Seatbelt laws

[GhostWriter16]

I mean, imagine if a person who, granted through their own fault, hit a car at, say 20mph. 20mph is trivial. However, without a seatbelt, one of the passengers of either car could seriously injure themselves to the point of death.

And there you go, something that would be a dangerous driving charge, or even not charged at all would automaticvally incur a death by d/driving or vehicular homicide charge, based on the principle there's a body.

Then that is the incorrect law. I say if you accidentally kill someone who isn't wearing one, you should legally be considered innocent. However, it should still be allowed not to uy one.

 

[Zelig]

Then that is the incorrect law. I say if you accidentally kill someone who isn't wearing one, you should legally be considered innocent. However, it should still be allowed not to uy one.

What noncon described wasn't an accident, it was an at-fault collision.

 

[Arakhor]

Then that is the incorrect law. I say if you accidentally kill someone who isn't wearing one, you should legally be considered innocent. However, it should still be allowed not to uy one.

So, being a "libertarian" exempts you from manslaughter charges as well? Good grief.

 

[nonconformist]

Then that is the incorrect law. I say if you accidentally kill someone who isn't wearing one, you should legally be considered innocent. However, it should still be allowed not to uy one.

There are *no* accidents when it comes to cars.

And what do you think wastes police resources more? Stopping a car with a mornic driver, and telling them to put their belt on, or closing a road down while a dozen highly trained specialist officers scoop body parts into black platic bags, while the road is closed for 2 hours?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So, being a "libertarian" exempts you from manslaughter charges as well? Good grief.

No, I said if there is a problem with people getting charged with manslaughter because of seatbelt laws not being enforced, the problem is with the manslaughter system, not seatbelt laws.

 

[Arakhor]

No, I said if there is a problem with people getting charged with manslaughter because of seatbelt laws not being enforced, the problem is with the manslaughter system, not seatbelt laws.

Now you're being daft. If you kill someone, you kill someone. There's no getting out of that.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Now you're being daft. If you kill someone, you kill someone. There's no getting out of that.

So, if someone jumps in front of you in the road where you are SUPPOSED to be driving, and you accidentally run them over, you are a murderer?

I'll never understand "Libertarians."

 

[nonconformist]

Way to move the goalposts.

 

[Arakhor]

So, if someone jumps in front of you in the road where you are SUPPOSED to be driving, and you accidentally run them over, you are a murderer?

No, in that example, you're the victim of a stupid straw man argument.

 

[NovaKart]

I voted no, I'm redneck that way.

 

[Zelig]

So, if someone jumps in front of you in the road where you are SUPPOSED to be driving, and you accidentally run them over, you are a murderer?

I'll never understand "Libertarians."

Yes, if someone jumps in front of you in the road where you are SUPPOSED to be driving and you purposely run them over, you are a murderer.

 

[civver_764]

It's in my rational self interest to advocate libertarians not wearing seatbelts on principle.

Nice.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I voted that it should be mandatory [sorry Dom ].

I think that in a few exceptional cases, a responsible government not only has a right, but has an obligation to intervene if the ethical principle is sufficiently clear and justified to warrant it.

Car accidents are so traumatic and horrible for everyone involved in them that anyone who gets into a vehicle must be prepared to accept certain responsibilities as the basic minimum standard for sharing the road with other users.

Also, it's not fair that emergency services personnel should have to suffer the trauma of scraping dead body parts off the floor when it isn't necessary.

And if someone hits the back of your car and kills you because you didn't wear a seatbelt, they are going to have nightares and shock for years afterwards. That's too cruel, especially if the death or injuries were unnecessary.

In order to maintain principles of freedom [and Ronald Reagan's principle that government should not protect us from ourselves] it is sometimes necessary to make exceptions to the rule where it is intelligent, responsible and obvious to do so. I think it's the civil thing to do for ourselves and our fellow citizens and I expect the government, from time to time, to act on such an obligation.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Many countries do not have seatbelt laws, and they are fine.

You just have to learn to be careful I suppose.

Third world countries dont even have a driver license test.
Let alone rules for wearing seat belts.

Have fun crossing the road

 

[Cull]

Yes because China is third world while the US is #1 everywhere. And obviously no right first world country would DARE get rid of their driver license test!

 

[Arakhor]

Every time Domination comes up with another of his carefully considered arguments, I find myself more and more diametrically opposed to everything we are led to believe that Libertarians stand for. I oppose all moral and "bedroom" legislation as authoritarian and unnecessary, support regulation of the business and finance sectors because they will not regulate themselves and support most social programmes on the grounds that everyone has a right to live in a Western society without crippling pain or debt. Yet somehow, I am the immoral one.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Just laugh about it rather than having a teeny trauma.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, if someone jumps in front of you in the road where you are SUPPOSED to be driving and you purposely run them over, you are a murderer.

Sure. But that's not what I said.

I voted that it should be mandatory [sorry Dom ].

No personal offense taken. However, in this thread I'll actually debate it. Hope you'll listen

I think that in a few exceptional cases, a responsible government not only has a right, but has an obligation to intervene if the ethical principle is sufficiently clear and justified to warrant it.

Then prostitution should definitely be illegal. However, I don't NECESSARILY agree with that statement. However, lets not go there, I'm just saying, if you want to hold to that principle it can't just be when the liberals say it is (And I know you aren't a liberal but many people who hold to the absoluteness of this law are.)
Car accidents are so traumatic and horrible for everyone involved in them that anyone who gets into a vehicle must be prepared to accept certain responsibilities as the basic minimum standard for sharing the road with other users.

Also, it's not fair that emergency services personnel should have to suffer the trauma of scraping dead body parts off the floor when it isn't necessary.

Let's be fair, they don't HAVE to do it, they're being PAID to do it.

And if someone hits the back of your car and kills you because you didn't wear a seatbelt, they are going to have nightares and shock for years afterwards. That's too cruel, especially if the death or injuries were unnecessary.

Personally, assuming it was an accident, I wouldn't. Also, if you do, while I don't blame you, it isn't their responsibility.

In order to maintain principles of freedom [and Ronald Reagan's principle that government should not protect us from ourselves]

That does quite literally mean what it says, and there is no place where not wearing a seatbelt harms anyone else.

it is sometimes necessary to make exceptions to the rule where it is intelligent, responsible and obvious to do so. I think it's the civil thing to do for ourselves and our fellow citizens and I expect the government, from time to time, to act on such an obligation.

My problem is, not only legally but also morally speaking there is simply NOTHING WRONG WITH NOT WEARNING A SEATBELT (Capped for emphasis.) By any moral code. It is simply negligent (And you may pay the price anyway), not wanting to be inconvienienced (Again, not hurting anyone else) or, on long road trips, wanting to be freer to stretch and have more space (Again, not hurting anyone but yourself.) And, I think its not too often someone flies completely out of the car.

I want to ask a couple of questions:

1. Do you agree with the concept of the road being stopped up and a police officer being inconvienienced (And potentially taking the officer to court if the laws are ambiguous, which is legal under US law) simply because someone wasn't wearing a seatbelt?

2. Do you feel people should be pulled over only for not wearing a seatbelt or that it should be a secondary offense that is only charged if you are also driving irresponsibly in some way?

3. In the US states rights are a quite big deal (10th amendment and all.) ATM New Hampshire does not have any seat belt laws. Do you feel the government in Washington should tell them too?

 

[Arakhor]

If there are laws demanding that you wear a seatbelt, then of course it is legally wrong not to wear one. If the laws are unambiguous - always wear a seatbelt in any seat at any time the car is moving - then there is no room to "misunderstand".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Every time Domination comes up with another of his carefully considered arguments, I find myself more and more diametrically opposed to everything we are led to believe that Libertarians stand for. I oppose all moral and "bedroom" legislation as authoritarian and unnecessary

So do I, unless of course you are taking away someone else's rights. You do realize people abuse their kids and commit murder in their own homes right?

support regulation of the business and finance sectors because they will not regulate themselves

Its called competition.

and support most social programmes on the grounds that everyone has a right to live in a Western society

Define "Right." Does this include people who gamble away their money or make obviously stupid decisions with it?

without crippling pain

Nothing the government can do about pain.

or debt.

Crazy liberal strawman as people cause themselves to get into debt.

Yet somehow, I am the immoral one.

Did I ever say that you were immoral? No, I simply think you are wrong, and will try to prove it. And also, in the United States almost everyone would just call you a socialist, so its normal across the Atlantic.