• 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
How in the hell did I straw it up and it wasn't my comparison. Read the damn thread for once. This is the second stupid mistake you made here.

What?

JHC!! Even I don't know what I was talking about here. It's only two days into the New Year, and I've lost my mind. My apologies. WTF?? Maggie said to herself.
 
I still don't see how you can enforce seat belts in cars and allow motorcycles on the road. It's an oxymoron.

That's a great point. I don't have any figures to back it up, but instinct and common sense tells me that motorcycles users are far more at risk for serious injury or death than people in cars with or without seatbelts. If its all about creating a safer world and reducing shared costs, motorcycles are clearly an unnecessary risk. Why do we allow them?
 
Back to that cost-benefit thingie.

The cost would be very minimal. Banning motorcycles would cost very little in terms of enforcement. Jobs lost by motorcycle manufacturing and sales would be moved over into the car industry. The benefits would be increased safety and fewer severe injuries driving up the costs of healthcare. Seems to me, if youhave the mindset that the government's job is to make the world as safe as possible, banning motorcycles is an easy no-brainer. They have got to be far more dangerous than just not wearing a seatbelt.
 
That's part of the reason, but that's not the whole justification.

Please tell me the rest of the justification for taking away the ability of reasonable adults to make their own desicions regarding their own safety.

We tried that, we all know what happened.

Yeah, we learned that laws don't change behavior. When the government overreaches, people tend to ignore or disregard the law.

A better analogy for the seat belt argument would be if we got rid of drunk driving laws.

Not at all. Drunk drivers represent a clear and present danger to OTHERS. Not wearing my seatbelt is only a threat to my personage.

Edit: at the end of the day, seat belt laws are more about safety than anything else. That's how I see it.

That and revenue. Here where I live in Illinois (admittedly perhaps the worst run and perhaps most corrupt state in the union) we've had seatbelt laws for years, but you couldn't be pulled over only for not wearing a seatbelt. If you pulled over for some other violation and didn't have your seatbelt you could be ticketed, but just not wearing the belt wasn't sufficient reason to pull you over. Suddenly when the state began to run short on money, they changed that law. Coincidence? If you think so, I got some nice beach front property in Arizona to sell you.
 
Laws can't fix stupidity, just having a law doesn't guarantee seat belt usage.

Exactly. I know a neighbor who refuses to wear a seatbelt and he once told me that when he sees a policeman he pulls it across himself until he passes then lets it retract back. He finds them uncomfortable. His mentality is not unlike some of the comments in this forum. :shock:

Bee
 
The cost would be very minimal. Banning motorcycles would cost very little in terms of enforcement.

For the second time - the cost you consider is to the individual, not the government, and it's not just in monetary terms. Banning motorcycles would be very very costly to motorcyclists.
 
For the second time - the cost you consider is to the individual, not the government, and it's not just in monetary terms. Banning motorcycles would be very very costly to motorcyclists.

Then phase them out. Ban their production and sale. Eventually the old bikes will be replaced and their owners will have no alternative but nice safe cars or I believe "cages" as bike enthusasists call them.
 
That's retarded. I pay taxes, I can gain access to any of that even if I don't wear a seatbelt. It's not the government's job to protect me from me. I don't wear a helmet when on my motorcycle for instance. I hate my helmet, it sucks ass. If I wreck and die, I paid taxes and they can hose my body off the road. but it ain't the government's place to say I can't. There should be no seat belt laws.

With this reasoning we may as well allow people to drink and drive. After all the right to hurting yourself trumps how you may hurt others, right?
 
With this reasoning we may as well allow people to drink and drive. After all the right to hurting yourself trumps how you may hurt others, right?

Nope. That is another retarded argument. I may not endanger others in some means which significantly increases dangers to them, such as DUI would make. Me wearing seat belt or a helmet, however, does NOT affect the welfare of others.
 
I'm not for banning motorcycles just the law that requires adults to use seat belts. I don't even say eliminate seat belts but make them optional. You can still make them mandatory for children. It's not consistent to allow a form of transportation as dangerous as two wheelers though force restraints on the operator of a much safer vehicle. Preach and teach about them all they want but stop removing freedoms.
 
Exactly. I know a neighbor who refuses to wear a seatbelt and he once told me that when he sees a policeman he pulls it across himself until he passes then lets it retract back. He finds them uncomfortable. His mentality is not unlike some of the comments in this forum. :shock:

Bee
Those people are just ignorant of the facts about restraints and other safety devices.
 
If daddy/mommy government truly wants to save us from ourselves then they need to go farther.
Why stop at seat belt statues? Let’s get federal/state governments involved in everything that can cause unsafe driving and can cause accidents.
I want statues against listening to the radio.
I want statues against talking while driving.
I was statues against eating/drinking while driving.
I want moderating devices installed to watch everyone in the car to make sure they are following the new statues.
We need more government involved!
 
I am one of the "something else" category....Yes! "seat belts save lives", but, then so do well engineered highways and a comprehensive driver training program and quality motor-vehicles...
IMO, its best that the states handle this; but some seem to be unable/unwilling....maybe they should lose their statehood status.....
Here in PA, as I recall, the police will not do a pull over unless they suspect another infraction....then it could be a double or triple whammie..
I definitely do not believe that any driver should be forced to wear the belt !!!
The most important thing is good thorough driver training. The highways(many states are poor) will have to wait; the belts are but a band-aid.
 
The cost would be very minimal. Banning motorcycles would cost very little in terms of enforcement. Jobs lost by motorcycle manufacturing and sales would be moved over into the car industry. The benefits would be increased safety and fewer severe injuries driving up the costs of healthcare. Seems to me, if you have the mindset that the government's job is to make the world as safe as possible, banning motorcycles is an easy no-brainer. They have got to be far more dangerous than just not wearing a seatbelt.
You can't be serious.
What we do need is far more emphasis on respect and courtesy and less on "safety".
 
Why a single shoulder belt? Wouldn't a crossing 'X' shoulder and chest belt be much safer? It would only require one additional click.

What do you mean by: "Burn up in a fire"?
 
Last edited:
I am against seatbelt and helmet laws. Let the stupid people that refuse to wear them die before they reproduce and spread their "stupid" gene.

Hey, I have a PhD in physics; I just hate helmets. They're stuffy and cut off vision and I prefer to ride without one. Should be my call.
 
There have been instances where people have died because they were wearing a set belt. Trapped in a fire or underwater, etc. I also once read about a specific accident where a person was saved because they weren't wearing a seat belt and got thrown clear from the vehicle and would have been crushed to death had they been wearing a seat belt. Yes, these things do indeed happen. These are referred to as anecdotes, and the numbers in which they happen are far below the numbers of instances where seat belts actually did save lives.
 
There have been instances where people have died because they were wearing a set belt. Trapped in a fire or underwater, etc. I also once read about a specific accident where a person was saved because they weren't wearing a seat belt and got thrown clear from the vehicle and would have been crushed to death had they been wearing a seat belt. Yes, these things do indeed happen. These are referred to as anecdotes, and the numbers in which they happen are far below the numbers of instances where seat belts actually did save lives.

Yes: seatbelts are there to reduce the risk of death - not to prevent it altogether. No such thing as complete protection and prevention.
 
This was the beginning of our loss of personal choice and no one said anything...step by step more rights are taken away until the government makes all our choices for us and we then don gray uniforms and hats.
 
This was the beginning of our loss of personal choice and no one said anything...step by step more rights are taken away until the government makes all our choices for us and we then don gray uniforms and hats.

Hmm?

Everyone always balks at everything the government has ever and always done - there hasn't been a single measure, value, rule or regulation passed that did't have opposition. Seat belts being required in vehicles - and the following laws decades later - are not exempt. Many people have object - and always will.
 
Back
Top Bottom