• 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 .
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?
Helmets won't stop ejections.
Modern seat belts are three-point and have been for decades. Did you mean four- or five-point?
I don't know about others but you may as well say mine has a rollbar. It can turn turtle and support it's own weight without collapsing the roof.
 
Helmets won't stop ejections.
These points had nothing to do with ejections. But there is almost no way you would not be safer in an ejection if you were wearing a helmet then not.
Modern seat belts are three-point and have been for decades. Did you mean four- or five-point?
Sorry, I meant 4/5 point.
I don't know about others but you may as well say mine has a rollbar. It can turn turtle and support it's own weight without collapsing the roof.
You obviously have never owned a convertible. I rolled my 'vette convertible and the roof/windshield crushed flat.

And I have my racing license and am aware of roll bars/cages. There is no way the majority of cars on the road are as safe without a proper roll bar/cage as with...not possible.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be sitting here writing to you all today if I wasn't wearing a seat belt when I was in a major car accident some years ago. Seat belts save lives and anyone who doesn't wear one when they get in a car is an idiot. I also agree with laws that hold the driver responsible for anyone not wearing one in their car.
 
I do, seat belts are a public safety issue. You do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle, you have the privilege to obtain a license to drive and as such you must abide by laws. The laws are put in place in order to ensure the safe operation of a motor vehicle and prevent death in case of an accident.
 
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.
And the real life example of a legalized schedule-2 stimulant you want to link to as your source is.....

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.
There's a metric ton of laws regarding securing loads. DOT is all over that. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Cargo Securement Rules I take it you have little to no experience working with commercial transports.

So now that you know that the former is safer, we can get back to seat belts; or did you intend a thread-jack with posts about drugs?
 
Last edited:
I do, seat belts are a public safety issue. You do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle, you have the privilege to obtain a license to drive and as such you must abide by laws. The laws are put in place in order to ensure the safe operation of a motor vehicle and prevent death in case of an accident.
I think it's fair to point out that you don't have to wear a seat belt while on private property. Only while on public roads.
 
These points had nothing to do with ejections. But there is almost no way you would not be safer in an ejection if you were wearing a helmet then not.
Sorry, I meant 4/5 point.
You obviously have never owned a convertible. I rolled my 'vette convertible and the roof/windshield crushed flat.

And I have my racing license and am aware of roll bars/cages. There is no way the majority of cars on the road are as safe without a proper roll bar/cage as with...not possible.
You didn't say cage, which would help stop side intrusions into the passenger compartment - you said "rollbar". Most modern vehicles (ex. convertables) will not collapse on roll over.
 
You didn't say cage, which would help stop side intrusions into the passenger compartment - you said "rollbar". Most modern vehicles (ex. convertables) will not collapse on roll over.

That's not the point.

The point is, they will be safer. And it certainly would be safer to wear a helmet and have a 4 point harness in a crash. Then why not use them?

Because the extra safety is not worth it to the public...or they would demand them.

Just like the small added safety to the public of unbelted bodies being ejected from a car in an accident is not worth the intrusion into my personal freedom that seat belt laws are to me.

And I still have seen no proof that there is anything but an extremely small chance that bodies can be ejected from a modern, fully air bagged car in an accident.
 
And the real life example of a legalized schedule-2 stimulant you want to link to as your source is.....
It's ridiculously common sense. You make something legal, it plummets in price.
You don't believe me...guess how much I care?


There's a metric ton of laws regarding securing loads. DOT is all over that. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Cargo Securement Rules I take it you have little to no experience working with commercial transports.

So now that you know that the former is safer, we can get back to seat belts; or did you intend a thread-jack with posts about drugs?

Guess again, I have my truck license.

I was talking about pickups and personal use trailers obviously.

I sense you are more about looking to argue rather then looking to debate...so we are done here for now.

Life is too short to waste it on people like you.

Adios.
 
Last edited:
That's not the point.

The point is, they will be safer. And it certainly would be safer to wear a helmet and have a 4 point harness in a crash. Then why not use them?

Because the extra safety is not worth it to the public...or they would demand them.
A rollbar will most likely not reduce fatalities over modern vehicle design - so, yes, that's the whole point.


Car safety standards have been rising for decades. Crush zones, offset steering columns, and airbags are just a few of the safety features of modern cars. In time we may well end up with a 4-pt harness assuming it can be shown as much safer than the 3-pt was have now, which includes usage. This thread is addressing part of the problem. You don't even want to make a required 3-pt so why bother talking about a 4-pt? If fewer people would use the 4-pt, then it obviously isn't a good option at this time.
 
Last edited:
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...

Wow I made vote 100!

I used to believe that such a law was rather imposing and as a consenting adult it should be my choice (one I would choice, but mine nonetheless). However, it was pointed out to me that in an accident a seat belt will keep the driver in their seat greatly increasing the odds that they will get the car back under control (assuming that it is possible at all). Thus with that I now see seat belt laws as those which protect me from others. That said I am opposed to the helmet laws because they have no such corresponding safety to me from another.
 
So I completely support a law that turns a safety device into a simple habit. My kids, when they were younger would FREAK OUT if I even pulled out of the driveway without my seat belt on. They've grown up with that. It's a habit they don't even think about now. They get into a car, they put a seat belt on. Period. The law basically caused that habit.

I'm sure that someone's addressed this already but I'm going to put this out in case they haven't.

Was it the law that ingrained it in them or you and your spouse? I come from a time before seat belt laws. My brother and I had it ingrained within us long before it was law
 
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.

Good Lord, if you are going to use the "flying bodies as projectiles" argument, then you can't dismiss motorcycles. That is completely intellectually dishonest.
 
The chance of a body part detaching from a body while a person is wearing a seatbelt is extremely small. Plus, since it would be something fairly lightweight, it would also do much less damage than the full body. Now, if an accident is bad enough that it detaches a person's body part from them while they are wearing a seatbelt, then it is highly unlikely that the person not wearing a seatbelt would have fared any better, and would likely have been ejected, causing a much larger projectile leaving the vehicle.

Obviously you have never seen a really bad car accident victim. They are absolutely mangled, seat belt or no seat belt. Yes, body parts are amputated.
 
driving is a privilege. and if you don't wear a seat belt, you can impose costs on others-be it your long term care or the trauma that comes from having your ejected body slamming into their windshield. I am alive today because I always wear a seatbelt-freezing rain froze on contact with extremely cold pavement in 1983. Roadway Truck jackknifed in front of me swinging the trailer into my lane. 60-0 in .1 seconds. all four tires blew due to the impact. only damage-my girlfriend's right breast was a bruised pretty badly from the shoulder strap.

Hmmm. A libertarian who believes in mandatory seat belt laws? Interesting. ;)
 
Hmmm. A libertarian who believes in mandatory seat belt laws? Interesting. ;)

its a safety issue for those around you. I know of a case where someone was almost killed when someone flew through a windshield into their windshield
 
Good Lord, if you are going to use the "flying bodies as projectiles" argument, then you can't dismiss motorcycles. That is completely intellectually dishonest.

Great point...I forgot about motorcycles
 
A rollbar will most likely not reduce fatalities over modern vehicle design - so, yes, that's the whole point.


Car safety standards have been rising for decades. Crush zones, offset steering columns, and airbags are just a few of the safety features of modern cars. In time we may well end up with a 4-pt harness assuming it can be shown as much safer than the 3-pt was have now, which includes usage. This thread is addressing part of the problem. You don't even want to make a required 3-pt so why bother talking about a 4-pt? If fewer people would use the 4-pt, then it obviously isn't a good option at this time.

You are totally missing my point.

Maybe I am not being clear enough...whatever.

No offense, but this discussion is WAY past it's 'best buy' date for me.

Debates based almost solely on theories usually seem a COMPLETE waste of time to me.

They just go on and on and on and on...

Good day.
 
Wow I made vote 100!

I used to believe that such a law was rather imposing and as a consenting adult it should be my choice (one I would choice, but mine nonetheless). However, it was pointed out to me that in an accident a seat belt will keep the driver in their seat greatly increasing the odds that they will get the car back under control (assuming that it is possible at all). Thus with that I now see seat belt laws as those which protect me from others. That said I am opposed to the helmet laws because they have no such corresponding safety to me from another.

I agree with a lot of this, but I am for the helmet laws (motorcycle and bike). Many people are not financially able to be cared for after serious head trauma without major assistance - frequently for life and if they were the breadwinner for the family - that cost escalates. I do not see these laws as "huggy feely save the poor people from themselves" - I see the laws as saving the taxpayers a chunk of change.
 
I dont even know how to reply to such a hideous comment.


Yall in the swamp were fascists. So you needed a nanny state to take control of your lives and teach you that black people are human beings?
So, you are soooo liberal you have to interject race in to EVERYTHING. Wow.
 
It's ridiculously common sense.
Common sense doesn't exist. Source please.

Guess again, I have my truck license.

I was talking about pickups and personal use trailers obviously.
Those DOT rules apply to all vehicles transporting cargo.

I sense you are more about looking to argue rather then looking to debate...so we are done here for now.
Arguing is what debate is. debate - definition of debate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 
Was it the law that ingrained it in them or you and your spouse?
I grew up in CA where seat belts were something you just had to do. It became a habit.

Good Lord, if you are going to use the "flying bodies as projectiles" argument, then you can't dismiss motorcycles. That is completely intellectually dishonest.
The motorcyclist was not 'dismissed'.
The Physics Classroom: Motorcyclist
But why then are motorcycles not equipped with safety harnesses? Is this a gross oversight made by motorcycle manufacturers? Absolutely not! While no transportation accident is safe, it is the goal of the manufacturers of all roadway vehicles to produce a vehicle which maximizes the safety of its riders. In the case of a motorcycle, it is believed that the rider's safety is maximized by not strapping the rider to the motorcycle. In a car accident, the safest place to be is in the car; yet in a motorcycle accident, the worst place to be is on the motorcycle. The reason?
Cars are four-wheeled vehicles which have a stable platform capable of resisting sideways motion and resisting tipping over.
A motorcyclist, even a pedal-bicyclist, learns to 'throw away' the bike in a crash. So motorcycles don't have seat belts similar to why school buses don't have seat belts, there are other safety measures in place (school buses use a system called "compartmentalization").

Debates based almost solely on theories usually seem a COMPLETE waste of time to me.
Which is why you need to provide a source if you're going to debate legalizing a schedule 2 stimulant, discus DOT cargo regulations, or seat belts.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in CA where seat belts were something you just had to do. It became a habit.


The motorcyclist was not 'dismissed'.

A motorcyclist, even a pedal-bicyclist, learns to 'throw away' the bike in a crash. So motorcycles don't have seat belts similar to why school buses don't have seat belts, there are other safety measures in place (school buses use a system called "compartmentalization").


Which is why you need to provide a source if you're going to debate legalizing a schedule 2 stimulant, discus DOT cargo regulations, or seat belts.

Bogus! I've known people who were thrown off motorcycles.
 
Back
Top Bottom