bad idea, and for the people that do, I not sure I want them around to invent equally stupid ways of killing other people.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Seatbelts are in everybody's best interest. Don't want to wear it? I can name a couple of tricks:

1. Click it when you're about to get a ticket, if a cop catches you speeding and you pull over, put on your seatbelt real quick before the cop comes to your window.
2. Drive really carefully, like, on an abandoned road. Away from forests, and buildings, and lampposts, and human civilization… just drive sluggishly in the desert, ok?
3. Never get in a car unless you have to. Can't wear a seatbelt if you're not in a car, right?
4. All else fails, have a good life insurance policy.

[The Fascist American Empire]

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.
ok, I predate seatbelt laws, this may be the reason in and of itself.
as I said I have never heard the risk of killing other people, by hitting them with your body, used as justification until this thread.

because I am against pointless, unnecessary laws.

oh and people kill themselves out of laziness, rebelliousness, or sheer stupidity all the time,

I don't need a law to tell me this is a bad idea, and for the people that do, I not sure I want them around to invent equally stupid ways of killing other people.

As I have suggested before, remove the warning labels and the stupidity epidemic will all but go away.

[Sociobiology]

because there is no way for contracts to prevent them, since they are entirely voluntary.

So what if they are voluntary? Your explanation does not explain anything.

Contracts lay out the terms. They may also, lay out the penalties for breach of contract.

penalties you are free to ignore.

[Sibirsky]

because I am against pointless, unnecessary laws.

oh and people kill themselves out of laziness, rebelliousness, or sheer stupidity all the time,

I don't need a law to tell me this is a bad idea, and for the people that do, I not sure I want them around to invent equally stupid ways of killing other people.

As I have suggested before, remove the warning labels and the stupidity epidemic will all but go away.

Warning labels are not there to prevent stupid people from hurting themselves. Warning labels are there to prevent lawsuits.

[Sailsia]

They should be mandatory for minors.

[Sibirsky]

So what if they are voluntary? Your explanation does not explain anything.

Contracts lay out the terms. They may also, lay out the penalties for breach of contract.

penalties you are free to ignore.

No, that's not how contracts work.

[Sociobiology]

penalties you are free to ignore.

No, that's not how contracts work.

sure it is, whats to stop someone from ignoring a contract once they get what they want?

[Mavorpen]

No, that's not how contracts work.

sure it is, whats to stop someone from ignoring a contract once they get what they want?

We've been over this, haven't we?

You said unoccupied. How is it unoccupied if there is a school on it?

Empty does not mean unoccupied.

The insurer of the people that sued you, will hire a bounty hunter to capture you, if you refuse to comply with the ruling, or appeal it in some fashion.

Of course, it's just as stupid as it was then.

[Sociobiology]

sure it is, whats to stop someone from ignoring a contract once they get what they want?

We've been over this, haven't we?

no actually Sib, never answered this point.

[Mavorpen]

We've been over this, haven't we?

no actually Sib, never answered this point.

That was my point, actually. Throughout that entire conversation, and I suspect this to continue through this one, he NEVER actually addresses that core issue. It's just "bounty hunters!" or some other cop out that is never actually explained in detail.

[Sociobiology]

no actually Sib, never answered this point.

That was my point, actually. Throughout that entire conversation, and I suspect this to continue through this one, he NEVER actually addresses that core issue. It's just "bounty hunters!" or some other cop out that is never actually explained in detail.

which is why a single simple back and forth, like the one we were having, might be more productive.

also it is just as much for others as Sib. I doubt Sib with change his/her mind.

[Sibirsky]

No, that's not how contracts work.

sure it is, whats to stop someone from ignoring a contract once they get what they want?

The fact that they stop making money from that contract and a breach of contract lawsuit.

[Sibirsky]

That was my point, actually. Throughout that entire conversation, and I suspect this to continue through this one, he NEVER actually addresses that core issue. It's just "bounty hunters!" or some other cop out that is never actually explained in detail.

which is why a single simple back and forth, like the one we were having, might be more productive.

also it is just as much for others as Sib. I doubt Sib with change his/her mind.

If I do, it won't because of you. You're not making any sense.

[Sibirsky]

no actually Sib, never answered this point.

That was my point, actually. Throughout that entire conversation, and I suspect this to continue through this one, he NEVER actually addresses that core issue. It's just "bounty hunters!" or some other cop out that is never actually explained in detail.

It's not a cop out. It has been addressed, at length, by myself and others.

[Mavorpen]

That was my point, actually. Throughout that entire conversation, and I suspect this to continue through this one, he NEVER actually addresses that core issue. It's just "bounty hunters!" or some other cop out that is never actually explained in detail.

It's not a cop out. It has been addressed, at length, by myself and others.

If by "at length," you mean repeating that cop out over and over and over and hope it sticks.

[Sociobiology]

sure it is, whats to stop someone from ignoring a contract once they get what they want?

The fact that they stop making money from that contract and

I have underlined the two contradictory points.
you don't get to ignore my conditional and then use the exact opposite condition, that is called a red herring.
Or were you not aware that it was possible for contracts to have time disparate events?
Or do you not understand what the majority of fraud is?

a breach of contract lawsuit.

also that means contracts only work, if laws are their to hold them up, if law is the keystone, why not just have a law preventing the behavior instead of wasting time on an extra step.