Do you believe the gov. should have the right to impose seat belt laws?

Yes. We're stupid. We must be governed. I wanna sue someone and get filthy rich.

We banned X-large sodas.
We banned Super-Sized fries.
We banned a flag.
We imposed helmet laws.
Seat belt laws fit right in with all that.

I don't think we are as "free" as we should be. I want to go live with Robroy.

For safety and financial ramifications I understand why they do it but I think it's nonsense.
If the risk of one person not buckling up is such a problem than what's the difference with the 40 people unbuckled on the bus. Or 25 kids on a school bus? They don't have to buckle up.

The ultimate irony would be getting a seatbelt ticket from a cop on a motorcycle.

sheskunk said:

We imposed helmet laws.

Click to expand...

Using a cost/benefit analysis, if it costs more to clean you up off the road after an accident without a helmet than it would benefit the society and taxpayers for you to wear one, how would letting people ride motorcycles without helmets and possibly be subject to the taxpayers expense be morally justifiable? You want to ride without a helmet because it makes you, personally, happy. But if you crash and die and have to be scooped up off the road, that's coming out of my pocket, so using a libertarian viewpoint that the government should be involved as least as possible, how do you reconcile those seemingly opposing viewpoints?

torontoke said:

For safety and financial ramifications I understand why they do it but I think it's nonsense.
If the risk of one person not buckling up is such a problem than what's the difference with the 40 people unbuckled on the bus. Or 25 kids on a school bus? They don't have to buckle up.

The ultimate irony would be getting a seatbelt ticket from a cop on a motorcycle.

Click to expand...

Well, people traveling in a bus are less likely to be involved in a traffic collision statistically, but what would your argument be if people were required to wear seat belts on bus' too?

My point is the same thinking should apply to all travel. A person travelling on a road all face the same statistics. Regardless of mode of transport. Buses are in a lot more accidents than are reported.

Padawanbater2 said:

Using a cost/benefit analysis, if it costs more to clean you up off the road after an accident without a helmet than it would benefit the society and taxpayers for you to wear one, how would letting people ride motorcycles without helmets and possibly be subject to the taxpayers expense be morally justifiable? You want to ride without a helmet because it makes you, personally, happy. But if you crash and die and have to be scooped up off the road, that's coming out of my pocket, so using a libertarian viewpoint that the government should be involved as least as possible, how do you reconcile those seemingly opposing viewpoints?

Well, people traveling in a bus are less likely to be involved in a traffic collision statistically, but what would your argument be if people were required to wear seat belts on bus' too?

Click to expand...

Well. To that I say, to save money just use a bucket truck. Seems like the procedure is what costs so much. Not the fate.

torontoke said:

For safety and financial ramifications I understand why they do it but I think it's nonsense.
If the risk of one person not buckling up is such a problem than what's the difference with the 40 people unbuckled on the bus. Or 25 kids on a school bus? They don't have to buckle up.

The ultimate irony would be getting a seatbelt ticket from a cop on a motorcycle.

Click to expand...

I got a speeding ticket from a cop on a motorcycle, he caught right up to me....I was wearing my belt because I was driving.

Live dangerous. No seat belts. No helmets. No coat in the coldest winter. No penicillin. Just let it all hang out. Honestly? I don't care how you do it. It's all means to an end. Just be yourself. Have fun. You're such a bad ass mofo.

Padawanbater2 said:

Do you believe the gov. should have the legal authority to enact and enforce seatbelt laws against American citizens by threat of fine? Why/why not?

Click to expand...

should perhaps extend this seat belt law to alcohol and tobacco which cause more deaths than folks not wearing seat belts
which is a bigger burden on the tax payer

people should also be banned from climbing mountains its completely unnecessary, they have all been climbed before
if people want to climb mountains they should pay for their own rescue services if they fall off, that is if they don't die

We should just go Matrix for real. Induce people into a coma and pump nutrients and oxygen into their body. Encapsulated in a comfortable cocoon. Feed dreams of happiness directly into their mind throughout their span. Keep them safe. They will be safe and never know the difference. It's best for us.

Padawanbater2 said:

Using a cost/benefit analysis, if it costs more to clean you up off the road after an accident without a helmet than it would benefit the society and taxpayers for you to wear one, how would letting people ride motorcycles without helmets and possibly be subject to the taxpayers expense be morally justifiable? You want to ride without a helmet because it makes you, personally, happy. But if you crash and die and have to be scooped up off the road, that's coming out of my pocket, so using a libertarian viewpoint that the government should be involved as least as possible, how do you reconcile those seemingly opposing viewpoints?

Well, people traveling in a bus are less likely to be involved in a traffic collision statistically, but what would your argument be if people were required to wear seat belts on bus' too?

Click to expand...

So my guts, lungs, elbows, knees and other miscellaneous chunks of flesh and blood don't need to be cleaned up? Just my brains? Is this really your argument?

I don't want to post graphic pictures so I'll let you go ahead and google "motorcycle wrecks while wearing a helmet".

Helmets do not prevent accidents. They only protect the individual. The individual should be "allowed" freewill. That is the most "morally correct" thing to do.

skunkd0c said:

should perhaps extend this seat belt law to alcohol and tobacco which cause more deaths than folks not wearing seat belts
which is a bigger burden on the tax payer

people should also be banned from climbing mountains its completely unnecessary, they have all been climbed before
if people want to climb mountains they should pay for their own rescue services if they fall off, that is if they don't die

Click to expand...

Why are cigarettes still legal?

sheskunk said:

Why are cigarettes still legal?

Click to expand...

Because everyone makes money. From the farmers to the doctors struggling to pay off school loans. Imagine if you had a good paying job at a tobacco company. Would you feel guilty?

In the end, it's all about the money.

sheskunk said:

We banned X-large sodas.
We banned Super-Sized fries.
We banned a flag.

Click to expand...

no no and no, actually.

skunkd0c said:

should perhaps extend this seat belt law to alcohol and tobacco which cause more deaths than folks not wearing seat belts
which is a bigger burden on the tax payer

people should also be banned from climbing mountains its completely unnecessary, they have all been climbed before
if people want to climb mountains they should pay for their own rescue services if they fall off, that is if they don't die

Click to expand...

"sovereign" citizens like you are also against pedophilia laws.

UncleBuck said:

no no and no, actually.

Click to expand...

Who needs super size? Just get 2 large fries and be done with it. McDs fries are awesome.

GrowUrOwnDank said:

Because everyone makes money. From the farmers to the doctors struggling to pay off school loans. Imagine if you had a good paying job at a tobacco company. Would you feel guilty?

Click to expand...

Yes I would. If I had to make a living by participating in the predatory tobacco industry, I would feel very guilty.

There's a good point for seat belt laws that hasn't been mentioned here yet. It's this: by not wearing your seat belt, you can indirectly contribute to the death of another person. Because Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is a finite service.

Imagine this scenario:

1. I get in my truck for a drive.

2. I don't put on my seat belt.

3. I get into a moderate crash. If I had been wearing my seat belt, I wouldn't have been hurt. But because I wasn't wearing my seat belt, I was injured enough to require EMS.

4. About the time that EMS starts driving to my crash site, a woman across town has a heart attack. And for some reason, EMS is over-taxed at that particular time, and no EMS can break away to help the woman in time to save her life.

So, my irresponsibility in not following a reasonable seat belt law has indirectly contributed to the death of another person.