Do you believe in seat belt laws for consenting adults?

year2late said:

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?

Click to expand...

MoSurveyor said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are both actually missing the point of what I responded to. Remember that I support the seat belt laws because of how they will aid the driver in not causing injuries to others by keeping them in the seat and providing a higher chance of, if not getting the vehicle under control, providing purposeful direction. But once we put aside the issue of potential injury to others, do we make a law that removes a freedom simply under the concept of "saving the taxpayers a chunk of change"? Football was just the example that came off the top of my head that was comparable to motorcycle helmet law intent.

maquiscat said:

But once we put aside the issue of potential injury to others, do we make a law that removes a freedom simply under the concept of "saving the taxpayers a chunk of change"?

Click to expand...

If driving were a right I would say no, we shouldn't.

But driving is not a right, and now taxpayers will be paying for individual's injuries through ObamaCare, so I say yes, we should remove the freedom to drive without a seat-belt.

Jerry said:

If driving were a right I would say no, we shouldn't.

But driving is not a right, and now taxpayers will be paying for individual's injuries through ObamaCare, so I say yes, we should remove the freedom to drive without a seat-belt.

Click to expand...

Are you that dishonest in your post that you have to change what I said?

maquiscat said:

Are you that dishonest in your post that you have to change what I said?

Click to expand...

Are you that dishonest in your post that you have to accuse me of changing what you said?

maquiscat said:

You are both actually missing the point of what I responded to. Remember that I support the seat belt laws because of how they will aid the driver in not causing injuries to others by keeping them in the seat and providing a higher chance of, if not getting the vehicle under control, providing purposeful direction. But once we put aside the issue of potential injury to others, do we make a law that removes a freedom simply under the concept of "saving the taxpayers a chunk of change"? Football was just the example that came off the top of my head that was comparable to motorcycle helmet law intent.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

If driving were a right I would say no, we shouldn't.

But driving is not a right, and now taxpayers will be paying for individual's injuries through ObamaCare, so I say yes, we should remove the freedom to drive without a seat-belt.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

Are you that dishonest in your post that you have to accuse me of changing what you said?

Click to expand...

I'm honest enough to say that you did. I noted that the seat belt laws were not on the same level as the helmet laws because helmets don't help you maintain your seat and have better chances of controlling/regaining control of your vehicle. My whole question was based upon the premise that since helmets did not perform the same function of reducing the odds of the person not using it in not harming others should we reduce the freedom of choice on the premise previously quoted? And then you say that we should remove the freedom to drive without seat belts. You are shifting the subject since I was talking about helmets.

maquiscat said:

You are both actually missing the point of what I responded to. Remember that I support the seat belt laws because of how they will aid the driver in not causing injuries to others by keeping them in the seat and providing a higher chance of, if not getting the vehicle under control, providing purposeful direction. But once we put aside the issue of potential injury to others, do we make a law that removes a freedom simply under the concept of "saving the taxpayers a chunk of change"? Football was just the example that came off the top of my head that was comparable to motorcycle helmet law intent.

Click to expand...

Your point is not lost on me, let us just call it a two-fer.

The side of the law that saves us a chunk of change should appeal to the fiscal conservatives, the part of the law that saves a life (in theory) should appeal to prolifers, the part of the law that saves someone a whole lotta pain should appeal to the rational.

maquiscat said:

I'm honest enough to say that you did. I noted that the seat belt laws were not on the same level as the helmet laws because helmets don't help you maintain your seat and have better chances of controlling/regaining control of your vehicle. My whole question was based upon the premise that since helmets did not perform the same function of reducing the odds of the person not using it in not harming others should we reduce the freedom of choice on the premise previously quoted? And then you say that we should remove the freedom to drive without seat belts. You are shifting the subject since I was talking about helmets.

Click to expand...

I made a statement about my own opinion. I said nothing about what you said, your opinions, your argument, and I certainly didn't change anything.

Jerry said:

I made a statement about my own opinion. I said nothing about what you said, your opinions, your argument, and I certainly didn't change anything.

Click to expand...

By quoting my post regarding helmets you imply that you are responding to such. If you are not then you need to make it clear that you are shifting the subject. Either be honest enough to do so when you post or be man enough to admit that you had failed to see where I had made my focus on helmets

year2late said:

Your point is not lost on me, let us just call it a two-fer.

The side of the law that saves us a chunk of change should appeal to the fiscal conservatives, the part of the law that saves a life (in theory) should appeal to prolifers, the part of the law that saves someone a whole lotta pain should appeal to the rational.

Click to expand...

But where is the line? Do we remove the ability to jump out of perfectly good airplanes (skydiving) to save potential pain, life and money on injuries?

maquiscat said:

By quoting my post regarding helmets you imply that you are responding to such. If you are not then you need to make it clear that you are shifting the subject. Either be honest enough to do so when you post or be man enough to admit that you had failed to see where I had made my focus on helmets

Click to expand...

Note that what I actually quoted of your post contains nothing about helmets. I key'd in on your question about denying a freedom to save money, and that's the only part of what you said I was responding to. All that bull**** about football doesn't even belong in this thread.

maquiscat said:

But where is the line?

Click to expand...

There is no line, actual or proverbial. The law has never been consistent or rational across the spectrum of topics. It never will be.

maquiscat said:

By quoting my post regarding helmets you imply that you are responding to such. If you are not then you need to make it clear that you are shifting the subject. Either be honest enough to do so when you post or be man enough to admit that you had failed to see where I had made my focus on helmets



But where is the line? Do we remove the ability to jump out of perfectly good airplanes (skydiving) to save potential pain, life and money on injuries?

Click to expand...

Well, to me the line is a greater good. How many people who recreationally skydive clog up ERs half dead leaving children and widows in the lurch......or left so catastrophically injured that the state will have to pitch in for the remaining decades of his life to keep him afloat?

I think that is the difference. Seatbelts make a huge difference in the survivalbility of an accident and the severity of the injuries. GIven that most Americans find themselves in a car and rarely jumping out of a plane makes the greater good difference.

The German said:

Considering that after the introduction in my country, fatalities in car accidents went down by 70%, I believe I have the legitemate right to call everyone who opposes it a fanatic knownothing.

Click to expand...

it's not about safety, it's not the government's place to mandate it.

DA60 said:

To not wear a seat belt is silly if you care about your safety. They obviously save lives in a huge way.

BUT...I do not believe for one second that the government has the right to force you to wear them.

If I want to further risk my life by not wearing a seat belt...that is my choice.

Bungy jumping and recreational skydiving are not safe...should the government outlaw them as well? Of course not.

I should be legally able to smoke crack, jump out of an airplane for fun, not wear a helmet while I ride a motorcycle, not wear seat belts or even kill myself...none of these things on their own are ANY of the government's business.

If I wish to abuse/subject my body to greater danger...including not wearing seat belts...that should be my choice.

Click to expand...

I agree in theory... but what about when uninsured (medical and/or car) get in a crash? The taxpayers will pay for it. Heck... the taxpayers pay more when police, fire and paramedic are at scenes where one is more injured than less injured too... In a car accident with a belt? You are probably fine if speeds were low and you walk away. Probably no fire or paramedic even show up. Low speed crash with no belt can cause serious injuries... fire and paramedic show up... all involved have longer hours... etc.

year2late said:

Well, to me the line is a greater good. How many people who recreationally skydive clog up ERs half dead leaving children and widows in the lurch......or left so catastrophically injured that the state will have to pitch in for the remaining decades of his life to keep him afloat?

I think that is the difference. Seatbelts make a huge difference in the survivalbility of an accident and the severity of the injuries. GIven that most Americans find themselves in a car and rarely jumping out of a plane makes the greater good difference.

Click to expand...

Good great gods! Does no one read? I have said and am saying again! I support the seat belt law! For reasons other than you have put here, but support it none the less. I am making a reference to HELMETS for motorcycles! Leave the bloody seat belts out of it!

Ikari said:

it's not about safety, it's not the government's place to mandate it.

Click to expand...

How is it not about safety? For your sake so that you don't have to go back and read it, I will repost my reasoning why it's is within reason for seat belts to be mandated. When you have a seat belt on you are less likely to be thrown around or out of the vehicle. Thus you have a higher chance of either regaining control of the vehicle or of at least enough control to minimize/eliminate harm to others. Therefore it is within reason because you are protecting others from a decision of someone else. This is opposed to the consequences only to one's self if you do not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

maquiscat said:

Good great gods! Does no one read? I have said and am saying again! I support the seat belt law! For reasons other than you have put here, but support it none the less. I am making a reference to HELMETS for motorcycles! Leave the bloody seat belts out of it!



How is it not about safety? For your sake so that you don't have to go back and read it, I will repost my reasoning why it's is within reason for seat belts to be mandated. When you have a seat belt on you are less likely to be thrown around or out of the vehicle. Thus you have a higher chance of either regaining control of the vehicle or of at least enough control to minimize/eliminate harm to others. Therefore it is within reason because you are protecting others from a decision of someone else. This is opposed to the consequences only to one's self if you do not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what the drama is. Can't we support the laws for different reasons? Like I said, it is a twofer!

It of course is about safety. If people are safer, they do not land in ERS with catastrophic injuries as much or leave families that cannot support themselves.

Safe is good.

Saving money for the taxpayers is good.

Two-fer the price of one.

year2late said:

I am not sure what the drama is. Can't we support the laws for different reasons? Like I said, it is a twofer!

It of course is about safety. If people are safer, they do not land in ERS with catastrophic injuries as much or leave families that cannot support themselves.

Safe is good.

Saving money for the taxpayers is good.

Two-fer the price of one.

Click to expand...

The principle of the law is every bi as important as the results of the law. It's one of the reasons why I support the seat belt laws and not the helmet laws. They have two seperate principles behind them. Seat belt laws help other people not be affected by my decisions (i.e. if I don't wear it there is a higher chance that others will get hurt). Helmet laws on only about the operator (i.e. the odds of people other than myself getting hurt are the same regardless of whether or not I wear a helmet). If we want to apply the principle of we make a law to reduce injuries and taxpayer funded medical expenses then why are we not doing it with other activities, such as high contact sports, or skydiving or base jumping or any other number of activities?

And my drama comes in because I keep saying that we should not have laws like the helmet laws, and people keep saying "counter argument and that's why we should have seat belt laws."

maquiscat said:

The principle of the law is every bi as important as the results of the law. It's one of the reasons why I support the seat belt laws and not the helmet laws. They have two seperate principles behind them. Seat belt laws help other people not be affected by my decisions (i.e. if I don't wear it there is a higher chance that others will get hurt). Helmet laws on only about the operator (i.e. the odds of people other than myself getting hurt are the same regardless of whether or not I wear a helmet). If we want to apply the principle of we make a law to reduce injuries and taxpayer funded medical expenses then why are we not doing it with other activities, such as high contact sports, or skydiving or base jumping or any other number of activities?

Click to expand...

So you aren't aware of the safety reforms the NFL is facing? They're seriously going to start putting impact censors in the helmets and when a player takes a cretin amount of impact they will be pulled. There's all kinds of **** coming down the line.

Non of us answer for all of us. You keep trying to hold individual people responsible for all these different areas...skydiving....contact sports....I don't know why we aren't implementing Jerry@DebatePolitics.com's principal across all subjects, but it may be because I don't make the law.

maquiscat said:

The principle of the law is every bi as important as the results of the law. It's one of the reasons why I support the seat belt laws and not the helmet laws. They have two seperate principles behind them. Seat belt laws help other people not be affected by my decisions (i.e. if I don't wear it there is a higher chance that others will get hurt). Helmet laws on only about the operator (i.e. the odds of people other than myself getting hurt are the same regardless of whether or not I wear a helmet). If we want to apply the principle of we make a law to reduce injuries and taxpayer funded medical expenses then why are we not doing it with other activities, such as high contact sports, or skydiving or base jumping or any other number of activities?

And my drama comes in because I keep saying that we should not have laws like the helmet laws, and people keep saying "counter argument and that's why we should have seat belt laws."

Click to expand...

Did I? because your drama was pointed at me.

I just said it was a two for the price of one. My opinion. Does it take away from yours?

maquiscat said:

The principle of the law is every bi as important as the results of the law. It's one of the reasons why I support the seat belt laws and not the helmet laws. They have two seperate principles behind them. Seat belt laws help other people not be affected by my decisions (i.e. if I don't wear it there is a higher chance that others will get hurt)."

Click to expand...

That's a pretty dishonest point. Seat belt laws help save the individual as do helmet laws.

maquiscat said:

You are both actually missing the point of what I responded to. Remember that I support the seat belt laws because of how they will aid the driver in not causing injuries to others by keeping them in the seat and providing a higher chance of, if not getting the vehicle under control, providing purposeful direction. But once we put aside the issue of potential injury to others, do we make a law that removes a freedom simply under the concept of "saving the taxpayers a chunk of change"? Football was just the example that came off the top of my head that was comparable to motorcycle helmet law intent.

Click to expand...

Why not? We remove freedoms for no other purpose than what some people believe is "improper behavior". At least with laws that save a substantial amount of money without a major loss of freedom everyone benefits, not just the prudes and church goers.

maquiscat said:

Good great gods! Does no one read? I have said and am saying again! I support the seat belt law! For reasons other than you have put here, but support it none the less. I am making a reference to HELMETS for motorcycles! Leave the bloody seat belts out of it!



How is it not about safety? For your sake so that you don't have to go back and read it, I will repost my reasoning why it's is within reason for seat belts to be mandated. When you have a seat belt on you are less likely to be thrown around or out of the vehicle. Thus you have a higher chance of either regaining control of the vehicle or of at least enough control to minimize/eliminate harm to others. Therefore it is within reason because you are protecting others from a decision of someone else. This is opposed to the consequences only to one's self if you do not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

Click to expand...

It's obvious you've never been a bad accident or have expertise in crash safety. What you are advocating is a secondary benefit, but certainly not the primary purpose of installing seat belts in an automobile. It's plainly obvious that those that promote this premise are using it to support the need for seat belt laws. These technologies are no different than any other safety feature such as putting grounding plugs on electrical machinery or tools. These safety features stand on their own merit based on their original intent, and need no secondary benefit to support their existence. The public has agreed as a whole (based on years of testing and evidence) that these features are beneficial, and have chosen to promote their common use through appropriate laws. Insurance companies have promoted their use through reduced insurance premiums.

Jerry said:

So you aren't aware of the safety reforms the NFL is facing? They're seriously going to start putting impact censors in the helmets and when a player takes a cretin amount of impact they will be pulled. There's all kinds of **** coming down the line.

Click to expand...

So is that the NFL's doing or and mandate from Congress? If it's not law then you can't compare what they are doing. My comparison is that if we are trying to reduce injuries through mandates then these other activities need legal mandates as well, but no one calls for them. There is a major difference between a mandate that seeks to reduce injuries of the other due to the choices of the one and and a mandate that seeks to reduce injuries to the one due to the choices of the one.

year2late said:

Did I? because your drama was pointed at me.

I just said it was a two for the price of one. My opinion. Does it take away from yours?

Click to expand...

Jerry pulled the same thing too. I find it completely dishonest when I say "seat belt laws are ok because they reduce injury to others, but helmet laws are not because others don't come into play." and my reasoning is countered (which in and of itself isn't bad) and then that counter is used to say "and that's why we need seat belt laws".

rabbitcaebannog said:

That's a pretty dishonest point. Seat belt laws help save the individual as do helmet laws.

Click to expand...

How is that dishonest? At no point have I noted that neither one save individuals. I am one who believe in the consequences of one's actions to one's self, but not to others, if it can be helped. If you ride a motorcycle with your helmet off you risk only yourself, because your lack of helmet will not affect you ability to control or regain control of the bike in an accident. If you drive with your seat belt off, you increase the risk to others outside your vehicle because you have a higher chance of being thrown out of the driver's seat (whether you remain in the vehicle or not is irrelevant) and thus a lower chance of being able to control or regain control of the vehicle. This puts more people outside the car at risk. How is it dishonest to note the different principles in these two scenarios?

MoSurveyor said:

Why not? We remove freedoms for no other purpose than what some people believe is "improper behavior". At least with laws that save a substantial amount of money without a major loss of freedom everyone benefits, not just the prudes and church goers.

Click to expand...

And how many of those "improper behavior" laws are getting challenged and removed. Quite a few, although there are more to go. You don't impose laws that remove or restrict freedom without showing harm to others.

American said:

The public has agreed as a whole (based on years of testing and evidence) that these features are beneficial, and have chosen to promote their common use through appropriate laws. Insurance companies have promoted their use through reduced insurance premiums.

Click to expand...

When it comes to helmet laws and the like I agree with the latter method but not the first. Also do not mistake my views on what should be law with my views on what people should be doing. I fully believe that both seat belts and helmets should be worn. I wear mine even simply on my scooter and did so before it was law. There are many things that I believe that people should be doing to make this world a better place, I just don't believe that law is the way to do it in some cases.

maquiscat said:

How is that dishonest? At no point have I noted that neither one save individuals. I am one who believe in the consequences of one's actions to one's self, but not to others, if it can be helped. If you ride a motorcycle with your helmet off you risk only yourself, because your lack of helmet will not affect you ability to control or regain control of the bike in an accident. If you drive with your seat belt off, you increase the risk to others outside your vehicle because you have a higher chance of being thrown out of the driver's seat (whether you remain in the vehicle or not is irrelevant) and thus a lower chance of being able to control or regain control of the vehicle. This puts more people outside the car at risk. How is it dishonest to note the different principles in these two scenarios?

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. If you are driving so fast that a selt belt needs to keep you from flying out of your seat, an air bag will be deployed so the driver CANNOT gain control of the car once safety belts have tightened due to significant jarring. Be honest and admit that seatbelts are put into place for the safety of the indivual and not to save others from an accident. There's nothing worse than a dishonest discussion.

rabbitcaebannog said:

That's ridiculous. If you are driving so fast that a selt belt needs to keep you from flying out of your seat, an air bag will be deployed so the driver CANNOT gain control of the car once safety belts have tightened due to significant jarring. Be honest and admit that seatbelts are put into place for the safety of the indivual and not to save others from an accident. There's nothing worse than a dishonest discussion.

Click to expand...

And what happens if/when the airbag fails? There is no dishonestly here save maybe you not wanting to hear my logic. If it were only about personal safety then I would be against the seat belt law, as I think that a failure to use such safety devices should result in the individual paying for the consequences of their actions. I'm also all for an insurance company being allowed to say that the failure of the individual to use the provided safety device means they are not responsible for paying for those bills. At no point am I denying that seat belts provide safety for the user. I am only saying that, that in and of it self is not sufficient to force the use of seat belts on adults. It is the simple fact that, in addition to the safety provided to the individual, the use of seat belts increases the odds of the driver control, thus lowering potential harm to others.

maquiscat said:

And what happens if/when the airbag fails? There is no dishonestly here save maybe you not wanting to hear my logic. If it were only about personal safety then I would be against the seat belt law, as I think that a failure to use such safety devices should result in the individual paying for the consequences of their actions. I'm also all for an insurance company being allowed to say that the failure of the individual to use the provided safety device means they are not responsible for paying for those bills. At no point am I denying that seat belts provide safety for the user. I am only saying that, that in and of it self is not sufficient to force the use of seat belts on adults. It is the simple fact that, in addition to the safety provided to the individual, the use of seat belts increases the odds of the driver control, thus lowering potential harm to others.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see some proof seat belts allow the driver to maintain control of a car. Speed can be a determining factor and a seat belt can help the driver from getting severely hurt if they lose control but a seat belt does not allow a driver to maintain control of a car that is headed for an accident.

After buying crashed cars for years and seeing blood and hair on the windshield where the people were obviously not wearing the belt, I would never move a car with out one.

I do beleive the seat belt laws should be enforced. It is for the good of everybody.