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

Something has struck me watching the news about the TSA of late is the balance between safety and freedom. Or, how it seems that most people just pick safety over freedom every day of the week.

I wanted to get the Org's thoughts on a law with this issue in the middle; seatbelt laws.

For the purposes of argument, this law would only affect adults; those 18 and older, not children; and that failing to wear a seatbelt can only result in injury to yourself, not anyone else.

With those in mind, should adults be forced by law to wear seatbelts?

I say no. Seatbelts may make us safer. Putting them on is no big deal.

But the government should not be able to tell you how to live. It is our life, and if we are to be free citizens and not serfs that means we must have control of our bodies, and the freedom to make decisions about them.

What purpose can be argued for forcing adults to wear seatbelts? Yes, they make you safer, but what is the point of living life if you are not free to make your own choices?

CR

Quote:

---

Yes, they make you safer, but what is the point of living life if you are not free to make your own choices?

---

We have seatbelt laws currently. Ask yourself what the point of living life right now is.

Quote:

---

But the government should not be able to tell you how to live. It is our life, and if we are to be free citizens and not serfs that means we must have control of our bodies, and the freedom to make decisions about them.

---

How does having to pay a fine if you aren't wearing a seatbelt qualify as serfdom?

What is your argument like with the rhetoric stripped out? Could you do that for me?

If you enjoy taking the risk of not wearing a seatbelt, enjoy the extra risk of a small fine.

The people who don't wear one because it's not comfy or "I'm never going to be in a wreck" are irresponsible and incompetent. The moral thing to do is to treat them as children in this instance for their sake and the sake of their loved ones.

Quote:

---

What purpose can be argued for forcing adults to wear seatbelts?

---

Forcing ~:rolleyes:

So people don't die needless deaths for no reason, mothers don't lose sons for no reason, wives don't lose husbands for no reason, and brothers don't lose sisters for no reason.

It's lives lives lives on one end of the scale, and some paper thin rhetoric on the other.

I wouldn't even support a motorcycle helmet law you know, so I think the principle is very sound, it's just not the only thing to judge with. Doing that is the easy way out. Add a dose of common sense, you are arguing for 10's of thousands of deaths, and for what, you don't want to be accused of inconsistency like I could over the motorcycle helmet thing?

***

edit: sorry, people using over-the-top rhetoric to argue for something that would lead to thousands of deaths because they don't want a principle "tarnished" disturbs me. You have very...interesting company.

Public roads=Public dictation

The amount of people who would've been saved by seatbelts is in the 10,000s every year
Less pressure on Emergency vechiles
Less cost to taxpayer

Lets not be idealouges for the sake of being idealouges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Seatbelts may make us safer.
CR

---

Sasaki and Strike imo just struck down your entire argument already but this part I quoted is what I really facepalmed about. Don't justify your rhetoric by clouding the effectiveness of the "nanny state" you are railing against here. The science is proven, the math has been worked out, the tests have been numberless since the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety was formed. It saves lives period. Not a few, not a couple thousand at the expense of everyone's freedom, but tens of thousands yearly and millions since it was first introduced this is not arguable. It is not a "may" or "sometimes" it's the truth. I hate it when people shed doubt on established science and engineering simply to make their point seem more valid. And it always seems to be the right that does this.

Look at this friggen video, every single safety implement from 1959 to 2009 whether passive or active (requiring you to activate it, like seatbelts) is why the 1959 dummy is dead and the 2009 one isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g

I say yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The science is proven, the math has been worked out, the tests have been numberless since the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety was formed. It saves lives period.

---

And is that a good metric to use when determining whether or not to mandate something?

Can make a case out of everything, how much does it cost society if you insist on headbutting your windscreen, at least 50k if you did it right aka not dying all that drastically . Some control is good if people are that daft.

Several points;
I very much doubt having no seatbelt laws would lead to 'tens of thousands' of extra traffic fatalities. It seems like that figure assumes that no one would wear seatbelts.

To say I'm arguing for tens of thousands of dead is absurd. I am arguing for choice. What people do with that choice is up to them.

Quote:

---

Public roads=Public dictation

---

If they're built using public funds than we ought to get all our rights and protections from government. Driving your car on a public road doesn't mean the police can search it at will.

Nor do I think my argument is simply rhetoric. This is not some solitary, isolated issue. It is part of the culture that obsesses over safety and will abide the government ordering us how to take care of us, which has led to many people accepting the nude body scanners at airports.

If we want to put safety ahead of freedom, why require cops to have warrants to search people's homes?

Or why allow restaurants to serve junk food, or food with fat, or simple carbohydrates, or processed sugar? Health issues kill a lot more people than car crashes.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

And is that a good metric to use when determining whether or not to mandate something?

---

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about getting your science right and your facts straight about a method of "oppression" before you derail it. Idk why you are asking me this question anyway, since CR incorporated it into the discussion in the first place by talking about preventing injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Several points;
I very much doubt having no seatbelt laws would lead to 'tens of thousands' of extra traffic fatalities. It seems like that figure assumes that no one would wear seatbelts.

---

A British study back in the 1980s regarding differences between injuries 4 months before and after implementing a mandatory seat belt law. Note the key statistic near the end that of those who wore a seat belt that were registered in a car accident, 0% died. Among those that were registered that didn't wear a seat belt, 6% died. It states in the study that the compliance rate was 88% or in other words 12% did not wear seat belts.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.../sdarticle.pdf

This census info says that there was 10.6 million car accidents in 2007. Assume they were all one person crashing into a wall, not another person. If we had even small jump in non compliance of about even 5% of people and 6% of those people died due to not wearing a seat belt then (10.6 million)*(.05)*(.06)= 31,800 more people will have died every year. And that is a very conservative estimate considering we are only talking about one person being involved in each accident. And that 31,800 has friends and family that love them and now get to go about their lives having to deal with their deaths. But when we talk about choices and freedom, we can't put a price on that.

Quote:

---

To say I'm arguing for tens of thousands of dead is absurd. I am arguing for choice. What people do with that choice is up to them.

---

No, you are not arguing for tens of thousands of death, your argument simply leads to tens of thousands of dead if it were to be implemented.

Quote:

---

Nor do I think my argument is simply rhetoric. This is not some solitary, isolated issue. It is part of the culture that obsesses over safety and will abide the government ordering us how to take care of us, which has led to many people accepting the nude body scanners at airports.

---

False equivalence. Strapping on a seat belt is not submitting to your government masters on the same level as having an untrained high school drop out feel up your genitals. You put it as if we can have either both seat belts and TSA sexual harassment or neither and that's simply just wrong. So yeah, it does seem like rhetoric.

Quote:

---

If we want to put safety ahead of freedom, why require cops to have warrants to search people's homes?

---

Because that tool of safety (cops) is a measure that can be abused beyond it's purpose so there is a purpose to restricting it. You can say the same for the TSA as well, but you will need to explain to me how exactly the government is abusing seat belts in way that goes beyond safety and starts violating our privacy and essential human freedoms. This is another example of an all or nothing attitude toward government that is quite unrealistic imo.

Quote:

---

Or why allow restaurants to serve junk food, or food with fat, or simple carbohydrates, or processed sugar? Health issues kill a lot more people than car crashes.

---

Also this one. Idk if you have been following this but there are areas that have been banned restaurants from doing exactly that: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06fat.html

CR[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Several points;
I very much doubt having no seatbelt laws would lead to 'tens of thousands' of extra traffic fatalities. It seems like that figure assumes that no one would wear seatbelts.

---

Use of seat belts saved 12,713 in 2009 according to the NHSA, which is an amusingly specific number. But anyway, calculate the percentage increase in usage of seat belts, multiply it by that, and then add up the total for a few decades...or however long it will be until cars stop being used.

Quote:

---

To say I'm arguing for tens of thousands of dead is absurd. I am arguing for choice. What people do with that choice is up to them.

---

You are dismissing the cost in life in favor of ideology.

Quote:

---

Nor do I think my argument is simply rhetoric. This is not some solitary, isolated issue. It is part of the culture that obsesses over safety and will abide the government ordering us how to take care of us, which has led to many people accepting the nude body scanners at airports.

If we want to put safety ahead of freedom, why require cops to have warrants to search people's homes?

Or why allow restaurants to serve junk food, or food with fat, or simple carbohydrates, or processed sugar? Health issues kill a lot more people than car crashes.

CR

---

WHY ALLOW JUNK FOOD?? Because we can consider both safety and freedom. Gosh. This is weird because I know if someone said "we have seat belt laws so why not extend it to warrants and junk food" you'd have a long argument about all the obvious differences.

I would think the drug legalization argument would be ideal ground, the government actions there are actually very deserving of your rhetoric. But wouldn't you involve safety considerations there as well, with some of the harder drugs?

I just don't see why you are writing off safety considerations other than to adhere to the principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Use of seat belts saved 12,713 in 2009 according to the NHSA, which is an amusingly specific number. But anyway, calculate the percentage increase in usage of seat belts, multiply it by that, and then add up the total for a few decades...or however long it will be until cars stop being used.

---

Hey Sasaki, can you link me to where you found that number, I'm interested since I didn't find anything like that when I did my quick googling.

As long as they are not a danger to others, they are free not to wear one.

I also think that their medical insurance should rise as a consequence of this.

~:smoking:

As long as government agencies or any public funds at all are not involved in scraping you off the scenery or keeping you alive, either at the accident or subsequently, then an argument might possibly be made. You'd need a visible disclaimer to be worn at all times to show that you did not require any public assistance so that the beastly government types did not infringe your freedoms as you choke to death on your own vomit.

I like Sasaki's argument. If it is true that one can refuse to wear a seat belt and pay the odd fine, then freedom and principle are completely satisfied.

i am mildly libertarian curious, but what benefit does not wearing a seatbelt have when compared to the amount of work it takes to peel you of that tree you just didn't miss. A hospital is an extremely expensive thing to run all sorts of highly educated specialists have to be present 24/7, people who have better things to do, is wearing a seatbelt that uncomfortable. Emo thing imho

To me it is not a matter of public benefit.

Seatbelts make you less likely to be injured.

However, in the strictest sense government does not or should not have the right to force people to do what is good for them. That is tyranny.

It only endangers the person making the choice and does not endanger others. It goes too far.

Governments are not charged with protecting people from harm and it presents a danger of them going further.

If insurance companies made seat belt use a condition for reimbursement of medical treatment for accidents, would you wear a seatbelt? Repeal the seatbelt mandate and that is what would probably happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

To me it is not a matter of public benefit.

Seatbelts make you less likely to be injured.

However, in the strictest sense government does not or should not have the right to force people to do what is good for them. That is tyranny.

It only endangers the person making the choice and does not endanger others. It goes too far.

Governments are not charged with protecting people from harm and it presents a danger of them going further.

---

It's not tyranny it's simply wearing a seatbelt. Is good for you since you are more likely to survive, and it's good for everyone since they don't have to pay the treatment to keep you alive if you don't. What we pay for medical aid is a bargain, also in the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

However, in the strictest sense government does not or should not have the right to force people to do what is good for them. That is tyranny.

---

This is nonsense. Government forces us to obey the rules of the road so we dont all die in accidents because people can't decide properly who should go first at the intersection. They force us to stop at red lights, such tyranny! According to you, I guess we should be allowed to run any red light we want?

The government also forces us to go to school until we are at least 16-18 years old! I guess I should have called my congressman about the tyranny I was facing when I hated school in 8th grade and couldn't drop out.

Quote:

---

Governments are not charged with protecting people from harm and it presents a danger of them going further.

---

Except for the whole military thing. Also that whole thing with the cops...and the firemen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If insurance companies made seat belt use a condition for reimbursement of medical treatment for accidents, would you wear a seatbelt? Repeal the seatbelt mandate and that is what would probably happen.

---

Is that how it was before the seatbelt mandate?

This is just a silly libertarian talking point taken to a ridiculous level just to stir up a pointless discussion.

just use the damn seatbelt.

the end.

Wear your seatbelt no excuse not ever nowhere nohow.

Just cos your an adult does not mean your allowed to endanger someone else.

Road safety add

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Warning extreme road safety add shows senes of a graphic and upsetting nature

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsPFJAiPe5M

I think all the arguments for legislating on seat belts have already been made and found to be convincing. Unlike the premise that making seat belts mandatory is somehow an example of the tyranny of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It only endangers the person making the choice and does not endanger others. It goes too far.

---

This is not necessarily true. If you are sitting in the back seat and don't wear a seat belt, when you crash you headbutt the person in front right on the soft spot at the back of the skull.

While I appreciate CR's drive for ideological purity, the reality is we don't live in a 100% libertarian world, otherwise people that don't wear seatbelts would of course not get medical treatment when they wrap themselves around a tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This is not necessarily true. If you are sitting in the back seat and don't wear a seat belt, when you crash you headbutt the person in front right on the soft spot at the back of the skull.

While I appreciate CR's drive for ideological purity, the reality is we don't live in a 100% libertarian world, otherwise people that don't wear seatbelts would of course not get medical treatment when they wrap themselves around a tree.

---

I suppose we all just have to bend like the willow tree, how do we know the difference between control and concern well through REASON I suppose.

Big Brother is right sometimes often complete freedom of choice leads to very bad choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If insurance companies made seat belt use a condition for reimbursement of medical treatment for accidents, would you wear a seatbelt? Repeal the seatbelt mandate and that is what would probably happen.

---

I'm sympathetic to repeal of seat belt law, with this kind of personal responsibility to act as a deterrent in place of legal repercussions. The one problem I see is that raised by BG and Strike: there will still be a greater burden on the taxpayer and more pressure on emergency medical services. To that degree the public good must be balanced against the private freedom.

Ajax

This has got to be the most irrelevant "issue" the world has ever seen.


This is how rednecks stand up to "the man".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

The one problem I see is that raised by BG and Strike: there will still be a greater burden on the taxpayer and more pressure on emergency medical services. To that degree the public good must be balanced against the private freedom.

---

I propose a trade off.
A person will be allowed not to wear the seat belt, provided that a long, sharp, metal spike is installed in the steering wheel, turned to the driver.
In case of accident this is will help ensure instant death to the idiot instead of a serious medical emergency that has to be delt with by the emergency medical services.
Also shotguns should come with a written warning "if attempting suicide, please make sure you place your head TOTALLY and DIRECTLY in front of the shotgun - thank you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is how rednecks stand up to "the man".

---

the seatbelt is just the first step.
if you really want to stick it to the "the man" you use a bullet as a electrical fuse in your car.

my good friend Lewis can explain further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Hey Sasaki, can you link me to where you found that number, I'm interested since I didn't find anything like that when I did my quick googling.

---

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-dr...s/seatbelt.htm

It was actually a slightly different article on the same website but I can't find it now.

This thread makes me feel so much better about the world and US politics in particular. If it get any, the TEA party's power will be short lived. ahar har har.

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where do you draw the line.

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it.

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where do you draw the line.

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it.

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

---

......why should anyone care....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

---

Where the citizens decide it should

Quote:

---

Where do you draw the line.

---

Where we decide to

Quote:

---

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it

---

.
So you're for wasting lives and money in the public domain for the sake of your ideaolgy being nice and square?

Quote:

---

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

---

In this case yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If insurance companies made seat belt use a condition for reimbursement of medical treatment for accidents, would you wear a seatbelt? Repeal the seatbelt mandate and that is what would probably happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is nonsense. Government forces us to obey the rules of the road so we dont all die in accidents because people can't decide properly who should go first at the intersection. They force us to stop at red lights, such tyranny! According to you, I guess we should be allowed to run any red light we want?

The government also forces us to go to school until we are at least 16-18 years old! I guess I should have called my congressman about the tyranny I was facing when I hated school in 8th grade and couldn't drop out.


Except for the whole military thing. Also that whole thing with the cops...and the firemen...



Is that how it was before the seatbelt mandate?

---

To my knowledge, insurance companies did not refuse coverage before seatbelt use became mandatory by law. But then, drinking & driving wasn't anything more than a small fine if it was enforced at all. For good reason, that has all changed now. Ask any patrolman or EMT and they'll tell you that seatbelts are very effective in saving lives. So, as far as this redneck is concerned they should be mandatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I'm sympathetic to repeal of seat belt law, with this kind of personal responsibility to act as a deterrent in place of legal repercussions. The one problem I see is that raised by BG and Strike: there will still be a greater burden on the taxpayer and more pressure on emergency medical services. To that degree the public good must be balanced against the private freedom.

Ajax

---

And here's a great arguement for why seatbelt use should remain a requirement. By law, people cannot be denied medical treatment at the ER for inability to pay, so the cost will just be passed to taxpayers anyway. Seatbelt use will lessen these costs & burdens so it makes sense to encourage and mandate their use.

Quote:

---

HoreTore

Re: Safety vs Freedom: Should Adults be Forced to Wear Seatbelts?
This has got to be the most irrelevant "issue" the world has ever seen.


This is how rednecks stand up to "the man".

---

Bite me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Bite me.

---

Uhm, whyyyyyy....?

I think that people are stupid and dangerous if they do not buckle up...I always buckle up. That said however, it is a person's choice, and I don't think that the government has the right to make something illegal because they think it is stupid (as long as it is not hurting OTHER people). If people lose their right of choice because others think that their actions are stupid or dangerous to themselves, then the government can outlaw anything they want and just say it is for your own good.
It is a parent's job to make sure their kid buckles up, and it is an adults choice to buckle up or not. If stupid people do not buckle up, then guess what? The world will soon be rid of stupid, dangerous people who could otherwise hurt innocents! Nature has a beautiful way of working everything out.

They should concentrate their efforts on stupid things people do that can and do hurt OTHERS! For instance, instituting the death penalty for drunk drivers. Now that would make the road safer, and promote safer lifestyle choices for most people. :)

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Also, ACIN, in regards to my use of the word "may"; I wasn't suggesting seatbelts don't save lives. They clearly do. My intention was to say something to the effect of "while seatbelts may indeed save lives..."

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

---

I can predict the future! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

I wouldn't even support a motorcycle helmet law you know, so I think the principle is very sound, it's just not the only thing to judge with. Doing that is the easy way out. Add a dose of common sense, you are arguing for 10's of thousands of deaths, and for what, you don't want to be accused of inconsistency like I could over the motorcycle helmet thing?

---

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?

You know, you guys are arguing for a logical slippery slope (if this then what next under the same reasoning) but you understand that the biggest friend of that kind of slippery slope is simplistic arguments like "less free" or "more safe". A step up in complexity renders you completely immune to the slippery slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

---

Oh... hmm. Well, then maybe motorcyclists should be required to at least wear a helmet... and maybe even a rediculous bright neon green or orange vest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I think that people are stupid and dangerous if they do not buckle up...I always buckle up. That said however, it is a person's choice, and I don't think that the government has the right to make something illegal because they think it is stupid (as long as it is not hurting OTHER people). If people lose their right of choice because others think that their actions are stupid or dangerous to themselves, then the government can outlaw anything they want and just say it is for your own good.
It is a parent's job to make sure their kid buckles up, and it is an adults choice to buckle up or not. If stupid people do not buckle up, then guess what? The world will soon be rid of stupid, dangerous people who could otherwise hurt innocents! Nature has a beautiful way of working everything out.

They should concentrate their efforts on stupid things people do that can and do hurt OTHERS! For instance, instituting the death penalty for drunk drivers. Now that would make the road safer, and promote safer lifestyle choices for most people. :)

---

I have already typed up a reply to your argument when Fisherking posted. But, I will do it again. There are tens of thousands of governmental operations dictating how we operate our lives from no littering laws, to red light laws, to basic rules of which side of the road you can drive on. The purpose of all these laws to prevent the self destructing nature of humans from collapsing society. Humans will often present little regard for any sort of safety and order in their society if it is an inconvenience and absolutely no regard if it is an inconvenience to others (such as littering). The basic purposes of a government is to keep the nation and it's inhabitants safe not just from outside forces but from inside ones as well. The vast majority of the country would never agree to a campaign to eliminate all government police and fire departments on the grounds that "people shouldn't be fined tickets for speeding or burning down their house when it only effects them and not any one else." Humans are stupid in many of their actions and despite how much disgust this...(Hobbes?) mentality is to me, it is the truth. Give people a quick, convenient death and an inconvenient life, and I think we would all be surprised to the extent of how many people kill themselves. And in fact I think that is exactly the case with seat belts.

Also your advocate for the death penalty is a complete hypocrisy of your entire ideology but that is to be expected since you don't seem to be much of a critical thinker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Also, ACIN, in regards to my use of the word "may"; I wasn't suggesting seatbelts don't save lives. They clearly do. My intention was to say something to the effect of "while seatbelts may indeed save lives..."

CR

---

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.

Oh I see. That's my bad then. But still, my overall point remains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Something has struck me watching the news about the TSA of late is the balance between safety and freedom. Or, how it seems that most people just pick safety over freedom every day of the week.

I wanted to get the Org's thoughts on a law with this issue in the middle; seatbelt laws.

For the purposes of argument, this law would only affect adults; those 18 and older, not children; and that failing to wear a seatbelt can only result in injury to yourself, not anyone else.

With those in mind, should adults be forced by law to wear seatbelts?

I say no. Seatbelts may make us safer. Putting them on is no big deal.

But the government should not be able to tell you how to live. It is our life, and if we are to be free citizens and not serfs that means we must have control of our bodies, and the freedom to make decisions about them.

What purpose can be argued for forcing adults to wear seatbelts? Yes, they make you safer, but what is the point of living life if you are not free to make your own choices?

CR

---

it all depends upon your notion of freedom. you can argue that freedom is to be free of any laws, but there are others that would say that such a freedom is not really freedom but slavery to the passions (you would become an animal) and that any freedom to exist must always be bound by rational law.

ofcourse if you are forced you wouldnt be free, but people aren't really forced, they are given an option, either obey the law or dont and suffer the consequenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where do you draw the line.

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it.

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

---

i think that, atleast now we are discusssing america, people have forgot what democracy actually means (and i know it can be debated that it is actually so in practice) but it is not the goverment vs the people, the people are the government. so it is supposed to be so that the people subject theirself to their own laws and therefor they are free. to say otherwise is to say that telling yourself not to eat a cooky every day is a law which infringes on your personal freedom. and if in the government a law would be made that people wouldnt agree with (such as by extreme: shoot every first person you see on sunday) they have the right, the obligation, to rise up and make such tyranny undone.

There's an oft forgotten corollary to freedom and that is responsibility. We like to go on about freedoms and their infringements but we rarely note that all freedom comes with heavy responsibilities to our fellows in society.

A truly free society has citizens more dedicated to the well-being of their compatriots than interested in self-aggrandisement. Such a society needs few laws and little government. Sadly, humanity has proven time and time again that most people use freedoms for their own benefit, not for that of their group. Thus society chooses to regulate, and freedoms are curtailed to the degree made necessary by the lack of responsibility - more government inevitably arises with more individualism.

In this example then, seat belts are inarguably safer for oneself and others. Therefore no law should be necessary if people do the intelligent thing and take responsibility for their safety and that of others. However, too many people eschew this responsibility, endangering themselves and others, and thus society imposes laws.

If you don't wear seatbeltsin the back, the force of a crash can propel the person forward and such is the force,, it is as if an elephant was in the backside and that the person in front will either get crushed or go through the front window.

Either way, wearing seat-belts is part of how you drive a car properly. These safety regulations protect you and other people when operating machinery. Not doing them is carelessness and can result in prison time if you end up killing some one else due to your negligence. So having a fine for when you fail to do what you should do is minor.

Quote:

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...post-right.png
Bite me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, whyyyyyy....?

---

The urban dictionary should clear it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There's an oft forgotten corollary to freedom and that is responsibility. We like to go on about freedoms and their infringements but we rarely note that all freedom comes with heavy responsibilities to our fellows in society.

A truly free society has citizens more dedicated to the well-being of their compatriots than interested in self-aggrandisement. Such a society needs few laws and little government. Sadly, humanity has proven time and time again that most people use freedoms for their own benefit, not for that of their group. Thus society chooses to regulate, and freedoms are curtailed to the degree made necessary by the lack of responsibility - more government inevitably arises with more individualism.

In this example then, seat belts are inarguably safer for oneself and others. Therefore no law should be necessary if people do the intelligent thing and take responsibility for their safety and that of others. However, too many people eschew this responsibility, endangering themselves and others, and thus society imposes laws.

---

Could not have 'splained it better. Well done BG. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

The urban dictionary should clear it up.

---

~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

---

Because the State is both wise and flexible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(as long as it is not hurting OTHER people)

---

So you didn't watch the ad that was posted above where the one guy not using the seatbelt got three people in the car killed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

If you don't wear seatbeltsin the back, the force of a crash can propel the person forward and such is the force,, it is as if an elephant was in the backside and that the person in front will either get crushed or go through the front window.

---

I'd say if an elephant was in the backside, the force the person would get crushed with would be significantly higher, as such these comparisons often make little sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So you didn't watch the ad that was posted above where the one guy not using the seatbelt got three people in the car killed?

---

The OP said that for the sake of argument, we were going to assume that seat-belts are only a danger to the person not using them. I agree with you that not wearing a seatbelt can be a danger to others (which is why I always insist on having passengers buckle-up if they want to drive in my car), but the debate here is supposed to function on the supposition that they are only a danger to the person not wearing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I have already typed up a reply to your argument when Fisherking posted. But, I will do it again. There are tens of thousands of governmental operations dictating how we operate our lives from no littering laws, to red light laws, to basic rules of which side of the road you can drive on. The purpose of all these laws to prevent the self destructing nature of humans from collapsing society. Humans will often present little regard for any sort of safety and order in their society if it is an inconvenience and absolutely no regard if it is an inconvenience to others (such as littering). The basic purposes of a government is to keep the nation and it's inhabitants safe not just from outside forces but from inside ones as well. The vast majority of the country would never agree to a campaign to eliminate all government police and fire departments on the grounds that "people shouldn't be fined tickets for speeding or burning down their house when it only effects them and not any one else." Humans are stupid in many of their actions and despite how much disgust this...(Hobbes?) mentality is to me, it is the truth. Give people a quick, convenient death and an inconvenient life, and I think we would all be surprised to the extent of how many people kill themselves. And in fact I think that is exactly the case with seat belts.

Also your advocate for the death penalty is a complete hypocrisy of your entire ideology but that is to be expected since you don't seem to be much of a critical thinker.

---

Ok, I am going to ignore your completely offensive posting style and personal attacks, and cut right to the chase. You seem to be completely ignoring what I said about things that danger or damage and individual committing them, and things that danger or damage others. Things such as littering, burning down your house, speeding, drunk driving, etc endanger or steal from others. THAT is the difference. Maybe next time you can actually read my post before responding to it.
And how is my advocating the death penalty a hypocrisy of 'my entire ideology' (which I have never laid out to you BTW, and you have no way of knowing)? My ideology is that people should be completely free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not hurt OTHERS! When people deliberately do things that endanger or steal from others, I think that they should receive the harshest punishment appropriate for their crime. (and if what you do endangers the lives of others, I think that you should forfeit your own) You cannot commit a crime against yourself - that is just stupidity, not a crime. A crime can only be committed against others, and deserved harsh punishment. Are we going to start fining people for spending too much time on the computer because it is not good for their health now?
You obviously have no idea what my ideology is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Ok, I am going to ignore your completely offensive posting style and personal attacks, and cut right to the chase. You seem to be completely ignoring what I said about things that danger or damage and individual committing them, and things that danger or damage others. Things such as littering, burning down your house, speeding, drunk driving, etc endanger or steal from others. THAT is the difference. Maybe next time you can actually read my post before responding to it.
And how is my advocating the death penalty a hypocrisy of 'my entire ideology' (which I have never laid out to you BTW, and you have no way of knowing)? My ideology is that people should be completely free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not hurt OTHERS! When people deliberately do things that endanger or steal from others, I think that they should receive the harshest punishment appropriate for their crime. (and if what you do endangers the lives of others, I think that you should forfeit your own) You cannot commit a crime against yourself - that is just stupidity, not a crime. A crime can only be committed against others, and deserved harsh punishment. Are we going to start fining people for spending too much time on the computer because it is not good for their health now?
You obviously have no idea what my ideology is.

---

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. Hurt is such a subjective word and it is filled with numerous interpretations that the ideology of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is quite meaningless. On top of that, as has been stated elsewhere, injuries resulting in death or serious conditions because of not wearing a seat blt put a financial burden on the health care system, which means more taxpayer money has to go to healthcare to support the costs and less is given somewhere else which directly impacts someone elses life negatively. No man is an island and to treat everyone as such is completely unrealistic.

"Are we going to start fining for blah blah blah?" This is a slippery slope and has already been talked about.

I guess you are right regarding the death penalty, I would need to hear what your exact reasoning for supporting it would be.

As for what your ideology is, I have a pretty good approximation of it: it's an ideology of ideas not thoughts. Hey, why don't I abandon my children and wife. I'm not physically harming them in anyway, why is the government forcing me to spend my life supporting other people? Such socialism.

I vote freedom.

What is really annoying is that insufferable, government-mandated chime modern cars have when they sense that you are not wearing a seatbelt.

Want to drive around on your own property? CHIME. Want to place a 10+lbs bag of groceries on the passenger seat? CHIME. I heard there was a wire you used to be able to cut on some domestics, but these days they are all chipped. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I vote freedom.

What is really annoying is that insufferable, government-mandated chime modern cars have when they sense that you are not wearing a seatbelt.

Want to drive around on your own property? CHIME. Want to place a 10+lbs bag of groceries on the passenger seat? CHIME. I heard there was a wire you used to be able to cut on some domestics, but these days they are all chipped. :no:

---

Then you buy a car that doesn't have one. Sure, your selection might be limited, but thet's costumer power and all that, you know. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The OP said that for the sake of argument, we were going to assume that seat-belts are only a danger to the person not using them. I agree with you that not wearing a seatbelt can be a danger to others (which is why I always insist on having passengers buckle-up if they want to drive in my car), but the debate here is supposed to function on the supposition that they are only a danger to the person not wearing them.

---

There's a slight problem with this argument.

If we say that wars don't hurt people, are wars bad?

Of course there is no need to make a choice between freedom and a seatbelt. Indeed the very idea of having to make such a choice is ridiculous. You are free not to wear a seatbelt if you wish, no matter what the law says. However, in the event of getting pulled over or splatted on the motorway you will have to accept the consequences. As will your family, other roadusers and those that have to scrape you off the tarmac.

Seatbelt or freedom? Pah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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. Hurt is such a subjective word and it is filled with numerous interpretations that the ideology of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is quite meaningless. On top of that, as has been stated elsewhere, injuries resulting in death or serious conditions because of not wearing a seat blt put a financial burden on the health care system, which means more taxpayer money has to go to healthcare to support the costs and less is given somewhere else which directly impacts someone elses life negatively. No man is an island and to treat everyone as such is completely unrealistic.

"Are we going to start fining for blah blah blah?" This is a slippery slope and has already been talked about.

I guess you are right regarding the death penalty, I would need to hear what your exact reasoning for supporting it would be.

As for what your ideology is, I have a pretty good approximation of it: it's an ideology of ideas not thoughts. Hey, why don't I abandon my children and wife. I'm not physically harming them in anyway, why is the government forcing me to spend my life supporting other people? Such socialism.

---

I said harm others, I never specified physical harm.

Simple for those of whom wish for the precious freedom to be a complete idiot and kill yourself come to Australia where the laws regarding seat belts only apply if the car has seatbelts buy a car from the 1950s and enjoy your precious freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I said harm others, I never specified physical harm.

---

Well, dying in a car accident certainly harms other people mentally and fiscally. So why do you support people's right to not wear a seat belt?

I think most of you are missing my point.

Seatbelts are good. They should be used. The benefit is obvious.

But Laws of this nature are infringements on personal liberties.

It is government saying you are too dumb to take care of your self so we have to look out for you. Therefore, everything is now within their preview. Government legislating for the benefit of government and not the benefit of the people.

It is not a matter of seatbelts. It is only the example used.

They are telling you what you may or may not do for the benefit of the government...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I think most of you are missing my point.

Seatbelts are good. They should be used. The benefit is obvious.

But Laws of this nature are infringements on personal liberties.

It is government saying you are too dumb to take care of your self so we have to look out for you. Therefore, everything is now within their preview. Government legislating for the benefit of government and not the benefit of the people.

It is not a matter of seatbelts. It is only the example used.

They are telling you what you may or may not do for the benefit of the government...

---

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.

if we ignore the fact that seat-belts save other passengers life from the crash imparted velocity of your own body then no, we should not force adults of legally sound mind to wear seat-belts.

do you see how many caveats there are here?

seat-belts (at least rear facing ones) do save the lives of front seat passengers.
> not about individual freedom, it's about collective responsibility.
children are not deemed legally responsible to make life-altering decisions independently.
> not about individual freedom, it's about collective responsibility.

given the above, the law should mandate the wearing of seat-belts in cars, otherwise you end up in the stupid position of creating legal wrangles such as specifying that seat-belts may not be worn by front-seat passengers............ but only of they are adults of legally sound mind.
people gifted with common sense realise that laws should be kept simple and to a minimum, otherwise they are circumvented and treated with derision, which goes against the express purpose of drafting a binding law on society.
only fools who believe it is justified to perversely push people against their human nature if it serves a greater social-engineering good believe that ever more complex laws can ever more perfectly recreate the human race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

laws should be kept simple

---

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

Furunculus just won.

Indeed, the law should be kept simple, especially as people having to follow it are simple because they would have the common-sense to do it anyway.

DING DING DING....

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

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

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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:

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

Quote:

---

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"

---

:sweetheart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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. ~;p. 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Posting at halftime :p

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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. ~;p. 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

OP should have made this clear to you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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".

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.

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

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.