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

[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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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.

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

Forcing

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[lars573]

I say yes.

[Xiahou]

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?

[Fragony]

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.

[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.

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.

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[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.

[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.

[Fragony]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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...

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?

[Ronin]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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: 

[Slyspy]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[HoreTore]

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


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

[Ronin]

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".

[Ronin]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[al Roumi]

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.