Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Sibirsky]

1. What rights are being infringed on by using opaque plastic bags? 2. Whats right are being infringed on by using drugs, or 3. having consensual gay sex?

4. The rights of the state to ban innocent and victimless activity?

5. Most laws do not prohibit loopholes that have previously allowed someone to infringe on others' rights, as you have claimed.

1. Pointless statement. Its like asking "what's wrong with using a book's dustcover to hide a child porn mag?". As has been pointed out in this thread before, the incident you're referring to wasn't just because some guy stuffed a bunch of lobsters into opaque plastic bags, but rather was violating the laws of two nations protecting an entire species and both nations' respective industries which responsibly harvest said species. You can't sell me your bullshit, Sib.

2. None, as far as light drugs are concerned, while there is a justification for banning hard drugs (such as meth, bath salts, etc.).

3. Strawman.

4. Except, not all of your supposed "innocent" and "victimless" activities that are restricted by the state are actually such. In fact, I'd have a hard time believing most of them are "innocent" and "victimless".

5. Source?

1. Obviously he deserves 8 years in prison for that.

2. No, there is no justification for banning harder drugs. The consequences of the bans are far worse than the consequences of drug use. Never mind the fact that meth is prescribed to many children.

3. Not a strawman. A legitimate question. The answer to which is "no rights at all" and that is evidence that such laws should not have existed in the first place.

4. Drug use is victimless. Consensual sex is victimless. Consensual sex in exchange for money is victimless.

5. You provide a source that most laws close loopholes that have allowed someone to infringe on the rights of others.

Or we could go into how laws are proposed, debated and then passed. Or we could go into politics.

Special interest groups propose legislation, politicians look at the immediate effects to the industry being discussed with little to no regard on the effects on the public as a whole.

Because of the disproportionate power of special interest groups, most legislation is of benefit to them, but is detrimental to the public.

We can also look at politicians themselves. There are people who are content to mind their own business. And there are politicians. Who aim to control others. The kind of people that go into politics are the people with high egos and lust for power. Not for being "public servants." They do not serve the public. They serve themselves by serving the special interest groups.

We can throw in targeted benefits and dispersed costs to the special interests argument.

So we have a political process that is distorted against good public policy. And to add to that, it is controlled egomaniacs that do not serve the public. This is a virtual guarantee that most outcomes make us worse off.

[Comalander]

You are right, everything can be proved without evidence and without a source. Even if there is a source, it can be false and even blatantly state that, yet it can still be taken as true. Also, you can disregard as many of your opponents points as you want, or you can just simplify them and make them sound incredible.

If you have a source that argues for different numbers let's see it.

And some things, apparently, can be proved by just posting a source and saying something completely different than it says, like you just did. As credible goes, not you is a pretty good place to start.

I misread a credible source, yes.

You provided an incredible source.

Those two instances are very different.

[Jocabia]

1. Pointless statement. Its like asking "what's wrong with using a book's dustcover to hide a child porn mag?". As has been pointed out in this thread before, the incident you're referring to wasn't just because some guy stuffed a bunch of lobsters into opaque plastic bags, but rather was violating the laws of two nations protecting an entire species and both nations' respective industries which responsibly harvest said species. You can't sell me your bullshit, Sib.

2. None, as far as light drugs are concerned, while there is a justification for banning hard drugs (such as meth, bath salts, etc.).

3. Strawman.

4. Except, not all of your supposed "innocent" and "victimless" activities that are restricted by the state are actually such. In fact, I'd have a hard time believing most of them are "innocent" and "victimless".

5. Source?

1. Obviously he deserves 8 years in prison for that.

2. No, there is no justification for banning harder drugs. The consequences of the bans are far worse than the consequences of drug use. Never mind the fact that meth is prescribed to many children.

3. Not a strawman. A legitimate question. The answer to which is "no rights at all" and that is evidence that such laws should not have existed in the first place.

4. Drug use is victimless. Consensual sex is victimless. Consensual sex in exchange for money is victimless.

5. You provide a source that most laws close loopholes that have allowed someone to infringe on the rights of others.

Or we could go into how laws are proposed, debated and then passed. Or we could go into politics.

Special interest groups propose legislation, politicians look at the immediate effects to the industry being discussed with little to no regard on the effects on the public as a whole.

Because of the disproportionate power of special interest groups, most legislation is of benefit to them, but is detrimental to the public.

We can also look at politicians themselves. There are people who are content to mind their own business. And there are politicians. Who aim to control others. The kind of people that go into politics are the people with high egos and lust for power. Not for being "public servants." They do not serve the public. They serve themselves by serving the special interest groups.

We can throw in targeted benefits and dispersed costs to the special interests argument.

So we have a political process that is distorted against good public policy. And to add to that, it is controlled egomaniacs that do not serve the public. This is a virtual guarantee that most outcomes make us worse off.

You know what would be fun? If we talked about seat belts instead of lobsters.

Seat belts is a pretty good example of a law you could talk about. Every thread doesn't have to become the Sibirsky is such a radical thread.

To be clear, I'm not blaming you. Apparently, people have to act surprised by your beliefs every time you speak. However, can we maybe, just maybe, discuss the topic of the thread. Government overreach is tacitly related, but really you've established your criteria and it's been agreed to. The only real question is whether or not seat belts are victimless. Who cares if your other examples are, because they aren't the topic.

[Comalander]

-snip-

You know what would be fun? If we talked about seat belts instead of lobsters.

Seat belts is a pretty good example of a law you could talk about. Every thread doesn't have to become the Sibirsky is such a radical thread.

To be clear, I'm not blaming you. Apparently, people have to act surprised by your beliefs every time you speak. However, can we maybe, just maybe, discuss the topic of the thread. Government overreach is tacitly related, but really you've established your criteria and it's been agreed to. The only real question is whether or not seat belts are victimless. Who cares if your other examples are, because they aren't the topic.

I have to reaffirm this. To be fair, everyone has gotten a little off topic at some point.

[Jocabia]

Um, where do you think only 1216 people died in car accidents? Not in the US. In 2009, 23,382 people died who were occupants of passenger vehicles (that's passenger cars and light trucks). Nearly 2 million were injured. In 2009, 12,432 of those that died were unrestrained.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

That's almost like 1,216 except well, just about 20 times larger.

EDIT: I did read your source by the way. It also says you were off by about a factor of 20.

You are correct, I misread the source.

However, were injured doesn't prove that human projectiles commonly kill people. The fact that 23,000 people (Both drivers and passengers included) died doesn't prove that human projectiles are a common cause of death in car accidents

A 40% increase in risk of death doesn't mean death.

It isn't a 40% risk of death. It's a 40% increase in the rate of injury. This is another one of those times where you should confirm what you read before replying to it. And given that injuries occur 2 millions times a year, that's a significant number of injuries. It would vary, based on the percentage of people wearing seat belts (and how many accidents involve cars with multiple occupants), which has been shown to vary for a number of reasons. However, it's pretty well agreed upon that seat belts decrease injuries and fatalities for all involved, including the people around you who are also wearing their seat belts. (And by "agreed upon" I mean your source and my source and dozens of studies have all shown this.)

[Jocabia]

If you have a source that argues for different numbers let's see it.

And some things, apparently, can be proved by just posting a source and saying something completely different than it says, like you just did. As credible goes, not you is a pretty good place to start.

I misread a credible source, yes.

You provided an incredible source.

Those two instances are very different.

Yes, my source was incredible. Totally incredible.

I mean, who knows. Maybe the guy who wrote the article misread the numbers by a factor of 20.

[Greater Beggnig]

Lol how? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Because other people will be killing you when you get in a crash, because hospitals are going to have to take care of you, and because you can and will go flying out of the windshield, and we would hate for you to damage someone's car.

This^

[Comalander]

You are correct, I misread the source.

However, were injured doesn't prove that human projectiles commonly kill people. The fact that 23,000 people (Both drivers and passengers included) died doesn't prove that human projectiles are a common cause of death in car accidents

A 40% increase in risk of death doesn't mean death.

It isn't a 40% risk of death. It's a 40% increase in the rate of injury. And given that injuries occur 2 millions times a year, that's a significant number of injuries. It would vary, based on the percentage of people wearing seat belts, which has been shown to vary for a number of reasons. However, it's pretty well agreed upon that seat belts decrease injuries and fatalities for all involved, including the people around you who are also wearing their seat belts. (And by "agreed upon" I mean your source and my source and dozens of studies have all shown this.)

Yes, I definitely agree that seat belts are safe, decrease loss of life, and in my opinion everyone should wear them. I have never stated otherwise.

However, in my opinion (and the opinion of the United States constitution), it isn't the governments job to protect people from themselves. If a passenger in a car is struck and injured by the driver of the same car, it is not only the drivers fault, but also partly the passengers. The passenger could ask the driver to wear a seat belt, or refuse to ride with said driver due to his/her lack of respect for logical safety measures. You wouldn't get in a vehicle with someone who was intoxicated or clearly incapable of properly operating a motor vehicle, and seat belt is the same way.

Therefore, the only reasons to mandate the use of a safety belt are:

1. To protect those outside of the vehicle (Which it has not been proven that this is necessary, nor is it the governments job)
2. To protect those inside the vehicle (Which is not the job of the government)
3. To create revenue for the state. (Which is done by traffic tickets)

Also, as I stated earlier, I do not believe that people wear seat belts simply because they will be punished if they don't. They wear seat belts because it is the smart, safe, and responsible thing to do. Therefore, I maintain that while seat belts are good, laws mandating their use are unnecessary.

Another thing, I just want to cool down the situation a bit and say: If I have personally offended you in any way, I apologize, as it was not my intention. I only intend to share my perspective and opinion while also receiving the perspective and opinion of others.

[Comalander]

I misread a credible source, yes.

You provided an incredible source.

Those two instances are very different.

Yes, my source was incredible. Totally incredible.

I mean, who knows. Maybe the guy who wrote the article misread the numbers by a factor of 20.

I was talking about the article you provided earlier, which I think we can both agree is incredible, right?

I'm not disputing the United States Dept. of transportation.

Also, you did make me laugh, but I did acknowledge my mistake and it does not alter anything else I have said.

[Sibirsky]

1. Obviously he deserves 8 years in prison for that.

2. No, there is no justification for banning harder drugs. The consequences of the bans are far worse than the consequences of drug use. Never mind the fact that meth is prescribed to many children.

3. Not a strawman. A legitimate question. The answer to which is "no rights at all" and that is evidence that such laws should not have existed in the first place.

4. Drug use is victimless. Consensual sex is victimless. Consensual sex in exchange for money is victimless.

5. You provide a source that most laws close loopholes that have allowed someone to infringe on the rights of others.

Or we could go into how laws are proposed, debated and then passed. Or we could go into politics.

Special interest groups propose legislation, politicians look at the immediate effects to the industry being discussed with little to no regard on the effects on the public as a whole.

Because of the disproportionate power of special interest groups, most legislation is of benefit to them, but is detrimental to the public.

We can also look at politicians themselves. There are people who are content to mind their own business. And there are politicians. Who aim to control others. The kind of people that go into politics are the people with high egos and lust for power. Not for being "public servants." They do not serve the public. They serve themselves by serving the special interest groups.

We can throw in targeted benefits and dispersed costs to the special interests argument.

So we have a political process that is distorted against good public policy. And to add to that, it is controlled egomaniacs that do not serve the public. This is a virtual guarantee that most outcomes make us worse off.

You know what would be fun? If we talked about seat belts instead of lobsters.

Seat belts is a pretty good example of a law you could talk about. Every thread doesn't have to become the Sibirsky is such a radical thread.

To be clear, I'm not blaming you. Apparently, people have to act surprised by your beliefs every time you speak. However, can we maybe, just maybe, discuss the topic of the thread. Government overreach is tacitly related, but really you've established your criteria and it's been agreed to. The only real question is whether or not seat belts are victimless. Who cares if your other examples are, because they aren't the topic.

I talked about seat belts. That was moderately fun. You made the best for argument.

[NPCA]

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.

Finally, a person that has a good point.

[Comalander]

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.

Finally, a person that has a good point.

Why do you quote the OP, the very first presented argument, and then act like it's a diamond in the rough? I agree with you and the OP, but I'm just curious as to if you read anything besides the OP

[NPCA]

Finally, a person that has a good point.

Why do you quote the OP, the very first presented argument, and then act like it's a diamond in the rough? I agree with you and the OP, but I'm just curious as to if you read anything besides the OP

It explains the argument.

[Comalander]

Why do you quote the OP, the very first presented argument, and then act like it's a diamond in the rough? I agree with you and the OP, but I'm just curious as to if you read anything besides the OP

It explains the argument.

Yeah, and in a lot less words than I or anyone else did

[NPCA]

It explains the argument.

Yeah, and in a lot less words than I or anyone else did

[Keyboard Warriors]

Um, where do you think only 1216 people died in car accidents? Not in the US. In 2009, 23,382 people died who were occupants of passenger vehicles (that's passenger cars and light trucks). Nearly 2 million were injured. In 2009, 12,432 of those that died were unrestrained.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

That's almost like 1,216 except well, just about 20 times larger.

EDIT: I did read your source by the way. It also says you were off by about a factor of 20.

You are correct, I misread the source.

However, were injured doesn't prove that human projectiles commonly kill people. The fact that 23,000 people (Both drivers and passengers included) died doesn't prove that human projectiles are a common cause of death in car accidents

A 40% increase in risk of death doesn't mean death.

I think you miss the real point of the issue.

You don't have the right to use the road. You ask for permission and permission is granted if you promise to play by the rules. The rules were decided upon what is going to work best for everyone. If you don't think they will work for you, walk.

This is different from bathtubs and shit because they're in your own home where the government has no control even if they wanted to, understood?

[Jocabia]

It isn't a 40% risk of death. It's a 40% increase in the rate of injury. And given that injuries occur 2 millions times a year, that's a significant number of injuries. It would vary, based on the percentage of people wearing seat belts, which has been shown to vary for a number of reasons. However, it's pretty well agreed upon that seat belts decrease injuries and fatalities for all involved, including the people around you who are also wearing their seat belts. (And by "agreed upon" I mean your source and my source and dozens of studies have all shown this.)

Yes, I definitely agree that seat belts are safe, decrease loss of life, and in my opinion everyone should wear them. I have never stated otherwise.

However, in my opinion (and the opinion of the United States constitution), it isn't the governments job to protect people from themselves. If a passenger in a car is struck and injured by the driver of the same car, it is not only the drivers fault, but also partly the passengers. The passenger could ask the driver to wear a seat belt, or refuse to ride with said driver due to his/her lack of respect for logical safety measures. You wouldn't get in a vehicle with someone who was intoxicated or clearly incapable of properly operating a motor vehicle, and seat belt is the same way.

Therefore, the only reasons to mandate the use of a safety belt are:

1. To protect those outside of the vehicle (Which it has not been proven that this is necessary, nor is it the governments job)
2. To protect those inside the vehicle (Which is not the job of the government)
3. To create revenue for the state. (Which is done by traffic tickets)

Also, as I stated earlier, I do not believe that people wear seat belts simply because they will be punished if they don't. They wear seat belts because it is the smart, safe, and responsible thing to do. Therefore, I maintain that while seat belts are good, laws mandating their use are unnecessary.

Another thing, I just want to cool down the situation a bit and say: If I have personally offended you in any way, I apologize, as it was not my intention. I only intend to share my perspective and opinion while also receiving the perspective and opinion of others.

No, it is exactly the governments job.

1. To promote the general welfare is an explicit clause of the US Constitution. You can dispute whether you approve of the Republic founded by that document, but it is the role we gave the government to protect us as a group within reason.
2. When your actions put my rights, namely my right to life, in danger, it is precisely the job of the government to restrain you from doing so, within reason.

Now, it's clear that not wearing a seat belt does put others in danger for a number of reasons already stated and demonstrated in the thread. It's also been shown that being required to wear a seat belt does not put the wearer in danger nor does it prevent them from reasonable exercising their rights. There is simply no argument why your right to be stupid should trump my right to life.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/oli ... df/341.pdf

And, of course, your unsourced claim that people wear seat belts for safety and not as a result of the law does not hold up to scrutiny. They found an 11% increase in seat belt usage as a result of secondary enforcement and a 22% increase as a result of primary enforcement. They also found that a 10% increase in usage result in about 500 lives saved per year. That means that the increase in belt usage has a significant value in both the primary and secondary enforcement scenarios.

The paper found usage rates at about 68% and would expect usage rates to jump to 77% with primary enforcement country wide. Again, that's a significant change in lives saved. Note that the paper is from 2001.

Incidentally, to those who brought up negative compensating behaviors, this paper addresses that and finds it to not be accurate.

Seat belts, because of the harm caused by not wearing them, have a net cost to society. I can think of no other group who is better suited to carrying that cost than the people not wearing them.

EDIT: You didn't personally offend me in any way. I have no idea why I was being such an ass, but I'm sorry about that. I certainly did seem offended, didn't I?

[Jocabia]

I talked about seat belts. That was moderately fun. You made the best for argument.

Interestingly, I posted a study that disagrees with me. I said that primary enforcement is likely a waste of time. The study found that primary enforcement results in about 11% higher usage of seat belts than if you only use secondary enforcement. It shows that if every state in the union used primary enforcement we could expect a 9% increase in usage overall (because many states already have primary enforcement).

That pretty significantly shoots my claim in the foot.

[AiliailiA]

1. (wikipedia) his source literally says that it is not credible. If you still take said course as credible, you may want to reevaluate your life choices.

2. in 2009, 1,216 passengers died in cars. (https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab ... ities.html). Also, risk of death does not equal death.

and injury happens all the time. Tons of people injure themselves slipping in the bath tub, so should bath tubs be banned?

Um, where do you think only 1216 people died in car accidents? Not in the US. In 2009, 23,382 people died who were occupants of passenger vehicles (that's passenger cars and light trucks). Nearly 2 million were injured. In 2009, 12,432 of those that died were unrestrained.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

That's almost like 1,216 except well, just about 20 times larger.

EDIT: I did read your source by the way. It also says you were off by about a factor of 20.

No, the 1,216 figures is injuries in passenger vehicles in 2009.

Comalander missed the "(1000)" for that section, making it 1.2 million.

Off by a factor of ONE THOUSAND. You can see why this posters doesn't like sources can't you?

[Comalander]

You are correct, I misread the source.

However, were injured doesn't prove that human projectiles commonly kill people. The fact that 23,000 people (Both drivers and passengers included) died doesn't prove that human projectiles are a common cause of death in car accidents

A 40% increase in risk of death doesn't mean death.

I think you miss the real point of the issue.

You don't have the right to use the road. You ask for permission and permission is granted if you promise to play by the rules. The rules were decided upon what is going to work best for everyone. If you don't think they will work for you, walk.

This is different from bathtubs and shit because they're in your own home where the government has no control even if they wanted to, understood?

This debate is about whether or not seat belt laws should remain in place. I acknowledge that current laws mandate seat belt usage and, I have never said otherwise.

[Comalander]

Um, where do you think only 1216 people died in car accidents? Not in the US. In 2009, 23,382 people died who were occupants of passenger vehicles (that's passenger cars and light trucks). Nearly 2 million were injured. In 2009, 12,432 of those that died were unrestrained.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

That's almost like 1,216 except well, just about 20 times larger.

EDIT: I did read your source by the way. It also says you were off by about a factor of 20.

No, the 1,216 figures is injuries in passenger vehicles in 2009.

Comalander missed the "(1000)" for that section, making it 1.2 million.

Off by a factor of ONE THOUSAND. You can see why this posters doesn't like sources can't you?

Are you an undertaker?

Because you sure as hell dug up this old post.

Anyway, I love sources, and my demands for a credible one should show that...

[Cymrea]

That's why stoplights exist, that's why traffic laws exist, they're protecting other people from being hurt involuntary.

Seatbelt laws are also traffic laws. There's quite a few people who sneered at bicycle helmet laws that ended up painting the road with their brains. One can only hope that your irresponsible and reckless choice hurts only you and no one else. Darwinism and karma aren't reliable enough to remove those whose thoughtless intransigence places other lives at risk.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I think you miss the real point of the issue.

You don't have the right to use the road. You ask for permission and permission is granted if you promise to play by the rules. The rules were decided upon what is going to work best for everyone. If you don't think they will work for you, walk.

This is different from bathtubs and shit because they're in your own home where the government has no control even if they wanted to, understood?

This debate is about whether or not seat belt laws should remain in place. I acknowledge that current laws mandate seat belt usage and, I have never said otherwise.

So why did you bring up bathtubs as an example? If you're trying to pitch the trade off against seat belts as being anti-freedom, might I remind you that you don't have freedom to use the road in the first place.

Huge potential to reduce death, insurance premiums, government expenditure for the slight inconvenience of wearing a strap over your shoulder and around your waist. Can there actually be any debate about this? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Jocabia]

No, the 1,216 figures is injuries in passenger vehicles in 2009.

Comalander missed the "(1000)" for that section, making it 1.2 million.

Off by a factor of ONE THOUSAND. You can see why this posters doesn't like sources can't you?

Are you an undertaker?

Because you sure as hell dug up this old post.

Anyway, I love sources, and my demands for a credible one should show that...

An old post? It's from about a page ago on a forum. On a forum of this type, expect posts from as much as a day ago to come up regularly. That's what is supposed to happen. This isn't a chat.

As far as sources, it's rather silly to hold posts to unnecessarily high standards, particularly with something that doesn't matter that much like these statistics or the definition of a word, and then not take a reasonable effort at making sure you accurately reflect them. Two times in about a page, you misread either a source or a summary of a source (the time mentioned above and when you referred the 40% to fatalities rather than injuries). What's the point of so much diligence on sources when you aren't going to use them properly?

[Maqo]

Seat belts are a catch-22 law.
The government has a duty to protect the weakest members of society - eg, the ones with mental health issues - even from themselves.
"A concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Comalander was crazy and should be protected. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and wouldn't have to wear his seatbelt. Comalander would be crazy to drive without his seatbelt and sane if he did, but if he was sane he was allowed to drive without one. If he went unbelted them he was crazy and had to belt up; but if he belted up then he was sane and didn't need to.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Everyone else agreed.



Also, the talk about wikipedia impartiality is funny. Though I generally perceive Wiki as a decent enough source for forum discussions, the page on seatbelt legislation is a horrible mashup of incorrect facts and libertarian wanking, and it has improved significantly since its original form...