Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Imperializt Russia]

It wouldn't happen as often if people would wear their damn seatbelts.

True, but I don't really care as people are free to wear or not wear them as far as I'm concerned.

In NZ, the country to which you're currently referring, there is socialised healthcare.
Your injury to road traffic accident costs the state in healthcare and ties resources.
And will contribute to rising insurance costs.

[Costa Fierro]

In NZ, the country to which you're currently referring, there is socialised healthcare.

By "socialized" you mean "everything is paid for through private health insurance". Everything is either paid for by insurance, taxes or up front.

Your injury to road traffic accident costs the state in healthcare and ties resources.

Most of the emergency care is either picked up by the government or by your health insurance. For post-emergency and recovery treatment in serious crashes, the government pays for the cost of the treatment and you pay it back through levies on everything from personal levies through taxation. Motor vehicle injuries are covered by taxes on petrol as well as vehicle licensing and registration costs. Motorcycles pay more tax because of the greater risk of injury.

And will contribute to rising insurance costs.

Health insurance premiums aren't really an issue in NZ, mainly because of the government funding of post-emergency and physiotherapy treatment.

[Imperializt Russia]

I referred to vehicle insurance.

[Galloism]

Except that argument doesn't really fly with those of us who think cigarettes, alcohol, and pot should all be legal.

Firstly, that is an idiotic excuse.

What, that punishing people to ostensibly prevent them from harming themselves only is silly?

Secondly, it's the argument all governments who have mandatory seat belt laws give as justification.

Similar to pot laws, interestingly enough.

Thirdly, the "continuing to have input in a car even during a crash" is fairly unlikely, depending on the circumstances. If you have a head on crash, chances are the vehicle you hit as well as yours will suffer damage that renders both vehicles uncontrollable (and if it's an older car, the steering wheel most likely is not going to be in the same place after the accident as before). An accident where you perhaps swipe something is also likely to render your car uncontrollable, in the event that one half of the front axle is bent or snapped or one of the wheels gets sheered off altogether.

Small accidents, i.e those that result in some body damage and at low speed, are usually at speeds where the human body isn't at risk from severe trauma than it is at higher speeds.

It's true a high speed head on collision would make both vehicles uncontrollable. Those types of accidents, however, are exceptionally rare.

The best argument for seat belt usage being mandatory is a high speed clip accident, which is the most common high speed multivehicle accident. The resulting spin or sideways movement can force the driver from the seat, with control mechanisms still in play.

[Imperializt Russia]

Head-on collisions account for one in five fatal collisions where a junction and interchange is not involved.
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlgu ... ec_sum.htm

[Galloism]

Head-on collisions account for one in five fatal collisions where a junction and interchange is not involved.
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlgu ... ec_sum.htm

Yes, head on collisions are also exceptionally fatal.

Because physics.

[Imperializt Russia]

Head-on collisions account for one in five fatal collisions where a junction and interchange is not involved.
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlgu ... ec_sum.htm

Yes, head on collisions are also exceptionally fatal.

Because physics.

Therefore, a high speed head on collision, rendering both vehicles uncontrollable, is not rare.

[Galloism]

Yes, head on collisions are also exceptionally fatal.

Because physics.

Therefore, a high speed head on collision, rendering both vehicles uncontrollable, is not rare.

Compared with total accidents?

Not really. Airplane crashes are also exceptionally fatal. Also rare.

[Imperializt Russia]

Therefore, a high speed head on collision, rendering both vehicles uncontrollable, is not rare.

Compared with total accidents?

Not really. Airplane crashes are also exceptionally fatal. Also rare.

Like, two percent of air crashes are fatal.

[Avaerilon]

The OP is being very silly

While airbags can indeed be dangerous in certain circumstances, seatbelts are essential to saving lives. Not only do they prevent the driver and front passenger(s) from potentially going through the windscreen, they also prevent rear passengers from slamming into those in the front and causing potentially fatal injuries. If you're not wearing a seatbelt, you're potentially endangering the lives of others, as well as your own. Your own life may not be worth much to you, but you shouldn't compromise anyone else because of laziness or a dislike of rules. I would personally refuse to drive if a passenger didn't put their seatbelt on. Also, actual racing drivers swear by them, and those are guys who really know their stuff. Admittedly, they do travel in excess of 200 mph, but one can have a fatal crash at much lower speeds.

[Breadknife]

In NZ, the country to which you're currently referring, there is socialised healthcare.

By "socialized" you mean "everything is paid for through private health insurance".

Given what you go on to say, this statement looks... out of place..., because you're obviously aware of this, but I wouldn't class it as "private health insurance". Socialised, yes, unless you mean something more like this kind of thing. I can't see how you'd mean the general isolated form of socialised.

So I'm confused whether you're confused or think IR is confused.

[Imperializt Russia]

New Zealand has a National Health Service, which is socialised healthcare.
It incurs needless cost and use of resources through injuries that could be simply prevented by mandatory seat belts, and abiding by the law.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Past a certain level of idiocy the state can justly be a nanny. Such gross stupidity demonstrates unfitness to make your own decisions.

[Sibirsky]

I provided several examples.

No one knows most laws. Not even lawyers. That is part of the problem. There aren't 4 thousand ways to harm someone. What used to be infractions, are now crimes. That is not beneficial.

No one has backed up the counter claim, that it is somehow a benefit to have 4 thousand federal crimes. Not even remotely close.

You, my friend, are just not looking hard enough for way to hurt people.

At any rate, I believe in seatbelt laws mostly because it's a 2-second act that saves your life an others, as well as keeps the public from having to pay overmuch for you hitting or being hit by someone else in a car.

Also cause they are useful for strapping in my various groceries when the back is full.

And because I still look back fondly on the days when I would sit, alone, in the middle seat in the back of my mom's van and use all three seatbelts...those were the days...

There simply aren't. If someone attacks you with a knife, or say, a fork, it is the same crime. Or with 9 mm, or a 45. Same crime. The weapons are similar enough. Assuming no other crime took place, the crimes are the same.

We have entire books on this, and specific cases of criminalization of former infractions.

[Sibirsky]

Attack the argument, not the poster.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=291999&hilit=silver+medal+debating&start=575#p19647183

We would, but you don't have an argument. You have a loose collection of assertions we spent several hours trying to pin down yesterday, without much success.

And I do apologize for calling you a moron, that was classless and silly of me. I don't need to bring in my own words to make you appear foolish, your own words do just fine for that.

Anyway, aside from "laws are bad mmkay", do you have an argument? As noted before, I'd happily engage on anything actually debatable.

You can't argue moral values. I have tried explaining that to you, several times. You think using force on peaceful people is perfectly acceptable. I don't. How many times do I have to repeat that, for you to understand it?

Your assertions, are worse. You have claimed that taxation, makes us better off, by funding things needed to run things. This is demonstratively false. Taxation reduces disposable income, making the taxpayer worse off. You also imply that without taxation, those things simply would not be funded. Again, false. If there is demand for something, it will be met.

It's not rocket science. You have failed to prove anything, except that seat belts reduce fatalities.

We can do a number of things to reduce fatalities. It does not mean we should do them.

[Desmendura]

No, it will just reduce people's safety.

[Sibirsky]

I'm familiar with the case. The ruling shows how utterly pathetic The SCOTUS is at protecting rights. They stopped 124 people, arrested 2 (a success rate of 1.6%, and failed to prove how being at a certain location, at a certain time is probable cause.

If you're familiar with the case, why are you arguing about probable cause? The case hinged on whether the State had the right to set up sobriety checkpoints based on their assertion that it was for the public good.

Additionally, asserting that arresting a DWI/DUI suspect is a "success" is flawed. The program's success (or failure) should be based on the number of traffic collisions caused by drunk driving the nights that sobriety checkpoints are set up.

Missed this.

Being at a certain place, at a certain time is not probable cause. The argument for the public good, is silly. Want to reduce drunk driving? Mandate all vehicles to be sold with ignition interlocks. That would certainly reduce drunk driving, accidents and deaths. It's for the public good.

A program that is setup to remove drunk drivers from the road would be measured in the number of drunk drivers removed from the road. That would be 1.6%. That is extremely low.

[Sibirsky]

No, it will just reduce people's safety.

The tried and classic "safety" argument.

There are many things we can do, to make people safer. It does not mean we should do them.

[Senkaku]

Yes, they should. Seat belts prevent thousands of deaths and injuries every year. They're for the public good, and thus the state has made them mandatory, because it is the state's job to be concerned about the public good.

If you don't like it, you can always move somewhere else where seatbelts aren't mandatory. I don't believe they are in India.

[Vissegaard]

Absence of seat belt laws = / = absence of seat belts.

"Absence of seat belt laws" = "reduced use of seat belts"

Reduced use of seat belts = Increased mortality due to car accidents

[Senkaku]

No, it will just reduce people's safety.

The tried and classic "safety" argument.

There are many things we can do, to make people safer. It does not mean we should do them.

If you object so much to seatbelts, then either move or start a petition, or just ride without your seatbelt to show how cool you are and how much you hate the state, and deal with the fines. But something that saves the lives of thousands of people every year is probably a good thing to make mandatory.

[Imperializt Russia]

Remind me again, Sib, what your objection to wearing seatbelts is?

[Senkaku]

Remind me again, Sib, what your objection to wearing seatbelts is?

I think it's that the state told him to do it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Remind me again, Sib, what your objection to wearing seatbelts is?

I think it's that the state told him to do it.

That's what worries me.

[Sibirsky]

:roll:


Yes, they should. Seat belts prevent thousands of deaths and injuries every year. They're for the public good, and thus the state has made them mandatory, because it is the state's job to be concerned about the public good.

If you don't like it, you can always move somewhere else where seatbelts aren't mandatory. I don't believe they are in India.

For the public good, we could (and should, according to you) mandate all vehicles come with ignition interlocks, ban smoking, drinking, drugs (recreational and OTC), unprotected sex with the exception of procreation (we'll let you enforce that one), gambling, and many others.

"For the public good" is an insufficient argument.

Don't like it, GTFO, is not even an argument.