Seatbelt laws

[Bill3000]

One case that I'm a lot more passionately against an upcoming law is the mandatory wearing of helmet for bycicles.

Huh, I know your roads were crap, but I didn't know you were 20 years backwards in law, too.

 

[Rhymes]

Huh, I know your roads were crap, but I didn't know you were 20 years backwards in law, too.

Life was better 20 years ago if you ask me (while your at it make it 40).

But the crappy roads are timeless

 

[El_Machinae]

Nonconformist was not using a strawman, but a reductio ad absurdum.

Rhymes

Do you understand how minimal an intrusion it is and how many lives wearing a seatbelt saves. Is it seriously that big of a deal?

I'm here, today, because of that minimal intrusion. Being a libertarian does not mean absolute freedom to do anything. Some sanity please.

It's not like seatbelt options for cars would be criminalised. Saying that your life was saved by a seatbelt merely implies that you think it would be wise to wear one. I don't think anyone disagrees.

 

[Merkinball]

I'm here, today, because of that minimal intrusion. Being a libertarian does not mean absolute freedom to do anything. Some sanity please. - JerichoHill

You're here because you chose to put on a seat belt. Not because of some unnecessary government intrusion. Being a libertarian does not mean absolute freedom, you're right. But it sure does mean being able to drive around without a seat belt on without interference from the government.

The magnitude of the momentum is equal in both cases, but that does not matter. It is the manner in which the momentum is converted into force that creates more or less severe injuries.

Also, being ejected does not gradually expel kinetic energy. - Ayn Rand

How can you say something that's pretty much accurate to describe an accident, and then go right after a completely incorrect assessment. In almost all cases an individual that is ejected from a car experiences a more gradual decrease in momentum and kinetic energy than a person who's strapped in. The only way this changes if you eject into another solid object. Otherwise, you're rolling, sliding, and bouncing along the ground gradually dissipating energy until you come to a complete stop.

Also, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I studied this very stuff for five years of my life. Physics I, Statics, Dynamics, System Dynamics, Design of Machine Systems, and ya know, a graduate level on class on VEHICLE DYNAMICS.

The body will only stop when it impacts something, and then the momentum will be converted to force. - Ayn

The vast majority of ejections do not result in this.

But being ejected is not the only additional risk caused by lack of a seatbelt. A seatbelt controls the injuries and spreads the pressure across the stronger chest area which is protected by the rib cage. A person without a seat belt will be thrown forward until they impact the nearest object, in a random manner. That could mean your head going into the steering wheel, or your chest cavity absorbing the steering wheel, or your body smashing into and rebounding from the windshield.

It basically means a lot of random injuries against vulnerable areas of your body. Your spine will not be immobilised, your head will not be restrained, and you will impact whatever object happens to lie in front of you.

The injuries from a seatbelt are certainly bad - but death is caused by complications such as bleeding, brain damage, spinal injuries etc, which will all occur in an uncontrolled way without a seatbelt. It's an order of magnitude worse if your body absorbs random injuries that leave it broken and bleeding. It's also more difficult for rescue teams to access you and make a fast diagnosis followed by correct treatment if you are injured in this way. - Ayn Rand

I won't disagree. Again, I'm not suggesting that people don't wear seatbelts because it's not safe to do so. I'm just being an anal douche again.

The physical shock to the body is therefore far worse when there is no seatbelt. It is not simply a question of the magnitude of the force, but of the manner in which that force is applied, where it is applied, and what the consequences are. - Ayn Rand

On the whole, statistically, this is true. And just to make my position clear, even though you ill generally expel kinetic energy more gradually if you're ejected, you're still more at risk of death due to what you describe. I was just playing Bill3000 and hitting on a technicality.

If you're driving your kids home from work and crash at 35mph, with you being the only one without a seatbelt, your kids are going to have to deal with some major trauma that needn't have happened. Also, who is going to pay for those kids to be brought up if they need to go into care because you died an unnecessary death?

Also, seatbelt wearing is not a social issue like teen sex. It is simply a safety issue. - Ayn rand

Teen sex is most certainly a safety issue. I'm not too concerned about the children that will be raised fatherless. The father should have thought about that before he didn't wear his seat belt. And yeah, the kids will face some major trauma that needn't have happened. You're right. But there are tons of items in this life that can result in children experiencing trauma that needn't happen. Tons of stuff. It's called life. Welcome to the program.

The thousands of extra, unnecessary deaths inflict substantial additional trauma and cost to the families, emergency services, society and other participants in the crash. - Ayn Rand

So doesn't alcoholism. In fact, I'd argue that alcoholism is worse. I guess we should start banning alcohol. And forget about legalizing drugs. If you wanna save on emergency services go after high school sports.

1). Putting a seatbelt on benefits you, not others - it's not welfare.
2). It doesn't cost you any extra money - it's not forced taxation
3). It protects others from costs and damage - property and person protected
4). Your family and loved ones are protected from losing you.

1.) You're right, it benefits me, so I'll make the choice on my own and not have the long arm of the law keeping his out on me looking for an excuse to pull me over and write me a big fine to boost the coffers of the government.
2.) You're right, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not an infringement on personal liberty.
3.) There are more effective methods for protecting costs and damage from others. I've already discussed them
4.) So what? It's not the any business of the government to intrude into my life and protect my family from my stupidity.


And also, this is purely out of interest, but have you ever seen the consequences of a major road accident? - Ayn Rand

Yeah, I've seen at least a few fatal accidents, and many many serious accidents. My family and I used to keep a scanner and go chase crap. I've been in accidents, and was in a vehicle that was stopped by a boulder from going off a cliff into the freakin' ocean. I guess that might explain it all...

 

[Tani Coyote]

Let's not forget these are public roads. People are free to drive without seatbelts, so long as they do it on their own property. Anyone that is in favour of a small government should be in favour of seatbelt laws as they reduce the costs associated with hiring people like noncon.

There's an idea... property rights. The feds own the roads, so sorry, but they can make whatever regulations they want about it.

They could force you to paint you car pink in order to use the road. Don't like it? Either a) change the government via democracy, or b) stay off the freaking road.

Of course, we could privatise the roads to get rid of this issue, but I need not make a long list (I hope, anyway) of why this is a terrible idea.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Life was better 20 years ago if you ask me (while your at it make it 40).

But the crappy roads are timeless

yes 40 years ago... all this crackpot libertarian nonsense was confined to the locale crackpot ... that's the price you pay for the Internet... back then they would argue that the government has no right to make people wear clothes, so we gave then a nudist beach... now they want the right to be brain damaged ... that's what base jumping is for... or just dive into the shallow end of swimming pools as a libertarian protest by ignoring the signs the nanny state puts up ... they kind of fail to see they lost this argument the day driving tests and licences were introduced... all the same arguments were made about them at the time ... same with speed limits too, I still remember being jacked off with the government actually stopping me from driving at very high speed on country roads ...


crackpot had a different meaning 40 years ago

 

[PeteAtoms]

After letting it bounce around in my brain for a day or so (how old is this thread again?), I've done an about-face on the issue. I support laws requiring seatbelts be worn while driving on public roads. So whoever is keeping score, +1 government intrusion

EDIT: My initial "oh noes big daddy government" gut reaction has subsided

 

[Rhymes]

yes 40 years ago... all this crackpot libertarian nonsense was confined to the locale crackpot ... that's the price you pay for the Internet... back then they would argue that the government has no right to make people wear clothes, so we gave then a nudist beach... now they want the right to be brain damaged ... that's what base jumping is for... or just dive into the shallow end of swimming pools as a libertarian protest by ignoring the signs the nanny state puts up ... they kind of fail to see they lost this argument the day driving tests and licences were introduced... all the same arguments were made about them at the time ... same with speed limits too, I still remember being jacked off with the government actually stopping me from driving at very high speed on country roads ...


crackpot had a different meaning 40 years ago

I believe that like in anything, when we try to balance things we tend to overdo it.

Probably in 1960 there wasn't enough regulations, ie: drinking and driving was at worst frowned upon, smoking was allowed in preschool classes, etc...

Now they did a good thing by puting on some regulations for things that were so obviously unthinkable.
But somewhere along the way making regulations became a trend and now we can't even have a cigaret less then 10 yards away from the nearest door at risk of getting a 70$ ticket and we can't sit in a park past 11:00h pm.

 

[MobBoss]

This is completely and totally bogus. There have been dozens of extremely intensive studies done on the effects of speed and relation to fatalities. The number of deaths due to 30mph vehicle/vehicle accidents is negligible compared to the total number of fatalities. You can find the data at NTHSB. They compile stats every year on this. This is basically the premise behind all speed limits.

Which is why we dont have highways with 30 mph max speed limits.

Are you willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the NTHSB knows more about it than you do, and sets the limit at 55/65 and not at 30 mph for a reason?

I don't disagree. It's a still strawman when dealing with my original counterpoint though. And if the people willingly walk into tyranny and allow themselves to be tyrannized, is that okay?

The rhetoric doenst fit the issue. Making it a law to buckle your seatbelt isnt 'tryranny'.

You're right. But those numbers are an aggregate of total accidents. The number of people wearing seat belts does not come into that picture. My rate in Syracuse is different than my rate in East Bumfudge not because more people do not wear seat belts here, but because I have a higher chance of some idiot rear-ending me.

Fatalities factor into it to, due to the nature of insurance having to pay out premiums. If you have more people dying in accidents due to not wearing seatbelts, your premiums will go up based upon the risk of you being at fault and killing someone without their seatbelt on.

@Rhymes: do you seriously believe that having a law to put your seat belt on somehow limits your freedom? Really?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Exactly

Wearing a seatbelt is just something that ought to be law.

Smoking in your own house, should be allowed. Smoking in an establishment where it is labelled as such, should be allowed too.

I call noncon's old chap on this thread.

EDIT: That was at Rhymes but I'm glad our resident prophet of common sense isn't a libertarian.

 

[Rhymes]

@Rhymes: do you seriously believe that having a law to put your seat belt on somehow limits your freedom? Really?

Well I used not to care, until one day:

I start my car on the street, near the sidewalk, waiting for my girlfriend to get out of the bank and get in so we can go back home. When she get's in I put on my seatbelt, start to drive and BAM!!! A cop stops me and pulls me over. Result: a 167$ ticket for not having my seatbelt on while engine is running. (while I was parked!)

Since that day I've been including seatblets law in the undesired list. It just gives the cops an other unworthy reason to collect cash from people through bulls..t tickets.

Moderator Action: Please don't use foul language. If you trigger the autocensor, please edit your post and rephrase using clean language. Please do not modify the word to dodge the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

How many people would stop wearing their seatbelt if it wasn't a law? I would surely continue to wear it, but at least situations like this wouldn't happen.

I think that anyways, most of the people who hate wearing their seatbelt don't wear it wether it's legal or not, just look at the RTC statistic.

 

[Merkinball]

Which is why we dont have highways with 30 mph max speed limits.

Are you willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the NTHSB knows more about it than you do, and sets the limit at 55/65 and not at 30 mph for a reason? - MobBoss

Yup, they do. And you know they have determined for us? That about 30,000 deaths caused in accidents from 30mph-75mph are tolerable to us. The rest result from speeds above 75 and constitute excessive speeding. Basically nobody dies in accidents 35mph and below. The NTHSB knows this, yet they have still decided that 50,000 deaths per year at highway speeds are A-Okay!

The rhetoric doenst fit the issue. Making it a law to buckle your seatbelt isnt 'tryranny'. - MobBoss

You're right, it's not. It's a little piece of it. I'm saying... was it okay if people willingly lived under tyranny in the USSR? It wasn't one thing that made the USSR tyrannical. It was a summation of many things. Little things lead to more little things, and many little things lead to medium things. Seat belt laws, and hood ornament laws are a piece of the whole pie my brother. And I don't know about you, but I don't see the freight train slowing down at all any time soon.

Fatalities factor into it to, due to the nature of insurance having to pay out premiums. If you have more people dying in accidents due to not wearing seatbelts, your premiums will go up based upon the risk of you being at fault and killing someone without their seatbelt on. - MobBoss

It depends on your insurance policy. I'm a proven safe driver with Allstate, so while I'm held sway to other drivers, it has nothing to do with whether they do or do not wear seat belts. It has everything to do with aggregate accident numbers. That's one reason why I'm a big fan of Allstate.

Wearing a seatbelt is just something that ought to be law.

Smoking in your own house, should be allowed. Smoking in an establishment where it is labelled as such, should be allowed too. - Paradigm

Come again?

 

[Arakhor]

I start my car on the street, near the sidewalk, waiting for my girlfriend to get out of the bank and get in so we can go back home. When she get's in I put on my seatbelt, start to drive and BAM!!! A cop stops me and pulls me over. Result: a 167$ ticket for not having my seatbelt on while engine is running. (while I was parked!)

Just because one person is an arsehole, that's no need to discount a sensible law.

 

[kosiosko 1]

I believe that like in anything, when we try to balance things we tend to overdo it.

Probably in 1960 there wasn't enough regulations, ie: drinking and driving was at worst frowned upon, smoking was allowed in preschool classes, etc...

Now they did a good thing by puting on some regulations for things that were so obviously unthinkable.
But somewhere along the way making regulations became a trend and now we can't even have a cigaret less then 10 yards away from the nearest door at risk of getting a 70$ ticket and we can't sit in a park past 11:00h pm.

to excellent points that need more sensible solutions ... but as someone who has legally driven a car without seat belts (they were not even fitted) doing 168 mph (legally) on a country road and being 16 at the time ... i think seat belt laws and speed limits are in a different category

we used to hang around in parks too, till 1.00 am in the morning, listening to the subtle differences of V8 exhaust systems ... belated apologies to all the law abiding citizens I kept awake in the dumbness of my youth

 

[Rhymes]

Exactly

Smoking in your own house, should be allowed. Smoking in an establishment where it is labelled as such, should be allowed too.

I call noncon's old chap on this thread.

EDIT: That was at Rhymes but I'm glad our resident prophet of common sense isn't a libertarian.

On the smoking part: where it has gone over the line is when people can't smoke within 10 yards of a door of any public or commercial establishment. (Thats the way it is in Quebec). I'm also against the law the prevents smoking in any bar/restaurant, regardless of what the owner wants.

And I don't even smoke

 

[Lillefix]

I'm also against the law the prevents smoking in any bar/restaurant, regardless of what the owner wants.

And I don't even smoke

That's actually a very sensible law, since this is probably made to protect the people who work there from being exposed to smoke against their will.

 

[Rhymes]

That's actually a very sensible law, since this is probably made to protect the people who work there from being exposed to smoke against their will.

I say go work somewhere else if you don't like the conditions you are in.

Though I would be opened for a law that you force establishments to get top quality ventilation systems if they want to allow smoking.

 

[Arakhor]

The Health & Safety at Work Act requires employers to take reasonable care of their employees and to provide necessary protection for exposing them to noxious environments. I think it might have been handled better, but banning smoking in all public places is actually an extremely good idea.

 

[Lillefix]

I say go work somewhere else if you don't like the conditions you are in.

Though I would be opened for a law that you force establishments to get top quality ventilation systems if they want to allow smoking.

I would assume that even in Canada, people who own factories are required by law to limit the amount of toxins that their workers are exposed to. Why should it be different for people who own restaurants?

 

[Rhymes]

The Health & Safety at Work Act requires employers to take reasonable care of their employees and to provide necessary protection for exposing them to noxious environments. I think it might have been handled better, but banning smoking in all public places is actually an extremely good idea.

That bottom line is, there isn't even much we can argue about:

I like it when people can do whatever they want, you like it better when bartanders are offered a healthy work environment. Thats all there is to it. Unfortunately for me government officials think like you.