• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seat Belt Laws

Your Opinion:

  • One federal seat belt law, but just for children

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    65
There should be a waiver you can sign that exempts you from seat belt laws that says you waive your right any taxpayer assistance whatsoever for you or your family if you are killed or disabled in a crash, starting with the ambulance or hearse.

That seems like a ridiculous thing to do because you do not want to wear a seat belt. You would be better off just paying the tickets every time you get caught!
 
Last edited:
Many have decided that it is the government's business.

Many also think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed or used to think that slavery and segregation was a good thing. Just because the majority may think it is a good thing doesn't mean that it is.

Do have any actual proof that children playing is a bigger hazard to life than people not wearing their seatbelts? Even just the harm to others for some not wearing their seatbelt? Heck, since I know you can't find the numbers, how bout just the ejected person causing other people harm?

Talk to all the kids that can no longer play freeze tag or tag or red rover or any other numerous recess games kids use to play...

The hidden dangers of playing freeze tag

Just because there are no statistics or that there are statistics doesn't mean politicians don't do stupid crap.
 
So you're saying that because there are more kids that run out in the street and cause car accidents than ejected passengers, means that we shouldnt have seat belt laws? That seems counter-productive. Having a single federal law would much more sense, making seat belts one of the most important aspects of everyday driving. If you decide you dont want to wear a seatbelt out of laziness, and you get in an accident and kill everyone else in the car with your flailing arms, that's completely your own fault. Which could have been avoided with a 3 second task.

Sensible and to the point. However there are posters in every forum who just don't believe in sensibility especially when it smacks of common sense so they'll continue to argue in the name of "liberty" thinking that it somehow adds credibility to their argument.

Shaking my head....

Bettina
 
Sensible and to the point. However there are posters in every forum who just don't believe in sensibility especially when it smacks of common sense so they'll continue to argue in the name of "liberty" thinking that it somehow adds credibility to their argument.

Shaking my head....

Bettina

What you don't seem to understand is that we are not argueing against seat belt usage. We are argueing against the government forcing people to use seat belts.
 
What you don't seem to understand is that we are not argueing against seat belt usage. We are argueing against the government forcing people to use seat belts.

Believe me I understand. ;) However, you need to go back and look at the thread where some argued against wearing seatbelts period. So, if there's no law to force these people to wear them then the police can't do a thing except watch these people argue about their liberty.

With that said, if we make it mandatory but leave it up to the the states, as was stated in this thread, there may be different rules in each state where you're legal in one state but not in another.

And with that said, it makes much more sense to have one federal policy like MaddieGreenwell so beautifully put it. I know your signature says you have an answer for everything but they have to be plausible ones.

Bee
 
Believe me I understand. ;) However, you need to go back and look at the thread where some argued against wearing seatbelts period. So, if there's no law to force these people to wear them then the police can't do a thing except watch these people argue about their liberty.

With that said, if we make it mandatory but leave it up to the the states, as was stated in this thread, there may be different rules in each state where you're legal in one state but not in another.

And with that said, it makes much more sense to have one federal policy like MaddieGreenwell so beautifully put it. I know your signature says you have an answer for everything but they have to be plausible ones.

Bee

I am not for giving the federal government power over regulating the rules of the roadways maintained by the states.
 
In a perfect world, we would not need laws protecting people from themselves. They would have enough sense to do that without a mandate.

But it ain't a perfect world.

Do I care is some Loony Bird refuses to wear a seat belt and the fire department has to hose him off the pavement? Not really. I consider that to be Darwinism at it's finest. Remove them from the gene pool. LOL!

If there were no laws mandating seat belts the Loony Birds would make my insurance rates go up. I should not have to pay extra for their stupidity.
 
Last edited:
I am not for giving the federal government power over regulating the rules of the roadways maintained by the states.

Would you, in turn, deny federal contributions to build and maintain said roadways?
 
Would you, in turn, deny federal contributions to build and maintain said roadways?

Yep. But reduce taxes to the federal government and increase them to the states.

The government deciding which states to distribute taxes to for something that the states are supposed to be responsible for maintaining is yet another example of how our federal government uses high taxes to maintain power over areas that it doesn't belong and have the authority.

All under the "commerce clause"
 
Yep. But reduce taxes to the federal government and increase them to the states.

The government deciding which states to distribute taxes to for something that the states are supposed to be responsible for maintaining is yet another example of how our federal government uses high taxes to maintain power over areas that it doesn't belong and have the authority.

All under the "commerce clause"

Yup. That makes pretty good sense.
 
In a perfect world, we would not need laws protecting people from themselves. They would have enough sense to do that without a mandate.

But it ain't a perfect world.

Do I care is some Loony Bird refuses to wear a seat belt and the fire department has to hose him off the pavement? Not really. I consider that to be Darwinism at it's finest. Remove them from the gene pool. LOL!

If there were no laws mandating seat belts the Loony Birds would make my insurance rates go up. I should not have to pay extra for their stupidity.

For that matter, we need to eliminate speed limits on free/highways/interstates/etc.
 
For that matter, we need to eliminate speed limits on free/highways/interstates/etc.

I disagree with that whole heartedly.

Speed Limits are there to ensure that the fatality risk is low. The higher the speed, the greater the risk of fatality should two vehicles become involved in a collision. If you were to remove speed limits on freeways, then the potential for fatal collisions is increased greatly should two vehicles collide. As it is government's job to enact laws of which the purpose is to safeguard motorists from other motorists, the speed limit laws are justified.
 
I disagree with that whole heartedly.

Speed Limits are there to ensure that the fatality risk is low. The higher the speed, the greater the risk of fatality should two vehicles become involved in a collision. If you were to remove speed limits on freeways, then the potential for fatal collisions is increased greatly should two vehicles collide. As it is government's job to enact laws of which the purpose is to safeguard motorists from other motorists, the speed limit laws are justified.

No that's fine, we should instead increase the speed limit to 90.

Speed laws are more about gathering revenue then protecting the public. We drive at the speed we want to drive at. Changing the speed limit only changes how many tickets you get to write, not how many accidents are prevented.

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.
Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed limits

Me personally, on the interstate I regularly push 80-85. My timing feels right-on at that speed. In between, I would say 40-65, it feels off. I'm not sure how to explain it.
 
Last edited:
No that's fine, we should instead increase the speed limit to 90.

Speed laws are more about gathering revenue then protecting the public. We drive at the speed we want to drive at. Changing the speed limit only changes how many tickets you get to write, not how many accidents are prevented.


Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed limits

Me personally, on the interstate I regularly push 80-85. My timing feels right-on at that speed. In between, I would say 40-65, it feels off. I'm not sure how to explain it.

The Natl. Speed Limit Law on the highway was reduced to 55 mph as a result of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. It was drafted in response to oil price spikes and supply disruptions during the 1973 oil crisis. Officials hoped gasoline consumption would fall by 2.2%, actual savings are estimated at between 0.5% and 1%.

Once you've stayed off the Interstate for several years it takes a week of so of driving at the higher speeds again to acclimate. I was white knuckling the steering wheel with both hands the first time I merged into bumper to bumper traffic traveling at 70+ mph, with cars weaving in and out of small spaces between big rigs.
 
The Natl. Speed Limit Law on the highway was reduced to 55 mph as a result of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. It was drafted in response to oil price spikes and supply disruptions during the 1973 oil crisis. Officials hoped gasoline consumption would fall by 2.2%, actual savings are estimated at between 0.5% and 1%.

Once you've stayed off the Interstate for several years it takes a week of so of driving at the higher speeds again to acclimate. I was white knuckling the steering wheel with both hands the first time I merged into bumper to bumper traffic traveling at 70+ mph, with cars weaving in and out of small spaces between big rigs.

During that same time (1974), a study was conducted that showed that fatalities were reduced by a great number nationwide as a result of the crashes occurring at lower speeds.

"a great number" is all I have right now... the data is in my Radar Operator's State Instruction Course manual... but Im not digging that thing up to prove a point on the internets.
 
I disagree with that whole heartedly.

Speed Limits are there to ensure that the fatality risk is low. The higher the speed, the greater the risk of fatality should two vehicles become involved in a collision. If you were to remove speed limits on freeways, then the potential for fatal collisions is increased greatly should two vehicles collide. As it is government's job to enact laws of which the purpose is to safeguard motorists from other motorists, the speed limit laws are justified.

Are speed limited needed though? People naturally form order out of chaos with only a few people not following this natural command. Where is the evidence that the vast majority of people wouldn't organize to have travel speed that are safe?
 
Are speed limited needed though? People naturally form order out of chaos with only a few people not following this natural command. Where is the evidence that the vast majority of people wouldn't organize to have travel speed that are safe?

Yes they are.
Yes there will be those who decide to travel at a reasonable speed.

However, when one can choose whatever speed they so desire to go... you'll have folks going slower, and folks going much faster. Vast differences in speed have a much WORSE effect on traffic safety than if people were traveling at the same, or close to the same, speed.

Those who like to go fast are not exactly known to be tolerant of those who aren't going at their preferred speed. You'd see an increase in following too closely (since people seem to think that will make the car in front of them go faster), rear end collisions caused by those going much faster than others being unable to adjust their speed. You'd see people going at a speed they are incapable of driving, either "because they can" or "because some asshat behind them is "pushing" them to go faster". These factors all create a higher chance of vehicle collisions, and a higher chance that those collisions will result in serious injury, and thus an overall lower level of safety on the roadways.
 
Believe me I understand. ;) However, you need to go back and look at the thread where some argued against wearing seatbelts period. So, if there's no law to force these people to wear them then the police can't do a thing except watch these people argue about their liberty.

I know, I was one of them. But argueing against the effects of seatbelts does not preclude that we deny the usefullness of them either.

With that said, if we make it mandatory but leave it up to the the states, as was stated in this thread, there may be different rules in each state where you're legal in one state but not in another.

If you make it mandatory how could any state not have a law demanding that people wear seatbelts? This is one of those issues where you can't make it have it one way or the other. If you leave it up to the states then it can't be mandatory unless they deem it so. And if a state doesn't make it mandatory then there is no mandatory period. I think you got mixed up in your word usage there. :shrug: don't know, maybe i'm just misunderstanding you.

And with that said, it makes much more sense to have one federal policy like MaddieGreenwell so beautifully put it. I know your signature says you have an answer for everything but they have to be plausible ones.

Bee

It also makes more sense to leave it up to the individual since we are a nation that supposedly enshrines freedoms and values personal choice.

As for my sigline, it doesn't say that my answers are always correct or valid, just says that I always have an answer. ;) Ex: 2+2=5, we know that to be wrong, but the 5 is still an answer. :)
 
I know, I was one of them. But argueing against the effects of seatbelts does not preclude that we deny the usefullness of them either.

Yes it does. When you indicated that you don't wear a seat belt because of your "life experiences" and distrust in expert data, you in effect denied it's usefulness. Then, when it's usefulness was explained to you in later posts, you made another claim that "no one is advocating not wearing a seat belt..." which contradicts what you originally said.

If you make it mandatory how could any state not have a law demanding that people wear seatbelts? This is one of those issues where you can't make it have it one way or the other. If you leave it up to the states then it can't be mandatory unless they deem it so. And if a state doesn't make it mandatory then there is no mandatory period. I think you got mixed up in your word usage there. :shrug: don't know, maybe i'm just misunderstanding you.

I don't think you're misunderstanding me at all. Leaving it to the states to mandate their own seatbelt usage can lead to different rules in each state. One state could say only the front passengers need to be buckled while another state says everyone needs to be buckled so driving from state to state could cause you to break the law. This is why one federal law determining seatbelt usage is all that is needed. Simple....except for conspiracists. ;)

It also makes more sense to leave it up to the individual since we are a nation that supposedly enshrines freedoms and values personal choice.

The hospital storage (morgue) is full of people who thought they knew what was best for them. Not wearing a seatbelt because it's your personal choice is one thing. Claiming it makes sense in the name of freedom is not. In fact, it's worse than not.

As for my sigline, it doesn't say that my answers are always correct or valid, just says that I always have an answer. ;) Ex: 2+2=5, we know that to be wrong, but the 5 is still an answer. :)

In your simple math example we know it to be wrong because it's fairly obvious, but in serious issues where a poster argues to convince people of something that isn't true is simply misleading and doesn't do much for that person's credibility. It makes people take what you say with a lot of salt. Personally, I'll always admit my thinking was flawed rather than try to support a failed argument.

I hope you don't feel I'm coming on too strong, but I've seen the results in blood and I'm a firm believer in safety first.

Bettina
 
Yes it does. When you indicated that you don't wear a seat belt because of your "life experiences" and distrust in expert data, you in effect denied it's usefulness. Then, when it's usefulness was explained to you in later posts, you made another claim that "no one is advocating not wearing a seat belt..." which contradicts what you originally said.

No, it doesn't. I have always achknowledged that seat belts do save lives. Particularly from frontal collisions. They however do not help when you get T-boned and only partially help when getting rear ended. The way seat belts are designed is to stop a person from going forward, they are not designed to do anything else. And 9 times outta 10 a seat belt will get you killed if you crash into a body of water that is deep enough to cover the vehicle that you are in so they are an actual detriment there.

I don't think you're misunderstanding me at all. Leaving it to the states to mandate their own seatbelt usage can lead to different rules in each state. One state could say only the front passengers need to be buckled while another state says everyone needs to be buckled so driving from state to state could cause you to break the law. This is why one federal law determining seatbelt usage is all that is needed. Simple....except for conspiracists. ;)

Actually I did misunderstand you. You clairified it here.

The hospital storage (morgue) is full of people who thought they knew what was best for them. Not wearing a seatbelt because it's your personal choice is one thing. Claiming it makes sense in the name of freedom is not. In fact, it's worse than not.

In 2010 roughly 32,000 people were killed due to automobile accidents. That includes people just standing in the street as the vehicle killed em. That's less than 1% of the US's total population. I wouldn't say that the "morgue" is full of people. Unless you're talking about the hospital that you work at? In which case nothing I can say to that.

In your simple math example we know it to be wrong because it's fairly obvious, but in serious issues where a poster argues to convince people of something that isn't true is simply misleading and doesn't do much for that person's credibility. It makes people take what you say with a lot of salt. Personally, I'll always admit my thinking was flawed rather than try to support a failed argument.

So, can you prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt that seatbelts are not the cause of deaths? Because otherwise my statements are not misleading nor false.

As for taking what I say with a lot of salt...anyone should do that anyways. And not just with me but with anyone and everyone except your closest loved ones. Thats part of the reason that my sig is designed exactly the way that it is and what my example shows. See, everyone has an answer for anything and everything. Even if that answer is simply an "I don't know". If you get asked a question you will always have an answer to that question. It is up to the person that recieves your answer as to what they will do with that answer.

And believe me, I've always admitted when I was wrong. I've done so many times since before I joined DP, while i've been here and will no doubt continue to do so long after DP ends. All that you have to do is actually prove that I am wrong. ;)

I hope you don't feel I'm coming on too strong, but I've seen the results in blood and I'm a firm believer in safety first.

Bettina

You're doing just fine. ;)
 
No that's fine, we should instead increase the speed limit to 90.

Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed limits

Me personally, on the interstate I regularly push 80-85. My timing feels right-on at that speed. In between, I would say 40-65, it feels off. I'm not sure how to explain it.
I’ve also driven long distances at very high speeds, though not any more, I’m retired. An example is across the four corners reservation at 95 on a 55 limit highway. Since you do to, I assume you know to slow down before passing normal speed cars since they are not capable of being safely passed with a 40 to 45 mph closing speed, and you know all the other issues with a 45 mph speed difference. Right?
 
No, it doesn't. I have always achknowledged that seat belts do save lives. Particularly from frontal collisions. They however do not help when you get T-boned and only partially help when getting rear ended. The way seat belts are designed is to stop a person from going forward, they are not designed to do anything else. And 9 times outta 10 a seat belt will get you killed if you crash into a body of water that is deep enough to cover the vehicle that you are in so they are an actual detriment there.
Actually I did misunderstand you. You clairified it here.
In 2010 roughly 32,000 people were killed due to automobile accidents. That includes people just standing in the street as the vehicle killed em. That's less than 1% of the US's total population. I wouldn't say that the "morgue" is full of people. Unless you're talking about the hospital that you work at? In which case nothing I can say to that.

-It was a general figure of speech whose meaning would be clear to most anyone but you seem to jump on the smallest of things while bypassing my main point which was..."Not wearing a seatbelt because it's your personal choice is one thing. Claiming it makes sense in the name of freedom is not."


So, can you prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt that seatbelts are not the cause of deaths? Because otherwise my statements are not misleading nor false.
Again, you're twisting a conversation to focus on the minor. The debate is about government mandated seatbelts that have been empirically proven by experts, to save lives. Mandated, because many refuse or can't be bothered to buckle up. By arguing that you won't wear one because seatbelts cause deaths and then back that up by stating I know of 3 people personally that were hurt or died due to seatbelts and one that if she had been wearing her seatbelt she would have died. I know of no one personally that was saved due to wearing one. has the potential of misleading some people into believing that seatbelts cause more harm than good. They don't and you know that, and it's misleading.

As for taking what I say with a lot of salt...anyone should do that anyways. And not just with me but with anyone and everyone except your closest loved ones. Thats part of the reason that my sig is designed exactly the way that it is and what my example shows. See, everyone has an answer for anything and everything. Even if that answer is simply an "I don't know". If you get asked a question you will always have an answer to that question. It is up to the person that recieves your answer as to what they will do with that answer.

And believe me, I've always admitted when I was wrong. I've done so many times since before I joined DP, while i've been here and will no doubt continue to do so long after DP ends. All that you have to do is actually prove that I am wrong. ;)

If two people died because they were wearing a seatbelt and one trillion people were saved by wearing seatbelts you would be correct that people die wearing seatbelts. If this was the basis of your entire argument then it was a big waste of time for me. Add to that the failure to convince you that you should always wear a seatbelt makes me a failure too but anyway this thread has run it's course and you may have the last word but please buckle up...

Bee
 
I and my passengers have been saved from serious injury several times by wearing my seat belts. The first occurrence was when I was driving my ’55 Austin Healy 100 in 1965. I was very glad I had installed them.
 
Back
Top Bottom