Seat Belt Laws

[IWntErinNess]

Just curious... what is everyone's take on seat belt laws? Are they unconstitutional?

I think they are... though I also feel that any harm that you do to yourself because you weren't wearing one should not fall on the burden of the taxpayers.

Read: If you are crippled and require $250,000 in medical expenses because of a car accident without a seat belt, don't expect any of your bills to come from anywhere except your own pocket.

Thoughts?

(this also goes for things like motorcycle helmet laws, etc)

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious... what is everyone's take on seat belt laws? Are they unconstitutional?

I think they are... though I also feel that any harm that you do to yourself because you weren't wearing one should not fall on the burden of the taxpayers.

Read: If you are crippled and require $250,000 in medical expenses because of a car accident without a seat belt, don't expect any of your bills to come from anywhere except your own pocket.

Thoughts?

(this also goes for things like motorcycle helmet laws, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would doubt that such laws are unconstitutional if one of the state governments makes the law and its constitution permits it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were unconstitutional for the federal government to make such a law. (disclaimer: I could easily be wrong, or it could be a very debatable topic)

There is also the following fact to be considered: not wearing seat belts actually makes other drivers and passengers on the same road less safe. This is borne out by insurance statistics.

The reason for this effect is called "secondary impact".

What happens is this: when you collide, you are jolted violently inside your car. If you are wearing a seat belt when that occurs, you have a significantly better chance of being able to maintain some control of your vehicle and thereby avoid crashing into, for example, a third vehicle. Many car accidents are not severe but can become severe and involve additional parties if the initial impact causes you to lose complete control of your car.

So, there exists a strong, statistically supported safety-based argument for seatbelt laws, and it is not a choice that affects only the given driver.

I happen to be against seatbelt laws, because I am generally a proponent of freedom even if it costs some measure of personal safety.

The safety of others being an argument that goes beyond mere personal safety, and driving being a prevalent and dangerous activity to which most people are routinely exposed, I can't say that those in favor of seatbelt laws don't also have a valid point.

I happen to like freedom and think it is worth trading some safety for freedom, and also I dislike and distrust laws that impinge on freedoms. While some of those laws might be "good", some others are bound to be "bad" - and so I think a minimum of laws is generally best, in order to avoid having to endlessly sort and wrangle the good laws versus the bad laws, and to avert the temptations of corruption or special interests to legislators.

There is also the "hassle" factor (or "hassle-free" factor), and to most people, that is probably worth quite a bit when summed over many daily activities. "Just one more hassle" may sometimes be one too many. I do buckle my own seatbelt, though, mainly because I don't relish the idea of getting a faceful of windshield. Actually, that's probably the only reason.

There is no such thing as a safe life, anyway.

[bkholdem]

driving over 5mph also makes other drivers and passengers less safe. So doesn't driving without 5,000 of driver safety training.

Seatbelt laws are put into place IMO due to family members of people who die in car accidents and similar and have a tough time coping with this emotionally. Rather than going to people for help with their emotional coping they go to the legislature and campaign for seatbelt laws. This is an irresponsible misdirection of their emotional pain and an attempt to cope with same. Legislators are only to happy to take up causes such as this because it gives them busy work and gives them something to control.

If I didn't have all these people telling me how to be safe I would probaby mistake poison for milk when I woke up in the morning and swallow that and die. Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong they are not trying to help you at all, they are trying to eliminate an unfair burden or cost on society as a whole associated with sensible and preventable injuries or death. Of course letting those fools die may help the genetic selection if such thinking is genetically based, by reducing their reproducibility. I think however that it is not rooted in genetic but in a lack of education, although sometimes I wonder if it is not a moronic genetic trait.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong they are not trying to help you at all, they are trying to eliminate an unfair burden or cost on society as a whole associated with sensible and preventable injuries or death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this is not true. If that were the case, these people would simply campaign to get rid of socialized medicine, since *that* is the unfair burden.

Further, the fact that some group of people has decided on their own to pay for something for me without asking me doesn't give them any right to restrict my activities in order to minimize their own costs.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong they are not trying to help you at all, they are trying to eliminate an unfair burden or cost on society as a whole associated with sensible and preventable injuries or death. Of course letting those fools die may help the genetic selection if such thinking is genetically based, by reducing their reproducibility. I think however that it is not rooted in genetic but in a lack of education, although sometimes I wonder if it is not a moronic genetic trait.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like people driving SUVs like idiots and rolling them over?

I'll take the seat-beltless over the SUVs any day.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
they are trying to eliminate an unfair burden or cost on society as a whole associated with sensible and preventable injuries or death.

[/ QUOTE ]
The good ole solve government intervention with more government intervention trick.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong they are not trying to help you at all, they are trying to eliminate an unfair burden or cost on society as a whole associated with sensible and preventable injuries or death. Of course letting those fools die may help the genetic selection if such thinking is genetically based, by reducing their reproducibility. I think however that it is not rooted in genetic but in a lack of education, although sometimes I wonder if it is not a moronic genetic trait.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I agree, we should outlaw booze, cigarettes, motorcycles, electricity, and sex, because the simple fact is there are a lot of deaths every year from the use of these items.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong they are not trying to help you at all, they are trying to eliminate an unfair burden or cost on society as a whole associated with sensible and preventable injuries or death. Of course letting those fools die may help the genetic selection if such thinking is genetically based, by reducing their reproducibility. I think however that it is not rooted in genetic but in a lack of education, although sometimes I wonder if it is not a moronic genetic trait.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's rooted in education, then they won't be passing on their crappy education to underserving children. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
driving over 5mph also makes other drivers and passengers less safe. So doesn't driving without 5,000 of driver safety training.

Seatbelt laws are put into place IMO due to family members of people who die in car accidents and similar and have a tough time coping with this emotionally. Rather than going to people for help with their emotional coping they go to the legislature and campaign for seatbelt laws. This is an irresponsible misdirection of their emotional pain and an attempt to cope with same. Legislators are only to happy to take up causes such as this because it gives them busy work and gives them something to control.

If I didn't have all these people telling me how to be safe I would probaby mistake poison for milk when I woke up in the morning and swallow that and die. Thank goodness for all the 'good' and 'thoughful' people trying SO HARD to HELP US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, driving with 5,000 hours of driver training would be helpful, but think how much better 10,000 hours would be! Perhaps there is a point of diminshing returns here? I'm not making the (outlandish) claim that seatbelt laws and speed limits are calculated to be right at this point, simply that we can always do things to be safer, but that the benefits don't always outweigh the costs. Of course, if you assign a value of infinity to the costs (freedom) then you will be against seatbelts no matter HOW much good they do nor how cheaply. And I'm not even saying thats flawed...an earlier poster mentioned he is willing to sacrifice some safety for freedom, but didn't make it clear how much or if he was ever willing to sacrifice some freedom for safety. I'm just trying to illustrate why the slippery slope argument is useless in this case, while simultaneously using it in my previous post, above.