• 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 .
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.

Most of our laws come down to a cost/benefit analysis, rights of one vs either rights of others or safety. But motorcyclists also have restrictions on them that are not placed on those within vehicles (in many states), such as wearing a helmet.

And there is the practicality of the law as well. Cars and trucks have the ability to have seatbelts, whereas motorcycles don't. It would be kind of like complaining about seat belt laws not applying to city buses, even for children. Practically speaking, buses simply cannot work practically with seat belts without major inconveniences, whereas private vehicles, such as cars and trucks easily work just fine with seatbelts and keep people safe with little to no loss of practical use of that vehicle's purpose.
 
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.

I explained the situation. If the person lost limbs due to an accident while wearing a seatbelt, then it is unlikely that they would have at all survived without the seatbelt, and pretty likely that more of their body or parts would become projectiles, making the situation worse. This is about minimizing damage.
 
Most of our laws come down to a cost/benefit analysis, rights of one vs either rights of others or safety. But motorcyclists also have restrictions on them that are not placed on those within vehicles (in many states), such as wearing a helmet.

And there is the practicality of the law as well. Cars and trucks have the ability to have seatbelts, whereas motorcycles don't. It would be kind of like complaining about seat belt laws not applying to city buses, even for children. Practically speaking, buses simply cannot work practically with seat belts without major inconveniences, whereas private vehicles, such as cars and trucks easily work just fine with seatbelts and keep people safe with little to no loss of practical use of that vehicle's purpose.

So what? If what you claim is the truth, then you would WANT that to apply, regardless of inconvenience. Some people (not me) probably consider it an inconvenience to use their seat belt in their vehicle too. That is a cop out.
 
I explained the situation. If the person lost limbs due to an accident while wearing a seatbelt, then it is unlikely that they would have at all survived without the seatbelt, and pretty likely that more of their body or parts would become projectiles, making the situation worse. This is about minimizing damage.

Like I said, in a lot of really bad accidents, seat belts don't play much of a factor in whether you die or not. The only thing the seat belt does is prevent you from being ejected from the vehicle. This line of "logic" is just silly. Sure, a seat belt helps, it is not the end all/be all of safety. :roll:
 
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.

it can go either way, I know two vegetables that would have died had they not had their helmets on and they would have been better off
 
Bogus! I've known people who were thrown off motorcycles.

And there are people who are ejected from their cars while wearing seatbelts. The point is minimization and difference in practicality of application here. It in no way prevents proper usage of the vehicle by either driver or passengers to wear a seatbelt. It does not create unsafe conditions for a driver or passengers within a vehicle under normal operation to wear a seatbelt. But on a motorcycle, any safety harnesses would create such unsafe conditions. You adapt safety measures for the operation of a vehicle. Motorcycles and cars operate in different ways, eventhough they have the same very basic function, to transport people at relatively high speeds (relative to the speed of a person walking, using an unmotorized vehicle). And there is a reason that it requires a separate license to operate a motorcycle, because they operate differently than cars and have different safety features.
 
Like I said, in a lot of really bad accidents, seat belts don't play much of a factor in whether you die or not. The only thing the seat belt does is prevent you from being ejected from the vehicle. This line of "logic" is just silly. Sure, a seat belt helps, it is not the end all/be all of safety. :roll:

Really bad accidents. But many accidents aren't really hugely bad. There have been many accidents that were very bad where a seatbelt saved a person's life.

I've never said the only thing a seatbelt does is prevent a person from being ejected from a vehicle. It is one of many things a seatbelt does. A seatbelt also protects everyone inside the vehicle from a person being thrown into them.

Nothing is the absolute safety measure, that saves lives all the time. The point of safety measures is to minimize harm and/or damage, not to completely eliminate it. A seatbelt though minimizes the harm to more than just the person wearing it. That was my entire point. It certainly wouldn't eliminate the harm to all, even the person who is wearing it, but it can minimize the potential harm.
 
So what? If what you claim is the truth, then you would WANT that to apply, regardless of inconvenience. Some people (not me) probably consider it an inconvenience to use their seat belt in their vehicle too. That is a cop out.

No. I understand the difference between laws that can be easily applied and enforced and those that are just too much to do so. Just as I wouldn't expect anyone to strap their child into a car seat in order to use public transportation despite expecting everyone to do so when using their private cars/trucks.
 
The only argument against seatbelt laws are the philisophical ones about infinging on freedoms. The vast numbers of deaths and injury seatbelts have prevented over the years really cannot be rationally argued with.
 
Bogus! I've known people who were thrown off motorcycles.
What exactly is bogus; that I grew up in CA or that people should provide sources in debate? I've known people who were thrown off of motorcycles also, this in no way invalidates my argument.

The only way to make private transportation 100% injury proof...is to ban it, and have public trans only. You seem to be in favor of the opposite, Mad-Max & The Thunder-dome on the freeway. We don't need either extreme, there is reasonable compromise, there is middle ground, and a seat-belt law is an example.
 
Last edited:
it can go either way, I know two vegetables that would have died had they not had their helmets on and they would have been better off
I don't know these people. I can't vouch for their condition. These people you claim to know may exist, and their condition may be as you describe, but since we can't believe everything we read on teh interntz you need to prove it for people you know to matter in the discussion.
 
Last edited:
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

Considering what I know of your posts, it's an odd and contrary position to take IMO.
 
I don't know these people. I can't vouch for their condition. These people you claim to know may exist, and their condition may be as you describe, but since we can't believe everything we read on teh interntz you need to prove it for people you know to matter in the discussion.

it is simple really. would you rather be dead or be a vegetable with some wiping your ass for you. As Kevin Costner says:

 
No, I trust myself to use it when needed, I don't need the libs tellin me.
 
How do you determine when you are going to need them?
No, I trust myself to use it when needed, I don't need the libs tellin me.
 
But not wearing a seat belt does not distract your driving. So it is not a hazard to others. And the only time it comes into play, is when the car is already hitting something else.


I don't have a problem with seat belt laws for children...but not for adults.
Actually, as someone who grew up wearing a seatbelt every time I rode in a car....

It DOES distract me slightly when I'm not wearing one... Something doesn't feel right, somehow...
 
Actually, as someone who grew up wearing a seatbelt every time I rode in a car....

It DOES distract me slightly when I'm not wearing one... Something doesn't feel right, somehow...

Well if that's all it takes to distract you, perhaps you should take a cab instead.
 
YES. 150% yes. I have been around firefighters my whole life. There aren't many fires in this area, but there are a lot of traffic accidents. Well needless to say...all you have to do is look at a few gruesome car accidents to realize that wearing your seatbelt SHOULD be mandatory. But I will give 2 great examples.

1) When unsecured objects are involved in a crash, they become projectiles, and they can become lethal. This DOES happen. And if YOU are not secured YOU become that projectile. And then you may hurt others in the car.

2) I don't think we should be wasting money keeping some vegetable alive who was too stupid to put their seatbelt on. Harsh? Maybe. But I am not the one who can't put on a seatbelt.
 
Well if that's all it takes to distract you, perhaps you should take a cab instead.
I haven't hit anything recently...


:2razz:
 
I haven't hit anything recently...


:2razz:

I actually hit a bird once. The stupid thing flew right into my car, and it was stuck in the front grill dead when I got home. Gross.
 
I actually hit a bird once. The stupid thing flew right into my car, and it was stuck in the front grill dead when I got home. Gross.
I hit a fawn with my parent's van, years ago... Or bumped it, perhaps, because so far as I could tell there wasn't even scratch on the car...
 
I hit a fawn with my parent's van, years ago... Or bumped it, perhaps, because so far as I could tell there wasn't even scratch on the car...

I was on my way to Maine to go camping with some friends when we hit a deer, and there was a trailer hitch with a chain holding a boat, and when we hit the deer, it actually broke one of the chains. I don't know how that happened, but when we looked back the deer was in the highway, so we stopped to check it out, but by the time we got back there, it had gotten up and ran off in the woods, probably to die. :(
 
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.

This argument could be made for so many activities it's staggering. Let's ban football to reduce the taxpayer bill on head injuries, for example. Where do you draw the line on such a basis of law?

The only argument against seatbelt laws are the philisophical ones about infinging on freedoms. The vast numbers of deaths and injury seatbelts have prevented over the years really cannot be rationally argued with.

That still leaves the question of do you make a law to force someone to not risk or cause harm to themselves? I don't think anyone here has yet to argue that seatbelts haven't reduced deaths and injuries.
 
This argument could be made for so many activities it's staggering. Let's ban football to reduce the taxpayer bill on head injuries, for example. Where do you draw the line on such a basis of law?.

Where football is concerned, you have two groups that have mutually accepted risks - and the injuries are clearly not as routinely acutely devastating as in a major car wreck.

And do they not routinely wear helmets to minimize damage?
 
This argument could be made for so many activities it's staggering. Let's ban football to reduce the taxpayer bill on head injuries, for example. Where do you draw the line on such a basis of law?
Everyone who plays football (well, real football, not that flag-tag wimpy stuff) uses a helmet. Over time those safety devices have gotten better and better and the number of injuries has gone down considerably. What you're doing by not wearing seat belts is worse than playing football without a helmet.
 
Back
Top Bottom