• 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 .
Ah, well I'll remember next time another driver plows into me when he loses control of his vehicle due to not wearing a seatbelt to ask him if his act was virtuous or vicious.

He lost control over his car due to not wearing a seatbelt? How does that happen exactly?
 
He lost control over his car due to not wearing a seatbelt? How does that happen exactly?

You said in post #173 "You have no idea what I know of the subject." Did you mean to imply that that you know even less about physics than we initially suspected?
 
You said in post #173 "You have no idea what I know of the subject." Did you mean to imply that that you know even less about physics than we initially suspected?

Don't be daft. Look, your talk of physics here doesn't interest me and you have no idea what I know of it. Let it go.
 
Don't be daft. Look, your talk of physics here doesn't interest me and you have no idea what I know of it. Let it go.

Fortunately for us, seatbelt laws are made by those who are more interested in physics than you are.
 
Someone who doesn't believe in using a seat belt is too stupid to understand how their actions affect others, they also may be some brain dead libertarian.



There's no reason not to wear a seat belt, every reason to wear one.

Your first statement does not seem to answer the question.

Your second statement is rather a weak reason to force people to do things they don't want to, especially as there are reasons imaginable for not wanting to wear belts.
 
You said in post #173 "You have no idea what I know of the subject." Did you mean to imply that that you know even less about physics than we initially suspected?

He lost control over his car due to not wearing a seatbelt? How does that happen exactly?

Control of a vehicle can be lost whether the occupant is restrained or not. The need for seat belts isn't nor has it ever been substantiated by what happens outside the vehicle, but by what happens inside the vehicle.
 
Fortunately for us, seatbelt laws are made by those who are more interested in physics than you are.

Nope, they are not interested at all in physics and how it relates to seatbelt laws.

Ah, well I'll remember next time another driver plows into me when he loses control of his vehicle due to not wearing a seatbelt to ask him if his act was virtuous or vicious.

That does not occur. Not wearing a seatbelt does not make a person lose control.

Fortunately, those things are better understood by people making such laws.

Nope. Lawmakers almost always have absolutely no knowledge on the things they regulate.
 
Fortunately for us, seatbelt laws are made by those who are more interested in physics than you are.

Unfortunately for us, those in government understand intent just as well as you do.
 
Fortunately for us, seatbelt laws are made by those who are more interested in physics than you are.
Especially the bio-physics inside our bodies.
I had a squeamish way to scare my Physics students into wearing the seat belt.

Besides, it's a fine, they stop you, and then they might smell reefer and stuff.
And I would say that too .
 
If you were asking about ticketing adults for not having a seatbelt on when alone in their own car, I'd say that always bothered me in a weird way . I find it odd, if anything. I have the right to put myself in that sort of danger, crude as it sounds. While I don't think it's some sort of subversive plot for a citizen's money, it is a waste of money for people that are otherwise minding their own business and following the law (for the most part, anyway). BUT, again, it's for your own good and saves MANY lives. So, it's a small price to pay for your life.

Still, you should have worded this question better.
 
Nope. Lawmakers almost always have absolutely no knowledge on the things they regulate.

Especially Doctors like Senators Coburn and Paul, as well as former Sen. Frist .
 
Not so. You are required to wear a seat belt (only if you drive/ride on public roadways) not only for your own good but for the increased safety of others. Seat belts help keep the vehicle's occupants inside the vehicle instead of allowing them to become projectiles, ejected upon impact. These belts also help to keep the vehicle operator in a position to try to control the vehicle after the initial impact, helping to avoid secondary collisions, on our busy roadways. Having a damaged vehicle (or two) in the path of other motorists is bad enough, but adding one (or more) ejected people to the accident scene increases the danger to other motorists as they try to avoid adding themselves to the pile up.

Oh come on now.

So, the two reasons I should wear seat belts are 1) so I do not become a projectile upon impact and 2) so that I can control the vehicle after the initial collision?

1) So I am driving in my car and another car hits me head on hard enough that my un-belted body (btw - I ALWAYS wear belts and I helmet when I ride a motorcycle) is going to go flying through my front window and hit the other car? How? Both cars probably have airbags which are deployed. So my body is going to have such force behind it that I can somehow fly through my deployed airbag (which is designed to stop a body from hitting the steering wheel - let alone flying out the front windshield), fly through my reinforced windscreen, fly straight through the other cars reinforced windscreen and also fly through the other person's deployed airbag to injure them?
Once again - come on now.

And if neither car has airbags - the odds of my body flying out the window at just the right angle so that I fly right into him is remote. But even if it happened. If a guy hits me head on hard enough that my body flies through my reinforced windshield, smashes through his reinforced windshield and hits him with enough force to do damage - I guarantee you it will be negligible compared to the damage my 1.5/2 ton car will do to him that hits his car - head on - with enough force to do the above.

and 2) The secondary collision. How often does that happen? Most accidents I know of are either one hit and then the fall out OR one hit and then a ricochet into another. I highly doubt that anything but the tinniest fraction of accidents involve a hard initial collision and then the car keeps driving AND is steerable AND the driver is still somehow alert enough to avoid a second accident.

You are dealing with remote chances.

Not enough - for me - to allow the government to force me to wear seat belts.

You disagree - fine.
 
Control of a vehicle can be lost whether the occupant is restrained or not. The need for seat belts isn't nor has it ever been substantiated by what happens outside the vehicle, but by what happens inside the vehicle.

Fortunately you can test this out for yourself. First, find a big, empty parking lot to drive in where you won't hurt anyone else (or anything) and do a little experiment. Accelerate to 35mph and turn sharply to the left, once while wearing your seatbelt, once without, and you tell me which instance you're in better control of your vehicle. During the instance where you're not wearing the seatbelt, imagine that there are other drivers and pedestrians in close proximity to you.
 
Do air-bags work better or worse with seat-belts not on?
Unfortunately for us, those in government understand intent just as well as you do.
Do you disable your air bags ?
 
Oh come on now.

So, the two reasons I should wear seat belts are 1) so I do not become a projectile upon impact and 2) so that I can control the vehicle after the initial collision?

1) So I am driving in my car and another car hits me head on hard enough that my un-belted body (btw - I ALWAYS wear belts and I helmet when I ride a motorcycle) is going to go flying through my front window and hit the other car? How? Both cars probably have airbags which are deployed. So my body is going to have such force behind it that I can somehow fly through my deployed airbag (which is designed to stop a body from hitting the steering wheel - let alone flying out the front windshield), fly through my reinforced windscreen, fly straight through the other cars reinforced windscreen and also fly through the other person's deployed airbag to injure them?
Once again - come on now.

And if neither car has airbags - the odds of my body flying out the window at just the right angle so that I fly right into him is remote. But even if it happened. If a guy hits me head on hard enough that my body flies through my reinforced windshield, smashes through his reinforced windshield and hits him with enough force to do damage - I guarantee you it will be negligible compared to the damage my 1.5/2 ton car will do to him that hits his car - head on - with enough force to do the above.

and 2) The secondary collision. How often does that happen? Most accidents I know of are either one hit and then the fall out OR one hit and then a ricochet into another. I highly doubt that anything but the tinniest fraction of accidents involve a hard initial collision and then the car keeps driving AND is steerable AND the driver is still somehow alert enough to avoid a second accident.

You are dealing with remote chances.

Not enough - for me - to allow the government to force me to wear seat belts.

You disagree - fine.

The air bag will not stop you from impacting the windshield.
 
Do air-bags work better or worse with seat-belts not on?

Do you disable your air bags ?

Why are you asking me these questions?
 
Fortunately you can test this out for yourself. First, find a big, empty parking lot to drive in where you won't hurt anyone else (or anything) and do a little experiment. Accelerate to 35mph and turn sharply to the left, once while wearing your seatbelt, once without, and you tell me which instance you're in better control of your vehicle. During the instance where you're not wearing the seatbelt, imagine that there are other drivers and pedestrians in close proximity to you.

That is not the primary purpose of seat belts. Sure, it provides a secondary benefit. But helping you to maintain control of a vehicle is not why they were installed. Don't get lost in secondary issues about this, and why we have laws.
 
Do air-bags work better or worse with seat-belts not on?

Do you disable your air bags ?

They work better when wearing a seat belt.
 
I like using 20 mph and 40 mph.
Kids think double.
Then they see the kinetic energy equation has velocity squared, meaning energy is quadrupled..

Kids love car examples, like Pressure in Tires being Force over Area using p.s.i. .
Cars allowed me to teach a lot of Algebra and Geometry in Physics .
Fortunately you can test this out for yourself. First, find a big, empty parking lot to drive in where you won't hurt anyone else (or anything) and do a little experiment. Accelerate to 35mph and turn sharply to the left, once while wearing your seatbelt, once without, and you tell me which instance you're in better control of your vehicle. During the instance where you're not wearing the seatbelt, imagine that there are other drivers and pedestrians in close proximity to you.
 
Parents don't think twice when it comes to their young children.
This one should be a no-brainer.
They work better when wearing a seat belt.
I believe today's teens are getting it .
 
That is not the primary purpose of seat belts. Sure, it provides a secondary benefit. But helping you to maintain control of a vehicle is not why they were installed. Don't get lost in secondary issues about this, and why we have laws.

If the primary purpose of seatbelt laws were completely unrelated to safety, I'm still happy with them because they better restrain the occupant and help them to retain control of their vehicle.
 
If those Darwin Award winners drove alone in the vast stretches of Iowa I could get on board with that. When other cars are on the road with them that thinking doesn't work very well.

How do you figure? Are people not wearing seat belts of any increased risk to others? Or will they simply be less likely to walk away from any wreck than the others?
 
If the primary purpose of seatbelt laws were completely unrelated to safety, I'm still happy with them because they better restrain the occupant and help them to retain control of their vehicle.

What other purpose could there be?
 
What other purpose could there be?

Alien mind control. Who cares? Seat belts still better restrain occupants and help them to retain control of their vehicle.
 
Back
Top Bottom