• 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 for everyone in the vehicle

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • One federal seat belt law, but just for children

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Leave it up to the states to decide seat belt laws

    Votes: 24 36.9%

  • There should be no seat belt laws for adults

    Votes: 20 30.8%

  • Something else

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • Total voters
    65
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

In SD only children are required to wear helmets.
 
Crosscheck said:
It should be a law just as is making texting illegal while driving.
Click to expand...

I confess: I text while I drive. SD made it illegal, and that didn't stop me. I don't let it interfere with my driving, so it's not a problem. Example: According to the letter of the law, "texting" includes just reading a text. So when I check a text while sitting at a red light, I'm in violation. I've tried to write a text while moving...imposable.
 
Caine said:
Same can be said for a vehicle spinning out of control.

Lets ban vehicles from the roadways!
Click to expand...

Again, it is a cost/benefit analysis.

What is the cost of not wearing a seatbelt? What is the benefit of not wearing a seatbelt? There are plenty of costs to not wearing a seatbelt, including to others, with very little benefit to not wearing a seatbelt.

What is the cost of driving? What is the benefit of driving? There are a lot of costs to driving a car, but there are also lots of benefits as well.
 
Jerry said:
I confess: I text while I drive. SD made it illegal, and that didn't stop me. I don't let it interfere with my driving, so it's not a problem. Example: According to the letter of the law, "texting" includes just reading a text. So when I check a text while sitting at a red light, I'm in violation. I've tried to write a text while moving...imposable.
Click to expand...
Most no-texting laws cover "IN FORWARD MOTION" or "IN MOTION" so you aren't in violation at a red light.
 
roguenuke said:
Again, it is a cost/benefit analysis.

What is the cost of not wearing a seatbelt? What is the benefit of not wearing a seatbelt? There are plenty of costs to not wearing a seatbelt, including to others, with very little benefit to not wearing a seatbelt.

What is the cost of driving? What is the benefit of driving? There are a lot of costs to driving a car, but there are also lots of benefits as well.
Click to expand...

The limitation of Freedoms should NOT be subject to a cost/benefit analysis.
 
Caine said:
The limitation of Freedoms should NOT be subject to a cost/benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

Really?

What do you think any safety laws are based on? In fact, many laws are based on a cost/benefit analysis. Food standards set by the health department are based on cost/benefit analysis. No smoking laws for buildings are based on cost/benefit analysis. Safety inspection laws (cars, safety seats/devices, equipment, etc.) are based on cost/benefit analysis. Speed limits. Drinking age laws. Texting/talking on cell phone while driving. Some states have laws called "failing to give full time and attention" to driving (covers reading and probably putting on makeup), even if the person is able to do the activity and drive well.

Your freedoms are always limited by their affect on others. Those limits become laws when your actions cause more harm to others than is determined acceptable when compared to the purpose of the task you are doing. Not wearing your seatbelt affects others, whereas having to wear your seatbelt doesn't really harm or affect your ability to do things necessary in your life. It is merely an inconvenience.
 
Caine said:
The limitation of Freedoms should NOT be subject to a cost/benefit analysis.
Click to expand...
This is a gray area, but not sure the freedom from seatbelts is a real freedom. You don't have the freedom to drive your care in the wrong direction, with the door off, with non-DOT tires, with plexiglass windshields. If you are injured, you affect the insurance rates of other people. Insurance is required by law, so you don't have the freedom from that. Trust me, I understand your sentiments and logic, but not sure in this case I totally agree. I don't like much govt inteference, but you are in a relationship with other drivers whether you like it or not. You're not totally independent to where you don't affect them should you get injured.
 
American said:
This is a gray area, but not sure the freedom from seatbelts is a real freedom. You don't have the freedom to drive your care in the wrong direction, with the door off, with non-DOT tires, with plexiglass windshields. If you are injured, you affect the insurance rates of other people. Insurance is required by law, so you don't have the freedom from that. Trust me, I understand your sentiments and logic, but not sure in this case I totally agree. I don't like much govt inteference, but you are in a relationship with other drivers whether you like it or not. You're not totally independent to where you don't affect them should you get injured.
Click to expand...
Driving in the wrong direction holds a high likelihood of causing injury to another motorist, or create a road hazard affecting their access to the public streets/highways.
I've seen people drive with no door.... I don't know of any specific law outside of inspection requirements that requires a door. In fact many light weight military vehicles have removable doors driven on the roads.. even outside of post.

As for the other equipment violations... why not?
As for insurance... it is again protecting other drivers on the roadway. Why do you think the only requirement is to have LIABILITY (which means your company covers someone else's damages.. not yours) in many areas?
 
roguenuke said:
Really?

What do you think any safety laws are based on? In fact, many laws are based on a cost/benefit analysis. Food standards set by the health department are based on cost/benefit analysis. No smoking laws for buildings are based on cost/benefit analysis. Safety inspection laws (cars, safety seats/devices, equipment, etc.) are based on cost/benefit analysis. Speed limits. Drinking age laws. Texting/talking on cell phone while driving. Some states have laws called "failing to give full time and attention" to driving (covers reading and probably putting on makeup), even if the person is able to do the activity and drive well.

Your freedoms are always limited by their affect on others. Those limits become laws when your actions cause more harm to others than is determined acceptable when compared to the purpose of the task you are doing. Not wearing your seatbelt affects others, whereas having to wear your seatbelt doesn't really harm or affect your ability to do things necessary in your life. It is merely an inconvenience.
Click to expand...
And pretty much every one of your examples affects other drivers.

Other than the rare case in which someone not wearing a seat belt is actually ejected (this doesn't happen nearly as often as folks think), and another vehicle has to dodge bodies on the roadway (even more rare), how does an individual not wearing their seatbelt affect others?

And... if the only justification is the 1 in 2000 seat-beltless crashes where an ejected person is tossed out in the road and becomes a road hazard (while their crashed vehicle somehow was not ... which would have been crashes seat belt or no seat belt).... the golly gee we should ban children from possessing scissors because they accidetally stab themselves (which happens much more than what you are suggesting).
 
Caine said:
And pretty much every one of your examples affects other drivers.

Other than the rare case in which someone not wearing a seat belt is actually ejected (this doesn't happen nearly as often as folks think), and another vehicle has to dodge bodies on the roadway (even more rare), how does an individual not wearing their seatbelt affect others?

And... if the only justification is the 1 in 2000 seat-beltless crashes where an ejected person is tossed out in the road and becomes a road hazard (while their crashed vehicle somehow was not ... which would have been crashes seat belt or no seat belt).... the golly gee we should ban children from possessing scissors because they accidetally stab themselves (which happens much more than what you are suggesting).
Click to expand...

People can either be ejected from their car and become a road hazard or they could become a projectile within the vehicle, harming and possibly killing others in the vehicle with them even if those others were buckled up and would have otherwise survived.

People ejected are ran over by other drivers. It may not happen a lot, but it certainly does happen. And that could effect the other driver even if the driver suffers no physical damage to themself or their car.

And the people killed/hurt by the unbuckled person certainly are affected.

Again, it is a cost/benefit analysis issue. Scissors are useful, even for children. But beyond that, such a law would be nearly impossible to enforce, since most of the instances of children carrying scissors are going to be while the children are in their house. However, if a child is carrying around a knife or scissors outside, I'm almost certain that some adult would step in, parents there or not, to try to protect the child.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
People can either be ejected from their car and become a road hazard or they could become a projectile within the vehicle, harming and possibly killing others in the vehicle with them even if those others were buckled up and would have otherwise survived.

People ejected are ran over by other drivers. It may not happen a lot, but it certainly does happen. And that could effect the other driver even if the driver suffers no physical damage to themself or their car.

And the people killed/hurt by the unbuckled person certainly are affected.

Again, it is a cost/benefit analysis issue. Scissors are useful, even for children. But beyond that, such a law would be nearly impossible to enforce, since most of the instances of children carrying scissors are going to be while the children are in their house. However, if a child is carrying around a knife or scissors outside, I'm almost certain that some adult would step in, parents there or not, to try to protect the child.
Click to expand...

Exactly... some adult....

Not the government.....
 
Caine said:
Exactly... some adult....

Not the government.....
Click to expand...

The most logical person to step in when someone is not wearing their seatbelt and it could affect others, is the government. This affects other people, like it or not. Another driver on the road cannot stop a person not wearing their seatbelt, a police officer can.

But, more than that, seat belt laws will act basically like the no smoking with children laws. They will cause people to actually put on their seatbelt to avoid the penalty for not doing so, even if the police choose to only cite the violation as a secondary law. In states with seat belt laws, the people are way more likely to wear their seatbelts. I guarantee you that all those disgruntled about having to do so did not have to get a ticket before they started wearing their seat belt.
 
roguenuke said:
The most logical person to step in when someone is not wearing their seatbelt and it could affect others, is the government. This affects other people, like it or not. Another driver on the road cannot stop a person not wearing their seatbelt, a police officer can.

But, more than that, seat belt laws will act basically like the no smoking with children laws. They will cause people to actually put on their seatbelt to avoid the penalty for not doing so, even if the police choose to only cite the violation as a secondary law. In states with seat belt laws, the people are way more likely to wear their seatbelts. I guarantee you that all those disgruntled about having to do so did not have to get a ticket before they started wearing their seat belt.
Click to expand...

Again, not the government's business.

Lets ban children playing with any type of ball nearby a street.... this can cause a traffic hazard and does 500 times more often than an ejected non-seat belt wearing passenger of a crashed vehicle ever does.
 
Somebody can ride something as dangerous as a motorcycle, risking life and limb and I'm forced to wear a seat belt in an infinitely safer vehicle? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
 
grip said:
Somebody can ride something as dangerous as a motorcycle, risking life and limb and I'm forced to wear a seat belt in an infinitely safer vehicle? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense until reaching the reality that if you are in an accident the emergency room - meaning myself and other taxpayers - have to pay for your hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment because you're too much a lazy ass to buckle a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid as accidents will happen and even KingKong isn't strong enough to stop himself flying thru the windshield when sitting in the suicide seat (front passenger side.) It'd be different if law provided that people in accidents not wearing seatbelts are required by paramedics to just be shoved the person off the road and left there to die and then the litter of your body removed by vultures, rats and ants.

Why should I and other taxpayers pay for your being a lazy ass?

There are some doctors that refuse to treat motorcycle accident victims other than what is immediately necessary to preserve life if the rider does not have medical insurance covering it 100% specifically because the known dangers of motorcycles.
 
joko104 said:
That makes perfect sense until reaching the reality that if you are in an accident the emergency room - meaning myself and other taxpayers - have to pay for your hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment because you're too much a lazy ass to buckle a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid as accidents will happen and even KingKong isn't strong enough to stop himself flying thru the windshield when sitting in the suicide seat (front passenger side.) It'd be different if law provided that people in accidents not wearing seatbelts are required by paramedics to just be shoved the person off the road and left there to die and then the litter of your body removed by vultures, rats and ants.

Why should I and other taxpayers pay for your being a lazy ass?

There are some doctors that refuse to treat motorcycle accident victims other than what is immediately necessary to preserve life if the rider does not have medical insurance covering it 100% specifically because the known dangers of motorcycles.
Click to expand...

So the idea here is that wearing a seat belt should be manditory because not wearing a seat belt is more likely to lead to more expensive medical treatment (paid for by taxpayers). Is that correct?

If so, what would you say to people being required to make a prepayment for possible services rendered in the worst case scenario, i.e. paying ahead of time for their, possible, medical bills?

Additionally, using your logic, we should ban certain unhealthy foods, or place limits on how much can be consumed in a certain time period ... you know, because you risk medical problems such as heart attacks, diabetes etc., which would be expensive for taxpayers under current circumstances. Or perhaps people could pay ahead of time for those possible scenarios too?

I just want to be sure I am understanding the reasoning. I am wondering what solution would provide the most freedom for the individual without making it costly for taxpayers.
 
Caine said:
Again, not the government's business.

Lets ban children playing with any type of ball nearby a street.... this can cause a traffic hazard and does 500 times more often than an ejected non-seat belt wearing passenger of a crashed vehicle ever does.
Click to expand...

Many have decided that it is the government's business.

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?

I can't even find any statistics on how often children or their balls in a road cause accidents, especially fatal or even harmful ones. Plenty for not wearing a seat belt.
 
joko104 said:
That makes perfect sense until reaching the reality that if you are in an accident the emergency room - meaning myself and other taxpayers - have to pay for your hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment because you're too much a lazy ass to buckle a seatbelt.
Click to expand...
So... You know that this guy doesn't have the means to pay for his own medical treatment how exactly? I need you to post evidence that he does not have medical coverage and does not have the money to pay for medical treatment. We don't have forced national healthcare yet. God help us when we do...

Beside that fact.... We should not let the government get the ability to reduce freedoms based upon the fact that they have forced us to pay them to receive medical care. Once you open up that box of worms, you can't put them back. And we will be stuck with the government telling us what we can and cannot do because "they pay for our medical coverage".


Not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid as accidents will happen and even KingKong isn't strong enough to stop himself flying thru the windshield when sitting in the suicide seat (front passenger side.)
Click to expand...
Yes. But I fear a government that has the authority to outlaw whatever it and the "majority" deem as "stupid".

Why should I and other taxpayers pay for your being a lazy ass?
Click to expand...
Again with the assumptions.
Why should the government be given the authority to limit freedoms because they imposed a cost upon themselves by creating national healthcare?
Why should you assume this individual doesn't have the means to provide for his own medical care?


There are some doctors that refuse to treat motorcycle accident victims other than what is immediately necessary to preserve life if the rider does not have medical insurance covering it 100% specifically because the known dangers of motorcycles.[/QUOTE]
 
roguenuke said:
Many have decided that it is the government's business.
Click to expand...
Many are wrong.


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?
Click to expand...
Children's playthings roll out into the road at a far greater rate than passengers are ejected.

I can't even find any statistics on how often children or their balls in a road cause accidents, especially fatal or even harmful ones. Plenty for not wearing a seat belt.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Nobody gathers statistics for this very scenario...... you don't think we keep statistics of EVERYthing do you? There are statistics on seatbelts so the government can attempt to show how they need more power over your lives.

Statistics can't explain everything, never will, ever, be able to.
 
earthworm said:
One federal law would be better, less confusing, more fair. The states have shown that they cannot be trusted to do what is best.
And it makes sense to have one law rather than 50 different ones...
I also disagree with the "idiot" thing.... I do NOT always "buckle up"....and I doubt if I am the only one...
Click to expand...

Except that there is no basis in the Constitution for a federal law in the matter. State matter. Leave it there...

And yes, if you don't buckle up, it is a pretty idiotic thing to do...
 
Caine said:
Many are wrong.


Children's playthings roll out into the road at a far greater rate than passengers are ejected.

Exactly. Nobody gathers statistics for this very scenario...... you don't think we keep statistics of EVERYthing do you? There are statistics on seatbelts so the government can attempt to show how they need more power over your lives.

Statistics can't explain everything, never will, ever, be able to.
Click to expand...
You know these laws are typically state laws, you can't stop it.
 
Personally, I think that the seat belt issue is should be left in the hands of individual states. I think that there's overwhelming evidence as to why people wear them. But, more than that...insurance companies want you to wear them for all the obvious reasons. Consequently there's enough social and institutional pressure to get states to pass seat belt laws.

I'm not sure why, but some people don't believe that they can cause someone elses death or undue property damage by not having on a seat belt. Yep, even if he or she doesn't respect his or her own life or property, not wearing a seat belt is dangerous to others. You come out okay in your little out of control crash...your car smashed, but that's okay...insurance, right? But what about other people's lives? Their death or injuries? Their property.

If you don't wear a seat belt, you are subject to be slung around in your car. What's the big deal? You lose all control of steering, braking, and acceleration capabilities. In other words, you might be in the passenger side of the car...watching yourself headed into a collision with another car, building, or person. Had you had a belt on...very possible you could have maintained enough control to avoid such a collision.

Gezzzz, it's not rocket science.
 
Caine said:
Many are wrong.


Children's playthings roll out into the road at a far greater rate than passengers are ejected.

Exactly. Nobody gathers statistics for this very scenario...... you don't think we keep statistics of EVERYthing do you? There are statistics on seatbelts so the government can attempt to show how they need more power over your lives.

Statistics can't explain everything, never will, ever, be able to.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MaddieGreenwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

What jurisdiction does the federal government have over the roadways?

Are you going to propose federal highway troopers to go around enforcing it too?

Local law enforcement, except as part of a federal task force or under a specific and limited program, do not have authority to enforce federal law.

The federal government has made it clear they don't want states even trying to mimic federal law (Arizona Immigration Law anyone?)
 
joko104 said:
That makes perfect sense until reaching the reality that if you are in an accident the emergency room - meaning myself and other taxpayers - have to pay for your hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment because you're too much a lazy ass to buckle a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt is just stupid as accidents will happen and even KingKong isn't strong enough to stop himself flying thru the windshield when sitting in the suicide seat (front passenger side.) It'd be different if law provided that people in accidents not wearing seatbelts are required by paramedics to just be shoved the person off the road and left there to die and then the litter of your body removed by vultures, rats and ants.

Why should I and other taxpayers pay for your being a lazy ass?

There are some doctors that refuse to treat motorcycle accident victims other than what is immediately necessary to preserve life if the rider does not have medical insurance covering it 100% specifically because the known dangers of motorcycles.
Click to expand...

FYI,, I wear a seat belt every time I just don't think the government has the right to force me to wear something for safety, when they allow something as unsafe as motorcycles. It's not logical nor within their scope to control. They get their consent to govern from the taxpaying citizens, me. So it should be my choice not some bureaucratic ding dong that can't figure out which modes of transportation are really dangerous. How about ATV's, speed boats, snow ski's, water ski's, hang gliding, bungee jumping and the list goes on and on. Risk is an inherent factor in life that can't be buckled away or uber controlled. Besides I have insurance for my health bills that I pay premiums on. Don't worry about them they make plenty of profit even after they get bailed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom