Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Geilinor]

(Image)

Maybe we should also reduce the speed limit to 15?

Enough of your garbage. Reducing the speed limit to 15 would cripple the transportation system. Wearing a seatbelt is comparatively not an inconvenience. You have nothing but strawmen.

[Sibirsky]

Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Also, this isn't true either, though since Ron Paul said it, it's a wonder that you believe it.

It's way less than that. Here's a breakdown:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/27/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-40000-new-laws-were-put-books-first-/

From your source

And it could even be that states are starting to approve fewer new laws. Robinson said by telephone that according to the firm's data, more bills passed into law in the previous two odd-numbered years when every state legislature was in session -- 20,238 bills passed into law in 2009 and 21,031 bills passed into law in 2007.

Over twenty thousand and twenty-one thousand, not including the feds or local jurisdictions. That is indeed, tens of thousands.

[Sibirsky]

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.

In the short run, maybe, but they might be better off in the long run.

Yes, let me enjoy the millions of prisoners and millions that died in needless wars and the billions that are spent on this.

How is that making people better off again?

[Sibirsky]

Maybe we should also reduce the speed limit to 15?

It's actually been noted that when (in California, that is) the speed limit was lowered from 65 to 55, the number of fatalities in car accidents went up dramatically. They promptly raised it again, and the numbers went back down. That's not to say that raising it would help, though.

And did they find out why?

[Sibirsky]

Maybe we should also reduce the speed limit to 15?

Enough of your garbage. Reducing the speed limit to 15 would cripple the transportation system. Wearing a seatbelt is comparatively not an inconvenience. You have nothing but strawmen.

It would dramatically improve safety. And when I said, not all safety measures are worth it, he posted pic spam. Just plain garbage.

Now you are agreeing with me by claiming that not all safety measures are worth it, yet claiming I am the one that posted garbage? Why don't you start reading what you are responding to?

[AiliailiA]

It's actually been noted that when (in California, that is) the speed limit was lowered from 65 to 55, the number of fatalities in car accidents went up dramatically. They promptly raised it again, and the numbers went back down. That's not to say that raising it would help, though.

And did they find out why?

Well the speed limit (unless otherwise posted) is 55 on two lane undivided roads. Only on wider roads is it 65.

So I guess on those wider roads where it's safe to drive 65, reducing the limit to 55 would cause more accidents due to overcrowding than it would reduce accidents due to speed.

More accidents doesn't mean more fatalities though. Kinetic energy goes up with the square of speed, so a collision (if any) is a lot less dangerous at 55 than 65. Could use a source for EFG's claim.

[AiliailiA]

Also, this isn't true either, though since Ron Paul said it, it's a wonder that you believe it.

It's way less than that. Here's a breakdown:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/27/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-40000-new-laws-were-put-books-first-/

From your source

And it could even be that states are starting to approve fewer new laws. Robinson said by telephone that according to the firm's data, more bills passed into law in the previous two odd-numbered years when every state legislature was in session -- 20,238 bills passed into law in 2009 and 21,031 bills passed into law in 2007.

Over twenty thousand and twenty-one thousand, not including the feds or local jurisdictions. That is indeed, tens of thousands.

"Bills and resolutions" are not all "new laws" by any means. Furthermore, to make an existing law less restrictive or even to abolish it, you know what a state congress has to do? Pass a bill.

[Grenartia]

Not just for their own good. It also has an impact on others. Again, people have yet to argue an upside to being permitted to not wear a seat belt. What are you being denied? Lap air?

Ok well so do lots of things. I mean heck smokers sometimes start fires becausse fo their recklessness should we ban smoking now as well. I mean, how much damage to others is actually caused (that couldn't be recovered) to other people by people nnot wearing seatbelts every year? Victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.

It's an argument for freedom. It's not that there is necessarily even any advantage to it, the issue is that youre being compelled to do something against you own will and that's generally considered to be inherently wrong. I mean could just as easily say you should wear a helmet everywhere, arguably you'd be safer but so what? (I'm assuming its a confortable hemet and hey if people riding bikes put up with wearing them why shouldn't everyone?)

While banning smoking would be a good step forward, it would be impossible to enforce (see: Prohibition), so all we can really do is heavily encourage people not to do so, or, if they do, to quit.

However, it IS easy to enforce seatbelt laws, which are in place for excellent reasons. Like the fact that human projectiles cause more damage to vehicles than they'd have otherwise sustained, that the cleanup would cost more (effectively, vandalism via corpse), to say nothing of the fact that the body could cause grievous injuries or even death, or, at the very least, induce PTSD in survivors. So yes. Not wearing seatbelts can infringe on others' rights without their informed consent. Your right to be free to make a dumbass decision does not override my right to not have your corpse vandalize my car, nor my right to my mental health, nor my right not to have your corpse plow into me or my passengers.

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?

Your arguments are super stupid. Like, literally on the level of questioning why its against the law to drive the wrong way down the interstate.

"I mean, yeah, you can hit another car head on at 70mph, but how common is that?"

Seriously. A brain dead monkey could refute this.

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?[/quote]

I'm genuinely curious about this as well.

Lets not forget the people who'll have to clean up your face from the ground.


Tax Payers are paying those people.

Again, I'm wondering if we should give people who fail to comply with seatbelt laws the choice between paying a fine and working cleanup for fatal wrecks where people didn't wear their seatbelts.

Also, Sib, I expect a response to my post.

[Vikipolis]

In Japan, if you kill yourself on a public location, they send the bill from the cleaning to your family,, plus a fee. Bottom line is: do whatever you want in the safety of your place. Not wearing a seat belt is going to make a mess in case you do have an accident, and no one wants to watch that sh#t. There's psichological damage to take account of, not to mention you can be catapulted onto the roadway, causing an accident or hurting he passengers on your front, in case you're travelling in the back seat.

[Grenartia]

In Japan, if you kill yourself on a public location, they send the bill from the cleaning to your family,, plus a fee. Bottom line is: do whatever you want in the safety of your place. Not wearing a seat belt is going to make a mess in case you do have an accident, and no one wants to watch that sh#t. There's psichological damage to take account of, not to mention you can be catapulted onto the roadway, causing an accident or hurting he passengers on your front, in case you're travelling in the back seat.

BUT MUH FREEDUMB!

[Sibirsky]

From your source



Over twenty thousand and twenty-one thousand, not including the feds or local jurisdictions. That is indeed, tens of thousands.

"Bills and resolutions" are not all "new laws" by any means. Furthermore, to make an existing law less restrictive or even to abolish it, you know what a state congress has to do? Pass a bill.

The numbers I quoted are laws.

The rest would only be relevant if most new bills repealed old ones. That is not the case, however.

[Liberaxia]

From your source



Over twenty thousand and twenty-one thousand, not including the feds or local jurisdictions. That is indeed, tens of thousands.

"Bills and resolutions" are not all "new laws" by any means. Furthermore, to make an existing law less restrictive or even to abolish it, you know what a state congress has to do? Pass a bill.

Not to mention, those "evul laws" are exactly what is necessary for defining "property". Anlibs are so funny.

[Sibirsky]

"Bills and resolutions" are not all "new laws" by any means. Furthermore, to make an existing law less restrictive or even to abolish it, you know what a state congress has to do? Pass a bill.

Not to mention, those "evul laws" are exactly what is necessary for defining "property". Anlibs are so funny.

It does not take tens of thousands of laws to define property.

[Icatus]

So we'll sue your mourning spouse and/or kids if it in any way looks like you flew through the windshield and killed the other driver/person in the crash, especial if you weren't wearing your seatbelt.

Seriously.

Mandatory.

[Liberaxia]

Not to mention, those "evul laws" are exactly what is necessary for defining "property". Anlibs are so funny.

It does not take tens of thousands of laws to define property.

Of course it doesn't, but the law is much more complex than you anlibs seem to realize.

[Sibirsky]

It does not take tens of thousands of laws to define property.

Of course it doesn't, but the law is much more complex than you anlibs seem to realize.

So, your post was pointless and flamebaiting.

How new and exciting.

[Comalander]

So we'll sue your mourning spouse and/or kids if it in any way looks like you flew through the windshield and killed the other driver/person in the crash, especial if you weren't wearing your seatbelt.

Seriously.

Mandatory.

Please provide a source to an incident where a driver was ejected from their vehicle and struck a bystander or other driver and killed them, and an investigation confirmed that the cause of death of the victim was them being struck by a flying human being.


Just to join the thread: my belief is that seat belts should not be mandatory

[Sibirsky]

In Japan, if you kill yourself on a public location, they send the bill from the cleaning to your family,, plus a fee. Bottom line is: do whatever you want in the safety of your place. Not wearing a seat belt is going to make a mess in case you do have an accident, and no one wants to watch that sh#t. There's psichological damage to take account of, not to mention you can be catapulted onto the roadway, causing an accident or hurting he passengers on your front, in case you're travelling in the back seat.

BUT MUH FREEDUMB!

But my state!

Laws are the bible. Government is god. Obama is a priest.

Let us pray.

[Sibirsky]

So we'll sue your mourning spouse and/or kids if it in any way looks like you flew through the windshield and killed the other driver/person in the crash, especial if you weren't wearing your seatbelt.

Seriously.

Mandatory.

Please provide a source to an incident where a driver was ejected from their vehicle and struck a bystander or other driver and killed them, and an investigation confirmed that the cause of death of the victim was them being struck by a flying human being.


Just to join the thread: my belief is that seat belts should not be mandatory

You need a confirmed death? I posted a video of a guy being thrown out of a car in an accident and almost hitting an oncoming car's windshield, before falling to the road and getting run over by another car.

That is not dangerous enough for you?

[Liberaxia]

Of course it doesn't, but the law is much more complex than you anlibs seem to realize.

So, your post was pointless and flamebaiting.

How new and exciting.

Err, no, it wasn't. It's just that whenever I hear any complaints about "the state" I feel compelled to point that the more important concept that needs to be focused on is the content of the law.

[Comalander]

Please provide a source to an incident where a driver was ejected from their vehicle and struck a bystander or other driver and killed them, and an investigation confirmed that the cause of death of the victim was them being struck by a flying human being.


Just to join the thread: my belief is that seat belts should not be mandatory

You need a confirmed death? I posted a video of a guy being thrown out of a car in an accident and almost hitting an oncoming car's windshield, before falling to the road and getting run over by another car.

That is not dangerous enough for you?

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

[Jinwoy]

So, your post was pointless and flamebaiting.

How new and exciting.

Err, no, it wasn't. It's just that whenever I hear any complaints about "the state" I feel compelled to point that the more important concept that needs to be focused on is the content of the law.

but... but... the state is ebul. look at how restrictive they r and how they start all wars and how everything would be just PERFECT without them. :c

[Sibirsky]

So, your post was pointless and flamebaiting.

How new and exciting.

Err, no, it wasn't. It's just that whenever I hear any complaints about "the state" I feel compelled to point that the more important concept that needs to be focused on is the content of the law.

Sure. And the content of most laws is negative to most members of the general public.

[Jinwoy]

You need a confirmed death? I posted a video of a guy being thrown out of a car in an accident and almost hitting an oncoming car's windshield, before falling to the road and getting run over by another car.

That is not dangerous enough for you?

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

Hypothetical: A privately operated nuclear power plant has found a way to abuse the law in order to increase efficiency. In doing so, they almost cause a meltdown and could've made a major environmental catastrophe. You'd be stupid to not fix potholes in the law, and even stupider to let things that can be dangerous happen.

[Comalander]

Err, no, it wasn't. It's just that whenever I hear any complaints about "the state" I feel compelled to point that the more important concept that needs to be focused on is the content of the law.

but... but... the state is ebul. look at how restrictive they r and how they start all wars and how everything would be just PERFECT without them. :c

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?