Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^There are many "victims" in an incapacitating car accident, primarily the taxpayers who will support the vic the rest of his/her life. Then there are the more obvious victims, such as the vics family.
^^There are many "victims" when somebody smokes cigarettes, primarily the taxpayers who support the vic the rest of his/her life. Then there are the more obvious victims, such as the vics family.
Truth be told, most people who oppose something do so because they believe it does harm others in some way. This debate is no exception. Some people recognize that one person not wearing their seat belt can and does affect other people, not just them. I gave two examples you could not refute (you just called them "baseless arguments" even though the logic behind each was pretty clear and straightforward).
At any rate, "extreme" is quite the subjective term. Can you prove to anyone here that the act of riding a motorcycle itself doesn't qualify as "extreme" in some people's opinion?
Pretty much everyone here is for reducing some liberty which someone else deems harmless or having only one victim. Whether or not they're justified in that can be determined through discussion of the details.
Wanting to ban motorcycle riding is an extreme view.
I'm starting this thread after a lengthy conversation with a police officer today. How do you posters feel about seatbelt laws? Personally, I feel like it gives officers too much authority. Nobody will be harmed, but yourself for not wearing a seatbelt. Shouldn't there be public awareness campaigns rather than law enforcement of the issue?
What a crazy fallacy.
wow.
1) you can look at the seat belt states vs. non-seat belt. Enforcement raises seat belt rates.
2) seat belt rates on a macro level lower death by accident. In 2009 seat belt primary law enforcement (i.e. the above) is thought to save as many as 12k lives.
3) You do not have a right to drive on state/government owned highways. It is a privilege. The state has authority, on behalf of its people, what you must do for a privileged. If you want you can drive on a non-state owned highway without these crazy rules. good luck with that.
4) there is no such thing as a victumless event. The cost to society in lost taxes, health care, etc. are not recouped. Insurance companies do not have the right to revoke your insurance if they find you don't have a seatbelt on. Perhaps if a hospital could turn you away without money/insurance companies could reject you for not wearing a seat belt we would have a fair deal. That doesn't exist today. If insurance companies and health care can not recoup the cost for your reckless they are forced to pass those costs to us.
5) seat belt laws are for idiots. I mean seriously, most people are smart enough to wear the damn thing. Yet society (per the above) should be protected from the idiots. They exist. they are stupid. they are illogical. More concerned about their rights then doing the right thing (even if the right is fiction). So don't let the law bother you. If your doing the right thing, and wearing a seatbelt on state owned (and non-state owned) roads, your fine. Seat belt laws are just there to protect our pocketbooks from idiots.
This is one situation where the government is justified in requiring actions to protect people from their own stupidity or foolishness. Requiring riders to wear helmets is another.
The society is justified in this requirement because every life lost or severely damaged is a loss of society’s investment in that person or requires even more investment in medical costs.
I, and all of my passengers, wear seat belts while travelling in my car. I, and my companion, also wear helmets and other protective gear when we are riding my motorcycle. I do this regardless of the law.
it is not the responsibility for goverment to protect people from their own foolishness or stupidity. if such were true, then everyone would be wrapped in bubblewrap 24/7.
also if such were true, then goverment would not exist as it does most of the most stupid actions in the entire country.
^^There are many "victims" when somebody smokes cigarettes, primarily the taxpayers who support the vic the rest of his/her life. Then there are the more obvious victims, such as the vics family.
Ive brought it up before but why stop at seatbelts and helmets...lets make pedestrians wear helmets and other protective gear in case they trip on the sidewalk or get hit by a cyclist or a car or whatever. That would be the safe thing to do.
If this is a safety issue id like to know how many of you stating that by not wearing a seatbelt you are.... putting others at risk, worried about tax payers, victims families actually drive without using your turn signals when changing lanes, talk and text on your cell phone while driving, dont pay attention to the road, etc... You cant preach safety when you blatently put others at harm by not obiding by these safety guidelines that are set forth to protect everyone. Laws such as this dont necessarilly restrict ones decisions on their own safety but look to keep the roads safe. Not wearing a seatbelt does not make the road any less safe but its drivers such as the ones above that put everyone at risk. So, basically we need a law to protect us from drivers that dont obide by the other rules of the road. There should be more strict punishment for those that dont obide by those rules of the road and let everyone keep some sense of freedom to choose on wearing a seatbelt or not. The less poor drivers on the road means less accidents. INstead of making laws to blanket other ones why not nip it at the root of the problem. Id love to hear someone that preaches the importance of wearing a seatbelt that swerves in and out of traffic with out using blinkers...I see this everyday and I guess they feel it is important to wear them because we need to be potected from drivers such as them.
I wear my seatbelt but am against any sort of helmet/seatbelt law. If I want to wear it I will, If I dont I dont think I should be forced to. I am an adult and should be able to accept the known risks if I want to.
Wanting to ban motorcycle riding is an extreme view.
I'm sure many would agree with you. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that "extreme" is a nothing more than a subjective judgement call. It also doesn't change (or even address) any of the specific arguments I've made concerning either motorcycles or the actual topic here.
Face it, the best you can say is "I don't care if people getting into accidents while not wearing a seat belt means more potential traumatization of the general public (including children), burden on taxpayers to pay for their injuries, or cleanup (which the taxpayers also have to pay for)" and leave it at that. We all have different values. That's all you've convinced me of thus far.
Is that because you have no argument for his respone?
No, it's because I'd like to stay on topic. If someone wants to discuss smoking, let them start a thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
