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

Padawanbater2 · Aug 29, 2015

NoDrama said:
You think the people that murder other people somehow don't know it's wrong to do so?

I think some people that murder other people somehow don't know it's wrong to do so, yes;

NoDrama said:
This has nothing to do with wrong or right. Laws don't make things wrong or immoral, they just make things illegal.

It has to do with whether or not you believe the government should be allowed the authority of criminalizing certain aspects of society, and upon which basis you reach that conclusion. The classic utilitarian says we should pursue the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people but this view diminishes the individual's perspective and fails to account for all aggregate costs/benefits to reach a logically valid conclusion

Padawanbater2 · Aug 29, 2015

"States with secondary enforcement average only 63 percent belt use. But states with primary (standard) enforcement belt laws average 78 percent belt use.

Most everyone would agree that protecting lives with seat belts is at least as important as a broken tail light or littering. Yet, while virtually every state has standard laws that allow enforcement officers to stop and ticket a violator for having a broken tail light or for tossing trash out the window, most states currently do not have standard laws for seat belt use.

Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually.

We all pay for those who do not wear seat belts. The higher health care and insurance costs that result from unbelted drivers and passengers involved in crashes get passed along to everyone. For example, the costs of hospital care for an unbelted driver are 50 percent higher than those for a driver who was wearing a safety belt. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved.

Some people see the choice to wear seat belts as a matter of “personal freedom.” But in our society, personal freedoms stop where others are injured or killed. This is especially true when it comes to children’s safety as passengers in a motor vehicle. A child unrestrained in a 30-mile-per-hour crash is like a child dropped from a third story window. Yet adults who do not buckle up are sending a message to our children it is all right not to use seat belts. Research shows that when a driver is unbuckled, 70 percent of the time children in that vehicle will not be buckled either.

When asked whether they support primary enforcement laws – laws that give law enforcement the authority to stop and ticket an unbuckled occupant, just as they do other routine violations of the law like littering or driving with a broken tail light – the public overwhelming supports primary seat belt laws, 61 to 35 percent. (Source: Public Opinion Strategies, July 1997)

When the public learns that a majority of the time when the driver is unbuckled, passengers in that vehicle – including children – are unbuckled, 70 percent support the statement that “It should be completely unacceptable for anyone to ride unbuckled in America.” (Source: Public Opinion Strategies, July 1997)"

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtml

NoDrama · Aug 29, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
It has to do with whether or not you believe the government should be allowed the authority of criminalizing certain aspects of society,

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.
Not wearing your seat belt does not harm anyone or anything, therefore it is not a crime. Also, for something to be classified as a crime, there must be intention on the individual to commit said crime. Failure to wear your helmet on your motor bike is also not a crime. There are thousands of laws that govern behavior that have no criminal element as a basis for their existence. You don't really think driving with a broken headlight is a crime just because there is a regulation that says your headlights have to work do you?

NoDrama · Aug 29, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved.

Why do you hate public health care so much?

Padawanbater2 · Aug 29, 2015

NoDrama said:
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.
Not wearing your seat belt does not harm anyone or anything, therefore it is not a crime. Also, for something to be classified as a crime, there must be intention on the individual to commit said crime. Failure to wear your helmet on your motor bike is also not a crime. There are thousands of laws that govern behavior that have no criminal element as a basis for their existence. You don't really think driving with a broken headlight is a crime just because there is a regulation that says your headlights have to work do you?

That is demonstrably false;

"Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually."

If you hold a libertarian viewpoint, that $8.8 billion counts as "harm", (I don't, so I don't consider that "harm", nice try though)

Those 5,536 fatalities and 132,670 injuries counts as lost productivity

And if the goal is to ensure the most good for the most people, how can you possibly effectively argue against an enforced seat belt law? What about the emotional grief of unbuckled auto accident victims? How do you measure that in a purely utilitarian model?

NoDrama · Aug 29, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
That is demonstrably false;

Having an unintended deceleration event is what caused you harm, it certainly wasn't the seat belt. Your argument that not using a seat belt actually harms someone is easily proved false by sitting in your driveway with no seat belt on. See if you get hurt. Repeat experiment as many times as you like. Real science right in your driveway.

NoDrama · Aug 29, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Those 5,536 fatalities and 132,670 injuries counts as lost productivity

I suppose that would be true if I held the same viewpoint as you did on the value of a person being what production they created for the state. Newsflash for ya. Millions of people out there that do nothing but consume.

Fogdog · Aug 29, 2015

NoDrama said:
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.
Not wearing your seat belt does not harm anyone or anything, therefore it is not a crime. Also, for something to be classified as a crime, there must be intention on the individual to commit said crime. Failure to wear your helmet on your motor bike is also not a crime. There are thousands of laws that govern behavior that have no criminal element as a basis for their existence. You don't really think driving with a broken headlight is a crime just because there is a regulation that says your headlights have to work do you?

what a load of shit you just brought in.

There are plenty of laws that enforce safety and everybody pays for them when they purchase the product. You aren't given the choice whether or not to purchase a UL certified electrical product. These laws were enacted to protect the public also they were enacted because fighting fires caused by unsafe electrical wiring was much more expensive than forcing companies to produce products that meet code. Most people are unaware of the additional expense because they don't have the choice of purchasing an unsafe electrical appliance. Oh, and driving with a broken headlamp is a violation. Usually you get a fix it ticket but you must fix it within a given time frame.

So, what's your point? You say there is not harm in not buckling up? Not wearing a seat belt doesn't harm the public until you get into an accident and you end up in the hospital in a coma. The bills mount. Very few can afford that kind of care for long on their own so in most cases somebody else pays. Seat belt laws were enacted to protect the public, not the dummy that doesn't want to buckle up.

Bullshit on your idea of personal freedom. Personal freedom goes only as far as a person's ability to pay. After that society pays. Buckle up. If not for your loved ones then because you will get a ticket.

NoDrama · Aug 29, 2015

Fogdog said:
what a load of shit you just brought in.

There are plenty of laws that enforce safety and everybody pays for them when they purchase the product. You aren't given the choice whether or not to purchase a UL certified electrical product. These laws were enacted to protect the public also they were enacted because fighting fires caused by unsafe electrical wiring was much more expensive than forcing companies to produce products that meet code. Most people are unaware of the additional expense because they don't have the choice of purchasing an unsafe electrical appliance. Oh, and driving with a broken headlamp is a violation. Usually you get a fix it ticket but you must fix it within a given time frame.

So, what's your point? You say there is not harm in not buckling up? Not wearing a seat belt doesn't harm the public until you get into an accident and you end up in the hospital in a coma. The bills mount. Very few can afford that kind of care for long on their own so in most cases somebody else pays. Seat belt laws were enacted to protect the public, not the dummy that doesn't want to buckle up.

Bullshit on your idea of personal freedom. Personal freedom goes only as far as a person's ability to pay. After that society pays. Buckle up. If not for you loved ones then because you will get a ticket.

That's a lot of sentences to tell me you agree with me. Without the element of the accident, not wearing a seat belt cannot harm you, therefore it is the fault of the accident that you were harmed, not the seat belts fault as others are trying to claim.

I don't know what you mean by personal freedom, my behavior is to wear my seat belt at all times, you apparently are somewhat confused by my posts.

Oh and BTW, you absolutely have the choice on whether or not you want to buy a UL listed electrical device. You should actually go look it up instead of throwing the weight of your ignorance around like you just did.

UL is Undwerwriters Laboratories, A private company that certifies consumer products. In no way shape or form is there a law anywhere that says devices have to pass UL standards to be sold in the country. I hope you don't actually believe what you just said.

Padawanbater2 · Aug 29, 2015

NoDrama said:
Having an unintended deceleration event is what caused you harm, it certainly wasn't the seat belt. Your argument that not using a seat belt actually harms someone is easily proved false by sitting in your driveway with no seat belt on. See if you get hurt. Repeat experiment as many times as you like. Real science right in your driveway.

That's such a weak argument I'm not even going to address it

5,500 deaths and 130K injuries, but sit in your driveway and you won't get hurt!...

NoDrama said:
I suppose that would be true if I held the same viewpoint as you did on the value of a person being what production they created for the state. Newsflash for ya. Millions of people out there that do nothing but consume.

Like I said, "If you have a libertarian viewpoint, which I don't"...

Padawanbater2 · Aug 30, 2015

NoDrama said:
That's a lot of sentences to tell me you agree with me. Without the element of the accident, not wearing a seat belt cannot harm you, therefore it is the fault of the accident that you were harmed, not the seat belts fault as others are trying to claim.

"What is the impact of seat belt use?

Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half."

"Non-fatal crash injuries resulted in more than $50 billion in lifetime medical and work loss costs in 2012."

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html

NoDrama · Aug 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
That's such a weak argument I'm not even going to address it

Yeah, you might want to try and marginalize that as much as you can, cuz its gonna be really hard to defend your position that not wearing your seat belts harms the general public in the absence of some kind of accident isn't it? Without that other event, not wearing your seat belt won't hurt anyone. Ever.

When are you going to write your congressperson demanding government monitor all lifestyle choices for every person on the planet. you know, to make sure that no one ever gets sick, hurt or dies.

NoDrama · Aug 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
crash-related injuries and deaths l

Again, you are agreeing that the element of the crash must exist for the seat belt to have any positive effect at all, yet you still argue that not using it has a negative effect even without the crash element.

Not eating healthy and not exercising kills far far far more people than getting in a car accident. Where are all the laws criminalizing eating fast food, processed food, non organic food, .....????

WHERE ARE THEY??

Padawanbater2 · Aug 30, 2015

NoDrama said:
Where are all the laws criminalizing eating fast food, processed food, non organic food, .....????

Indeed;

Padawanbater2 said:
Does that apply to things like fast food too? Kids don't know the dangers, adults do, so do you believe fast food shouldn't legally be allowed to feed to kids?

NoDrama said:
Yeah, you might want to try and marginalize that as much as you can, cuz its gonna be really hard to defend your position that not wearing your seat belts harms the general public in the absence of some kind of accident isn't it? Without that other event, not wearing your seat belt won't hurt anyone. Ever.

This is a poor argument. Wearing your seatbelt will save you 50% of the time. That means it'll save taxpayers who enjoy no pleasure from you not wearing your seatbelt, money 50% of the time, depending on your decision that only affects you.

The idea that it won't save you any money unless an accident takes place is the entire point of having the law in the first place. It's there to save people money and to save lives.

NoDrama said:
When are you going to write your congressperson demanding government monitor all lifestyle choices for every person on the planet. you know, to make sure that no one ever gets sick, hurt or dies.

What's wrong with asking people their opinions about moral and legal authority? I'm simply asking people their opinions about the extent in which they believe government control should exceed.

Fogdog · Aug 30, 2015

NoDrama said:
That's a lot of sentences to tell me you agree with me. Without the element of the accident, not wearing a seat belt cannot harm you, therefore it is the fault of the accident that you were harmed, not the seat belts fault as others are trying to claim.

I don't know what you mean by personal freedom, my behavior is to wear my seat belt at all times, you apparently are somewhat confused by my posts.

Oh and BTW, you absolutely have the choice on whether or not you want to buy a UL listed electrical device. You should actually go look it up instead of throwing the weight of your ignorance around like you just did.

UL is Undwerwriters Laboratories, A private company that certifies consumer products. In no way shape or form is there a law anywhere that says devices have to pass UL standards to be sold in the country. I hope you don't actually believe what you just said.

So you are saying electrical products don't need to meet any code? Don't mince around with UL or whatever, that's just lawyering up. My point stands and no we don't agree. The harm starts when an accident occurs. Which is why seat belts are required. Its too late once somebody gets hurt. Same goes for product safety regulations. Small price up front to protect from the few extreme events.

good on you that you buckle up. Why are you against seat belt laws or am I misreading you there too?

Rob Roy · Aug 30, 2015

If saving lives were important to the Nanny State, they wouldn't euphemize (sic) terms like "collateral damage".

If I have no right to impose my will on others (and I don't) how does a group of murderous thugs that call themselves your leader acquire this right?

Red1966 · Aug 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
People don't go to jail for not wearing their seatbelt. Good point, but poor example

I'd cite the crack cocaine designation as a prime example to make that point. Same exact chemical substance, just put together differently, the law states crack is more deadly/dangerous, therefore should be more harshly penalized. Cocaine is more expensive, so it's more prevalent in upper class (see: white) neighborhoods, crack is cheaper and easier to produce, so it's easier to find in ghetto's (see: predominantly black neighborhoods).. See my quote from Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for more info

I thought crack was made from regular cocaine. If so, how could it be cheaper to make?

Red1966 · Aug 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
That is demonstrably false;

"Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually."

If you hold a libertarian viewpoint, that $8.8 billion counts as "harm", (I don't, so I don't consider that "harm", nice try though)

Those 5,536 fatalities and 132,670 injuries counts as lost productivity

And if the goal is to ensure the most good for the most people, how can you possibly effectively argue against an enforced seat belt law? What about the emotional grief of unbuckled auto accident victims? How do you measure that in a purely utilitarian model?

Sorry, but all you have demonstrated is accidents cause harm. The use or lack of use of seat belts itself doesn't cause the harm. This is why it's a civil, not a criminal violation.

Grandpapy · Aug 30, 2015

They gave you a ticket too?
I backed out of my parking spot at the mall, excited about the items that i just bought. Moving the selector into drive and placing my body restraint in its home all in one fluid motion, yielding the pavement to other cars trying to make their way out of the parking lot.
4 Blocks away,( a full 10 min. later) I get pulled over, the officer says I'm pulling you over for operating a motor vehicle without a seat belt.
I didn't know what to say, other then in my shiftiest voice "I smoked a joint in High School.....do I get a ticket for that too."

Time and reason for all things. Assholes make it unpopular.

ttystikk · Aug 30, 2015

Grandpapy said:
They gave you a ticket too?
I backed out of my parking spot at the mall, excited about the items that i just bought. Moving the selector into drive and placing my body restraint in its home all in one fluid motion, yielding the pavement to other cars trying to make their way out of the parking lot.
4 Blocks away,( a full 10 min. later) I get pulled over, the officer says I'm pulling you over for operating a motor vehicle without a seat belt.
I didn't know what to say, other then in my shiftiest voice "I smoked a joint in High School.....do I get a ticket for that too."

Time and reason for all things. Assholes make it unpopular.

That's one ticket I'd challenge. In court. In front of the same judge that moron needs to bring more important cases to. Tell the assistant DA at your appointment time that you'll fight it all the way, so this one is probably best left alone. It's worked for me, it's even got me out of traffic camera tickets. :hump:

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

Do you believe the gov. should have the legal authority to enact and enforce seatbelt laws?

Yes, I believe the gov. should have the legal authority to enact and enforce seat belt laws

No, I do not believe the gov. should have the legal authority to enact and enforce seat belt laws

Other

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member