Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Costa Fierro]

I also want to know why people keep comparing seat belt laws to drug laws as the vast majority of the drugs (with the exception of alcohol) are only self inflicted harm. Not wearing a seat belt can result in your own harm, but also at the hands of other people. Other people make mistakes.

Not wearing a seat belt isn't always an automatic ticket to death and destruction. However, that's not to say that it shouldn't be mandatory, because it's common sense. It's like sticking to the posted speed limit or wearing a life jacket.

[Llamalandia]

I order you to wear an orange wrist band all day tommorrow so people can see you more easily. It's for your own good and safety and if you don't do it I'll fine you a hundred dollars, again for your own good. There's really no reason not to wear it and it will make you marginally safer by making you slightly more visible to others.

Requiring someone to do something without a good reason is the problem here. (For their own good doesn't qualify, because it's inherently paternalistic).

Prove that it increases public safety and you'll have a point. Good luck.

There is a good reason. That's the problem. And you can't come up with a reason not to do it.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

Seat belts save more than 10,000 lives per year. You got a reason why those 10,000 lives shouldn't be saved. Please, enlighten us.

Simple philosophy.

Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom for his or her own good. The word calls to mind the image of a father ("pater" in Latin) who makes decisions for his children rather than letting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knows best." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws, practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, a sign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntary euthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroine, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, compulsory retirement savings plans, and mandatory seat belt laws„all designed to protect our interests, whether we like it or not.

Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we place on the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and protecting the well being of others.

[url]
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications ... ngood.html[/url]

Because they are stupid or negligent people as evidenced by the fact that weren't wearing a seatbelt? But more to the point because it wasn't there choice. Autonomy is what is important here, no point in living if you aren't free to live your life however you see fit (so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of others).

[Jocabia]

2) I could say the same thing about bulletproof vests though. I mean most of the time I'm not being shot at but hey, when it matters that vest is really handy, and really is modern body armour really that uncomfortable?

honestly we'd probably just start using armour piercing ammo. wearing amour all day is kinda different from clipping a belt in.

Yes, these analogies are so bad, you want to believe he's doing it on purpose. The alternative is frightening.

[Geilinor]

Prove that it increases public safety and you'll have a point. Good luck.

There is a good reason. That's the problem. And you can't come up with a reason not to do it.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

Seat belts save more than 10,000 lives per year. You got a reason why those 10,000 lives shouldn't be saved. Please, enlighten us.

Simple philosophy.

Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom for his or her own good. The word calls to mind the image of a father ("pater" in Latin) who makes decisions for his children rather than letting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knows best." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws, practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, a sign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntary euthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroine, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, compulsory retirement savings plans, and mandatory seat belt laws„all designed to protect our interests, whether we like it or not.

Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we place on the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and protecting the well being of others.

[url]
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications ... ngood.html[/url]

Because they are stupid or negligent people as evidenced by the fact that weren't wearing a seatbelt? But more to the point because it wasn't there choice. Autonomy is what is important here, no point in living if you aren't free to live your life however you see fit (so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of others).

Why is paternalism inherently wrong? A balance between freedom and the common good can be sought. That balance is why government exists.

[Jocabia]

Prove that it increases public safety and you'll have a point. Good luck.

There is a good reason. That's the problem. And you can't come up with a reason not to do it.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

Seat belts save more than 10,000 lives per year. You got a reason why those 10,000 lives shouldn't be saved. Please, enlighten us.

Simple philosophy.

Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom for his or her own good. The word calls to mind the image of a father ("pater" in Latin) who makes decisions for his children rather than letting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knows best." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws, practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, a sign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntary euthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroine, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, compulsory retirement savings plans, and mandatory seat belt laws„all designed to protect our interests, whether we like it or not.

Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we place on the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and protecting the well being of others.

[url]
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications ... ngood.html[/url]

Because they are stupid or negligent people as evidenced by the fact that weren't wearing a seatbelt? But more to the point because it wasn't there choice. Autonomy is what is important here, no point in living if you aren't free to live your life however you see fit (so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of others).

But this isn't just for your own good. That's what you're failing to see. If it was, you could make a better argument (like with bike helmet laws). However, seat belts actually impact other people.

You know hos that works, right? "Own good" means that only you are the subject of benefit. When other people benefit, it's a social good. You do know the difference, yes?

Now, if you become a projectile inside a car with other people in it, are you infringing on the freedom of others? Yup. If you lose control of your vehicle because your not wearing your seatbelt and you're moved out of the driver's seat are you impacting others? Yup. If you fly into the driver because you aren't wearing your seat belt and the driver loses control of the vehicle are you impacting others? Yup. Literally, in fact.

[Jocabia]

Simple philosophy.





[url]
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications ... ngood.html[/url]

Because they are stupid or negligent people as evidenced by the fact that weren't wearing a seatbelt? But more to the point because it wasn't there choice. Autonomy is what is important here, no point in living if you aren't free to live your life however you see fit (so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of others).

Why is paternalism inherently wrong? A balance between freedom and the common good can be sought. That balance is why government exists.

It's literally in the US Constitution.

[Llamalandia]

I also want to know why people keep comparing seat belt laws to drug laws as the vast majority of the drugs (with the exception of alcohol) are only self inflicted harm. Not wearing a seat belt can result in your own harm, but also at the hands of other people. Other people make mistakes.

Not wearing a seat belt isn't always an automatic ticket to death and destruction. However, that's not to say that it shouldn't be mandatory, because it's common sense. It's like sticking to the posted speed limit or wearing a life jacket.

Well how common is it for harm to be caused to others by someone not wearing a seatbelt. I mean there are some cases where one person using drugs does in fact cause harm to another but it's so rare that we generally discount it (perhaps with the exception of say PCP).

Actually deviating from the speed limit may be perfectly fine in many instances as speed limits are set to factor in some amount of people speeding. (ie traffic engineers know that some people will always do say 10 over therefor while it may be perfectly safe to have a certain road at a speed limit of say 50 mph if everyone obeyed the law, engineers will deliberately set the speed limited lower at say forty to factor in the people who speed).

Also why should wearing a life jacket be mandatory either? I mean how does that one directly cause harm to others?

[Llamalandia]

Simple philosophy.





[url]
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications ... ngood.html[/url]

Because they are stupid or negligent people as evidenced by the fact that weren't wearing a seatbelt? But more to the point because it wasn't there choice. Autonomy is what is important here, no point in living if you aren't free to live your life however you see fit (so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of others).

But this isn't just for your own good. That's what you're failing to see. If it was, you could make a better argument (like with bike helmet laws). However, seat belts actually impact other people.

You know hos that works, right? "Own good" means that only you are the subject of benefit. When other people benefit, it's a social good. You do know the difference, yes?

Now, if you become a projectile inside a car with other people in it, are you infringing on the freedom of others? Yup. If you lose control of your vehicle because your not wearing your seatbelt and you're moved out of the driver's seat are you impacting others? Yup. If you fly into the driver because you aren't wearing your seat belt and the driver loses control of the vehicle are you impacting others? Yup. Literally, in fact.

Ok, but how often does that actually happen, give me some statistics to back that claim up. I mean i acknowledge that in rare instances your body maybe a projectile and may harm others, but how common is that?

[Geilinor]

I also want to know why people keep comparing seat belt laws to drug laws as the vast majority of the drugs (with the exception of alcohol) are only self inflicted harm. Not wearing a seat belt can result in your own harm, but also at the hands of other people. Other people make mistakes.

Not wearing a seat belt isn't always an automatic ticket to death and destruction. However, that's not to say that it shouldn't be mandatory, because it's common sense. It's like sticking to the posted speed limit or wearing a life jacket.

Also why should wearing a life jacket be mandatory either? I mean how does that one directly cause harm to others?

If the government manages said waterway, it should be mandatory. If you drown, emergency services will need to be called and taxpayers could end up paying some of your hospital bills or your disability benefits.

[Llamalandia]

Why is paternalism inherently wrong? A balance between freedom and the common good can be sought. That balance is why government exists.

It's literally in the US Constitution.

Yeah, no I mean, if not wearing a seatbelt actually results in harm to others often enough then it may be justifiable to make people wear seatbelts while in a car, I just haven't seen enough data to support that conclusion yet. Of course then again, why isn't it illegal to have any unsecured items in a vehicle? I mean a ham from the grocery store is equally likely to hit you as another human (if not more so) why shouldn't the law require that everything (not just people be secured) ?

Paternalism is inherently wrong because coercing someone to do something (when they are the only one harmed) is wrong, people should decide how to live their own lives so long as they don't directly harm others.

[Jocabia]

I also want to know why people keep comparing seat belt laws to drug laws as the vast majority of the drugs (with the exception of alcohol) are only self inflicted harm. Not wearing a seat belt can result in your own harm, but also at the hands of other people. Other people make mistakes.

Not wearing a seat belt isn't always an automatic ticket to death and destruction. However, that's not to say that it shouldn't be mandatory, because it's common sense. It's like sticking to the posted speed limit or wearing a life jacket.

Well how common is it for harm to be caused to others by someone not wearing a seatbelt. I mean there are some cases where one person using drugs does in fact cause harm to another but it's so rare that we generally discount it (perhaps with the exception of say PCP).

Actually deviating from the speed limit may be perfectly fine in many instances as speed limits are set to factor in some amount of people speeding. (ie traffic engineers know that some people will always do say 10 over therefor while it may be perfectly safe to have a certain road at a speed limit of say 50 mph if everyone obeyed the law, engineers will deliberately set the speed limited lower at say forty to factor in the people who speed).

Also why should wearing a life jacket be mandatory either? I mean how does that one directly cause harm to others?

If a person on drugs harms another, they are at fault. It's illegal.

Yes, engineers factor in the people who speed and set it lower, but people speeding are still putting others at risk by their behavior. It's not innocent.

It's amusing to me that you posted a link and called it simple philosophy but you don't seem to understand that simple philosophy only refers to actions that only affect the actor.

[Llamalandia]

Also why should wearing a life jacket be mandatory either? I mean how does that one directly cause harm to others?

If the government manages said waterway, it should be mandatory. If you drown, emergency services will need to be called and taxpayers could end up paying some of your hospital bills or your disability benefits.

Well as I said before if you don't wear a seatbelt you should have to pay your own bills for medical services.

Ok but the problem is that seatbelt laws also apply to toll roads which are privately owned and managed in some cases.

It was taxpayers choice (of course I'm not a fan of EMTALA anyway).

[Jocabia]

But this isn't just for your own good. That's what you're failing to see. If it was, you could make a better argument (like with bike helmet laws). However, seat belts actually impact other people.

You know hos that works, right? "Own good" means that only you are the subject of benefit. When other people benefit, it's a social good. You do know the difference, yes?

Now, if you become a projectile inside a car with other people in it, are you infringing on the freedom of others? Yup. If you lose control of your vehicle because your not wearing your seatbelt and you're moved out of the driver's seat are you impacting others? Yup. If you fly into the driver because you aren't wearing your seat belt and the driver loses control of the vehicle are you impacting others? Yup. Literally, in fact.

Ok, but how often does that actually happen, give me some statistics to back that claim up. I mean i acknowledge that in rare instances your body maybe a projectile and may harm others, but how common is that?

Let's say n+1 times. Where n is between 0 and 1 million times a year. Given you still can't give an explanation of why it you should be allowed to not where a seat belt. If your "right" to not do something affects other people, then it's not just a matter of "for your own good". And you acknowledge that it happens. Now, the onus is on you to establish what activity it's preventing you from doing. Because seat belts are literally made to cooperate with the seat you are required to remain while driving.

[Jocabia]

If the government manages said waterway, it should be mandatory. If you drown, emergency services will need to be called and taxpayers could end up paying some of your hospital bills or your disability benefits.

Well as I said before if you don't wear a seatbelt you should have to pay your own bills for medical services.

Ok but the problem is that seatbelt laws also apply to toll roads which are privately owned and managed in some cases.

It was taxpayers choice (of course I'm not a fan of EMTALA anyway).

Which toll roads are privately owned?

[Jocabia]

It's literally in the US Constitution.

Yeah, no I mean, if not wearing a seatbelt actually results in harm to others often enough then it may be justifiable to make people wear seatbelts while in a car, I just haven't seen enough data to support that conclusion yet. Of course then again, why isn't it illegal to have any unsecured items in a vehicle? I mean a ham from the grocery store is equally likely to hit you as another human (if not more so) why shouldn't the law require that everything (not just people be secured) ?

Paternalism is inherently wrong because coercing someone to do something (when they are the only one harmed) is wrong, people should decide how to live their own lives so long as they don't directly harm others.

I'm sure if they could find a reasonable way to make that requirement, they would. You're going to have to come up with an idea of how to write a law that would make people restrict their groceries in a meaningful way and then take it up with people who disagree with you. It's not relevant to those of us supporting seat belt law because we didn't argue for or against securing groceries in your car, now did we?

[Llamalandia]

Ok, but how often does that actually happen, give me some statistics to back that claim up. I mean i acknowledge that in rare instances your body maybe a projectile and may harm others, but how common is that?

Let's say n+1 times. Where n is between 0 and 1 million times a year. Given you still can't give an explanation of why it you should be allowed to not where a seat belt. If your "right" to not do something affects other people, then it's not just a matter of "for your own good". And you acknowledge that it happens. Now, the onus is on you to establish what activity it's preventing you from doing. Because seat belts are literally made to cooperate with the seat you are required to remain while driving.

I've given you a reason because it doesn't affect enough people often enough to justify it. If you can show me some real data then fine but otherwise it's merely paternalism which as I said is almost always wrong.

[Jocabia]

Also why should wearing a life jacket be mandatory either? I mean how does that one directly cause harm to others?

If the government manages said waterway, it should be mandatory. If you drown, emergency services will need to be called and taxpayers could end up paying some of your hospital bills or your disability benefits.

I actually don't agree with forcing adults to wear life jackets, actually.

[Costa Fierro]

Also why should wearing a life jacket be mandatory either? I mean how does that one directly cause harm to others?

It affects quite a number of people when you drown.

[Geilinor]

Let's say n+1 times. Where n is between 0 and 1 million times a year. Given you still can't give an explanation of why it you should be allowed to not where a seat belt. If your "right" to not do something affects other people, then it's not just a matter of "for your own good". And you acknowledge that it happens. Now, the onus is on you to establish what activity it's preventing you from doing. Because seat belts are literally made to cooperate with the seat you are required to remain while driving.

I've given you a reason because it doesn't affect enough people often enough to justify it. If you can show me some real data then fine but otherwise it's merely paternalism which as I said is almost always wrong.

Tougher seat belt laws save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/us/tougher-seat-belt-laws-save-lives-study-finds.html

[Jocabia]

Let's say n+1 times. Where n is between 0 and 1 million times a year. Given you still can't give an explanation of why it you should be allowed to not where a seat belt. If your "right" to not do something affects other people, then it's not just a matter of "for your own good". And you acknowledge that it happens. Now, the onus is on you to establish what activity it's preventing you from doing. Because seat belts are literally made to cooperate with the seat you are required to remain while driving.

I've given you a reason because it doesn't affect enough people often enough to justify it. If you can show me some real data then fine but otherwise it's merely paternalism which as I said is almost always wrong.

That's not a reason. That's you rejecting a reason with no other argument than "nuh-uh".

Are you now claiming it never happens? Unless it's never, we aren't talking about "for your own good" but rather for societal good.

[Llamalandia]

Well as I said before if you don't wear a seatbelt you should have to pay your own bills for medical services.

Ok but the problem is that seatbelt laws also apply to toll roads which are privately owned and managed in some cases.

It was taxpayers choice (of course I'm not a fan of EMTALA anyway).

Which toll roads are privately owned?

In what may serve as a "test case" for the privatization of other major highways in the United States, on June 29, 2006, the state of Indiana received $3.8 billion from a foreign consortium made up of the Spanish construction firm Cintra and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, and in exchange the state ceded operation of the 157-mile (253 km) Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years to these outside corporations. The consortium will collect all the tolls.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hi ... s#Colorado

[Jocabia]

Which toll roads are privately owned?

In what may serve as a "test case" for the privatization of other major highways in the United States, on June 29, 2006, the state of Indiana received $3.8 billion from a foreign consortium made up of the Spanish construction firm Cintra and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, and in exchange the state ceded operation of the 157-mile (253 km) Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years to these outside corporations. The consortium will collect all the tolls.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hi ... s#Colorado

Operation and ownership are not the same thing. That's much more like a lease.

Eh, reading the rest, I'll concede the point. It's not really germane. I just wasn't aware of it.

[Llamalandia]

I've given you a reason because it doesn't affect enough people often enough to justify it. If you can show me some real data then fine but otherwise it's merely paternalism which as I said is almost always wrong.

That's not a reason. That's you rejecting a reason with no other argument than "nuh-uh".

Are you now claiming it never happens? Unless it's never, we aren't talking about "for your own good" but rather for societal good.

Ok well then in that case you can ban smoking because sometimes people start fires accidentally. You can ban any number of drugs because occasionally they do cause harms to others by your reasoning.

I acknowledge that in rare instances it might harm others but I'm arguing that it's a very infrequent occurence, so infrequent as to be essentially negligible. If you have statistics showing that flying people are frequent enough problem then fine show me. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea to not wear a seatbelt I'm simply arguing that forcing people to do things against there will when its seldom harmful to others for them not to do it is wrong.

By car insurance industry estimates, you will file a claim for a collision about once every 17.9 years. That’s if you’re an average driver, which, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, you likely are.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/

Seems fairly infrequent to me. Besides one would then have to also know how often people didn't wear a seatbelt which would be rare nowadays even without a mandate and of those accidents how many were of sufficient speed to eject or otherwise involve harm to other drivers caused by not wearing a seatbelt.

[Geilinor]

That's not a reason. That's you rejecting a reason with no other argument than "nuh-uh".

Are you now claiming it never happens? Unless it's never, we aren't talking about "for your own good" but rather for societal good.

Ok well then in that case you can ban smoking because sometimes people start fires accidentally. You can ban any number of drugs because occasionally they do cause harms to others by your reasoning.

I acknowledge that in rare instances it might harm others but I'm arguing that it's a very infrequent occurence, so infrequent as to be essentially negligible. If you have statistics showing that flying people are frequent enough problem then fine show me. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea to not wear a seatbelt I'm simply arguing that forcing people to do things against there will when its seldom harmful to others for them not to do it is wrong.

By car insurance industry estimates, you will file a claim for a collision about once every 17.9 years. That’s if you’re an average driver, which, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, you likely are.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/

Seems fairly infrequent to me. Besides one would then have to also know how often people didn't wear a seatbelt which would be rare nowadays even without a mandate and of those accidents how many were of sufficient speed to eject or otherwise involve harm to other drivers caused by not wearing a seatbelt.

It doesn't matter how infrequent it is, there is a greatly increased risk of injury or death without seat belts.

[Jocabia]

That's not a reason. That's you rejecting a reason with no other argument than "nuh-uh".

Are you now claiming it never happens? Unless it's never, we aren't talking about "for your own good" but rather for societal good.

Ok well then in that case you can ban smoking because sometimes people start fires accidentally. You can ban any number of drugs because occasionally they do cause harms to others by your reasoning.

Starting fires through reckless behavior is preventable and illegal.

I acknowledge that in rare instances it might harm others but I'm arguing that it's a very infrequent occurence, so infrequent as to be essentially negligible. If you have statistics showing that flying people are frequent enough problem then fine show me. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea to not wear a seatbelt I'm simply arguing that forcing people to do things against there will when its seldom harmful to others for them not to do it is wrong.

By car insurance industry estimates, you will file a claim for a collision about once every 17.9 years. That’s if you’re an average driver, which, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, you likely are.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/

Seems fairly infrequent to me. Besides one would then have to also know how often people didn't wear a seatbelt which would be rare nowadays even without a mandate and of those accidents how many were of sufficient speed to eject or otherwise involve harm to other drivers caused by not wearing a seatbelt.

Out of curiosity, what is the mathematical formula for enough harm to others to warrant you being permitted to behave stupidly just so you can pretend you're more free?