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

[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. :)

[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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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.

[Yoyoma1910]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Husar]

(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?

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.

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.

[Vuk]

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

[Captain Blackadder]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

[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.

[Ironside]

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.

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.

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?

[Slyspy]

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.