• 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!

Do you believe in seat belt laws for consenting adults?

Do you believe in seat belt laws?

  • Total voters
    99
  • Poll closed .
MaggieD said:
The use of seatbelts saves money for every insured driver on the road.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the police other then to put in their accident report whether the occupants were wearing seat belts or not.

And wearing seat belts has little if anything to do with causing an accident.

Just make it that insurance is higher for those that don't wear seat belts - and if they lie and later found they were not wearing a seat belt, that would mean a reduction in their settlement.
 
DA60 said:
That has nothing to do with the police other then to put in their accident report whether the occupants were wearing seat belts or not.

And wearing seat belts has little if anything to do with causing an accident.

Just make it that insurance is higher for those that don't wear seat belts - and if they lie and later found they were not wearing a seat belt, that would mean a reduction in their settlement.
Click to expand...

Physics doesn't care about accident reports or insurance rates.
 
Henrin said:
Because we are talking about law.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, it's in the title of the thread. And seat belt laws are good, because physics will determine that somebody driving a 2 ton (or more) vehicle will be more in control while wearing their seatbelt than somebody not wearing it.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, I know, it's in the title of the thread. And seat belt laws are good, because physics will determine that somebody driving a 2 ton (or more) vehicle will be more in control while wearing their seatbelt than somebody not wearing it.
Click to expand...

Until you can show that the individual not wearing a seat belt does not just do it for his own happiness, but instead because of malice toward others you have no case to present.
 
Henrin said:
Until you can show that the individual not wearing a seat belt does not just do it for his own happiness, but instead from malice toward others you have no case to present.
Click to expand...

Physics doesn't care about malice. Your intent could be world peace and physics still wouldn't care.
 
Cardinal said:
Physics doesn't care about malice. Your intent could be world peace and physics still wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

Physics is just that, physics. It has nothing to do with intent. Prove intent.
 
Henrin said:
Physics is just that, physics. It has nothing to do with intent. Prove intent.
Click to expand...

Is it your position that if intent is not malicious then momentum and inertia will not apply to a driver turning at 30MPH?
 
mak2 said:
Prove inertia?
Click to expand...

Do guys seriously not understand intent?

Intent-

1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
 
Grim17 said:
This question applies to legal adults only, not children:

Do you believe in seat belt laws?

a) Yes. They are nessisary to protect the public for their own good.
b) No. I'm a consenting adult and shouldn't have to wear one if I don't want to.


Discuss...
Click to expand...

I believe in them, but not for your reason.

To me, it is not a "for your own good" issue.

It is for the good of the state.

If the person dies and leaves a family behind - the state may have to shell out big bucks to help that family get by.

If the person lives, but has injures immensely more devastating because of the lack of seatbelt - most patients may not be able to afford the care. Health insurance companies will be on the hook for amazing amounts of money. The person may need lifetime resources from the state - and this may affect his/her entire family.

I was in a major car accident in 2005. Cars spinning and flipping on a major interstate. Everyone (including the person who caused the mess) in seatbelts. My major injury was a dislocated thumb and fractured wrist.When my doctor saw all the bruising across my neck and chest and abdomen - (path of the seatbelt) -his comment was that the seatbelt likely saved my life or at least from major injury. I care for an elderly mother and have a special needs son - figure out the impact on the state from there.

That same line of reasoning goes for motorcycle and bicycle helmets.
 
Cardinal said:
Is it your position that if intent is not malicious then momentum and inertia will not apply to a driver turning at 30MPH?
Click to expand...

If you can't prove intent all you have is nothing.
 
Henrin said:
Do guys seriously not understand intent?

Intent-

1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
Click to expand...

No, we know what intent is. We just also know that physics is a cold, unfeeling bastard that doesn't care very much about it.
 
Cardinal said:
No, we know what intent is. We just also know that physics is a cold, unfeeling bastard that doesn't care very much about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you apparently aren't aware that law cares about it.
 
Henrin said:
If you can't prove intent all you have is nothing.
Click to expand...

Okay, then prove intent of momentum, inertia and kinetic energy...since you're so about intent.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, then prove intent of momentum, inertia and kinetic energy...since you're so about intent.
Click to expand...

Those things don't have intent and I have no reason to debate about such things.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, but you apparently aren't aware that law cares about it.
Click to expand...

Youre right, law does care about physics, and that's why we have seat belt laws.
 
Henrin said:
That is because the maxim of the law is that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. No one can prove intent here.
Click to expand...

Here?
As to the many cases, where externalities bite, the people realize the or at least a potential negative impact even, when the perpetrator does not know the damaged nor the exact damage.

PS: I am not so sure that punishment requires malign intent.
 
Cardinal said:
Youre right, law does care about physics, and that's why we have seat belt laws.
Click to expand...

Every voluntary act of a man’s life is either virtuous or vicious and you have yet to show this act is vicious
 
Henrin said:
Those things don't have intent and I have no reason to debate about such things.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, those things are better understood by people making such laws.
 
Cardinal said:
Fortunately, those things are better understood by people making such laws.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what I know of the subject, so of course, you can't speak to it.
 
Henrin said:
Every voluntary act of a man’s life is either virtuous or vicious and you have yet to show this act is vicious
Click to expand...

Ah, well I'll remember next time another driver plows into me when he loses control of his vehicle due to not wearing a seatbelt to ask him if his act was virtuous or vicious.
 
Kal'Stang said:
10,000 dead in 2003 due to faulty seatbelts. Rare? Depends on your POV I guess. The fact that it can happen that much is enough in my book.
Click to expand...

What were the faults with the seat belts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom