Car Safety Belt Laws

[Danoff]

Note:
It is not valid to attack the scenario of the beggar and the woman by supposing a history behind these characters. If principles or need is to be the judge of what is just, the judging criteria must hold true for all character histories. So assume that you know everything that is important. Neither character has a criminal background. Neither got into their position via anyone’s actions but their own. It doesn’t matter, the judging criteria must hold its validity in all cases, not just one.

 

[Danoff]

An interesting concept was brought up earlier -the relationship between money and time. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but since I do not anticipate debate here, I’ll just mention a few things in this thread. If anyone wants to debate what I’m about to say, let’s start a new thread.

People say time is money. I say this is not true. Not all time is money. Some time is completely wasted (and that’s just fine). I say, money is time, and believe it to be true. Money represents productivity and hard work. It represents many people’s productivity and effort that allowed that particular dollar to end up where it is. Money represents time savings if you have it to spend, and time you will lose if you need to get it.

Time is incredibly precious. As was said in the movie Fight Club, “this is your life, and it’s ending one second at a time”. That is fundamentally true. Your money or lack of money represents part of your life (or someone’s else’s life in the case that the money was a gift) given up in pursuit of money. For some people different amounts of money represent different amounts of time. But the bottom line is that it represents part of a person’s life. That is such a fundamental thing that it is incredible to see it physically manifested in the form of a dollar.

How amazingly symbolic. The dollar represents future time savings, and past time spent all at once. The trick is to make the current time spent be less than the future time saved.


(the dollar could also represent comfort, but if you assume that the person wants the comfort and will get it one way or another, the dollar saves that person the time of having to supply his/her self with and allows them to save the time they would have spent doing that by offering someone else the future time savings)

 

[milefile]

I offered an explanation of Force. I have already said "force is force," which is as simple as I can make it. But I already know, based on the reception of all of my previous posts in this thread, that any future ones will receive the same treatment because they are all expressing the same thing in different words and different contexts. There's no reason to think further elaboration on my part will be received any different, and I think you already know that. It has become predictable and boring.

I used to see things in black-and-white terms. I used to assume the existence of universal principles. But after being confronted with contradictory evidence over and over it became obvious; that in order to reconcile and justify this world I had to consider more than the most obvious and "logical" reasons (causes, explanations, etc), that something ties together and justifies even contradiction and suffering. And I saw that doing this always revealed something simple and consistent and incontrovertible. I didn't do it to make the world better or to change anybody. Which is why I am always rather put-off at the hostility with which my perspective is approached.

I don't care what anyone else believes until they aggressively insist that it is the one, true way to beleive. I'm happy to discuss and compare beliefs, but not in a hostile, condescending environment.

But like I said, having been in your shoes for a long time, I already know that there are no words to convince, or "convert" you (which is what it really amounts to). And even if there were I wouldn't want to because who is to say anyone needs converting?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
I used to see things in black-and-white terms. I used to assume the existence of universal principles. But after being confronted with contradictory evidence over and over it became obvious; that in order to reconcile and justify this world I had to consider more than the most obvious and "logical" reasons (causes, explanations, etc), that something ties together and justifies even contradiction and suffering. And I saw that doing this always revealed something simple and consistent and incontrovertible.

I'm confused by this paragraph. danoff and I are both saying that certain things are simple and consistent and incontrovertible... and it seems that you've spent thousands of words trying to tell us we're wrong. Unless you're really just trying to say something on the order of "the only thing we understand is that we don't understand anything"... or, "the only fundamental thing is that nothing's fundamental".

I infer that you are saying danoff and I are naive in seeing things as black and white (not to mention the implication that we see everything as black and white. I don't believe either is true.

It is perfectly possible, for instance, for danoff and I to interact thousands of different ways based upon the fundamental, black-and-white principle that the only acceptable interaction between us is the free trade agreement. Based upon the foundation of that incontrovertible, non-contradictory statement, we are each as free to live our lives in as many shades of grey or as many colors as we wish.

But that doesn't change the fundamental, all-important, black-and-white nature of it. I don't find that naive.

 

[Danoff]

What I was attempting to do with my last few posts was to move the conversation in a new direction, not re-iterate an old one. We were getting nowhere with each other by using the generalities and vague statements with no concrete evidence that you used in your last post. I wanted to fix the conversation in concrete examples so that we could all see more clearly what each other’s thoughts are and their implications.

If you want to quit the conversation, I can think of any number of reasons. You don’t want to spend the time. You’ve found some flaw in your way of thinking. You’ve decided that this thread is stupid. But you can’t claim that you’re dropping out of the conversation because we aren’t listening. In fact, we’re the ones trying to clarify and get close to understanding. We’re still here, ready to read what you have to say - ready to see how my above interpretation of your views is incorrect and why the conclusions that I have drawn are flawed.

What you say is true, we will go around in circles as long as we stick with lofty general phrases that cannot be quantified, and that have no supporting examples. The reason we’re having trouble is a lack of clear communication. I, of course , feel like I’m holding up my end of the bargain.

 

[Danoff]

Click it or Ticket?

Are you guys having to sit through commericals about that too?

In Austin here, they're rounding up unpaid seatbelt offenders and putting them in jail. And the officers are out in "full force" to ticket people not wearing their seatbelt because "seatbelts save lives".

 

[1X83Z]

Click it or Ticket?

Are you guys having to sit through commericals about that too?

My brother says that Colorado gets those. I haven't watched any TV here in Texas today, so I'm not sure. The funny thing about Colorado is that it's still a secondary offence - despite the aggressive ad campaign, you can't be pulled over and actually ticketed if you don't 'click it.'

 

[urlilfriend]

Originally posted by Blazing20
Should it be enforced? Yes. Why? Because if it was not for the safety belt, me, my mom, aunt, and numerous other family members could've died in an automobile accident on different occasions if we did not wear our safety belt. I think it's just stupid for a person not to. That's practically like playing tackle football without pads and a helment.

I totally agree. My uncle just got into a car accident last week. He did not wear seat belts because our law enforcers aren't too strict or perhaps there weren't any in the road he passed by. The result is, he is now in danger of getting blind. Considering he is the only breadwinner of his family, it's gonna be so hard.

 

[Danoff]

Regardless of the outcome, it should still have been his choice weather or not to wear his seatbelt. You're uncle does not need law enforcement telling him whether or not to wear his seatbelt, he should be able to make up his own mind and accept the consequences.

 

[Danoff]

California is starting up another click it or ticket campaign. The television commercials and billboards (payed for by your tax dollars if you live in California) say that because safetybelts save lives, law enforcement will be out writing tickets if you don't buckle up.

My wife calls this campaign the excercise police. She says that excercise saves lives too so they should be out ticketing people who don't excercise enough.

I think its a fair comparison.

 

[ledhed]

I live in Pa. we just repealed the motorcycle helmet law. its now legal to ride a cycle sans mellon protection.
Its against the law not to wear a seat belt in a car or truck in my state. I live in a state of confusion.

 

[Danoff]

bump

 

[Young_Warrior]

2day on my lunch break I was sititing in a vafe whn on the radio people were actually arguing about this. Some moron was saying how people shouldnt try and force the seatbelt on him and another one was saying that everyone should wear a seat belt as ten insurance rates would go down as less people claim for whiplash.

 

[Swift]

Regardless of the outcome, it should still have been his choice weather or not to wear his seatbelt. You're uncle does not need law enforcement telling him whether or not to wear his seatbelt, he should be able to make up his own mind and accept the consequences.

So, does he deserve less or slower medical response because he chose to be negligent and not wear a seatbelt?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

bump

You just couldn't resist could you.

Yes... seat belt laws should be compulsory. They save lives. It is an infringment on the rights of people who are safe drivers and don't really ever need a seat belt, but the benefits outweigh the costs.

Protecting people from themselves could be a bad thing, but I wouldn't dismiss it as quickly as some people would.

 

[Danoff]

So, does he deserve less or slower medical response because he chose to be negligent and not wear a seatbelt?

Does someone who jumps on a trampoline or rides a motorcycle or goes skydiving or surfing or hunting deserve a slower medical response because they engaged in dangerous activities?

Yes... seat belt laws should be compulsory. They save lives. It is an infringment on the rights of people who are safe drivers and don't really ever need a seat belt, but the benefits outweigh the costs.

Why don't you leave the cost-benefit analysis to the person who's life is on the line?

 

[Swift]

...another one was saying that everyone should wear a seat belt as ten insurance rates would go down as less people claim for whiplash.

Seatbelts generally cause whiplash in the event of a sudden stop accident.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Why would someone not want to waer a seatbelt. Scared their shirt will get crumpled? Well their face will be alot more crumpled when it heads through the windshield.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Seatbelts generally cause whiplash in the event of a sudden stop accident.

Really? Well atleast they stop the persons head from colliding with the dashboard or hitting the window screen.

 

[Swift]

Really? Well atleast they stop the persons head from colliding with the dashboard or hitting the window screen.

No argument here. But the fact that your head isn't secured during an impact is what gives you worse whiplash then without a seatbelt. Of course, for about any collision over 10 MPH it would hard to cushion the impact with your arms not to get whipash. Then...what about your passengers?

 

[Swift]

Does someone who jumps on a trampoline or rides a motorcycle or goes skydiving or surfing or hunting deserve a slower medical response because they engaged in dangerous activities?

All of the things you mentioned except for motorcycle riding are PURELY for entertainment. The vast majority of people that drive, do it to get to work. Granted they drive to fun places as well.

But my main point is this. Driving is NOT a right. It's a priviledge. So, if the gov't wants to put restrictions on priviledge, you can either do it or not drive. It's as simple as that.

 

[Famine]

You just couldn't resist could you.

Yes... seat belt laws should be compulsory. They save lives. It is an infringment on the rights of people who are safe drivers and don't really ever need a seat belt

How?

If I'm not wearing my belt and crash into someone else, how is my obvious death infringing their rights in any way?

The fact I crashed into them had nothing to do with my wearing or not-wearing my seatbelt. The fact I died as a result of my own choice has nothing to do with their rights - and everything to do with mine.

 

[Swift]

How?

If I'm not wearing my belt and crash into someone else, how is my obvious death infringing their rights in any way?

The fact I crashed into them had nothing to do with my wearing or not-wearing my seatbelt. The fact I died as a result of my own choice has nothing to do with their rights - and everything to do with mine.

But driving isn't a right, not in the USA anyway.

 

[Famine]

No - but being an idiot is.

People ought to be educated why seatbelt-wearing is a good thing while driving - it might save their life - and not bullied into it. How not-wearing a seatbelt infringes anyone's rights escapes me.

 

[Swift]

No - but being an idiot is.

People ought to be educated why seatbelt-wearing is a good thing while driving - it might save their life - and not bullied into it. How not-wearing a seatbelt infringes anyone's rights escapes me.

How does making them wear a seatbelt infringe on their rights?

 

[Famine]

By forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

However, the key question is "How does it infringe anyone else's rights?". The answer is "It doesn't.", so why legislate against (then enforce) it?

 

[Swift]

By forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

However, the key question is "How does it infringe anyone else's rights?". The answer is "It doesn't.", so why legislate against (then enforce) it?

Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. So if they want to legislate how we use this privilege, I don't see it as an infringing on rights. That's kinda contradictory, "infringing on the rights of my privilege"

 

[Famine]

Living in the USA isn't a right - it's a privilege. Your argument is exactly analogous to "If you don't like our taxation laws, leave".

If someone passes "Driver's Ed." (that's short for "education") then they are judged competant to make their own decisions on the public highway. Does this not include the decision to wear or not wear a seatbelt?

As I said earlier, how does NOT wearing a seatbelt infringe anyone else's rights? It doesn't - so why then legislate against (then enforce) it?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Why don't you leave the cost-benefit analysis to the person who's life is on the line?

What on Earth is that suppose to mean?

How?

If I'm not wearing my belt and crash into someone else, how is my obvious death infringing their rights in any way?

The fact I crashed into them had nothing to do with my wearing or not-wearing my seatbelt. The fact I died as a result of my own choice has nothing to do with their rights - and everything to do with mine.

That's not what I said. I said forcing people to wear seatbelts (whether they believe they need one or not) is an infringement on their rights... sorry if I worded it incorrectly.

how does NOT wearing a seatbelt infringe anyone else's rights?

It doesn't.

 

[Famine]

Ah - apologies.