Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Sibirsky]

I am saying that it should be up to them. They (should) know the risks and dangers of not wearing them. They should make that decision.

Sib, it isn't as simple as saying it should be up to them. Not wearing a seat belt isn't a victimless happening.

Yes it is.

[Jocabia]

Yes, there are victims of not wearing seat belts. This has been explained to you.

It has been pointed out, many times, that in the case of an accident, there could be victims, other than the person not wearing the seat belt.

Unless not wearing seat belt causes accidents, that is not sufficient.

According to whom that is not sufficient? You? So what?

Wearing a seat belt causes no harm to you. Not wearing a seat belt can cause harms to yourself and others. In the balance, it's not a tough thing to figure out which rights should trump there. Should my life be at risk subject to your whim?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Sib, it isn't as simple as saying it should be up to them. Not wearing a seat belt isn't a victimless happening.

Yes it is.

No, it really isn't. When you get in front of the steering wheel of a car, everything you do while driving, or don't do, has the potential to harm either yourself or someone else. If wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of harm to yourself or someone else, I see a point in enforcing its use.

[Jocabia]

Sib, it isn't as simple as saying it should be up to them. Not wearing a seat belt isn't a victimless happening.

Yes it is.

Except, you admitted it isn't. It's not like people can choose to not have an accident. Accidents are a danger of driving and when they happen your choice can cost me my life. Your choice has no benefit to you or to anyone else and as such doesn't warrant the freedom to put me at risk. Why is your freedom to do something dangerous more important than my right to life?

[Jocabia]

And that the decision might end up harming other people is irrelevant, right?

Many decisions make end up harming other people.

Yes, which is why we look at those potentialities and expect people to be reasonable where possible and force them to be reasonable in cases where their decisions create a significant imbalance.

My bullets only put you at risk if they happen to enter your body. Why shouldn't I be allowed to shoot in your general direction, right?

[Sibirsky]

Yes it is.

No, it really isn't. When you get in front of the steering wheel of a car, everything you do while driving, or don't do, has the potential to harm either yourself or someone else. If wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of harm to yourself or someone else, I see a point in enforcing its use.

A lot of things have the potential of harming someone. Driving, in the first place, has the potential of harming someone. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause accidents.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No, it really isn't. When you get in front of the steering wheel of a car, everything you do while driving, or don't do, has the potential to harm either yourself or someone else. If wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of harm to yourself or someone else, I see a point in enforcing its use.

A lot of things have the potential of harming someone. Driving, in the first place, has the potential of harming someone. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause accidents.

It isn't that the seat belt causes or doesn't cause accidents, it is that it protects people inside the vehicle from harm.

[Galloism]

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

Except seat belts don't only protect you. They protect other passengers. They protect other cars on the road should you lose control in an accident that is otherwise controllable. And given that there really is no counter argument to the safety they provide, there really isn't a balance of rights to consider here.

I know they protect other people on the road by keeping the driver within range of the controls.

That has been my argument.

Some people have been arguing they keep you from flying out of the vehicle as a projectile and striking others.

I can find no such incident of that occurring. Ever.

As a secondary argument, they state to protect a person from themselves. That's a poor argument as well.

[Galloism]

No, it really isn't. When you get in front of the steering wheel of a car, everything you do while driving, or don't do, has the potential to harm either yourself or someone else. If wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of harm to yourself or someone else, I see a point in enforcing its use.

A lot of things have the potential of harming someone. Driving, in the first place, has the potential of harming someone. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause accidents.

Actually, it can. In an extreme cornering situation or a slide, the force acting on the driver can be sufficient to move the driver away from the controls.

Being unable to control the vehicle can result in a cash.

[Jocabia]

Except seat belts don't only protect you. They protect other passengers. They protect other cars on the road should you lose control in an accident that is otherwise controllable. And given that there really is no counter argument to the safety they provide, there really isn't a balance of rights to consider here.

I know they protect other people on the road by keeping the driver within range of the controls.

That has been my argument.

Some people have been arguing they keep you from flying out of the vehicle as a projectile and striking others.

I can find no such incident of that occurring. Ever.

As a secondary argument, they state to protect a person from themselves. That's a poor argument as well.

They have also argued that you fly about the vehicle and strike others. Please tell me you're not claiming that doesn't occur.

[Farnhamia]

Except seat belts don't only protect you. They protect other passengers. They protect other cars on the road should you lose control in an accident that is otherwise controllable. And given that there really is no counter argument to the safety they provide, there really isn't a balance of rights to consider here.

I know they protect other people on the road by keeping the driver within range of the controls.

That has been my argument.

Some people have been arguing they keep you from flying out of the vehicle as a projectile and striking others.

I can find no such incident of that occurring. Ever.

As a secondary argument, they state to protect a person from themselves. That's a poor argument as well.

That's because LG's driving record is sealed.

I looked up seatbelt legislation in WIki and while there was no explanation of the need for it beyond saving lives, one of the criticisms was interesting. I'm not sure I buy it but some people have argued that requiring seatbelts makes drivers more likely to drive recklessly because they know they have a certain amount of protection against injury in the event of an accident.

[Jocabia]

I know they protect other people on the road by keeping the driver within range of the controls.

That has been my argument.

Some people have been arguing they keep you from flying out of the vehicle as a projectile and striking others.

I can find no such incident of that occurring. Ever.

As a secondary argument, they state to protect a person from themselves. That's a poor argument as well.

That's because LG's driving record is sealed.

I looked up seatbelt legislation in WIki and while there was no explanation of the need for it beyond saving lives, one of the criticisms was interesting. I'm not sure I buy it but some people have argued that requiring seatbelts makes drivers more likely to drive recklessly because they know they have a certain amount of protection against injury in the event of an accident.

Yes, that seems to be a common argument against every safety feature ever. Gun safeties make people more likely to point a gun at another person assuming the safety is on. Helmets make people more reckless on motorcycles. Etc. I agree with you. That's not something I buy or am particularly concerned with.

[Sibirsky]

Many decisions make end up harming other people.

Yes, which is why we look at those potentialities and expect people to be reasonable where possible and force them to be reasonable in cases where their decisions create a significant imbalance.

My bullets only put you at risk if they happen to enter your body. Why shouldn't I be allowed to shoot in your general direction, right?

This is actually a decent argument.

So, what is your stance on creating incentives for wearing seat belts and punishment for noncompliance?

[Sibirsky]

Except seat belts don't only protect you. They protect other passengers. They protect other cars on the road should you lose control in an accident that is otherwise controllable. And given that there really is no counter argument to the safety they provide, there really isn't a balance of rights to consider here.

I know they protect other people on the road by keeping the driver within range of the controls.

That has been my argument.

Some people have been arguing they keep you from flying out of the vehicle as a projectile and striking others.

I can find no such incident of that occurring. Ever.

As a secondary argument, they state to protect a person from themselves. That's a poor argument as well.

This guy could have landed on that car's windshield.

[Sibirsky]

A lot of things have the potential of harming someone. Driving, in the first place, has the potential of harming someone. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause accidents.

Actually, it can. In an extreme cornering situation or a slide, the force acting on the driver can be sufficient to move the driver away from the controls.

Being unable to control the vehicle can result in a cash.

But how often are ordinary drivers in an extreme cornering situation?

[Jocabia]

Yes, which is why we look at those potentialities and expect people to be reasonable where possible and force them to be reasonable in cases where their decisions create a significant imbalance.

My bullets only put you at risk if they happen to enter your body. Why shouldn't I be allowed to shoot in your general direction, right?

This is actually a decent argument.

So, what is your stance on creating incentives for wearing seat belts and punishment for noncompliance?

Actually, I generally stand against fines because they are inherently unequal and the encourage fining as a way to shore up financial shortfalls. However, I'm all for making people who cost society footing their cost to society. I'd be totally good with relevant community service. Where possible the cost of other people being irresponsible should only be placed on my shoulders in cases where there isn't a reasonable alternative.

For example, I don't support stopping people solely for seat belt violations because it costs more than it's worth. However, giving seat belt violations in the course of other activities I fully support.

We probably can't delve into it here, but I suspect if cities weren't allowed to make money from fines that a lot of the laws you object to would be greatly diminished in effect.

[Jocabia]

Actually, it can. In an extreme cornering situation or a slide, the force acting on the driver can be sufficient to move the driver away from the controls.

Being unable to control the vehicle can result in a cash.

But how often are ordinary drivers in an extreme cornering situation?

It doesn't require extreme cornering, actually. It was an example. Avoiding an obstacle on the road can be enough. Stopping quickly on a road that is curved. Any number of examples that present the danger of inertia taking you out of the seat or moving you enough that your ability to place force on the break or your control of the steering wheel is diminished.

[Sibirsky]

This is actually a decent argument.

So, what is your stance on creating incentives for wearing seat belts and punishment for noncompliance?

Actually, I generally stand against fines because they are inherently unequal and the encourage fining as a way to shore up financial shortfalls. However, I'm all for making people who cost society footing their cost to society. I'd be totally good with relevant community service. Where possible the cost of other people being irresponsible should only be placed on my shoulders in cases where there isn't a reasonable alternative.

For example, I don't support stopping people solely for seat belt violations because it costs more than it's worth. However, giving seat belt violations in the course of other activities I fully support.

We probably can't delve into it here, but I suspect if cities weren't allowed to make money from fines that a lot of the laws you object to would be greatly diminished in effect.

I am not aware of people being stopped solely for not wearing a seat belt.

[Jocabia]

Actually, I generally stand against fines because they are inherently unequal and the encourage fining as a way to shore up financial shortfalls. However, I'm all for making people who cost society footing their cost to society. I'd be totally good with relevant community service. Where possible the cost of other people being irresponsible should only be placed on my shoulders in cases where there isn't a reasonable alternative.

For example, I don't support stopping people solely for seat belt violations because it costs more than it's worth. However, giving seat belt violations in the course of other activities I fully support.

We probably can't delve into it here, but I suspect if cities weren't allowed to make money from fines that a lot of the laws you object to would be greatly diminished in effect.

I am not aware of people being stopped solely for not wearing a seat belt.

Nor am I. I was simply stating what I support and what I don't.

[Galloism]

I know they protect other people on the road by keeping the driver within range of the controls.

That has been my argument.

Some people have been arguing they keep you from flying out of the vehicle as a projectile and striking others.

I can find no such incident of that occurring. Ever.

As a secondary argument, they state to protect a person from themselves. That's a poor argument as well.

They have also argued that you fly about the vehicle and strike others. Please tell me you're not claiming that doesn't occur.

Sure it does. But, then again, we have no rules regarding securing other items in cabins, even common items like cases of beer.

[Galloism]

Actually, it can. In an extreme cornering situation or a slide, the force acting on the driver can be sufficient to move the driver away from the controls.

Being unable to control the vehicle can result in a cash.

But how often are ordinary drivers in an extreme cornering situation?

Define "ordinary driver".

[Sibirsky]

But how often are ordinary drivers in an extreme cornering situation?

Define "ordinary driver".

A regular person with a driver's license and without any particular driver training. Or, the bear minimum that person's state of residence requires to be licensed.

[Partybus]

They have also argued that you fly about the vehicle and strike others. Please tell me you're not claiming that doesn't occur.

Sure it does. But, then again, we have no rules regarding securing other items in cabins, even common items like cases of beer.

Actually, I always belt my beer cases, 'cause, you know...priorities...and safety...

[Jocabia]

They have also argued that you fly about the vehicle and strike others. Please tell me you're not claiming that doesn't occur.

Sure it does. But, then again, we have no rules regarding securing other items in cabins, even common items like cases of beer.

I suspect that is just a case of logistics. That would be much harder to address and much harder to enforce. What is a sufficient restraint for a gallon of milk? Does it matter if the container is plastic or glass? Etc. People are known to occupy the vehicle and are relatively easy to restrain in reasonable ways.

[Galloism]

Sure it does. But, then again, we have no rules regarding securing other items in cabins, even common items like cases of beer.

I suspect that is just a case of logistics. That would be much harder to address and much harder to enforce. What is a sufficient restraint for a gallon of milk? Does it matter if the container is plastic or glass? Etc. People are known to occupy the vehicle and are relatively easy to restrain in reasonable ways.

Well, to take an example of a typical law regarding securing an item in a trailer or pickup truck bed, typically they state something to the effect of that it must be secured in such as a way to prevent the load shifting or coming loose.

If it shifts or falls off the vehicle, it wasn't properly secured.

A similar cabin law would make sense, if we were truly concerned about flying objects within a vehicle.

Sure it does. But, then again, we have no rules regarding securing other items in cabins, even common items like cases of beer.

Actually, I always belt my beer cases, 'cause, you know...priorities...and safety...

In the atypical event in which I buy a case of beer, so do I.