Do you think the seat belt law infringes on your personal liberty

truthteller · Jan 20, 2004

I think so. If I want to wear a seat belt, it should be left to me. I would not be injuring anyone but myself by not wearing it. If they allow the choice to smoke, then they should allow me the choice of wearing a seat belt.

What do you think?

------------------------------

Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly for the White House

FloydGondolli · Jan 20, 2004

Obviously. If the law allows people to ride motorcycles on the roads then requiring seatbelts in cars is idiotic. Cars today have better brakes, better handling, better tires and multiple airbags so I think seatbelts are superfluous.

Phaedrus · Jan 20, 2004

It's a silly law. On the face of it wearing seatbelts is a great idea and everything, but the act of making it a ticketable offence to not wear one just smacks of a revenue-raising scheme. There are of course those who also charge that such laws only serve to impinge on people's privacy, as do roadblocks and other similar traffic enforcement measures. I personally think such things are ancillary perks to the revenue-raising, but either way the bottom line is that seatbelt laws are just foolish and insulting. "You'll be safe or we'll charge you $ 25.00" What's next? Citations for not wearing a rubber?

Phaedrus

lander · Jan 20, 2004

Yes, but if we are going to repeal then I believe there should still remain solid education regarding the matter ...

much like cigarettes, i suppose.

American · Jan 20, 2004

Should be a law. Why wouldn't you want a law that saves lives? If people aren't smart enough to do something on their own that protects them, then legislate it. Remember, driving is a privledge, not a right. There's laws of the road that need to be obeyed for everyone's well being. I think this is one of them. Who said it wasn't "cool" to wear your seatbelt anyways? I had to constantly break my teenage son's balls to get him to wear one.

angusr · Jan 20, 2004

I like New Hampshire's approach. Make it madnatory for minors . . . but once you're an adult it's up to you.....

Brazil4Worldcup2002 · Jan 20, 2004

Sounds reasonable but in countries where insurance is state-owned, premiums would go up by too much.
There is also the question of civil liability. I wouldn't want to be made responsible for injury caused by my negligence if it was partly as a result of the person not wearing a seat belt (although i'm sure the judge would take that into consideration and reduce damages).

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

Yes....but then again if they peel you off the windshield,then the insuranse companies should be able to discount their insurance payment to you..or they should not be liable to pay for your paralyisis if you were not buckled up...When everybodys insuranse goes up because you did not use common sense then your infringing on personal liberty.

American · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Yes....but then again if they peel you off the windshield,then the insuranse companies should be able to discount their insurance payment to you..or they should not be liable to pay for your paralyisis if you were not buckled up...When everybodys insuranse goes up because you did not use common sense then your infringing on personal liberty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put. It's cheaper for everyone, and less strain on emergency medical services and hospitals as well.

Jointpleasure · Jan 20, 2004

Seat belts DO save lives and prevent cuts and fractures. In lower speed collision however your probably better off not wearing a seat belt with a shoulder strap.

Phaedrus · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Should be a law. Why wouldn't you want a law that saves lives? If people aren't smart enough to do something on their own that protects them, then legislate it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we should outlaw smoking, fatty foods, not getting enough aerobic exercise, contact sports, and come to think of it driving as a practice entirely, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Remember, driving is a privledge, not a right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just statist nonsense. The car, road and oil industry do not care one whit if you are a licenced driver. The state would have you need a licence to take a piss if it could get away with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There's laws of the road that need to be obeyed for everyone's well being. I think this is one of them. Who said it wasn't "cool" to wear your seatbelt anyways?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These sentiments are correct, but are unfortunately the cornerstone of the idiotic arguments in favour of seatbelt laws and other traffic-related legislation. How can the state, which is demonstrably incompetent at all but the most modest of tasks, possibly be able to legislate safety? Tens of thousands of people die on the road every year in America, despite the setbelts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, daytime running lamps, high-glare road markers, shoulder lanes, and myriad other dicta handed down by the state for our own protection. The argument is not whether or not it is smart to wear a seatbelt (I personally believe it is foolish to not) but whether or not there is any justification in the state having one more excuse to snatch a few bucks out of your pocket for non-compliance -- and the answer to that is an unequivocal "no."

Phaedrus

truthteller · Jan 20, 2004

Patriot and American,

Well the insurance companies should not be liable if you get cancer from smoking cigarettes, right?

After all, it's common sense that smoking causes cancer.

Oceans11 · Jan 20, 2004

Not quite, theres a whole host of us who have to pay the price for you volutarily not wearing one, and being caught in a real accident.

1.Your family.
2.Your employer
3.Your insurer
4.The health service
5.Social services
6.& the rest of your productive life.

The reason it is encouraged, is because it is such a simple preventative measure, not some Nazi conspiracy.

40,000 yanks get splattered by vehicles each year.( & thats just the dead ones)
No big deal, apparently. Life goes on.

A few thousand get splattered by terrorism each year. Big deal apparently, to the tune of hundreds of billions, and invading foreign countries too.

If you consider that seatbelt crap BIG GOVERNMENT then you really need a frikken life.
In fact you need a great big slap, you girls' blouse.

[This message was edited by eek on January 20, 2004 at 10:57 PM.]

FloydGondolli · Jan 20, 2004

"The reason it is encouraged..."

It should be encouraged but not mandated by law.

Oceans11 · Jan 20, 2004

It needs to be law, to comply with insurance demands.
If you ignore it, fine.
The consequences are yours, and yours ALONE.

Thats the key.

You can't look anywhere for relief, you can't sue anyone, you broke the law, and you're broke, for good.

FloydGondolli · Jan 20, 2004

If we really wanted to do something about safety then why not make 4-point (race car style) seat belts mandatory as well as helmets. That would save lives.

lander · Jan 20, 2004

To be honest, the only reason I oppose it is that I don't like being told what to do.

I'd still wear the damn thing anyways.

Degenerate · Jan 20, 2004

I'd rather see cell-phones banned from use while driving nationwide more then a seatbelt law. If someone is dumb enough to not wear them then that is their fault if they become roadkill.

FloydGondolli · Jan 20, 2004

While I agree many people are a menace while driving and talking on their cell phone, the problem is, why single out cell phones? If you ban cell phones while driving you have to also ban smoking while driving, drinking while driving, eating while driving, brushing your hair while driving, playing with the radio while driving etc., etc., etc.

All those things take your attention off the road the way a cell phone does, some even more so.

chonce · Jan 20, 2004

Yes your family can be hurt, but red meat can hurt your family, hurtful words can hurt you loved ones, etc...

I think this is a victimless crime, and therefore shouldnt be a crime, much like gambling, drugs etc...

It shouldnt be illegal to engage in self destructive behavior, if it is a choice you make.

Freedom...wouldnt it be sweet.