Do you have a right to not use a seat belt? (1 Viewer)

[Jack White]

F### seatbelts. If you like and wear em, great. I don't and don't.

Good for you. I wear them, but I fully support the right of others not to.

 

[Guest]

How lazy do you have to be to not wear one? Does it take more than 3 seconds to buckle up?

 

[Jack White]

How lazy do you have to be to not wear one? Does it take more than 3 seconds to buckle up?

I seriously doubt that laziness is the reason people don't wear them.

 

[Guest]

How lazy do you have to be to not wear one? Does it take more than 3 seconds to buckle up?

I seriously doubt that laziness is the reason people don't wear them.

Oh yeah, FREEDOM!!! Makes sense to risk brain damage in a 35 MPH accident because of that.

 

[Slapdash]

You don't because the government says so. That said, they shouldn't be banning riding without seatbelts.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Only if you can afford to pay all of your medical bills out of pocket...and therein is the freedom that some in here say is necessary. As long as ANY other party is responsible for even a small part of additional costs due to injuries for NOT wearing a basic life saving and injury preventing device which causes absolutely ZERO undue stress on the wearer, than there is every reason to support a seat belt law.

If you have the pockets deep enough to pay those extra bills, than ignore the law and pay the silly miniscule little tickets when they come up because obviously those few dollars hold little meaning to you.

Personal freedom is a stupid argument here.

Personal freedom is never a stupid argument.

Using your logic, any activity that could result in "[SIZE=11.8181819915771px]ANY other party (being) responsible for even a small part of additional costs due to injuries for NOT (doing X)" should be criminalized. [/SIZE]

False.

What a persuasive retort!

True.

 

[The Ref]

Not sure of the ethics of it all. What I can tell you is if you have ever had the unfortunate experience of being in a bad crash you would never not wear one. A belt saved my life a few years back.

 

[Quez]

Should you have the right to drive your own vehicle?

-this will be the question in about 20yrs when driverless vehicles are the norm.

 

[cstu]

Not sure of the ethics of it all. What I can tell you is if you have ever had the unfortunate experience of being in a bad crash you would never not wear one. A belt saved my life a few years back.

If I lived where it was snowy again I definitely would wear one all the time. However, 95% of my driving is on Los Angeles streets in perfect weather going less than 40 mph.

Out of 10 million people only about 200 vehicle occupants die in car accidents every year. Most of those are kids driving unsafe and the elderly. I do wear my seat belt most of the time but I don't feel that my life is in danger on local streets.

 

[Wingnut]

How lazy do you have to be to not wear one? Does it take more than 3 seconds to buckle up?

I seriously doubt that laziness is the reason people don't wear them.

Oh yeah, FREEDOM!!! Makes sense to risk brain damage in a 35 MPH accident because of that.

I just dont like em. I feel constricted when wearing one. I've got a few seatbelt tickets over the years, and will probably get a few more before all is said and done. No biggie.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I always wear my seatbelt out of habit - but I don't see the compelling state interest to force you to wear one. Yes, it could save your life in an accident - but not smoking could prolong your life as well and we don't make it a law that you cannot smoke. I think, like smoking - your choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt should be similar to use of tobacco. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt your insurance premium should go up. Much like tobacco, though, it would be very hard to prevent someone from lying about their seatbelt use.

 

[Wrigley]

Pretty sure I started a seatbelt thread years ago,I asked if it was constitutional

 

[ghostguy123]

Not sure of the ethics of it all. What I can tell you is if you have ever had the unfortunate experience of being in a bad crash you would never not wear one. A belt saved my life a few years back.

If I lived where it was snowy again I definitely would wear one all the time. However, 95% of my driving is on Los Angeles streets in perfect weather going less than 40 mph.

Out of 10 million people only about 200 vehicle occupants die in car accidents every year. Most of those are kids driving unsafe and the elderly. I do wear my seat belt most of the time but I don't feel that my life is in danger on local streets.

Does it have to be about life and death? I rather walk away with bruises than a busted up face, arms, and whatever else decides to break on the stearing column.

 

[ghostguy123]

Pretty sure I started a seatbelt thread years ago,I asked if it was constitutional

There could be a thread about 400 million things with that same question.

 

[renesauz]

Only if you can afford to pay all of your medical bills out of pocket...and therein is the freedom that some in here say is necessary. As long as ANY other party is responsible for even a small part of additional costs due to injuries for NOT wearing a basic life saving and injury preventing device which causes absolutely ZERO undue stress on the wearer, than there is every reason to support a seat belt law.

If you have the pockets deep enough to pay those extra bills, than ignore the law and pay the silly miniscule little tickets when they come up because obviously those few dollars hold little meaning to you.

Personal freedom is a stupid argument here.

Personal freedom is never a stupid argument.

Using your logic, any activity that could result in "ANY other party (being) responsible for even a small part of additional costs due to injuries for NOT (doing X)" should be criminalized.

Hardly. My statement about personal freedom is based on the fact that it's a very real stretch to say that freedom is being impinged upon to start with. Then, the lifetime odds of a costly auto accident are fairly significant- half of us will be in a costly accident at some point in our lives.

Personal freedoms are never, and CAN NEVER be absolute absent anarchy. Even then, exercising one persons freedom often impinges on the freedom of others. If you can't afford a couple hundred grand out of pocket to pay excess medical bills, then expecting the rest of us to help pay them (via insurance premiums) is an impingement on the freedom of others! Choices must be made as a society as to when and where to draw the lines, and a free society has the right to object to those lines and fight/vote to have them changed when and where appropriate or necessary. Anyone putting up a serious fight over a seat belt requirement is either being obtuse or has a dangerous and egocentric misconception of freedom.

 

[Jack White]

Only if you can afford to pay all of your medical bills out of pocket...and therein is the freedom that some in here say is necessary. As long as ANY other party is responsible for even a small part of additional costs due to injuries for NOT wearing a basic life saving and injury preventing device which causes absolutely ZERO undue stress on the wearer, than there is every reason to support a seat belt law.

If you have the pockets deep enough to pay those extra bills, than ignore the law and pay the silly miniscule little tickets when they come up because obviously those few dollars hold little meaning to you.

Personal freedom is a stupid argument here.

Personal freedom is never a stupid argument.

Using your logic, any activity that could result in "[SIZE=11.81px]ANY other party (being) responsible for even a small part of additional costs due to injuries for NOT (doing X)" should be criminalized. [/SIZE]

Hardly. My statement about personal freedom is based on the fact that it's a very real stretch to say that freedom is being impinged upon to start with. Then, the lifetime odds of a costly auto accident are fairly significant- half of us will be in a costly accident at some point in our lives.

Personal freedoms are never, and CAN NEVER be absolute absent anarchy. Even then, exercising one persons freedom often impinges on the freedom of others. If you can't afford a couple hundred grand out of pocket to pay excess medical bills, then expecting the rest of us to help pay them (via insurance premiums) is an impingement on the freedom of others! Choices must be made as a society as to when and where to draw the lines, and a free society has the right to object to those lines and fight/vote to have them changed when and where appropriate or necessary. Anyone putting up a serious fight over a seat belt requirement is either being obtuse or has a dangerous and egocentric misconception of freedom.

"Choices must be made by a society."

So to you, government edicts = society.

To you, fleecing someone out of fifty or a hundred bucks for making a personal choice that is no one else's business is good, because "society" says so.

What else will the state forbid and criminalize in the interest of "society" and "safety"? When will it end?

 

[Thunderlips]

You have a "right" to not use a seat belt in a car by not getting into a car. You agree to some of "The Man's" terms (need a valid license/insurance to lawfully operate a vehicle/have to be a certain age/have to maintain certain safety standards on the vehicle)....but not to that one?....That's kooky talk.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am usually in favor of smaller government, but when it comes to a law like this, I feel that some need to be protected from their own stupidity. IMO, it's just stupid to not wear a seat belt. I am sure someone will point out the rare instances where not wearing one did more good than harm, but 99.999% of the time, in a crash or something to that effect, having your seat belt on is gonna do way more good than harm.

 

[dparker713]

I always wear my seatbelt out of habit - but I don't see the compelling state interest to force you to wear one. Yes, it could save your life in an accident - but not smoking could prolong your life as well and we don't make it a law that you cannot smoke. I think, like smoking - your choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt should be similar to use of tobacco. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt your insurance premium should go up. Much like tobacco, though, it would be very hard to prevent someone from lying about their seatbelt use.

Well, if the car has multiple occupants, it protects all them from one another.

 

[dparker713]

If you can't afford a couple hundred grand out of pocket to pay excess medical bills, then expecting the rest of us to help pay them (via insurance premiums) is an impingement on the freedom of others!

The entire point of insurance is to pool risk. The only way to pervert the cost of an insurance payout into an impingement on the freedom of others is to have already impinged freedom through the requirement of purchasing insurance - specifically collision insurance. If people choose to pool their risk, they are accepting the costs of idiocy.

 

[BigJim®]

The rights people get worked up over never ceases to surprise me. I was ejected from a car back 1994 when seatbelt usage was discretionary. I think back on that every now and then when feeling grateful for the life I've gone on to have... great wife and 2 sons. I was not in the fringe "my right not to wear it" group; it was pure laziness, and youthful invincibility. I'm very glad Big Brother is dictating that my own sons won't have the right to be as stupid as I was. What a senseless way to die.

 

[RCon]

Other than "FREEDOM!" what are the arguments against wearing seat belts?

There are none. That's why I like this particular issue. It's a "clean" case in where there are no arguments in favor of prohibiting X other than "I feel like doing X."

"FEEDOM!" is a pretty good argument in favor of lots of things, like the freedom to smoke pot in your own home and the freedom not to have the NSA snooping through your gmail account.

"Feedom" (sic) is pretty much the government's argument for everything it does.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I always wear my seatbelt out of habit - but I don't see the compelling state interest to force you to wear one. Yes, it could save your life in an accident - but not smoking could prolong your life as well and we don't make it a law that you cannot smoke. I think, like smoking - your choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt should be similar to use of tobacco. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt your insurance premium should go up. Much like tobacco, though, it would be very hard to prevent someone from lying about their seatbelt use.

Well, if the car has multiple occupants, it protects all them from one another.

I totally agree it is a good idea to wear one. Seatbelt usage saved the lives of my wife and my then infant daughter 24 years ago when the car my wife was driving (with my daughter in a carseat in the back) was t-boned by a drunk driver. But, survival of the fittest is not a bad idea. People too stupid to wear seat belts will take care of their entry into the gene pool and it will be a net benefit to society.

 

[Spike]

Pa you have to wear a seat belt

But no helmet is required for a motorcycle

Maybe we need to start to have seat belts required when riding motorcycles.

 

[Joe Summer]

Just put some velcro on the seat belt and attach it to the headrest. Most cops will never even notice.

 

[matuski]

You have a right not to obey the law, you don't have a right to avoid the consequences.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You have a right not to obey the law, you don't have a right to avoid the consequences.

You don't really have a right not to obey the law in this case. I don't know that it's ever happened, but if a cop pulls you over and tells you to put your seatbelt on and you flatly refuse, he isn't limited to just giving you a ticket. I think he can forcibly prevent you from driving until you comply.

 

[nirad3]

No time to read through three pages of debate, but I'll add this: i was in a single car accident Super Bowl Sunday of 2004 in an extended cab Silverado. Had I been sitting up in the back seat w/ seat belt on, I wouldn't be here to type this. The guy sitting in front of me was sitting up, seat belt on, and was instantly killed on impact. I was laying down in the back seat sleeping.

That said, in normal circumstances as either driver or passenger, wearing one's seat belt is advisable.

 

[parasaurolophus]

No time to read through three pages of debate, but I'll add this: i was in a single car accident Super Bowl Sunday of 2004 in an extended cab Silverado. Had I been sitting up in the back seat w/ seat belt on, I wouldn't be here to type this. The guy sitting in front of me was sitting up, seat belt on, and was instantly killed on impact. I was laying down in the back seat sleeping.

That said, in normal circumstances as either driver or passenger, wearing one's seat belt is advisable.

What if you were laying down with a seat belt on?

 

[matuski]

You have a right not to obey the law, you don't have a right to avoid the consequences.

You don't really have a right not to obey the law in this case. I don't know that it's ever happened, but if a cop pulls you over and tells you to put your seatbelt on and you flatly refuse, he isn't limited to just giving you a ticket. I think he can forcibly prevent you from driving until you comply.

Wouldn't that be a consequence of choosing not to obey?

 

[Jayrod]

I don't think anyone is arguing that wearing a seat belt isn't a good thing.

The argument is whether or not the government has a right to compel us through law and enforcement of said law to protect ourselves. The laws regarding seat belts, helmets and soft drink size fit into this category.

Personally I don't like it. I do wear my seat belt regularly, but I don't wear a helmet when riding a bike and I drink ridiculously sized soft drinks. The argument that it effects society as a whole is the greatest slippery slope there is, IMO. Sure if something bad happens to me, it will effect others. That doesn't mean the government has a right to tell me I have to take precautions to prevent any and all accidents. I don't want to be told I can't hunt deer or canoe down a river or bungee jump or skydive or eat ice cream or any other pleasure of life I enjoy simply because of what "might" happen to me. I think there are a lot of life's simple pleasures that could easily fall into this category if enough bad things happen and if it gets enough press.