Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Jocabia]

You can have prison if you prefer.

You take these "minor traffic infractions" far too lightly. Motor accidents are the leading cause up death up into the mid twenties for people in the US. Including children, who obviously don't have the option to get out of their parent's unsafe care and drive their own.

The bitterest irony is that the people who stand to gain most by being required to wear seat belts are the same ones who complain most bitterly about it being an infraction of their rights.

If you want to risk your life for fun, go base jumping or horse riding. Go somewhere remote, where your risk taking does not endanger others. Instead of screwing up the publicly owned infrastructure that so many productive citizens rely on.

Tragedy of the commons really. We wouldn't need speed limits or even traffic lights, but for a minority of dicks who think they own the road.

Please provide me with a credible source of how many people die annually due to someone else not wearing a seat belt.

Seriously? Again?

Why does only dying count? It's not enough that should have to wear a device that does you no harm, increases your ability to stay in control of your vehicle, keeps you safe, just because otherwise you might cause damage to other occupants of the vehicle (or potentially others if you lose control of the vehicle)? Why does it have to be death and why do you keep trying to shift it to that? Is it because I already showed you that the amount of injury in the millions of accidents every year is too much?

[Keyboard Warriors]

How have you managed, this far into the thread, managed to ignore every other reason of why we have seat belts to settle with "protecting people from themselves"?


I'm tempted to make you list them, but it's unnecessary as there's overwhelming evidence that seat belts ultimately detract from the road toll, not increase it.


If you have a better idea to enforce a speed limit, traffic signals and road etiquette without a fine-based system, I'd love to hear it.

1. Because that is the only credible argument that has been presented. If you give me a credible statistic as to how many people die annually due to someone else not wearing a seat belt, I will consider that argument as well.

Lmao. There has to have been a dozen explanations on why not wearing a seatbelt has the potential to adversely impact everyone else. Want the highlights? Unpaid medical bills, insurance premiums and lost productivity.

2. A friend of my fathers drowned because he was suspended upside down in a body of water, while he was wearing his seat belt. Had he not been wearing a seat belt, he would have probably survived. Therefore, the state is liable for his death because of the mandatory seat belt law.

That's a nice anecdote you have there.

for the 3,000th time: I am not arguing against seat belts., but the many cases where a seat belt has caused a death in turn makes the state liable because of mandatory seat belt legislation

Jesus H. Fuck. Nobody is accusing you of arguing against seatbelts. Please stop repeating this now, okay?

3. Here is my shocking and unearthly idea: Don't enforce them.

That sounds like a great idea. Everyone will go at their own speed limit, go head on into other cars, tee-bone each other at red lights and drive at 200km/h through suburban streets.

Hang on, that doesn't sound like a great idea at all.

Here is my shocking and unearthly reason: It isn't the government's job

Yes it is, you're just far too narrow minded to understand why.

[Jocabia]

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?

1. The preamble, which you quoted, also says it is the governments job to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". So would you say a persons welfare outweighs their liberties?

2. I agree, however I don't think that the abolishment of current seat belt mandates would grossly increase the threat to life of other individuals.

Speaking from personal experience here: My father worked (and does to this day) as a commercial truck driver here in the US. He was called into a meeting of some sort before he drove to pick up his trailer, where he and his coworkers were informed that my fathers friend, and coworker, died in a car accident on his way to work that morning.The coworker was wearing his seat belt and swerved off of the road for some unknown reason. His car flipped and he was either knocked unconscious, or was just unable to reach the release on his seat belt. He was suspended upside down in a roadside ditch (It may have been a lake or a river, I don't remember. Pretty sure it was a ditch though) that was filled with water from the previous days rain storm, where he subsequently drowned.

Another story: My distant Cousin was in a car accident as a teenager where she became pinned in her car and the seat belt was affected insuch a way that it tightened, and left a permanent scar on her leg, and likely could have done serious damage to her tissue and arteries.

With those stories out of the way, I can confidently say there are cases in which a seat belt can in fact be harmful to an individual. Do note that my disdain for the seat belt law does not stem from either of the above stories



my "Unsourced claim" was clearly presented as an opinion, I in no way intended it to be taken as fact. However,


About your paper, one of the graphs presented showed that in the state of Ohio, seat belt usage actually dropped after legislation mandating it was passed, and based on the other graphs presented, each state (Ohio, California, and Oregon) had exponential growth in usage when legislation was passed but this exponential growth declined rapidly after legislation was introduced.

Also, according to the paper, many states saw a decline in seat belt usage years after the law was passed. This decline dropped the rate of use below the previous rate of use immediately after the law was taken in to affect. This trend is seen on a national level, where overall usage in 1998 dropped 8% from the time immediately after the legislation mandating seat belts was introduced.

Which brings another factor into play.

It is clear that the only way to discover the rate of seat belt usage is through a survey, and it is stated in the paper that the information came from: Data from the Highway Safety Offices of each state, Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Data form the Center for Disease Control. All of this information was found through surveys. Granted, there were observational surveys, the CDC data in particular came from the question: “How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car?”. There are
five possible answers: never, seldom, sometimes, almost always, and always."

Now, this data could be held the most accountable for the raise in usage after the implementation of the law, as citizens are more informed of a penalty and therefore would not risk telling the truth. This is simply the "human element" argument, which plagues all social experiments.



Therefore, based on your credible source (assuming I wasn't off by any exponential factors this time ), I acknowledge that seat belt mandate laws immediately increase seat belt usage (In most cases), however, I maintain that the removal of these laws would not decrease seat belt use, as people are more aware of the dangers of not implementing safety measures. I say this because the paper provided shows that seat belt use was on the increase prior to legislation mandating said use, and in some cases it can be said (though, not proved simply because there was no control group, and the study was therefore lacking), that, based on the graphical data prior to legislation, the exponential rate of increase was halted after legislation was passed and this proves that the legislation was counterproductive.. However, as I said, this can neither be proven nor disproven.



I'm glad you weren't offended, and don't worry, everyone gets defensive when in a heated debate, I know I did.

1. I'm saying there is a balance. You said it wasn't their job at all. That's patently wrong and remains so.
2. Except I showed you that it does. It would decrease seat belt usage by roughly 12 percent. That amounts to as many as 1000 lives cost.

Your anecdotes, while cute, do not change that seat belts raise safety, not endanger it. I have similar anecdotes. My aunt's parents were in a car accident. When he began to lose control of the car, my aunt's mother fell out of her seat as a passenger and knocked her husband out the door, killing him, taking away his ability to control the car, and eventually killing her as well. The problem here being that my story is a far more likely outcome than being trapped in the vehicle or being harmed in any significant way by a seat belt. Studies I already gave you demonstrate this.

I can present more, but I suspect you know that seat belts have been proven to increase safety and your point is moot.

Ah, so you checked their methodology? Oh, nope. You read a graph and didn't account for other factors that the researchers did and explained. Their study passed peer review, your analysis is flawed. Do you know why? You would if you read the entire thing and didn't just find a graph and misinterpret it.

You fail to account for the fact that knowing a penalty was coming increased the habit. The paper accounted for this and even demonstrated that when the increased chance of getting caught (which is not explained by your completely made up and untested claim) is taken into play, people increased their seat belt usage as well.

As far as the problems of the survey, if you can show that the survey had a bias, feel free. The peer reviews didn't find this to be the case. Why? Because they used so many different sources and the data on all, once they accounted for errors, led to precisely the same conclusion. Your misunderstandings or made up issues with approach are not the same as peer review. However, if you're sufficiently versed in statistics to attempt a peer review, please do. It will amuse me to watch you get laughed out of the virtual room.

[Jocabia]

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.

Because bathtubs are an example of a personally owned device that have the ability to cause injury or death to the individual, yet there are no protection requirements in bath tubs. Also, not every road is owned by the government. In fact, every road over 10 years old is considered an "Open Public Road", if it isn't part of the highway or interstate system. So yes, I do have the freedom to use the road, as most of them are not owned by the government.

I am not saying seat belts are a bad thing. I support seat belt usage.

I am saying they shouldn't be mandatory. There is a huge difference.

How many times have you slipped in the bathtub and injured another occupant of the house? Must happen, oh, about 40% of the time, yeah?

[AiliailiA]

You? The poster who misquoted a dictionary, and called it an "official" source?

You? The poster who attacked an 1981 article from the NYT for not having hyperlinks in it?

You? The poster who brought just one source to whole thread, a one-page pdf which you didn't read closely enough yourself and misrepresented by a factor of ONE THOUSAND TIMES?

No. You don't deserve a source. Reply to my post, or don't reply to my post. I won't play you silly game.

1. Oh please for God's sake tell me how I misquoted this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=war+definition

2. Where did I say hyperlinks? Are you implying it was impossible to cite things before the internet existed?

3. I misread, yes. Did that at all change what I said? no.

4. Did you seriously just say "I don't have to prove myself because you aren't worthy."?

1. Amusingly, that link brings up "War - Wikipedia, the free encylopedia" as the first link. Didn't you spend several posts defending your "official dictionary" definition against the Wikipedia definition? And then even more posts arguing about whether Wikipedia was valid source at all?

And now you go for a cheap patronizing gimmick (lmgtfy). Well it says so much about you that you trust Google more than you trust Wikipedia.

2. It's a newspaper article. It's reproduced now as it was then. Newspaper articles did not "cite sources" as they so easily can now, because sources like that would take ten pages of the paper. And in 1981, there was no other way for readers to access such sources, other than to physically attend the government office and ask to see the paper record, or by written mail.

I agree it's not a source by modern standards. But I've checked out the details of it and nothing there is wrong.

3. You tried to support your opinion with a source, and failed. What did you say again? I missed that, there was a loud noise of fail happening at the same time.

4. Not exactly. I mean that you have run out your credit to demand sources. You have to bring some argument before you deserve any more sources.

I'm doing you a favor honestly. Giving you a source is like giving a baby a power drill: you're far more likely to hurt yourself with it than to hurt anyone else.

[Jocabia]

How have you managed, this far into the thread, managed to ignore every other reason of why we have seat belts to settle with "protecting people from themselves"?


I'm tempted to make you list them, but it's unnecessary as there's overwhelming evidence that seat belts ultimately detract from the road toll, not increase it.


If you have a better idea to enforce a speed limit, traffic signals and road etiquette without a fine-based system, I'd love to hear it.

1. Because that is the only credible argument that has been presented. If you give me a credible statistic as to how many people die annually due to someone else not wearing a seat belt, I will consider that argument as well.



2. A friend of my fathers drowned because he was suspended upside down in a body of water, while he was wearing his seat belt. Had he not been wearing a seat belt, he would have probably survived. Therefore, the state is liable for his death because of the mandatory seat belt law.

for the 3,000th time: I am not arguing against seat belts., but the many cases where a seat belt has caused a death in turn makes the state liable because of mandatory seat belt legislation



3. Here is my shocking and unearthly idea: Don't enforce them.


Here is my shocking and unearthly reason: It isn't the government's job

1. I gave you a credible source for injury. Just because you pretend something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

2. I see. So when other people want to introduce reasons why we should use seat belts, sources, and only sources you accept, must be used. But when you introduce reasons to counter those reasons, your anecdotes are good enough. What is the net effect of seat belt usage? Be specific. For every X injuries prevented by seat belts Y injuries result in an injury. Fill in X and Y. I suspect, and I'm only saying this because I and everyone else here knows it's true, that Y is a great deal less than X. However, since you're claiming it's a good counter argument, then I'm sure we'll see a good study that doesn't fail any of your standards any moment.
3. Your shocking idea is provably dangerous to human life, as I've already demonstrated with sources. And your shocking reason is incorrect as it is clearly the government's job as outlined in the Constitution, which you did not dispute.

[Ethel mermania]

we are all aware that in the US, seatbelt laws are implemented by the states, in their regulationg driving within that state correct?

[AiliailiA]

I'm not Comalander, but I have a better idea to enforce road rules than imposing fines.

Impose community service.

Not everone values their time equally, but it's a lot more equal than how they value a sum of money. We all have the same number of hours in a year, but we don't at all have the same number of dollars to pay a fine. The disparity in how people value their time is surely less than the disparity in ability to pay.

Slightly over the speed limit, first offence? That's four hours community service (instead of $30 fine ... four hours at minimum wage). That'll make them think twice about saving ten minutes to get somewhere.

Community service for first time offenders is a bit of a stretch. Most police where I live simply give you a warning rather than fine you.

I agree with that, providing the official warning is kept on record, and if you do the same thing again it's treated more harshly.

I'm a bit shocked at my own opinion to be honest. It was the logical conclusion of a line of thought that began with (a) the same cash sum of a fine, regardless of the offender's income or wealth, is manifestly unfair because income and wealth vary so widely. Then jumped to (b) a fairer punishment would be something that everyone values equally. I couldn't think of anything that all people value more equally than their time.

Then I ended up advocating forced labor for people who forget to indicate when turning right

Well how about a lottery then. People vastly over-estimate their chances of winning a lottery (or else there would be no lotteries). So every time a motorist is booked for an offense they get some number of "tickets" in the lottery: two for a parking offense, ten for failing to indicate, fifty for speeding and so on up to the level that now applies for criminally negligent driving. The "winners" of the lottery gets six months in jail.

Would that work?

[AiliailiA]

we are all aware that in the US, seatbelt laws are implemented by the states, in their regulationg driving within that state correct?

And isn't that working out great. US roads are safer than Poland's or Hungary's, and nearly as safe as Canada's! And that's without the benefit of horses or moose on the road.

Livestock on the road make driving safer you see. Precautionary principle.

[Bythibus]

You find that so offensive, compared to cash fines? Why?

Because cash is the fruit of someones labor, and can usually be replaced or re-earned.

You can't replace someones time. Multiple hours of forced labor definitely isn't the answer to traffic infractions.

This would be a good argument, if it weren't for the fact that man hours are already treated like currency.

we are all aware that in the US, seatbelt laws are implemented by the states, in their regulationg driving within that state correct?

And isn't that working out great. US roads are safer than Poland's or Hungary's, and nearly as safe as Canada's! And that's without the benefit of horses or moose on the road.

Livestock on the road make driving safer you see. Precautionary principle.

*ahem* Having had to navigate through a lost cattle herd, I have to disagree here.

[Sibirsky]

It's a classic libertarian tactic. Front-load the talking points, nitpick for a few hours, backtrack when nobody buys it, and eventually leave without admitting any kind of fault or wrongness. Season with a healthy dose of arrogance and serve to taste.

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

#calledit

You didn't call shit.

You have done nothing but flame and flamebait me, repeatedly.

[Sibirsky]

I could swear I put some words in front of that...

So you think fines are the equivalent to slavery?

The do force the person to work for someone else, don't they? It's partially slavery. And in terms of seat belts, it's a very small part.

I think the seat belt fine in my state is $25. That's less than 2 hours at the average wage.

[Keyboard Warriors]

So you think fines are the equivalent to slavery?

The do force the person to work for someone else, don't they? It's partially slavery. And in terms of seat belts, it's a very small part.

I think the seat belt fine in my state is $25. That's less than 2 hours at the average wage.

It's not even close to slavery. It's a monetary fine. How you acquire the money to pay that fine isn't something that concerns the state.

[Norstal]

Please provide me with a credible source of how many people die annually due to someone else not wearing a seat belt.

Seriously? Again?

Why does only dying count? It's not enough that should have to wear a device that does you no harm, increases your ability to stay in control of your vehicle, keeps you safe, just because otherwise you might cause damage to other occupants of the vehicle (or potentially others if you lose control of the vehicle)? Why does it have to be death and why do you keep trying to shift it to that? Is it because I already showed you that the amount of injury in the millions of accidents every year is too much?

His freedom is moar important than other people's injuries state slavery!

[Bythibus]

So you think fines are the equivalent to slavery?

The do force the person to work for someone else, don't they? It's partially slavery. And in terms of seat belts, it's a very small part.

I think the seat belt fine in my state is $25. That's less than 2 hours at the average wage.

There is no such thing as partial slavery. It's slavery, or no slavery. Slavery would mean you lose your freedom of will. You do not. You get assigned a job as a punishment. Big fucking deal, you use a few hours of your time. At minimum wage, 25$ is approx. 3.5 hours of work. Sounds fair to me.

[Sibirsky]

The do force the person to work for someone else, don't they? It's partially slavery. And in terms of seat belts, it's a very small part.

I think the seat belt fine in my state is $25. That's less than 2 hours at the average wage.

It's not even close to slavery. It's a monetary fine. How you acquire the money to pay that fine isn't something that concerns the state.

I didn't say it is a concern of the state. I said it forces most people to work for the benefit of someone else. It does.

[Sibirsky]

The do force the person to work for someone else, don't they? It's partially slavery. And in terms of seat belts, it's a very small part.

I think the seat belt fine in my state is $25. That's less than 2 hours at the average wage.

There is no such thing as partial slavery. It's slavery, or no slavery. Slavery would mean you lose your freedom of will. You do not. You get assigned a job as a punishment. Big fucking deal, you use a few hours of your time. At minimum wage, 25$ is approx. 3.5 hours of work. Sounds fair to me.

You're talking about chattel slavery. That is not even close to what we are discussing.

Partial slavery, however, is a valid analogy. A very small, short term part. But a part nonetheless.

[Bythibus]

There is no such thing as partial slavery. It's slavery, or no slavery. Slavery would mean you lose your freedom of will. You do not. You get assigned a job as a punishment. Big fucking deal, you use a few hours of your time. At minimum wage, 25$ is approx. 3.5 hours of work. Sounds fair to me.

You're talking about chattel slavery. That is not even close to what we are discussing.

Partial slavery, however, is a valid analogy. A very small, short term part. But a part nonetheless.

Okay, then partial slavery is not a wrong thing in some circumstances.

[Sibirsky]

You're talking about chattel slavery. That is not even close to what we are discussing.

Partial slavery, however, is a valid analogy. A very small, short term part. But a part nonetheless.

Okay, then partial slavery is not a wrong thing in some circumstances.

No, definitely not.

[Bythibus]

Okay, then partial slavery is not a wrong thing in some circumstances.

No, definitely not.

And why not?

[Sibirsky]

No, definitely not.

And why not?

Why are you asking me to continue a discussion that is a threadjack, and when I agreed with your statement?

You: It is not wrong.
Me: Nope, it's not.

Lets discuss why it is not wrong for another several pages.

[Creamy pleasures]

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, someone else has the same outlook I have on this! Personally I do use seat belts, but in a "free" country that should be the person's choice, as they are the one that is most harmed by the outcome of not wearing a seatbelt.

[Bythibus]

And why not?

Why are you asking me to continue a discussion that is a threadjack, and when I agreed with your statement?

You: It is not wrong.
Me: Nope, it's not.

Lets discuss why it is not wrong for another several pages.

Oh. I apologize. I'm a little tipsy and I misunderstood the line of conversation when I posted that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Seems like ultimately, everything does come down to politics these days. If you'd indulge a filthy nanny-state liberal his curiosity, just what is it that twitches y'all so hard about things like this? I am honestly baffled by people's insistence on not regulating things like this. Explain if you want, I won't take it personally if you'd rather not.

A man's car is his castle.

Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth there will be when robotic cars catch on and the antique cars driven by humans are down to 15% but causing 90% of accidents (and most of the other accidents caused by livestock on the roads).

"But I'm a perfectly good driver! Even better than I was in 2014! It's my RIGHT to drive, because I haven't done anything wrong!" they will complain.

"You can't network, your reflexes suck, and you're taking up ten times the space on the road that our cars do because we have to stay away from you to be safe" we'll reply. And kick them off the road, like we kicked horses off the freeway.

Human drivers may well cause 90% of the accidents, but accidents will fall to ~20% of what they are now, or even better.

Loaded stats.

All accidents are preventable and predictable.

That's a bit of a leap.

If people actually paid attention when driving, four point six million people wouldn't be treated in emergency rooms for vehicle crashes.

All the best driving attention in the world and people will still end up in accidents. Some things are unavoidable.

Not really.

It is unreasonable to make the claim that all eventualities can be foreseen or that all drivers have the capability to drive "perfectly".

What causes accidents? Inattentiveness, intoxication, excessive speed, amongst many other factors. Usually a combination.

[Kaztropol]

I wonder how much the design of American cars may affect this issue.

The two points I think are relevant are that American cars are Left-hand drive, and are predominantly automatic transmission.

In normal operation, the driver will have their right foot on the accelerator.

A glancing side impact, heavy enough to shift the driver out of their seat, will push the driver to their right, which may have the effect of increasing the pressure on the accelerator, making the vehicle speed up, due to the driver's foot being forced down by the impact.
With automatic transmission, it is very hard to stall, so the vehicle will continue to move, whether or not the driver's foot is on the accelerator. Encountering a solid object would stop the vehicle, but not much else will, as long as the engine is running and the transmission is in drive.

So, when struck from the side with enough force to move the driver out of their seat, the left-hand drive automatic transmission car may accelerate in an uncontrolled manner until such time as the driver is able to regain their seating and whatever control of the vehicle still exists following the impact, or the vehicle impacts something else. If not, then the car will still be travelling under some power, until it hits something or the driver regains control.

In comparison with UK cars, which are right-hand drive, and predominantly manual transmission, then:

A side impact that would shift the driver out of their seat, would lift the drivers right foot off the accelerator. It may force the driver's left foot onto the clutch, or it may not.
With no accelerator input, a manual car may stall and come to a halt, once engine rpm drops low enough. Not all would stall, depending on what gear the car was in, engine power and so on.
If the driver's left foot pushes down the clutch, then with no applied power, the car will slowly roll to a stop.

So, when struck from the side with enough force to move the driver out of their seat, the right hand drive manual transmission car is likely to slow down, or possibly even stall, coming to an abrupt halt.


So maybe a driver of a left-hand drive automatic has a greater responsibility to wear a seatbelt ?