Seat Belt Laws

one thing i will say as to the defense of seatbelt laws is that if you crash into someone and it is somehow your fault. if that person DIED, you go to jail. so i would perfer the dumb fuck live =]. i agree for the most part with you though.

Actually, I was under the impression that in some (maybe most) cases, failure to be wearing a seat belt can remove some accountability from the person at fault for the accident.

So long as medical care is subsidized in all the ways it is there will be a social cost to endangering yourself. I completely agree with the sentiment, but I can understand the law. Still, a lot of people don't seem to grasp that a good idea doesn't necessarily make a good law. If you ask me, the government should only be concernced with public goods (defense, education, etc) and enforcing contracts. But I live in Boston where you can't put a potted plant outside your window without three police detectives stopping traffic for you so FML.

but you can have a pot plant in boston now, can't you!

i dont have any problem with these kind of laws. they are totally logic and im absolutely positive in government retstrictions as long as it's for a good benefit. but i guess that's totally dependent on what philosophy you have. liberty of freedom, letting it loose, is probably what could cause detrimental consequences, not the opposite way around.

and no im not against all this freedom stuff, but i also think in order for a country to work it has to be limited in some ways (obviously a balance).

can give you an example of why too much freedom has it's negative effects. in swedish schools for example the climate is getting tougher and tougher and it's all because of the freedom kids nowadays have. they see rights and no obligations. a teacher can't tell them to shut the fuck up because they don't think she has the right to tell them so. it has completely lost it's authoritative state which is directly a result of too much freedom and too much liberty of rights.

"Even still, if you think it's reasonable for the government to force you to wear a seat belt, by definition, you must also think it is reasonable for the government to ration food so that people will not become obese, right?"

yes.

On February 22 2009 10:53 nolan wrote: but you can have a pot plant in boston now, can't you!

lol true

On February 22 2009 11:07 SpasticInk wrote: "Even still, if you think it's reasonable for the government to force you to wear a seat belt, by definition, you must also think it is reasonable for the government to ration food so that people will not become obese, right?" yes.

lolwat

Go to court.
Get Alan Shore.

On February 22 2009 11:15 ReDDcaFFe wrote: Go to court. Get Alan Shore.

Hahahaha yes! I love Boston Legal! I'm so sad it's over now. I completely agree with you Nolan in terms of your sentiment about drug law. Drug law is absolutely fucking ridiculous and really should get the most disgusting overhaul considering all the problems it causes. In fact I had an entire 3rd year Criminology class based on drug policy taught by a guy who's been a Lawyer for 20 years and an activist who is very against the current drug law policies around the world. Was really interesting even if it was just the same argument every week.

That being said the seat-belt law reasoning likely revolves around the costs of treatment for those who get injured because they were not wearing a seat-belt and also the loss of productivity when someone dies because they were not wearing it not to mention the ripple effect it will have on those connected to them and perhaps even dependent upon them financially. The problem is as you say the snowball effect of such legislation. Where do we decide what is okay for the government to draw a line on and what is not. For instance should laws be made to eliminate obesity or perhaps garbage production or smoking etc. All things that end up costing the public a lot of money and plenty of Grey-Areas.

However I don't think it makes much sense at all to have an absolute resistance to all forms of policy that encourage on civil liberties. I think each policy should be looked at as a case by case basis in a free and democratic society and the population should be allowed to decide whether they support it or not. If the vast majority of the population agrees to the policy and thinks it a good idea then you end up in a situation of greatest good for the greatest number. Not that this last statement hasn't been used to do some terrible things. Ironically this stuff is kind of related to the Crimes of The Powerful fourth year class I'm taking right now and writing an essay for.

/End erratic rant/commentary

they make a seatbelt law mostly because of the stupid people that drive while are drunk.

no rules = no punishment = more stupid people killing themselves and other people.

stupid people killing themselves = good for humanity

I agree wholeheartedly , let stupid people die. No more helmet/seat belt laws and fines , gambling with your life should be a right for everyone.
If there were no such rules people might actually start thinking more about what's best for themselves, instead of imagining a state running around with a safety net trying to help those who don't think. Or perhaps the stupid ppl would all eventually all die and there would be no more need for such laws.

On February 22 2009 11:53 bongky wrote: they make a seatbelt law mostly because of the stupid people that drive while are drunk. no rules = no punishment = more stupid people killing themselves and other people.

seat belts and helmets have nothing to do with endangering someone else

The guy not wearing a seatbelt endangers everyone else in the car, not wearing a seatbelt can hurt others.

stop bitching like a girl. in uk we have mandatory seat belts and funnily enough these kinds of laws actually get people to take notice of these things and do them (like not having your dog shit everywhere which is a common courtesy but no one bothered with before it became illegal and now is socially unacceptable). it saves lives so its a good thing

go to some country (like iran) where they have a traffic system but no traffic laws and people drive like shit- down the wrong side of the road, dont abide by lanes, turn into incoming traffic, dont obey lights, never stop for pedestrians (just slow down/swerve around you)... traffic accidents are humongous but then again drivers deserve their liberties

On February 22 2009 12:29 Orome wrote: The guy not wearing a seatbelt endangers everyone else in the car, not wearing a seatbelt can hurt others.

This post wins

In Virginia it's a law and they can pull u over for not wearing a seatbelt. I don't see anyone who doesn't like it. Hell, I feel unsafe riding with someone in a car when they're not wearing their seatbelt.

seat belt laws, air bags, and crumple frames increase how often drivers crash. if you're driving around in a bubble that prevents you from dying, you're a lot less likely to care about getting in a crash. the answer to driver safety problems is to attach a bayonet to the steering column and angle the bayonet toward the driver's chest.

the other problem with these safety measures is that without serious, life-threatening injuries to drivers and passengers, there's a lot less opportunity to harvest the organs of "cadaveric" donors (still living but non-functioning, in this case). safe cars limit how often stupid people's organs can be transplanted into smart people. on this forum there should be a huge push for a return to the days of good old american rolling iron.

Doomer brings up a valid point, also if you fly through the windshield you could potential hit someone however unlikely it may be. Agree with you for the most part though.