• 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 .
ChrisL said:
AND, as I noted earlier. Mandating people to wear seat belts only increased seat belt use by about 10%. This is just ANOTHER way for the government to take our money.
Click to expand...

Still an increase in usage of seatbelts, which means more lives saved, less people ejected from cars or killing/injuring the others in the vehicles because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. Plus, it increases more when the laws are primary enforcement, rather than just secondary enforcement.

Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Use Laws Saves Lives and Reduces Injuries | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Heck since most states have secondary seatbelt enforcement laws (meaning a person cannot be pulled over to be cited solely for not wearing their seatbelt), it means that most people who get cited for not wearing a seatbelt were doing something else to get pulled over for as well. If the state wants to make money, it doesn't really need seatbelt laws. People do enough stupid stuff on the roads that is illegal and ticketable.

And seatbelt usage has went up far more than just 10%. Since the early 90s, when the first seatbelt laws really started being enforced, seatbelt usage has gone up almost 20%-25%.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CIABEBYwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fstaticfiles%2Fnti%2Fpdf%2F811232.pdf&ei=yGLuUojJEIG-qwGz1oCoDw&usg=AFQjCNGUafA9i4lHYiYyJe99tGRIrD2ljQ&sig2=S3JmwQzXQ-ECuHPvilJicQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWM

Maybe its because my home state was the first one to actually implement the Click It or Ticket program, so I grew up with it, but I simply don't see the issue with telling people that they will be ticketed for not buckling up in a car.
 
Only one state in the US does not have mandatory seat belt laws for adults. Most states have primary seat belt laws. Like I mentioned in another post, Maine has one of the most severe punishments for adults and they still buckle up less than Nevada that has secondary seat belt laws. Maine also does the click it or ticket program nearly every Fourth of July which causes massive traffic backups. They do make good revenue from it, especially from people that are from NH is my guess. Personally, this makes me think it has more to do with revenue than a person's chances of running over a body that may be ejected from a car. Naturally, this is a bogus argument saying, "Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely to experience a deadly accident on the road than those in passenger cars". Motorcycle Accident Statistics and Possible Causes - MotorcycleAccident.org. Yet, they are not outlawed because motorist fear ejecting bodies flying around the highway. If we are so concerned about health costs, why don't we mandate people only being allowed to buy a certain amount of high fatty foods each time they shop? It could be done. People would have to use electronic cards. All food could be coded using special bars that read caloric intake to fat grams. You go over the limit, you can't buy it! After all, it is heart disease that is the number one killer in the US. If we really wanted those seat belt laws to work, the punishment needs to be upped. Instead of a Maine charging $300.00 for the third time offense, maybe the first. If that doesn't work, jail time. That will teach them. It's one thing to mandate laws for public safety and an entirely different thing to mandate individual safety laws. People should be dumb enough or smart enough to think for themselves as long as they are not a safety hazard to others.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Only one state in the US does not have mandatory seat belt laws for adults. Most states have primary seat belt laws. Like I mentioned in another post, Maine has one of the most severe punishments for adults and they still buckle up less than Nevada that has secondary seat belt laws. Maine also does the click it or ticket program nearly every Fourth of July which causes massive traffic backups. They do make good revenue from it, especially from people that are from NH is my guess. Personally, this makes me think it has more to do with revenue than a person's chances of running over a body that may be ejected from a car. Naturally, this is a bogus argument saying, "Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely to experience a deadly accident on the road than those in passenger cars". Motorcycle Accident Statistics and Possible Causes - MotorcycleAccident.org. Yet, they are not outlawed because motorist fear ejecting bodies flying around the highway. If we are so concerned about health costs, why don't we mandate people only being allowed to buy a certain amount of high fatty foods each time they shop? It could be done. People would have to use electronic cards. All food could be coded using special bars that read caloric intake to fat grams. You go over the limit, you can't buy it! After all, it is heart disease that is the number one killer in the US. If we really wanted those seat belt laws to work, the punishment needs to be upped. Instead of a Maine charging $300.00 for the third time offense, maybe the first. If that doesn't work, jail time. That will teach them. It's one thing to mandate laws for public safety and an entirely different thing to mandate individual safety laws. People should be dumb enough or smart enough to think for themselves as long as they are not a safety hazard to others.
Click to expand...

Primary for front seat, not the back seat. So many states have a mix of primary and secondary seat belt laws for adults.

But most things are about a cost/benefit analysis. Motorcyclists have to be specifically licensed to ride a motorcycle. The chances of someone being in a motorcycle accident are high, but motorcyclists also provide other benefits to society (although this is rarely looked at). Plus, given that few ride motorcycles compared to those who ride in cars, the overall number of people ejected from cars is likely higher than those who are thrown from their motorcycles. Plus, restricting motorcycling completely is a major freedom reducer, whereas, enforcing seatbelt laws is no more a reduction in freedom than enforcing child safety seat laws, texting while driving laws, open container laws, or other such vehicle related laws.

It is all about reducing incidents, not eliminating all threats, all situations.
 
roguenuke said:
Primary for front seat, not the back seat. So many states have a mix of primary and secondary seat belt laws for adults.

But most things are about a cost/benefit analysis. Motorcyclists have to be specifically licensed to ride a motorcycle. The chances of someone being in a motorcycle accident are high, but motorcyclists also provide other benefits to society (although this is rarely looked at). Plus, given that few ride motorcycles compared to those who ride in cars, the overall number of people ejected from cars is likely higher than those who are thrown from their motorcycles. Plus, restricting motorcycling completely is a major freedom reducer, whereas, enforcing seatbelt laws is no more a reduction in freedom than enforcing child safety seat laws, texting while driving laws, open container laws, or other such vehicle related laws.

It is all about reducing incidents, not eliminating all threats, all situations.
Click to expand...

I'm all for strict laws against drinking/driving/open container and cell phone usage while driving. I also believe in stiff penalties against minors not being buckled. Those are public safety hazards. I'm fine with the laws they have on the books for seat belts now. Yes, there are still places like Maine that still are rebellious against the law but they will have to just believe the punishment is worth the crime of choosing not to put their seat belt on. True the likelihood of more accidents is with a car since it is used more frequently. I'm unsure about the flying body argument. If you think there are high statistics of bodies flying around from cars/vs motorcycles I'd like to see them. The fact is it is more likely for a deadly accident to be the result of motorcycle accident. Yet, we still allow people to take that risk. Same goes for any individual risk we take on a daily basis. There are all sorts of things we can do to prevent those risks (like heart disease, cancer) but should we have mandated laws to protect us from such choices?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm all for strict laws against drinking/driving/open container and cell phone usage while driving. I also believe in stiff penalties against minors not being buckled. Those are public safety hazards. I'm fine with the laws they have on the books for seat belts now. Yes, there are still places like Maine that still are rebellious against the law but they will have to just believe the punishment is worth the crime of choosing not to put their seat belt on. True the likelihood of more accidents is with a car since it is used more frequently. I'm unsure about the flying body argument. If you think there are high statistics of bodies flying around from cars/vs motorcycles I'd like to see them. The fact is it is more likely for a deadly accident to be the result of motorcycle accident. Yet, we still allow people to take that risk. Same goes for any individual risk we take on a daily basis. There are all sorts of things we can do to prevent those risks (like heart disease, cancer) but should we have mandated laws to protect us from such choices?
Click to expand...

We already have mandated laws to protect us from people who make the choice to rob, murder and rape.
 
Cardinal said:
We already have mandated laws to protect us from people who make the choice to rob, murder and rape.
Click to expand...

Right, because it is a public safety issue. I believe I said I was fine with that. The question becomes should we be mandated to wear certain protection against such things as the sun for example. If you are outside between certain hours of the day you must wear a light cover around your skin or you get a fine? It certainly would cut down on the millions of skin cancer cases we get each year. The question becomes is education a better avenue or government laws and punishment when it comes to individual choices that protect us?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, because it is a public safety issue. I believe I said I was fine with that. The question becomes should we be mandated to wear certain protection against such things as the sun for example. If you are outside between certain hours of the day you must wear a light cover around your skin or you get a fine? It certainly would cut down on the millions of skin cancer cases we get each year. The question becomes is education a better avenue or government laws and punishment when it comes to individual choices that protect us?
Click to expand...

I think we're talking past each other. How does my putting on suntan lotion protect other people?
 
Cardinal said:
I think we're talking past each other. How does my putting on suntan lotion protect other people?
Click to expand...

Well it saves cost to the taxpayer? That was one argument for them. Heart disease costs us more. Why not put mandate and fines to control unhealthy behaviors if that is the concern?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Well it saves cost to the taxpayer? That was one argument for them. Heart disease costs us more. Why not put mandate and fines to control unhealthy behaviors if that is the concern?
Click to expand...

I'm only interested in the laws that apply to actions that harm other people.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm all for strict laws against drinking/driving/open container and cell phone usage while driving. I also believe in stiff penalties against minors not being buckled. Those are public safety hazards. I'm fine with the laws they have on the books for seat belts now. Yes, there are still places like Maine that still are rebellious against the law but they will have to just believe the punishment is worth the crime of choosing not to put their seat belt on. True the likelihood of more accidents is with a car since it is used more frequently. I'm unsure about the flying body argument. If you think there are high statistics of bodies flying around from cars/vs motorcycles I'd like to see them. The fact is it is more likely for a deadly accident to be the result of motorcycle accident. Yet, we still allow people to take that risk. Same goes for any individual risk we take on a daily basis. There are all sorts of things we can do to prevent those risks (like heart disease, cancer) but should we have mandated laws to protect us from such choices?
Click to expand...

Most vehicular laws are about reducing the risk of injury to all. That is it. You cannot prevent all accidents. But you can reduce the chances of someone being hurt or someone causing someone else to get hurt.

I said that in sheer numbers, more people are hurt from car accidents than motorcycle accidents. Why? Because there are simply a lot more cars on the road and people in cars than there are motorcycles. Motorcycles can only hold 1-2 people, most cars hold at least 4-5, some more. Even trucks can hold at least 2-3 people. But many motorcycle accidents/injuries/deaths are due to other causes as well, such as speeding and/or not wearing a helmet, or worse driving while intoxicated.

What The Latest NHTSA Fatality Stats Reveal About Motorcycle Safety

Motorcycle Accident Statistics and Possible Causes - MotorcycleAccident.org

Don't worry. I support stricter motorcycle safety laws as well though, including mandatory helmet use for all riders.

Now, I don't have an issue really with seatbelt laws as they are now. (I think NH should at least have a law about it, but eh) I only argue that it is not a violation of anyone's freedom to have seatbelt laws even that cover adults. It saves lives. And possibly even some mental anguish.
 
Cardinal said:
Okaaaayyyyy, then you would agree that seatbelt laws, especially regarding the driver, are a positive thing?
Click to expand...

I did in post #429. I'm fine with the laws on the books now even if they are not perfect. Maine pretty much proved that with their stiff penalties, they still have a higher rate of not using seat belts than some places with secondary laws. To me, it seems more of a revenue thing than a hazard to the general public. I wouldn't even lose sleep if the only state in the US that doesn't have seat belt laws continues to do so.
 
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 do support seat-belt laws because I don't want an ejected body sailing my way. Do what you want with your own self, but when it starts to harm me, I'm going to support laws to curb your behavior a bit.

On a related note, I do not support helmet laws for adults. It's your noggin so if you want to nominate yourself for a Darwin award by smashing it against the pavement, be my guest.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Most vehicular laws are about reducing the risk of injury to all. That is it. You cannot prevent all accidents. But you can reduce the chances of someone being hurt or someone causing someone else to get hurt.

I said that in sheer numbers, more people are hurt from car accidents than motorcycle accidents. Why? Because there are simply a lot more cars on the road and people in cars than there are motorcycles. Motorcycles can only hold 1-2 people, most cars hold at least 4-5, some more. Even trucks can hold at least 2-3 people. But many motorcycle accidents/injuries/deaths are due to other causes as well, such as speeding and/or not wearing a helmet, or worse driving while intoxicated.

What The Latest NHTSA Fatality Stats Reveal About Motorcycle Safety

Motorcycle Accident Statistics and Possible Causes - MotorcycleAccident.org

Don't worry. I support stricter motorcycle safety laws as well though, including mandatory helmet use for all riders.

Now, I don't have an issue really with seatbelt laws as they are now. (I think NH should at least have a law about it, but eh) I only argue that it is not a violation of anyone's freedom to have seatbelt laws even that cover adults. It saves lives. And possibly even some mental anguish.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree most motorcycle accidents AND car accidents have to do with speeding, drunk driving and other things that have nothing to do with wearing a seat belt. Yes, the seat belt is more likely to protect you when an accident happens. That is why I'm all for educating the public about such dangers. I think secondary seat belt laws are just fine. It reminds people that there is a law that is in place. Anything more is not necessary but up to the people of that state to decide. Either people are smart enough or dumb enough not to buckle up. I'm also okay with NH making that decision for themselves as far as joining in the seat belt law.
 
Jerry said:
I do support seat-belt laws because I don't want an ejected body sailing my way. Do what you want with your own self, but when it starts to harm me, I'm going to support laws to curb your behavior a bit.

On a related note, I do not support helmet laws for adults. It's your noggin so if you want to nominate yourself for a Darwin award by smashing it against the pavement, be my guest.
Click to expand...

That sailing body would argue that he has the right to make the choice that results in him sailing your way.
 
Jerry said:
I do support seat-belt laws because I don't want an ejected body sailing my way. Do what you want with your own self, but when it starts to harm me, I'm going to support laws to curb your behavior a bit.

On a related note, I do not support helmet laws for adults. It's your noggin so if you want to nominate yourself for a Darwin award by smashing it against the pavement, be my guest.
Click to expand...
You don't like flying bodies? You must want to eliminate motorcycles?
 
DA60 said:
I should be legally able to smoke crack....
Click to expand...
That's gona lead to increased crime, which harms me, so no you shouldn't be allowed to smoke crack.

DA60 said:
Oh, come on now.


You know exactly what he meant.


This is a chat forum, not a dissertation.
Click to expand...
This is not a chat forum. This is a debate forum. We are here to argue.

DA60 said:
But not wearing a seat belt does not distract your driving. So it is not a hazard to others.
Click to expand...
Your ejected body is a danger to others.

Your Star said:
A car shouldn't start until all the passengers have put their seat belts on.
Click to expand...
My aunt had a car like that once. It was a constant annoyance when she would come inside to drop my cousins off, get back in her car and it wouldn't start because the back seat-belts weren't re-buckled before my cousins walked away from the car.
 
Jerry said:
That's gona lead to increased crime, which harms me, so no you shouldn't be allowed to smoke crack.
Click to expand...
Then make it legal - end of problem.


Your ejected body is a danger to others.
Click to expand...
And stuff carried in the back of pickup trucks are on trailers are far more dangerous...I don't hear you whining about those.
 
DA60 said:
Then make it legal - end of problem.
Click to expand...

That doesn't solve the problem unless you make crack entirely free and available to everyone. So long as it costs money to obtain, crime will be involved.
 
DA60 said:
Then make it legal - end of problem.
Click to expand...
Making it legal would make it worse. The crime comes from money to buy the next fix. That's when my car and home get burglerized.

DA60 said:
And stuff carried in the back of pickup trucks are on trailers are far more dangerous...I don't hear you whining about those.
Click to expand...
You didn't ask.

I believe in securing the load. This means proper chains and binders for heavy equipment, baffles in a tank haling hazardous materials, a ratchet strap every 10ft of cargo on an open bed, a cover if materials can fly out, and yes, seat belts.

I thought you just wanted to talk about seat belts. My bad.
 
Jerry said:
Making it legal would make it worse. The crime comes from money to buy the next fix. That's when my car and home get burglerized.
Click to expand...
If drugs became legal, there cost would drop by at least (imo) 70-80%. People would not need to steal to get high. Instead of $200 to get a good night's high on crack - you would only need about $30...the same as a night out at a bar for some beers. How often do you hear of people stealing money for booze? Not often.

Almost no one who isn't upper middle class can afford $200/night, a couple times a week, long term. Almost any single adult in America can afford $30 a night, a couple times a week, long term.

Now, you would probably get a rise in snatch-and-grab crimes. Shoplifting, pickpocketing, etc.. But major drug related crimes would fall drastically. Why risk major jail times when all you need is $20-30 bucks?

Plus, prostitution would go way down as most escorts work to support a drug habit. And organized crime would be gigantically hit.

Legalizing drugs would hugely lower crime in America...especially violent/serious drugs crimes.


You didn't ask.

I believe in securing the load. This means proper chains and binders for heavy equipment, baffles in a tank haling hazardous materials, a ratchet strap every 10ft of cargo on an open bed, a cover if materials can fly out, and yes, seat belts.

I thought you just wanted to talk about seat belts. My bad.
Click to expand...

My point is, loads on trucks and trailers offer FAR more of a danger then un-belted bodies flying out of cars (and I still say the chances of that in a modern air-bag equipped car are remote). Make the former safer and then I will worry about the latter.
 
Last edited:
This argument that an unbelted body flying out of a car in an accident is a good reason to make seat belts mandatory?

First, I find it hard to believe that modern, airbag equipped cars would allow such a thing to happen in an accident except in the fairly extreme instances.

As for older cars - the odds seem low to me. But I am quite sure there is at least a tiny increase in safety.


But that is not the point.

If absolute safety is the goal - then why not lower speed limits further on highways and in cities? Why not force people to wear helmets when they drive? And give them three point harnesses? And force every car to have a roll bar?

Because there is a balance between safety and freedom.


And I am not prepared to give up the personal freedom from government intrusion that the (imo) marginal at best safety to other people, that seat belt laws offer.

Others clearly are prepared to give up that personal freedom.

Okay.

Unfortunate (to me)...but okay.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom