Car Safety Belt Laws

[Swift]

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?

If part of the driver's education is that wearing a seatbelt is the law, then what's the problem. I mean, you can't speed, you can park in certain spots, you can't swerve through traffic because you're in a hurry. All of those offenses warrant a ticket. I'm sure there are people that are more then capable of handling a car at 100+mph. So, why isn't it a "decision" for them?

 

[Joey D]

The only reason States ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt is so they generate revenue. Also I guess you coudl say you are going to get hurt if you aren't wearing a seat belt and that would cause a insurence rate hike...but insurence rates are already high.

 

[Famine]

If part of the driver's education is that wearing a seatbelt is the law, then what's the problem. I mean, you can't speed, you can park in certain spots, you can't swerve through traffic because you're in a hurry. All of those offenses warrant a ticket. I'm sure there are people that are more then capable of handling a car at 100+mph. So, why isn't it a "decision" for them?

Aaaand all three of the offences you mention cause potential danger to other road users. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't.

 

[Swift]

Aaaand all three of the offences you mention cause potential danger to other road users. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't.

True enough. But I'm still confused on how someone can take away your "rights" from something that's a privilege.

 

[Kylehnat]

The only reason States ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt is so they generate revenue. Also I guess you coudl say you are going to get hurt if you aren't wearing a seat belt and that would cause a insurence rate hike...but insurence rates are already high.

Well, there's that, but it also makes the jobs of the police and EMTs much easier if people wear seatbelts. I mean, who really likes scraping someones brain off of the road, or finding half of a body, and then having to hunt for the rest? Also, if someone dies in an accident, it MUST be investigated, which takes time, money, and causes traffic problems.

I've never thought twice about wearing a seat belt. I can't honestly understand why people don't wear them. The common excuses are that it takes too long, it's uncomfortable, or not necessary for a short trip. Huh? It takes 2 seconds to buckle and is completely unnoticeable when it's on. Short trip? Okay maybe you're less likely to get in an accident driving a mile down the street, but why take that chance? And besides, for me, it's an automatic reaction to buckle up when i sit down in the car. It would take more effort NOT to put my seat belt on. I suspect that a lot of people think that seat belts are dorky and uncool, so they don't wear them, in hopes of looking "cool" to their friends.

Well, cool until they hit something at 40 mph, get ejected through the windshield, and decapitated by a moving bus.

It's also real cool to get a $101 ticket for something so lame as not buckling your seat belt, something you should have been doing since you were 4 years old.

As for making it a law? Let's not do that, and after a while, there will be no non-seatbelt-wearing people anyway. Get my drift?

 

[Kylehnat]

Aaaand all three of the offences you mention cause potential danger to other road users. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't.

Hmmm. Well, I'd argue that bodies being ejected from vehicles are not particularily safe to other people in the vicinity. Granted, it'd be flukey that anyone else got hurt or killed from it, but it's still possible, and preventable.

Edit: That made me think of something. A while back, my dad was working on a 757 Freighter. It turned out that in the designs, nobody bothered to attach the toilet to anything structural. Therefore, in a completely survivable crash, the toilet could come flying through the wall and into the cockpit, possibly killing both pilots. The dangers of unrestrained heavy objects... Nah, that's not relevant to this discussion....is it?

 

[Famine]

True enough. But I'm still confused on how someone can take away your "rights" from something that's a privilege.

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".

The key is that NOT wearing YOUR seatbelt harms no-one, but leaves you open to potential risk to yourself. Anyone who is in a position to do this has been trained and told the potential risks and has decided that they are willing to take those risks. And yet you feel the need for governmental intrusion to order them to do it, even though there is no risk to anyone but themselves...


Question - Why is it not mandatory to have fitted and wear seatbelts on a public bus - where there actually IS potential risk to someone else (the person in front of you)?



kylenhat - Please show me one incident where someone not wearing a seatbelt has been ejected from their vehicle and into another. Actually leaving your vehicle is tough - you have to accelerate to a point where your kinetic energy can penetrate a toughened glass screen no more than 4 feet in front of you, but not so that you go splat.

 

[Swift]

The key is that NOT wearing YOUR seatbelt harms no-one, but leaves you open to potential risk to yourself. Anyone who is in a position to do this has been trained and told the potential risks and has decided that they are willing to take those risks. And yet you feel the need for governmental intrusion to order them to do it, even though there is no risk to anyone but themselves...


Question - Why is it not mandatory to have fitted and wear seatbelts on a public bus - where there actually IS potential risk to someone else (the person in front of you)?

I don't know and I think that is stupid.

Wearing a seatbelt might not cause another person direct harm. But when in an accident not wearing a seatbelt, you're going to take up much more time from the emt's etc and mess with traffic for that much longer.

Also, yeah. How is it fair that the person NOT wearing his seatbelt gets the same immediate medical care as the person that doesn't wear a seatbelt? That was his decision right? So he knew that if an accident were to happen he's going to get more jacked up then the without it. So the EMT's have to go through all this stuff to save the life of the guy that "chose" not to wear his seatbelt. And he costs the state and insurance companies much more money.

But besides all that, driving isn't a right, it's a privilidge. So what's the problem?

Why is it that the gov't can FORCE you to get your air conditioning fixed on a car to pass inspection? It doesn't make the car any more or less drivable. It's a comfort option. But they will not let it pass inspection without it working.

I'm sorry, but in my eyes, driving is something we get to do. So, if the government wants to say you have to wear a seat belt to 1) Save a life 2) save money 3) save time then we can either get with the program, vote in people that will get it repealled or get to steppin.

 

[Famine]

But besides all that, driving isn't a right, it's a privilidge. So what's the problem?

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".

And STILL, you educate drivers and give them a test to assess their competance to make their own decisions on the roads and then, where there's no risk to others as a result of their decisions, deny them that ability.

Which is it? Are they competant to make their own decisions or not?


I'd rather every driver chose not to wear their seatbelt than any driver chose to drink-drive.

 

[Kylehnat]

kylenhat - Please show me one incident where someone not wearing a seatbelt has been ejected from their vehicle and into another. Actually leaving your vehicle is tough - you have to accelerate to a point where your kinetic energy can penetrate a toughened glass screen no more than 4 feet in front of you, but not so that you go splat.

People get ejected from their cars all the time. Most of these incidents involve the car rolling, and the person flying out through an open side window. Nevertheless, I still contend that an unconscious, possibly dead person moving not of their own accord could be dangerous to others. Maybe their body hits a pedestrian, who falls over and breaks their skull on the sidewalk... I don't deny that it's very low probability, but it COULD conceivably happen. Like someone firing a gun into the air in the middle of the wilderness, and someone in a town 20 miles away gets hit by the falling bullet. Very low probability indeed, but still possible, and has happened before. (There was a case just like that not too long ago in this state.)

I'm sure you'll agree with me that when it comes to auto accidents, there is a higher instance of "how the hell did that happen?" cases than in other facets of life. The flukey things have a tendency to happen with cars.

 

[Swift]

And STILL, you educate drivers and give them a test to assess their competance to make their own decisions on the roads and then, where there's no risk to others as a result of their decisions, deny them that ability.

Which is it? Are they competant to make their own decisions or not?


I'd rather every driver chose not to wear their seatbelt than any driver chose to drink-drive.

That's all well and good. But where's the violation of the driver's rights?

 

[Danoff]

That's all well and good. But where's the violation of the driver's rights?

Swift,

It would generally prevent drivers from being distracted if we limited it to one person per car... how would it not violate your rights to prevent you from having more than one person in your car??

What if the regulation was that it was illegal to have radios in the car? What if the reglation was that you had to have both hands handcuffed to the steering wheel while you drove?

I can understand rules on the road. Rules that prescribe how you interact with OTHER people. But how you comply with those rules is YOUR business. If you want to smoke in your car, that's your business. If you want to drive even though you have one leg, that's your business. If you want to drive while you're drunk, or while you're listening to the radio, or while you have a passenger in your car, that's your business. If you break the law by hitting someone - driving to fast - driving wrecklessly (in terms of the position or velocity of the car) then THAT is where regulations come into play - but only on public roads.

 

[Swift]

Swift,

It would generally prevent drivers from being distracted if we limited it to one person per car... how would it not violate your rights to prevent you from having more than one person in your car??

What if the regulation was that it was illegal to have radios in the car? What if the reglation was that you had to have both hands handcuffed to the steering wheel while you drove?

I can understand rules on the road. Rules that prescribe how you interact with OTHER people. But how you comply with those rules is YOUR business. If you want to smoke in your car, that's your business. If you want to drive even though you have one leg, that's your business. If you want to drive while you're drunk, or while you're listening to the radio, or while you have a passenger in your car, that's your business. If you break the law by hitting someone - driving to fast - driving wrecklessly (in terms of the position or velocity of the car) then THAT is where regulations come into play - but only on public roads.

I can see where you're taking this.

But if we're talking on private roads, then you can do whatever. But on public roads that the gov't builds and maintains you have to do what they say. Big deal? I think it's totally moronic to talk on the phone and drive at the same time. I really hate doing it. I think that if you have to look down to adjust the radio, then you haven't had your car more then a week. If they passed a law saying you can only have one person in the car(that would NEVER pass, but let's just say it does) then on public roads you could be the only passenger. Oh well. Driving isn't a right.

It's like going into an amusement park, getting on a rollercoaster and saying, "Nah, I don't want the restraints. I've been certified to ride this machine so it's ok" Yeah, that's stupid. But that's exactly what people do when they drive without a seatbelt.

 

[Danoff]

I can see where you're taking this.

But if we're talking on private roads, then you can do whatever. But on public roads that the gov't builds and maintains you have to do what they say. Big deal? I think it's totally moronic to talk on the phone and drive at the same time. I really hate doing it. I think that if you have to look down to adjust the radio, then you haven't had your car more then a week. If they passed a law saying you can only have one person in the car(that would NEVER pass, but let's just say it does) then on public roads you could be the only passenger. Oh well. Driving isn't a right.

It's like going into an amusement park, getting on a rollercoaster and saying, "Nah, I don't want the restraints. I've been certified to ride this machine so it's ok" Yeah, that's stupid. But that's exactly what people do when they drive without a seatbelt.

Laws should be about effect, not about cause. You don't make it illegal to own a shovel. You don't make it illegal to take your shovel into the house. You don't make it illegal to hold a shovel while talking to your friend. You make it illegal to cause harm to your friend with the shovel - even though making shovels illegal in the first place would prevent anyone from getting harmed by one.

This is why you don't make it illegal to drive with one hand, or while smoking, or while listening to the radio (which is more distracting than cell phones according to a study I quoted in the driving while talking on the phone thread). You make it illegal to drive badly - or cause harm while driving... That's the undesired effect.

What you do in your car is your business. What you do WITH your car is, in that it affects anyone else, is everyone else's business.

 

[Famine]

People get ejected from their cars all the time. Most of these incidents involve the car rolling, and the person flying out through an open side window. Nevertheless, I still contend that an unconscious, possibly dead person moving not of their own accord could be dangerous to others. Maybe their body hits a pedestrian, who falls over and breaks their skull on the sidewalk... I don't deny that it's very low probability, but it COULD conceivably happen. Like someone firing a gun into the air in the middle of the wilderness, and someone in a town 20 miles away gets hit by the falling bullet. Very low probability indeed, but still possible, and has happened before. (There was a case just like that not too long ago in this state.)

I'm sure you'll agree with me that when it comes to auto accidents, there is a higher instance of "how the hell did that happen?" cases than in other facets of life. The flukey things have a tendency to happen with cars.

Yes, I agree. But I still need once instance where somebody has left their car and entered another, or injured a "bystander" to show that not wearing a seatbelt can cause harm to others.

If there isn't an instance, then you're legislating against a possibility which has never occurred. Imagine what a car would be like if all far-fetched "What if" situations were legislated for.

 

[BlackZ28]

I do not approve of forcing one to wear a seatbelt, simply because it should be one's choice. Although, I recommend it.
Needless to say, if I ruled the world this law would not exist.

 

[James2097]

Victorian school busses/seatbelt article

Why seatbelts aren't compulsory on every single vehicle I beyond me.

Seatbelts in general:

It is no coincidence that the decline in Australian road deaths commenced in earnest in the years following the introduction by 1973 of laws in all Australian states and territories making it compulsory to wear seatbelts. In fact, car accident researchers in Australia estimate that seatbelts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat occupants by 45 per cent and the risk of serious injury by 50 per cent. The United States National Highway Safety Administration reports that 3 out of every 5 people killed in vehicle accidents in the US – where seatbelt use is much lower than in Australia – would have survived their injuries had they been strapped in. Stupid dumbarse Americans want their right to die intact? Fine. A perfect case of Darwinism.

Basically, grow the crap up, stop whinging about your irrational "right to die and be an idiot" and strap the crap in. Maybe the government knows better than you, and values your life more than you do yourself, which is super ridiculous cause it seems to be true. I've never even been aware that putting on a seatbelt is "infringing my rights" when I get into a car. I've used seatbelts automatically all my life, I cannot for the life of me work out why anyone could oppose making seatbelts law. Its common sense, thats it. There is not ANY rational argument against it. No one in Australia gives a toss about using them, we just do it automatically, it takes like 1 second to put it on or off. I wear it because I'd be a complete idiot not to, my "right" to live makes a bit more sense than my "right" to die. This is a ridiculous argument. What the hell is wrong with the government valuing the lives of its citizens? Its simply madness.

And if you think its just a revenue raising thing, thats rubbish. I've NEVER even heard of anyone getting fined in Australia for not wearing their seatbelt, cause everyone just does, they're not STUPID.

The whole American individualism and "rights" and stuff is WAAAY outta hand. Sorry, but you guys DO need a big brother to look after you. Saving 3 outta every 5 lives sounds ok does it? If this doesn't make sense I'll eat my hat, and my boots.

 

[Famine]

I am not American. I always wear my seatbelt. My government thinks that the Millennium Dome was a good idea.

 

[James2097]

I am not American. I always wear my seatbelt. My government thinks that the Millennium Dome was a good idea.

I never said you didn't, nor that I was even talking specifically to you. As if don't know you're a pom by now! I know you know bringing up the Millennium Dome is just being flippant and hardly relevant.

 

[Famine]

When you bring up "Government knows better than you", I just point to the Dome. Flippant maybe - but relevant.

 

[///M-Spec]

Sorry, but you guys DO need a big brother to look after you.

Yes, I noticed the "America is your big brother" doctrine is winning hearts and minds all over the world.


M

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The whole American individualism and "rights" and stuff is WAAAY outta hand. Sorry, but you guys DO need a big brother to look after you. Saving 3 outta every 5 lives sounds ok does it? If this doesn't make sense I'll eat my hat, and my boots.

Just so we're clear, not all American's are like that. Most Americans, like myself, recognize the need for certain safety laws which is why they exist today. 👍

 

[Danoff]

Just so we're clear, not all American's are like that. Most Americans, like myself, recognize the need for certain safety laws which is why they exist today. 👍

You just explained that you think that Americans need a big brother watching out for them.

The whole American individualism and "rights" and stuff is WAAAY outta hand. Sorry, but you guys DO need a big brother to look after you. Saving 3 outta every 5 lives sounds ok does it? If this doesn't make sense I'll eat my hat, and my boots.

I don't care if it saves lives. That's not my business here. My business is preserving rights. It DOESN'T MATTER TO ME IF THE LAW PREVENTS INJURY!!!!

If we outlawed everything - and people were forced to live in a padded room in a straightjacket you'd have removed all chance of death. Is that how you want to live? To be protected from yourself? I'd rather be free to make my own decisions and face the consequences.

 

[FoolKiller]

Basically, grow the crap up, stop whinging about your irrational "right to die and be an idiot" and strap the crap in. Maybe the government knows better than you, and values your life more than you do yourself, which is super ridiculous cause it seems to be true. I've never even been aware that putting on a seatbelt is "infringing my rights" when I get into a car. I've used seatbelts automatically all my life, I cannot for the life of me work out why anyone could oppose making seatbelts law. Its common sense, thats it. There is not ANY rational argument against it. No one in Australia gives a toss about using them, we just do it automatically, it takes like 1 second to put it on or off. I wear it because I'd be a complete idiot not to, my "right" to live makes a bit more sense than my "right" to die. This is a ridiculous argument. What the hell is wrong with the government valuing the lives of its citizens? Its simply madness.

So, if a person is doing something that may get him killed it should be outlawed to prevent his stupidity? Kiss my Big Macs goodbye, no more alcohol, my mom will miss her cigarettes. Salt and sugar, buh-bye. No more extreme sports. Do not try replacing anything electrical in your house without a trained, government licensed professional, you could get electrocuted.

Are you going to tell me you have never done anything risky or that others would call stupid? I am sure that you have and by your rationale of making laws to prevent people from being stupid and putting their own lives at risk you wouldn't have been allowed to.

And if you think its just a revenue raising thing, thats rubbish. I've NEVER even heard of anyone getting fined in Australia for not wearing their seatbelt, cause everyone just does, they're not STUPID.

Great, here in Kentuckly it is a $75 fine for everyone over 16 years old. Anyone under 16 and the driver gets a larger fine. Add in the court costs and I think they just made some good revenue. Of course I think it is more along the lines that the insurance companies lobbied for the laws under the guise that it would lower insurance rates. Odd how more people wear seatbelts every day but the insurance rates keep going as if no one is being safer.

The whole American individualism and "rights" and stuff is WAAAY outta hand. Sorry, but you guys DO need a big brother to look after you. Saving 3 outta every 5 lives sounds ok does it? If this doesn't make sense I'll eat my hat, and my boots.

I don't recall asking you, or my government, to help save my life. If you are going to do that then ban tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and all "extreme" sports related activities.

EDIT: For the record, I believe everone should wear their seatbelts, but I don't believe you should force them to.

 

[James2097]

Yes, I noticed the "America is your big brother" doctrine is winning hearts and minds all over the world.
M

When you bring up "Government knows better than you", I just point to the Dome. Flippant maybe - but relevant.

Yes... Excellent. We can change the topic from seatbelts and get too general in our views of government, but its hard to argue against a simple step that would instantly save the lives of every 3 out of 5 people involved in road fatalities in the US. You can talk politically or protest your rights in a theoretical or generalistic idealogical way, but its hard to miss the point that many lives could be saved, and shockingly easily. Compulsory seatbelts in cars have been proven to work brilliantly in many countries (Australia being a great example) for decades. We sure don't complain about them! I'm actually very surprised that seatbelts aren't compulsory in every country years ago, there is no logical argument against it, and clear results showing their remarkable effectiveness.

To say that it should be a choice is also flawed and stupidly naive (if the goal is to simply save more lives... This is a worthy goal? No?).
In real terms, you DO need to force folks into wearing their seatbelts because humans are by nature illogical creatures. We always think it will be someone else having the accident. If you ask ANY driver, they will classify themselves as a safe driver and think they'll be fine and dandy. Many young people often have the attitude that they are superhuman and invincible - whilst the statistics show clearly there will be a certain percentage of drivers who are very unlucky and/or totally irresponsible. They WILL be involved in a serious accident sooner or later - a HUGE percentage of the road toll being young people that probably deserve to live a bit longer (just because you are a bit stupid surely you don't deserve to DIE)...

Compulsory seatbelts is the only way to realistically cut the US road toll (at the very LEAST!) in half. If this doesn't make sense to you, then you're just not seeing the big picture, or you're quite naive (rabbiting on about rights), or just don't care about the welfare of your fellow citizens or yourself, which is totally stupid and immoral.

The only 'right' Americans hold onto is their right to die needlessly if seatbelts remain optional.

 

[Danoff]

Yes... Excellent. We can change the topic from seatbelts and get too general in our views of government, but its hard to argue against a simple step that would instantly save the lives of every 3 out of 5 people involved in road fatalities in the US. You can talk politically or protest your rights in a theoretical or general idealogical way, but its hard to miss the point that the fix is very very simple. Compulsory seatbelts in cars has been proven to work in many countries (Australia being a great example) for decades. I'm actually very surprised that seatbelts aren't compulsory in every country years ago, there is no logical argument against it.

To say that it should be a choice is also flawed and stupidly naive (if the goal is to simply save lives - this is a worthy goal? No?). In real terms, you DO need to force folks into wearing their seatbelts because humans are illogical creatures. We always think it will be someone else having the accident. If you ask ANY driver, they will classify themselves as a safe driver and think they'll not have an accident. Many young people often have the attitude that they are superhuman and invincible - whilst the statistics show clearly there will be a certain percentage of drivers who are very unlucky and/or totally irresponsible. They WILL be involved in a serious accident sooner or later - a HUGE percentage of the road toll being young people that probably deserve to live a bit longer (just because you are a bit stupid surely you don't deserve to DIE)...

Compulsory seatbelts is the only way to realistically cut the US road toll (at the very LEAST!) in half. If this doesn't make sense to you, then you're just not seeing the big picture, or you're quite naive (rabbiting on about rights), or just don't care about the welfare of your fellow citizens or yourself, which is totally stupid.

The only 'right' Americans hold onto is their right to die stupidly if seatbelts remain optional.

Do you think people should have the right to kill themselves? I do. It's my life, I can end it if I want. I can take whatever chances I wish to (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). So perhaps by making suicide illegal we might save a few lives - does that mean it's the right thing to do?

Laws should not be based on how many lives they save - they should be based on what is right and what is wrong (see my padded cell argument above).

 

[Grand Prix]

You just explained that you think that Americans need a big brother watching out for them.



I don't care if it saves lives. That's not my business here. My business is preserving rights. It DOESN'T MATTER TO ME IF THE LAW PREVENTS INJURY!!!!

If we outlawed everything - and people were forced to live in a padded room in a straightjacket you'd have removed all chance of death. Is that how you want to live? To be protected from yourself? I'd rather be free to make my own decisions and face the consequences.

You don't know the meaning of the word, "compromise", do you?

Does it really matter that seatbelts are required? Is it Totalitarian for the government to to wish safety for their citizens? Will seatbelt laws be the end of mankind? Will seatbelt laws lead to the government taking away our right to live?

Nope, not to me, anyway.

I'm comfortable with the way things are currently. We have seatbelt laws, we aren't being sent to the Warsaw Ghetto, and we're not killing idiots who have an as equal right to live as we do. End of story. "That'll do Donkey, that'll do."

 

[James2097]

Do you think people should have the right to kill themselves? I do. It's my life, I can end it if I want. I can take whatever chances I wish to (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). So perhaps by making suicide illegal we might save a few lives - does that mean it's the right thing to do?

Laws should not be based on how many lives they save - they should be based on what is right and what is wrong (see my padded cell argument above).

To not value human life and not take certain easy, unintrusive actions to save people from death is just dumb. The padded cell thing is just taking it to extremes, and obviously that would impinge on people's ability to live in an unobstructed and free way. Duh. All I'm saying is that in this instance, seatbelts are a damn good idea. Don't read into it further, don't generalise my viewpoint or stance.

 

[Danoff]

To not value human life and not take certain easy, unintrusive actions to save people from death is just dumb. The padded cell thing is just taking it to extremes, and obviously that would impinge on people's ability to live in an unobstructed and free way. Duh. All I'm saying is that in this instance, seatbelts are a damn good idea. Don't read into it further, don't generalise my viewpoint or stance.

You don't want me to generalize your viewpoint or stance because your viewpoint isn't founded on principles, it's founded on gut reactions - and your gut reaction is death=bad. I don't care if you think it's "unintrusive", if it really is, then people will do it of their own free will.

Making french fries illegal would save thousands of lives every year as well, is that the next "unintrusive" step to save lives? Just because you might think it's a "damn good idea"?

Does it really matter that seatbelts are required? Is it Totalitarian for the government to to wish safety for their citizens? Will seatbelt laws be the end of mankind? Will seatbelt laws lead to the government taking away our right to live?

It's just one in a very long list of ways in which our freedom is unecessarily restricted by folks who figured "I'm comfortable with [it]", and "It's a damn good idea". What if I were to tell you I was comfortable with making excercise mandatory and I thought it was a good idea?

I figure your next response will be that it's a "democratic process" and that since the majority has agreed that this freedom is better off removed that the minority has to cope. I would argue that the padded cell, or the excercise police, or the french fry ban could all be the result of a "democratic process". That doesn't make it the right outcome.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities - Ayn Rand

 

[Famine]

I don't wear my seatbelt because I have to. I wear it because I've reached the decision that I should do, in the event of my having an accident.

European legislation will soon decree, along the same principles as you're arguing, that all new cars must have, by law, airbags AND ABS as standard. What do you think about that?


danoff's padded cell analogy is accurate. If you feel you MUST legislate against people hurting themselves - and no-one else - through their own stupidity (or choice) in this instance, why not any other instance? Banning long kitchen knives would save several people each year from accidentally harming themselves or, through temptation, deliberately harming themselves or other people. Far-fetched? Yes, extremely. Guess what the UK's Government wants to do. Guess what their reason is.