• 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 .
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...

I see the point in having them in that it's a healthcare issue. Person not wearing a seatbelt gets in a bad accident, goes to the ER and doesn't have insurance....well we all end up paying for that, don't we.

That said, I really don't care that much. The only issue I have is states like mine which have seatbelt laws but not helmet laws for motorcycles. At least have some parity and consistency.
 
Very few people can accomplish such. Usually only professional drivers. Ordinary drivers on the other hand don't react in such a manner. Most peoples first reaction is shock which will leave you temporarily unable to react to anything. Other people can black out due to the sudden change in direction or sudden stop. The only time that a driver can actually attempt to control a vehicle, and have the faculty to be able to, is when they are not hit by another vehicle but instead spin out. And I know from person experiance that a spin out will not automatically throw you from your seat.
Or.. they can maintain control of the vehicle, stopping it from possibly hitting other cars or people.

The fact that you did not come out of your seat has to do with the G-forces, your mass, and the direction in which you are spinning. Your "experience" is fallacious.
 
That is of course your opinion. My sister almost died due to a seatbelt when she went of the road and into a river. Only reason she didn't is because she happened to have a knife with her.

That situation is so rare, that it is pointless to bring up when discussing seat belt use/laws. Everyone should wear a seat belt every time they get in a car. It makes travelling in a car much, much safer.
 
If you get hit hard enough to get thrown onto the hood then you are not going to be able to control the vehicle even if you're wearing a seatbelt.

My point exactly. Buckle up and stay in your seat. Improves your chances.
As for seatbelts malfunction while under water. Just imaging banging your head hard on impact because you didn't wear the belt vs always keeping scissors in your glove compartment to use in case of SB malfunction.
What do you think are your better chances?
 
You have no right to needlessly endanger the lives of others, even if that makes endangering your rights more likely. You chose to participate in an activity, you are morally required to take steps to lessen the risks to others.

By who's morals? Yours? Pshh. :roll:

And no, I do have a right to think of my own life over that of others. Thats one of the reasons that I can legally shoot someone that tries to rob my house.

Hate to break it to you but my morals mean that I think of me and mine first. Everyone else is secondary.

The chances of you surviving an accident while wearing a seat belt are statistically superior to not wearing one.

Irrelevent. There is still a chance I will die due to a seatbelt. I get to decide what chances I take with my own life and which ones I don't. Not you.

Furthermore.... there is no right to drive. If you decide to participate in said activity you must participate by the rules set forth by the elected officials who represent the will of the people.

You're right, there is no right to drive on public roads. But I figure that if the government can ignore laws then so can I.
 
It is this type of though process that has allowed our laws and regulations to become so large that not even our Federal government knows just how many federal laws are on the books today. Not counting the millions of state and local government laws and regulations.
Look, I'm making a really simple point. Are you arguing for zero government mandated regulation or do you agree with me that there should be some government mandated regulation? I was only challenging the people suggesting the former as their sole reason for opposing mandatory seat-belts.

Beyond that you obviously have valid questions about scope, scale and extent of those regulations (and there are indeed plenty of areas where they are too numerous and too complex) but it's impossible to discuss such questions with people who have some fundamental objection to the whole concept.
 
Or.. they can maintain control of the vehicle, stopping it from possibly hitting other cars or people.

The fact that you did not come out of your seat has to do with the G-forces, your mass, and the direction in which you are spinning. Your "experience" is fallacious.

You just totally ignored what I said there. Not surprised.
 
That situation is so rare, that it is pointless to bring up when discussing seat belt use/laws. Everyone should wear a seat belt every time they get in a car. It makes travelling in a car much, much safer.

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.
 
yes of course for the simple reason that people can become projectiles in sever accidents.
and in minor ones where a person may maintain control they may lose control since they were flung around the vehicle now making them a danger to others.

IMO pretty simple actually
 
My point exactly. Buckle up and stay in your seat. Improves your chances.
As for seatbelts malfunction while under water. Just imaging banging your head hard on impact because you didn't wear the belt vs always keeping scissors in your glove compartment to use in case of SB malfunction.
What do you think are your better chances?

Like I've said before. Just depends on the circumstances of the accident you are in. There are pro's and con's to wearing seatbelts. Some situations it will save your life. In others it will kill you. As such it should be up to the individual.
 
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...




Absolutely.

I believe in them and I believe that they should be strictly enforced.

Any law which is not enforced should be 'taken off the books'.

Why have a law if it is not going to be enforced?

Anyone who can't obey the laws shouldn't have a driver's license.
 
Last edited:
You said that as a taxpayer you have the right to mandate that people should wear seatbelts because its your tax money being used to care for them in the hospital. That is not the case any longer due to both car insurance and Obamacare mandating that people have health insurance. Not to mention you totally disregard the fact that someone might actually pay the bill by themselves which again means your tax dollars are not used.

Well for one Obamacare may mandate that people have health insurance but it does not mean everyone actually has it, likewise your car insurance may not cover personal injury for you or someone else as mine doesn't. Secondly while its certainly possible that someone may be able to pay for post-accident healthcare out of pocket, there's no denying the large numbers of people who either can't do that or who suffer from such horrible injuries that the costs are beyond what a typical household could cover. Obviously when I mention the ER costing tax dollars I'm not talking about the people who don't cost tax dollars from their treatment. Thirdly, all hospitals and state/county/municipal governments run analysis on trends to determine the best numbers for things like number of EMTs, ambulances, doctors, nurses, beds, specialized equipment, etc, etc, etc. If less people wear seat belts then these numbers increase and the local government is either forced to expand its local emergency care system, more EMTs, more ambulances, etc all which of course cost tax dollars, or provide less care or lower quality care. Lastly, in any insurance system the more people drawing money from the system increases the demand for money going into the system, simply put the more people who draw money out of the big pool of cash that is the result of all your insurance payments, the more in payments that pool needs to stay viable, in other words the more people that get into accidents who share the same insurance providers as yourself mean you will eventually start paying higher rates or seeing less coverage.

Wear your damn seat belt.
 
Look, I'm making a really simple point. Are you arguing for zero government mandated regulation or do you agree with me that there should be some government mandated regulation? I was only challenging the people suggesting the former as their sole reason for opposing mandatory seat-belts.

Beyond that you obviously have valid questions about scope, scale and extent of those regulations (and there are indeed plenty of areas where they are too numerous and too complex) but it's impossible to discuss such questions with people who have some fundamental objection to the whole concept.

I'm argueing for limited government regulation. Not "reasonable". Not "some". Limited. Leave most things up to the individuals. For instance, I have no problem the government mandating that people prove that they can handle a vehicle via licensing. I have no problem with the government requiring that all vehicles meet certain standards of safety. I draw the line at what an individual does or doesn't do inside the vehicle so long as what they are or are not doing doesn't distract them from driving properly.
 
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.

Got a link for that?

Even if that is true, the fact is that you are much safer when you do wear a seat belt. Seat belts save thousands of lives every year in the US, and while yes they can be faulty, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't wear a seat belt every time you get into your car. If is much more likely for you to die because of not wearing a seat belt than because of a faulty seat belt. You are much safer wearing a seat belt than no seat belt at all.

Hell, you can choke and die while eating vegetables, doesn't mean you shouldn't eat them.
 
Well for one Obamacare may mandate that people have health insurance but it does not mean everyone actually has it, likewise your car insurance may not cover personal injury for you or someone else as mine doesn't. Secondly while its certainly possible that someone may be able to pay for post-accident healthcare out of pocket, there's no denying the large numbers of people who either can't do that or who suffer from such horrible injuries that the costs are beyond what a typical household could cover. Obviously when I mention the ER costing tax dollars I'm not talking about the people who don't cost tax dollars from their treatment. Thirdly, all hospitals and state/county/municipal governments run analysis on trends to determine the best numbers for things like number of EMTs, ambulances, doctors, nurses, beds, specialized equipment, etc, etc, etc. If less people wear seat belts then these numbers increase and the local government is either forced to expand its local emergency care system, more EMTs, more ambulances, etc all which of course cost tax dollars, or provide less care or lower quality care. Lastly, in any insurance system the more people drawing money from the system increases the demand for money going into the system, simply put the more people who draw money out of the big pool of cash that is the result of all your insurance payments, the more in payments that pool needs to stay viable, in other words the more people that get into accidents who share the same insurance providers as yourself mean you will eventually start paying higher rates or seeing less coverage.

Wear your damn seat belt.

Ok. Still I disagree with it. My taxes are mixed up in there as well. As such it pretty much nulls your taxes. Same with the rest of your objections. Not to mention with such an arguement you can use it to excuse any number of things. Including infringing on peoples Rights.
 
Got a link for that?

Already provided in post #44.

Even if that is true, the fact is that you are much safer when you do wear a seat belt. Seat belts save thousands of lives every year in the US, and while yes they can be faulty, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't wear a seat belt every time you get into your car. If is much more likely for you to die because of not wearing a seat belt than because of a faulty seat belt. You are much safer wearing a seat belt than no seat belt at all.

Hell, you can choke and die while eating vegetables, doesn't mean you shouldn't eat them.

As I've said before, it has its pro's and con's. As such it should be up to the individual. Would you mandate that people eat thier veggies? After all, not eating veggies can result in bad health. Which, as Wiseone pointed out in regards to seatbelts and can be applied here as well....can cost you tax money.
 
Already provided in post #44.



As I've said before, it has its pro's and con's. As such it should be up to the individual. Would you mandate that people eat thier veggies? After all, not eating veggies can result in bad health. Which, as Wiseone pointed out in regards to seatbelts and can be applied here as well....can cost you tax money.

The key to that is faulty. Anything that is faulty can be dangerous, but you are much better off with a seat belt than you are without one.

Seat belt laws save lives, and it should be law that everyone should wear a seat belt.

Also, just looked at your link and I'm not impressed. It's not sourced and I've never heard of the website before.
 
I'm argueing for limited government regulation. Not "reasonable". Not "some". Limited.
Not reasonable? In other words you'd rather see the wrong thing done that there being "too much" government regulation. Either you're arguing for the correct scope and scale of regulation (which should reasonable by definition) or you're not. The only difference of opinion we should be having here is whether any given regulation is actually reasonable or not (and on seatbelts we'll probably have to agree to differ).

Any individual regulation or law just be discussed entirely on it's own merits (which can include aspects like personal freedom), not dismissed regardless of those merits just because you think there are too many other regulations already. It's like deciding we should only have 100 laws and if rape turns out to be law 101, that's just tough luck for rape victims. We should actually have as many laws as is required to cover what needs to be covered (though no more). If that's 50, 100 or 500, so be it. The idea that you can determine before hand how many laws are too many is silly.
 
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...

I voted no. I don't really think these are real laws. I bet if you got a ticket for failure to wear a seat belt and refused to pay it, it would get dropped.

Georgia was one of the first states to have seat belt laws and that was back in the 80's. Nobody has ever challenged these laws to my knowledge. Just think how difficult it would be to challenge the seat belt law.

First: You have to ride around without wearing a seat belt which is dumb.
Second: You have to get caught by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt.
Third: The cop has to write you a ticket for failure to wear a seat belt.
Fourth: You have to refuse to pay the fine which is dumb. Yes it's patriotic to protest oppressive laws but protesting annoying laws just probably isn't going to feel like it's worth it to the average hero-type personality.
Fifth: The courts have to refuse to dismiss the charges. This is dumb. All they have to do is rip up the ticket to screw you over.
Sixth: You have to find a lawyer that cares enough to challenge an annoying law rather than an oppressive law.

These aren't real laws but the states know that in order to keep these laws in place they can't be strictly enforced. I hope that makes sense.
 
I said "yes" because todays cars have air bags. If you use an airbag without a seat belt, you will more than likely die from the airbag.
 
The key to that is faulty. Anything that is faulty can be dangerous, but you are much better off with a seat belt than you are without one.

Seat belt laws save lives, and it should be law that everyone should wear a seat belt.

And getting rid of fast food restaruants and junk food would save lives also. Should we get rid of them? That would save even more lives that the 255 thousand some odd people that have been saved due to seatbelt use since 1975. Policy Impact: Seat Belts People would be better off.....right?

Point is...don't people have a right to determine how they live and what risks they take?
 
And really - is it any inconvenience at all?

I think this is the reason these laws have been able to survive for so long. It is more inconvenient to challenge the law than it is to comply.
 
And getting rid of fast food restaruants and junk food would save lives also. Should we get rid of them?

Sounds like an interesting discussion for a new thread. I bet you will see arguments on both sides.
 
Not reasonable? In other words you'd rather see the wrong thing done that there being "too much" government regulation. Either you're arguing for the correct scope and scale of regulation (which should reasonable by definition) or you're not. The only difference of opinion we should be having here is whether any given regulation is actually reasonable or not (and on seatbelts we'll probably have to agree to differ).

Any individual regulation or law just be discussed entirely on it's own merits (which can include aspects like personal freedom), not dismissed regardless of those merits just because you think there are too many other regulations already. It's like deciding we should only have 100 laws and if rape turns out to be law 101, that's just tough luck for rape victims. We should actually have as many laws as is required to cover what needs to be covered (though no more). If that's 50, 100 or 500, so be it. The idea that you can determine before hand how many laws are too many is silly.

What is reasonable to you? What is reasonable to me? Some people think that it is perfectly reasonble to ban all guns. Others think that it is perfectly reasonable to ban certain kinds of "hate" speech. This is why I said "not reasonable". What is and isn't reasonable is entirely subjective.

Also when I say "limited" I'm talking about in scope. Not in totality.
 
People, adults, constantly "break" all kinds of laws while driving. They speed, text, talk on phones.......

If you don't want to wear a seat belt - don't.

I agree. I don't think these laws are strictly enforced. I bet they'd drop the ticket if you asked nicely.
 
Back
Top Bottom