Should it be legally OK to not wear a seatbelt?

[Arakhor]

Yeah, dead people tend to be discriminated against in the workplace.

Ambulatory dead people now have a trade union known as CORPSE - the Consolidated Order of Rancid, Putrid, Semi-Dead Employees.

 

[JollyRoger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States

You need to read that link a little more closely. You might also want to Google the statute I cited.

 

[mangxema]

OK, that's a strawman. I said I didn't think it was a good law, not that it was tyrannical.

Perhaps slightly. But I've been in plenty in of conversations with people who seriously state such things, and that's where I've felt this thread is going. It's enough to make me want to .

 

[GhostWriter16]

Tyranny is a really strong word for one issue that isn't covered by the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, but I do think that the general trend of picking the less libertartian position on every issue that is like this leads to a much libertarian state. I think its really stupid that oftentimes libertarianism is narrowed down to a couple of issues, and if you hold to the freer position on those few, you get a free pass, if you hold to a different position on any one of those, you are automatically not libertarian (The Biggest culprits here are usually abortion and gay marriage, the former being a completely different issue than the size of the government, and the latter not necessarily requiring any more government to not recognize.)

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps you should move to New Hampshire . . . though make sure to wear your seatbelt until you turn 18. You are evidently too young by even New Hampshire standards for real freedumb.

 

[azzaman333]

Agreed. I know people who actually make their kids follow that law though. Rather stupid IMO

(While I don't think it should be required, I definitely think it makes sense to do so, on a motorcycle. On a bike I really don't see the point.)

Do you have any idea how easy it is to suffer a serious brain injury?

 

[ZeletDude]

No.. because I feel as though a lot of people wouldn't wear them if it wasn't a law.
And it's a really safe way to save a life! Plus a person with out a seat belt can be a hazard to other people in the same car..

 

[Joecoolyo]

Then why is it an alcohol control state that won't allow me to keep a skunk as a pet?

Easy, you're in Vermont, not New Hampshire. Common mistake to make.

 

[G-Max]

Your pay or die wouldn't work if theywere unconscious

It's not really "pay or die", so much as "pay or die unless a good samaritan is willing to assume responsibility for your bills, the hospital is willing to help you at no charge, or they just decide to send you a bill that you have no way or intention to pay."

Two options, five options... what's the difference?

I liked how she was such a hard worker in her final years.[/QUOTE]

C'mon. How hard can the job of an insurance clerk be?

Easy, you're in Vermont, not New Hampshire. Common mistake to make.

Nope. NH prohibits the keeping of skunks for anything other than "educational" purposes, and you need like 2 or 3 licenses to even keep them for that. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_state

 

[Old Hippy]

C'mon. How hard can the job of an insurance clerk be?

very stressful if your libertarian and all these people keep ripping off off the system, by not taking personal responsibility and wearing seat belts.... and there is nothing you can do about it....

 

[G-Max]

very stressful if your libertarian and all these people keep ripping off off the system, by not taking personal responsibility and wearing seat belts.... and there is nothing you can do about it....

Wait, would this be medical insurance or car insurance?

 

[Old Hippy]

Wait, would this be medical insurance or car insurance?

for a Libertarian I would imagine Both

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem with many libertarians is that they seek the "liberty" to free ride and thus shift the burden of their risk taking from the individual to the collective.

 

[mangxema]

The problem with many libertarians is that they seek the "liberty" to free ride and thus shift the burden of their risk taking from the individual to the collective.

Yeah see this is what I was getting at. These people will get all indignant that their liberties are being terribly infringed when really they're just being 'forced' to take a baseline level of precaution so that other people don't have to pick up their own mess (or at least not as much). There's no tangible cost here, just people being stubborn.

 

[G-Max]

The problem with many libertarians is that they seek the "liberty" to free ride and thus shift the burden of their risk taking from the individual to the collective.

We just want to be allowed to do so - most of us have no intention of driving around belt-less.

There's no tangible cost here

Except the cost of enforcement... processing all those citations, making people go to traffic school, etc... that's probably more than the difference in cleanup costs would be.

 

[Borachio]

It should be compulsory for passengers, and forbidden for drivers.

 

[Truronian]

I don't care if its illegal necessarily, I'm still going to do it, especially in a secondary enforcement state. I'm sure some of the states between NY and Florida enforce seatbelt laws against adults in the backseat, but I haven't bothered to look them up.

That said, I AM arguing out of political ideology.

No your not. If you were you'd either have thought it through more and have some studies or reference material to back up your claims and at the very least you would be able to refute the points other people bring up. As it stands you are cherry picking comments to reply to and even then not actually addressing the points that are raised put instead pulling them of of a tangent that has little or nothing to do with what is being discussed (eg. your responses to the other comments I made). Occasionally you are flat out refusing to respond to perfectly valid criticisms.

This is not the behaviour of someone who is making a political argument, it's the behaviour of someone who is looking for affirmation of their own behaviour. You opened this thread not because you were interested in actually thinking the issue through but to see if you could find any other posters who also selfish and daft when it comes to putting on their seatbelt.

Numerous posters have made numerous arguments for seatbelt laws; most of which have been tailored to abide by the odd axioms of your own politic positions. Lawyers and forensic scientist have added their own relevant insight. I have linked you to a document which explains the societal costs of RTCs in great depth. If you had created this thread with an open mind you would have already come around to the idea of seatbelt laws. The fact that you haven't suggests that either you're lacking in cognitive functions, you're selfish or you're ignoring most of the arguments for road safety. I suspect the latter, and I suspect you're ignoring them because they're not I think GW is right posts and as such they don't make you feel vindicated.

Also, at not wearing a seatbelt being some kind of immoral action.

Did you watch the video? Not wearing a seatbelt in the backseat of a car endangers the individuals in the front seats. Your putting the lives of your parents/friends in danger for no good reason. That's selfish and immoral.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I've known cases where people in the back seats who weren't wearing seatbelts when the car they were in crashed were flung forward and crushed the person in front.

Not wearing a seatbelt directly kills other people. Knowingly choosing not to wear one is tantamount to murder.

Mr. GhostWriter16, I don't get how you can support government intervention in outlawing abortion (the killing of a potential person), yet oppose government intervention in outlawing not wearing a seatbelt (the killing of an actual person)?

EDIT: Hadn't read the thread, and my primary argument has come up already.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

If I were of the opinion that government thieves are out to steal money from me, I'd take necessary precautions (i.e. 2 seconds to wear a seatbelt) to prevent this.

It's like not having a sub machine gun and rocket launcher handy in case of burglars.

 

[Leoreth]

We just want to be allowed to do so - most of us have no intention of driving around belt-less.

Which makes this even more of a non-issue. Don't you have real problems?

Another question: would you pay extra insurance costs to cover the extra risk to be allowed to drive without seatbelt? How much?