Safety vs Freedom: Should Adults be Forced to Wear Seatbelts?

[gaelic cowboy]

Ok, I jest, but there is really no reason not to wear a seat-belt anyway.

At least no sensible reason that I can see.

[Crazed Rabbit]

More dangerous, yup, by we aren't deciding anything by a sole criteria. Motorcycles vs seat belts is obvious, people love bikes there's bike culture people belong to bike clubs they bike race, they live for biking. And on the other hand, seat belts. You really should be able to easily see a strong argument differentiating the two, else how will you respond to someone who does try to extend the same logic?

So such things are decided not on a rational, objective review, but by seeing which group has more public support and then restricting the minority group?

Also, you didn't really respond to my point about warrant-less searches. Letting the government bug everyone's phone would let people go about their daily lives while helping to capture the guilty. If you can't decide whether or not to wear a seatbelt, then having some unnoticeable phone tap running while you talk surely won't impede your freedom.

Both cars and motorcycles serve different purposes to society and both are required. Motorcyclists should also be subject to safety laws, like wearing a helmet.

How are motorcycles required? And helmets serve little purpose on a motorcycle, they simply move the injury from the head to the neck.

This ties in nicely with the endangering of others, if the motorcyclist crashes into a truck for example, he will only get himself killed, trucks are also very dangerous vehicles by the way, often not for the driver but for everyone else, if the driver of the truck has to wear a seatbelt he will have to live with what he has done though instead of taking the easy way out (out of the truck and out of life). Since helmets are mandatory here on motorcycles, you could say it comes down to ensuring a relatively high security standard relative to what is possible on the vehicle you're riding.

If a person is not wearing a seatbelt then they only person they're going to harm is themselves. It doesn't make sense to fine people for not having seatbelts but let people ride much more dangerous vehicles.

Saying that seatbelt use decreases injuries, while true, opens the door to allowing government to regulating many aspects of our personal lives for 'our benefit' - like food - in order to reduce government costs.

Almost everything you do that harms yourself, ends up harming another. Unless you are recluse who is forever alone in this world, harm upon yourself drains other people. By not buckling your seat belt and dying because of it, you have created a destructive ripple in the lives of other people. The other people in the accident will think they may have killed a person depending on how the accident goes down. Everyone has parents, parents have children, friends, they all suffer negatively from your actions of not protecting yourself from imminent danger. Your outlook that as long as what you do does not physically harm another person is completely moronic in my opinion. If we applied that same train of thought to all aspects then we need to strike down laws against mental abuse of any form.

And if we apply your train of thought the government ought to be able to greatly regulate what we can and can't do to ensure our safety, since apparently the feelings of others hold greater control over what we are allowed to do then ourselves.

Finally, if seatbelts are so important, why don't US school buses have them?

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So such things are decided not on a rational, objective review, but by seeing which group has more public support and then restricting the minority group?

Are you claiming there's no reason why we don't have people who live to not wear seat belts in the way that we have people who live for biking? That's absurd.

Also, you didn't really respond to my point about warrant-less searches. Letting the government bug everyone's phone would let people go about their daily lives while helping to capture the guilty. If you can't decide whether or not to wear a seatbelt, then having some unnoticeable phone tap running while you talk surely won't impede your freedom.

DUDE

The slippery slope is ONLY dangerous if people can't see the difference between the first step and the second. You are simultaneously giving dire warnings about the slippery slope, and promoting the very thing that makes it possible.

Let's try this for real:

"We already have seat belt laws, and they are good because they save lives. So we should ban motorcycles, because they are unsafe as well"

Are you literally NOT ABLE to show that this is a bad argument? Because it's OBVIOUSLY a terrible argument. You are acting like the only way to refute it is to attack the premise, but if that's the only way you can do it, it's a deficiency on your part.

edit: CAPS LOCK

[Ja'chyra]

I started to read this and then got bored with the seemingly pointless reasons for wearing a belt.

In my mind it should be a legal issue to wear a seatbelt, the main reason being that it doesn't cost you anything to do so, it has a really good chance of saving your life in the event of and accident and the cost of said accident then reduces for the rest of us. All in my view of course, but, realistically this does not impinge on freedom in my opinion, it's only legislating common sense. That being said, the slippery slope is a valid argument but does not apply in this single instance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Are you claiming there's no reason why we don't have people who live to not wear seat belts in the way that we have people who live for biking? That's absurd.

I'm saying it's not rational to consider things from a popularity perspective and not a safety perspective. If there were a lot of people who did live to not wear seatbelts, would that mean we shouldn't have seatbelt laws?

DUDE

The slippery slope is ONLY dangerous if people can't see the difference between the first step and the second. You are simultaneously giving dire warnings about the slippery slope, and promoting the very thing that makes it possible.

Let's try this for real:

"We already have seat belt laws, and they are good because they save lives. So we should ban motorcycles, because they are unsafe as well"

Are you literally NOT ABLE to show that this is a bad argument? Because it's OBVIOUSLY a terrible argument. You are acting like the only way to refute it is to attack the premise, but if that's the only way you can do it, it's a deficiency on your part.

A lot of people here have decided people should not get the choice to wear seatbelts. Instead, they say safety should come first. I'm not the one greasing the slippery slope.

Yes, motorcycles is a very different case, since many people enjoy using motorcycles. Those who would ban motorcycles, however, use the same argument as mandating seatbelts; safety. Those people dismiss the arguments for bikes as quickly as many here dismissed the arguments against seatbelt laws, all in pursuit of safety.

I think it is the arguments of seatbelt law supporters that lead to the slippery slope. They say we should take into account the cost of injuries, the burden to society.

It's always the case with real slippery slope cases that there are differences between the first step and the second. People just decide that the reasons behind making that first step are good enough to make the second step.

Motorcycles are not in danger of being banned in the foreseeable future. But the supporters for such an act are already laying out the arguments. And as safety has dominated the seatbelt argument, so it will dominate motorcycle arguments.

Look at NYC mayor Bloomberg's campaign against delicious food. It started with trans fat and now he's trying to curtail the use of salt. And that's even though the negative health effects of salt are nowhere near as real as the risks of motorcycles.

CR

[Beskar]

First it is seat-belts, then it is salt, and before you know it, you will receive a one-way train ticket from New York to Auschwitz. You have all been warned!

DANGER SLIPPERY-SLOPE AHEAD, PLEASE USE THE HANDRAIL!
"A handrail? It is my freedom not to use it!" *slips down the slope*
New Sign: "DANGER SLIPPERY-SLOPE AHEAD, HANDRAIL USE MANDATORY"
"They are encroaching on my freedoms even more! Where is my train-ticket."
New Sign: "DANGER SLIPPERY-SLOPE AHEAD, HANDRAIL USE MANDATORY - NO BAD PUNS PLEASE"

[a completely inoffensive name]

How are motorcycles required? And helmets serve little purpose on a motorcycle, they simply move the injury from the head to the neck.

I would assume that there are transportation purposes better suited for a more mobile, two wheeled single person vehicle just as there are transportation purposes better suited for an 18 wheeler. I haven't ridden a motorcycle or am at all knowledgeable so I can't list any such reasons off the top of my head. Ask the Harley-Davidson forums?

As for the second statement, I don't know the physics behind motorcycle helmets but that seems completely false to me. What kind of person designs a helmet that transfers the kinetic energy from the impact from the collision from the toughened skull to the extremely fragile neck? The point of any helmet is to dissipate the kinetic energy among the frame of the helmet so that the impact doesn't generate enough energy to crack or fracture the skull. So I call that last statement into question.

And if we apply your train of thought the government ought to be able to greatly regulate what we can and can't do to ensure our safety, since apparently the feelings of others hold greater control over what we are allowed to do then ourselves.

Finally, if seatbelts are so important, why don't US school buses have them?

Here is the point I am really trying to make underneath all this CR. There are times when the outcome of one train of thought is better then another and many times (most actually) where it is not an either/or situation. You are setting the argument and reality to be a false dichotomy of either we enact policies to promote freedom or we promote policies to promote safety. The fact is that, yes, the train of thought that you and Fisherkind have been putting out are valid for situations where there truly is a strong consequence stemming from safety policies violating civil liberties. Telling people to please put the strap on before you drive a two ton car 60mph on the freeway is not one of those situations. Life is not black or white and we need to compromise on the little things when it can help to a big extent like having people wear seatbelts. It's not a slippery slope when all participants recognize that adhering to one train of thought for one situation doesn't mean we must use the same train of thought for all situations.

As for the school buses. Oh man, I don't even know I wish they did. I hated the bus so much, everyone getting out of their seat and ******* around. And then I get yelled at for having my fingers (not even my entire hand) outside the window (resting on the window itself).

Look at NYC mayor Bloomberg's campaign against delicious food. It started with trans fat and now he's trying to curtail the use of salt. And that's even though the negative health effects of salt are nowhere near as real as the risks of motorcycles.

I would call that also into question. The daily intake of salt if I remember correctly should only be about 6 grams of salt. Now obviously everyone takes in waaaaay more then that. Excessive salt has been shown to be contributing to strokes, high blood pressure and heart disease. According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention the leading causes of death in the US are:

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
• Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
• Diabetes: 71,382
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
• Septicemia: 34,828

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

So I would actually say the negative effects of salt (or at least unhealthy food in general) are on par or higher then motorcycles.

To be honest, if we were to be arguing about the bans in food due to being unhealthy I would liken it if government banned contractors from making pipes out of lead due to the negative impact that can have on the public. I don't think most people would be unhappy if that measure was taken (as far as I know, that could actually be a real law).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm saying it's not rational to consider things from a popularity perspective and not a safety perspective. If there were a lot of people who did live to not wear seatbelts, would that mean we shouldn't have seatbelt laws?

I never said it was "being considered from a popularity perspective", and when you said I did last post I corrected you...now you are saying it again. I didn't do a fricken poll to see which is "more popular". Is it not OBVIOUS that SEAT BELTS are different from MOTORCYCLES????_????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

IS THE ONLY REASON YOU CAN THINK OF POPULARITY?????????

I QUOTE:

Motorcycles vs seat belts is obvious, people love bikes there's bike culture people belong to bike clubs they bike race, they live for biking. And on the other hand, seat belts.

NO ONE LOVES UN-SEATBELTS
THERE IS NO UN-SEATBELT CULTURE
THERE ARE NO UN-SEATBELT CLUBS
THERE ARE NO SPORTING EVENTS INVOLVING UN-SEATBELTS
NO ONE LIVES FOR UN-SEATBEELTING

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? jUST A RANDOM TREND? oR SOMETHING INHERENT IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?

AND THAT WAS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD

A lot of people here have decided people should not get the choice to wear seatbelts. Instead, they say safety should come first. I'm not the one greasing the slippery slope.

Yes, motorcycles is a very different case, since many people enjoy using motorcycles. Those who would ban motorcycles, however, use the same argument as mandating seatbelts; safety. Those people dismiss the arguments for bikes as quickly as many here dismissed the arguments against seatbelt laws, all in pursuit of safety.

I think it is the arguments of seatbelt law supporters that lead to the slippery slope. They say we should take into account the cost of injuries, the burden to society.

It's always the case with real slippery slope cases that there are differences between the first step and the second. People just decide that the reasons behind making that first step are good enough to make the second step.

Motorcycles are not in danger of being banned in the foreseeable future. But the supporters for such an act are already laying out the arguments. And as safety has dominated the seatbelt argument, so it will dominate motorcycle arguments.

Look at NYC mayor Bloomberg's campaign against delicious food. It started with trans fat and now he's trying to curtail the use of salt. And that's even though the negative health effects of salt are nowhere near as real as the risks of motorcycles.

CR

So what? So what? So what?

Some guy is campaigning against salt, ERGO we must undo the seatbelt legislation? Yes people are arguing for more safety regulations than are necessary. But why are you letting them determine your beliefs? Your beliefs shouldn't result from political motivations. If THEY don't make the distinction that is all the more reason for YOU to make the distinction.

Embrace the "inconsistancy". Dare to make arguments that aren't entirely based on a simple principle. Start a thread about how bikes shouldn't be banned, making the argument you made here. Don't try arguing for freedom using an example where utilitarianism wins out!!

First it is seat-belts, then it is salt, and before you know it, you will receive a one-way train ticket from New York to Auschwitz. You have all been warned!

DANGER SLIPPERY-SLOPE AHEAD, PLEASE USE THE HANDRAIL!
"A handrail? It is my freedom not to use it!" *slips down the slope*
New Sign: "DANGER SLIPPERY-SLOPE AHEAD, HANDRAIL USE MANDATORY"
"They are encroaching on my freedoms even more! Where is my train-ticket."
New Sign: "DANGER SLIPPERY-SLOPE AHEAD, HANDRAIL USE MANDATORY - NO BAD PUNS PLEASE"

[Crazed Rabbit]

I would assume that there are transportation purposes better suited for a more mobile, two wheeled single person vehicle just as there are transportation purposes better suited for an 18 wheeler. I haven't ridden a motorcycle or am at all knowledgeable so I can't list any such reasons off the top of my head. Ask the Harley-Davidson forums?

I'm sorry, but asking harley davidson is hilarious (they're overpriced, under performing motorcycles). I've ridden motorcycles for a while, and there's nothing you really need them for. You can use them for certain things, like offroad riding in spots you can't go off road with cars, but you don't need to do those things.

As for the second statement, I don't know the physics behind motorcycle helmets but that seems completely false to me. What kind of person designs a helmet that transfers the kinetic energy from the impact from the collision from the toughened skull to the extremely fragile neck? The point of any helmet is to dissipate the kinetic energy among the frame of the helmet so that the impact doesn't generate enough energy to crack or fracture the skull. So I call that last statement into question.

That's what a doctor at the university of washington told me. But I'm sure someone who's never ridden a motorcycle knows best. . Also, a helmet doesn't protect the vast majority of your body. And the really fun thing is how stringent safety standards led to less safe helmets.

Here is the point I am really trying to make underneath all this CR. There are times when the outcome of one train of thought is better then another and many times (most actually) where it is not an either/or situation. You are setting the argument and reality to be a false dichotomy of either we enact policies to promote freedom or we promote policies to promote safety. The fact is that, yes, the train of thought that you and Fisherkind have been putting out are valid for situations where there truly is a strong consequence stemming from safety policies violating civil liberties. Telling people to please put the strap on before you drive a two ton car 60mph on the freeway is not one of those situations. Life is not black or white and we need to compromise on the little things when it can help to a big extent like having people wear seatbelts. It's not a slippery slope when all participants recognize that adhering to one train of thought for one situation doesn't mean we must use the same train of thought for all situations.

The thing is, I don't think many participants recognize this. We live in a country where people blindly accept that the TSA is actually making us safer with these nude imaging scanners and even when groped and victimized will passively agree to it if someone tells them they will be safer.

I would call that also into question. The daily intake of salt if I remember correctly should only be about 6 grams of salt. Now obviously everyone takes in waaaaay more then that. Excessive salt has been shown to be contributing to strokes, high blood pressure and heart disease. According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention the leading causes of death in the US are:

So I would actually say the negative effects of salt (or at least unhealthy food in general) are on par or higher then motorcycles.

I don't think there's evidence for that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/07tier.html

Second, even though lower blood pressure correlates with less heart disease, scientists haven’t demonstrated that eating less salt leads to better health and longer life. The results from observational studies have too often been inconclusive and contradictory. After reviewing the literature for the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003, researchers from Copenhagen University concluded that “there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake.”

A similar conclusion was reached in 2006 by Norman K. Hollenberg of Harvard Medical School. While it might make sense for some individuals to change their diets, he wrote, “the available evidence shows that the influence of salt intake is too inconsistent and generally too small to mandate policy decisions at the community level.”

In the past year, researchers led by Salvatore Paterna of the University of Palermo have reported one of the most rigorous experiments so far: a randomized clinical trial of heart patients who were put on different diets. Those on a low-sodium diet were more likely to be rehospitalized and to die, results that prompted the researchers to ask, “Is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?”

Those results, while hardly a reason for you to start eating more salt, are a reminder that salt affects a great deal more than blood pressure. Lowering it can cause problems with blood flow to the kidneys and insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

To be honest, if we were to be arguing about the bans in food due to being unhealthy I would liken it if government banned contractors from making pipes out of lead due to the negative impact that can have on the public. I don't think most people would be unhappy if that measure was taken (as far as I know, that could actually be a real law).

I would not agree with that. You have a clear and simple choice on what food to buy, which isn't the same as pipes.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? jUST A RANDOM TREND? oR SOMETHING INHERENT IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?

AND THAT WAS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD

Easy on the caps lock there, buddy. I understand the differences between motorcycles and seatbelts.

That's not gonna stop the oppressive march of safety, though. A motorcycle culture won't stop the people who's number one goal is safety.

CR

[Ironside]

How are motorcycles required? And helmets serve little purpose on a motorcycle, they simply move the injury from the head to the neck.

Have you seen accidents where the energy focus has been the head? I have. Sure the helmet wasn't enough, but it wasn't exactly a neck injury that killed him.

If a person is not wearing a seatbelt then they only person they're going to harm is themselves. It doesn't make sense to fine people for not having seatbelts but let people ride much more dangerous vehicles.

First part is wrong. That's important when talking about rules. Second: Damage reduction. You try to reduce the damage in a situation, not always trying to remove the situation. That's the basic principle about everything. Work safety and food regulation for example.

Saying that seatbelt use decreases injuries, while true, opens the door to allowing government to regulating many aspects of our personal lives for 'our benefit' - like food - in order to reduce government costs.

They are already doing that. Or does your candy still contain lead or other heavy metal colours? Don't eat too much of them add you should be mostly fine...

And if we apply your train of thought the government ought to be able to greatly regulate what we can and can't do to ensure our safety, since apparently the feelings of others hold greater control over what we are allowed to do then ourselves.

Speed limits? The STOP-sign?

Finally, if seatbelts are so important, why don't US school buses have them?

CR

In general because city busses are driving slower and are heavier (=taking less damage in most types of accidents). But regulation is really lagging behind in that area. Probably related to that busses have people standing, if full.

That does cost people's lives.

[Slyspy]

Can't believe this is still going. The idea that mandatory seatbelts are a feature of or a step towards the tyranny of government is one which I find beneath contempt to be honest.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Easy on the caps lock there, buddy. I understand the differences between motorcycles and seatbelts.

Posting at halftime :p

That's not gonna stop the oppressive march of safety, though. A motorcycle culture won't stop the people who's number one goal is safety.

But are you saying that seat belts laws should be enforced, but we can't make them that because it will provide too much ammunition for overly-safety oriented people? Or are you saying that it's wrong to fine people for not wearing their seat belt.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm sorry, but asking harley davidson is hilarious (they're overpriced, under performing motorcycles). I've ridden motorcycles for a while, and there's nothing you really need them for. You can use them for certain things, like offroad riding in spots you can't go off road with cars, but you don't need to do those things.

What you are saying though is anecdotal evidence of when you were using motorcycles for your personal pleasure. Fine, don't ask harley davidson but ask some one, somewhere who is an expert about motorcycles instead of trying to make a claim based solely on your life experience. So excuse me if I don't take you at your word there.

That's what a doctor at the university of washington told me. But I'm sure someone who's never ridden a motorcycle knows best. . Also, a helmet doesn't protect the vast majority of your body. And the really fun thing is how stringent safety standards led to less safe helmets.

Ok, so I am completely ignorant of the physics behind helmets so I did what I thought was the best course and attempted to ask some experts. On another website I frequent there is sub forum where people who have degrees in scientific fields can answer questions related to science, if it has been proven by a moderator that they have a degree, then a colored tag appears next to their screen name with the field of the degree shown. here is the thread I posted: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/c...ct_of_helmets/

Here were the top two upvoted comments the first by a guy who has a degree in physics and the second by someone who's screen name is "AsAChemicalEngineer"
This reminds me of when people were trying to claim that seatbelts caused more bodily harm than flying through your car and stopping yourself against the steering wheel and windshield.

Helmets serve two functions using two parts. The hard outer shell prevents the road from making undesirable contact with your face, but more importantly prevents objects from penetrating the skull or cracking it, which is extremely important.
The second function of a helmet is to slightly reduce the acceleration felt by your head when hitting the ground, the foam gives a little and allows the stop to happen over a slightly longer distance. Which is also extremely important.
While it is true, helmets can increase the rotational pressures on the neck, any accident which is sufficient enough to severely damage the neck would almost certainly be strong enough to inflict severe blunt trauma onto a person's skull also. This isn't a zero sum game where helmets protect heads but hurt necks. If you don't wear a helmet you simply have two dangerous injuries instead of just one.
There is a reason helmets protect only you head, it's more practical and economical to just protect the most important and vulnerable part of a human being.
I read that article and in no way were they advocating riding freestyle, they mostly pointed out that some of the safety standards were impractical and needed to be changed. They even did tests on different helmets and showcased the most protective ones.
Point is, I understand riding without a helmet, it is loads more fun. It's a choice that one does because it is a better experience, but if you really feel the need to justify your choices with faulty logic instead of just accepting it as a personal choice then your certainly misguided.

So what I gathered is that that statement you got from that doctor was probably lacking the context that while indeed energy is transferred to the neck when wearing a helmet the point of it is that if the energy is enough to snap your neck it would have enough to crack your skull open. Wearing a helmet at least stops one of those two injuries from occurring.

The thing is, I don't think many participants recognize this. We live in a country where people blindly accept that the TSA is actually making us safer with these nude imaging scanners and even when groped and victimized will passively agree to it if someone tells them they will be safer.

Well then, shouldn't our job be to make sure participants recognize this so we can have a healthy political discourse, or are you saying our job is to keep the level of political discourse at an embarrassingly ignorant level and simply try to work within that?

I don't think there's evidence for that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/07tier.html

Second, even though lower blood pressure correlates with less heart disease, scientists haven’t demonstrated that eating less salt leads to better health and longer life. The results from observational studies have too often been inconclusive and contradictory. After reviewing the literature for the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003, researchers from Copenhagen University concluded that “there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake.”

A similar conclusion was reached in 2006 by Norman K. Hollenberg of Harvard Medical School. While it might make sense for some individuals to change their diets, he wrote, “the available evidence shows that the influence of salt intake is too inconsistent and generally too small to mandate policy decisions at the community level.”

In the past year, researchers led by Salvatore Paterna of the University of Palermo have reported one of the most rigorous experiments so far: a randomized clinical trial of heart patients who were put on different diets. Those on a low-sodium diet were more likely to be rehospitalized and to die, results that prompted the researchers to ask, “Is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?”

Those results, while hardly a reason for you to start eating more salt, are a reminder that salt affects a great deal more than blood pressure. Lowering it can cause problems with blood flow to the kidneys and insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

I can't read the entire article because The New York Times is asking me to log in and I don't have an account. But from the small, possibly out of context portion you have quoted I don't see how this negates what I am saying at all. Like all news stories involving science, this article was written incredibly poorly. The very first paragraph you showed says the results from studies have been inconclusive and contradictory which means studies have and have not shown the benefits of lowing salt intake. Also like every "journalism" newspaper, things that scientists say are taken out of context, see the latest NASA announcement about being able to have organisms utilize large amounts of arsenic instead of phosphorus (but not completely switch) in their internal biochemistry and suddenly every newspaper is claiming we found life based on arsenic completely different then anything lifeform on Earth. Likewise, the statement is given probably out of context "there is little evidence for long term benefit from reducing salt intake" note that the word "concluded" was not said by the scientists and put in their mouths by the journalist. So excuse me when I say, give me the peer reviewed study. For all i know the article could be extremely biased and the full quote was "I disagree that there is little evidence for long term benefit from reducing salt intake."

The second statement seems fair and reasonable there might be not enough to start making policies about it, then again that statement was 4 years ago, so we need to re-evaluate if that statement still holds.

The third paragraph gave me facepalm because they are quoting a study where people who had a deficiency of salt from a low salt diet did extremely bad and suddenly that is evidence that we don't have to cut down on our extremely saturated salt heavy diet? Apparently if having none of it is bad, then we should stick with having too much of it?

The last statement is again, completely without context that the risk involved occur only when your salt intake is below 6 grams of salt (or about a teaspoon0. Now tell me, unless you purposely go out of your way to not eat salt, how exactly are you going to experience a lack of salt in today's modern, processed food diet?

I would not agree with that. You have a clear and simple choice on what food to buy, which isn't the same as pipes.

Not if the entire industry if using the bad ingredients. But I will concede that isn't the case anyone, luckily I can buy coke without HFCS, so yeah maybe I spoke to quickly in that aspect of it.

[Beskar]

Why did CR pick seatbelts and not drink-driving? People actually want to drink-drive (and they do it) even though they could be fined or serve prison time.

[ajaxfetish]

Why did CR pick seatbelts and not drink-driving? People actually want to drink-drive (and they do it) even though they could be fined or serve prison time.

OP should have made this clear to you:

and that failing to wear a seatbelt can only result in injury to yourself, not anyone else.

One of the premises of his argument is that the risk-taker is the only potential victim. That point has been argued in the thread, but you couldn't really begin to make a case for it with drunk driving, now could you?

Ajax

[Fisherking]

Your point is misguided. The reason there is seat belt laws was because people asked the government to make them mandatory. The reason drugs are outlawed is because people pushed for them to be outlawed and when some drugs like alcohol no longer wanted to be banned, they pushed and alcohol was no longer banned. This idea that government has constantly been working to undermine us and dictate what we should do for the benefit of government is not true. The reality is that government has always been a tool for, not an entity in itself, striving for more power. Infringements upon our civil liberties are for them ost part perpetrated by government due to outside special interest groups wielding control over the institution. Government is the hit man for totalitarian special interest groups and saviors alike.

In dictatorships the government is always trying to enlarge itself because the dictator is the government, now we live in representative democracies and it doesn't work like that anymore. We have separation of powers and government is no longer a single entity or man any longer. It fights within itself among the branches and its decisions are wielded by the men and women who get most involved in all aspects of it and spend the most money to tame it.

No!

It was for money and control.

It was not an outcry from the people no the insurance industry.

The seatbelt laws are state laws which provide and excuse to stop individual automobiles after the Supreme Court said that random stops were an infringement on individual liberty. It was a convenient excuse and pushed by law enforcement agencies. Go and check.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OP should have made this clear to you:

One of the premises of his argument is that the risk-taker is the only potential victim. That point has been argued in the thread, but you couldn't really begin to make a case for it with drunk driving, now could you?

Ajax

That premise is wrong, as has been noted, an unbelted passenger is a loose canon; quite litterally.

So that argument can be dismissed. Wearing a seatbelt is then clearly no different than obeying the speed limit, which is also "a personal choice".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yep, entertaining such an alternative reality you can see how, after an unfortunate drunk driving mishap with a speeding car, a personal choice could very well have changed our lives. Three personal choices and a butchered signature, in fact.

[gaelic cowboy]

When you apply for a driver's licence are you not undertaking to obey the rules of the road.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I think people are stupid when they don't wear seat belts, and I don't feel sorry when they don't and they die, but it's a personal choice. Your life, your funeral.

[HoreTore]

No!

It was for money and control.

It was not an outcry from the people no the insurance industry.

The seatbelt laws are state laws which provide and excuse to stop individual automobiles after the Supreme Court said that random stops were an infringement on individual liberty. It was a convenient excuse and pushed by law enforcement agencies. Go and check.

Did you know, that in the 70's, the CIA installed radio-transmitters in peoples mouths when they went to the doctor, so they could hear everything people said? Go and check!

When you apply for a driver's licence are you not undertaking to obey the rules of the road.

Don't know what rituals you guys go through, but I did nothing like that when I got my license. The application form was basically name, address and ticking the boxes that said "I don't have any court orders prohibiting getting a license" and "Yes, I'm applying for a license".

[gaelic cowboy]

Don't know what rituals you guys go through, but I did nothing like that when I got my license. The application form was basically name, address and ticking the boxes that said "I don't have any court orders prohibiting getting a license" and "Yes, I'm applying for a license".

They don't give you a license just by filling a form Horetore thats just to apply for your driving test to obtain your license.

In order to pass the test you have to learn the rules of the road and successfully show you have learned them and if you break them they can take it from you.

[drone]

Did you know, that in the 70's, the CIA installed radio-transmitters in peoples mouths when they went to the doctor, so they could hear everything people said? Go and check!

Some states (Virginia being one of them) have not wearing seat belts as a secondary offence, which means they can't pull you over if they see you without a seat belt on, but they can fine you extra if they notice it during a stop for something else. Sane policy really. Other states allow the police to pull you over straight up for no seat belt use. It's a great way to give out DWBs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No!

It was for money and control.

It was not an outcry from the people no the insurance industry.

The seatbelt laws are state laws which provide and excuse to stop individual automobiles after the Supreme Court said that random stops were an infringement on individual liberty. It was a convenient excuse and pushed by law enforcement agencies. Go and check.

So what you just said was that special interest groups (the police unions and organizations) used government to increase their own power. Hmmmmm, sounds exactly like what I just said.

[miotas]

I would assume that there are transportation purposes better suited for a more mobile, two wheeled single person vehicle just as there are transportation purposes better suited for an 18 wheeler. I haven't ridden a motorcycle or am at all knowledgeable so I can't list any such reasons off the top of my head. Ask the Harley-Davidson forums?

If you are on your own and don't have anything large to carry, then the reduced congestion and fuel usage makes it far more practical to ride a bike.

[HoreTore]

They don't give you a license just by filling a form Horetore thats just to apply for your driving test to obtain your license.

In order to pass the test you have to learn the rules of the road and successfully show you have learned them and if you break them they can take it from you.

No, they didn't give me a license because I filled out that form, but it was the only form I filled out during my drivers education.

But no, they don't get to take it away "because I have agreed not to break the law". They get to take it away because that's what the law says. "Living in this country" is the way I "let the government know I agree" with that.

[Fisherking]

So what you just said was that special interest groups (the police unions and organizations) used government to increase their own power. Hmmmmm, sounds exactly like what I just said.

You said the people wanted it.

Law enforcement and government agencies are not the people.

But have it your way. You are saying that as long as the laws are passed and signed it is okay to bribe, bully, or coerce the legislators , it is the appearance of a free and democratic process that is important and whether or not a law infringes on individual rights and liberties it is irrelevant.

Most anything can be accomplished to limit your rights in the name of public safety or for the children and so on.

All it takes is a bit of compliancy and the belief that government has your own good in mind.

What they have in mind is their own good, their own power, and holding on to it.

[Don Corleone]

I'm with BG, Hosakwawa and others that link responsibility and freedom (aka authority for self-determination). Authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin and cannot be logically separated in any decision making process.

I used to agree with the "no seat-belt laws crowd". It is a little galling. If the government passed a law that required us to wash our hands after using the toilet, that would really irritate people too, but it just makes sense.

In an effort to get away from whether unsecured motorists (or passengers) potentially pose a danger to others, we could purify the premise of the argument and shift it to a question of whether the government has the right, and even the obligation, to prevent suicide?

I think the arguments on the libertarian side are fundamentally flawed in one way. In framing these arguments, personal liberty & freedom is assumed to be an absolute right, or at the very least, a right of higher standing than others. But as members of a collective society, we have a responsiblity to each other as well. My freedom to harm myself ends where that harm may impact you as well.

So yes, the government has a right, and an obligation, to prevent 10's of thousands of needless deaths on the highway each year. And yes, the government has a right, and an obligation to find ways to bring down the problems with morbid obesity that the country faces. If you really feel that you have a desire to eat 4K calories a day of fat, salt, sugar and starch to get yourself to a BMI of 30+, then remove yourself from the society that will be charged with the responsiblity of taking care of you and your failed organs when diabtetes leads you to dialysis, or heart disease leads you to hover-arounds and oxygen tanks.

Maybe fatherhood has changed me more than I thought. Or maybe I need to move back to North Carolina. My God, I'm becoming a.... centrist....

[Beskar]

Maybe fatherhood has changed me more than I thought. Or maybe I need to move back to North Carolina. My God, I'm becoming a.... centrist....

Soon you are going to be a socialist too!

[Strike For The South]

It's not a matter of freedom and liberity when you are using government roads and government money/ services (when you splat)

The government has a right to be in this relam.