Car Safety Belt Laws

[TheCracker]

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).

Do you also think people should have the right not to wear a seat belt in the rear of the car and possibly kill themselves?

If so what about the people in the front seats of that car who are likely to also be killed by those 'un-harnessed' rear seat passangers? What about the driver and front seat passengers rights not to be killed by someone who doesn't want to wear a belt in the back?

In the UK, and by the sounds of it Australia, not only is it mandatory for all occupants to wear a belt, but by law it's the drivers duty to make sure they do.

Its fair enough (but totally illogical) for someone to be able to kill themselves if they want, but to kill others....?

 

[Danoff]

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?

Thanks Famine,

It's always nice to have someone backing me up when everyone else is looking at me like I'm insane. I also wear my seatbelt every time I get in the car, but I also don't do it because it's law.

The airbag issue is an interesting one too because airbags kill in some instances. I've read a story about a woman who is very short and was scared to death that the mandatory airbag in her car would kill her if she got into a minor accident.

 

[Danoff]

Do you also think people should have the right not to wear a seat belt in the rear of the car and possibly kill themselves?

The person owning the car can decide not to allow them in it unless they wear their belt. The person doing the driving can decide not to drive under those circumstances as well. There is no need for law in this instance either.

 

[James2097]

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.

Death IS BAD. Thats why we have 'safety', and why that is generally a valued thing.
If you don't give a crap about anyone but you're percieved freedom to die, then you're the one who isn't principled, its just irresponsible.

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"?

Paraniod. Classic American post. Its not just 'me', ask ANYONE in ANY country where seatbelts are mandatory. I am solely talking about seatbelts here, besides (at risk of being dragged into a disscussion of your paranoia) one can happily eat a fair whack of potato chips without dying horribly with a steering wheel column rammed through their ribs.

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.

Obviously there is a practical level where you just have to wiegh up the safety benefit versus the inconvenience/restiction/annoyance to the public for each safety issue you come up with. Each law should be considered in its own right, not generalised into a fictitious paranoid, totalitarian philosophy. Obviously. I'm not getting into any other silly extensions of a safety-mad philosophy than the fact that seatbelts are very very good. No inconvenience, and 3/5 less people dead on the roads - I still don't get it - whats not to like? Obviously if we get to a point where society is like that movie "Demolition Man" then thats WAAY too far in terms of society's inconvienience and restriction, it would never get like that anyway due to the democratic process, people would reject it.

 

[Famine]

The person owning the car can decide not to allow them in it unless they wear their belt. The person doing the driving can decide not to drive under those circumstances as well. There is no need for law in this instance either.

As indeed I do. The car is private property and the democratic process doesn't apply. The driver is driving, so it is his decision.

James - I live in a country where seatbelts are mandatory by law. I think it's ridiculous to have a crime existing in legislature where the only victim would be the perpetrator of that crime.

So, what do you think about the EU's intent to introduce ABS and airbags, by law, on all new cars? Is this okay, in the name of safety?



And danoff gives a crap about everyone. Everyone's freedom to do as they want without infringing anyone else's freedom to do what they want. Read enough of his posts and this is readily apparent.

 

[Danoff]

Death IS BAD. Thats why we have 'safety', and why that is generally a valued thing.
If you don't give a crap about anyone but you're percieved freedom to die, then you're the one who isn't principled, its just irresponsible.

I care about everyone else... I care about their rights. You do not seem to. I say it is irresponsible to be so cavalier with the rights of others. (Edit: Famine beat me to it)

Paraniod. Classic American post. Its not just 'me', ask ANYONE in ANY country where seatbelts are mandatory. I am solely talking about seatbelts here, besides (at risk of being dragged into a disscussion of your paranoia) one can happily eat a fair whack of potato chips without dying horribly with a steering wheel column rammed through their ribs.

Sure sure, you're just talking about seat belts - so I shouldn't try to draw analogies to other things that might make the seat belt laws look silly. Again, you don't want me to point out your slippery slope because you're not arguing from a principled position.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Ive always wondered why cars dont have racing style seatbelts, race cars dont have airbags, some dont have traction control, some dont even have ABS, and fatalalitys are at a absolute minimum in racing.

 

[Jay]

I've used seatbelts automatically all my life

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

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.

Agreed,

Ive also always used seatbelts all my life automatically, If Australia dropped the law that you must waer them I would continue to wear them, they dont bother me.

I know a few friends that have been fined for not wearing a seatbelt and most have been in shopping mall carparks as they are leaving their park.

Ive always wondered why cars dont have racing style seatbelts, race cars dont have airbags, some dont have traction control, some dont even have ABS, and fatalalitys are at a absolute minimum in racing.

You cant move with racing harnesses, try tuning your radio/switching CD's or fiddling with your climate control, eventually you'll loosen the harnesses just to be able to reach things.
When you roll over and the roof comes down on your head, you body wont move or slide down its stuck. Also there would be bad case of neck whiplash like in racing so this would mean we need to wear han's devices and helmets?

I think Ferrari offers these type belts as a option.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ive always wondered why cars dont have racing style seatbelts, race cars dont have airbags, some dont have traction control, some dont even have ABS, and fatalalitys are at a absolute minimum in racing.

Because auto racing is a sanctioned, controlled event with many rules and regulations, and in most cases a governing body. Drag racing has the NHRA, rallying has the FIA, autocrossing has the SCCA. But I guess auto racing must be a totalitarian sport since everyone is FORCED to comply with certain restrictions regardless of what they think is free and fair. I don't hear about NASCAR racers complaining about restrictor plates and mandatory "full-face" helmet rules as much as the Libertarians complain about seat belt laws.

 

[Danoff]

Because auto racing is a sanctioned, controlled event with many rules and regulations, and in most cases a governing body. Drag racing has the NHRA, rallying has the FIA, autocrossing has the SCCA. But I guess auto racing must be a totalitarian sport since everyone is FORCED to comply with certain restrictions regardless of what they think is free and fair. I don't hear about NASCAR racers complaining about restrictor plates and mandatory "full-face" helmet rules as much as the Libertarians complain about seat belt laws.

That's because they're participating in a sport voluntarily and competing within rules.

I don't care if football players aren't allowed to take their helmets off or go out of bounds, but the minute EVERYONE has to wear a helmet and stay in bounds I'll get ticked.

BTW: I'm continually surprised at how much you're misunderstanding about the nature of government and choice. That you would draw an analogy between sports and law amazes me.

 

[James2097]

James - I live in a country where seatbelts are mandatory by law. I think it's ridiculous to have a crime existing in legislature where the only victim would be the perpetrator of that crime.

I thought about you whilst I made that comment, and knew you'd say that. Oh well. Maybe I was being too sweeping to make a point. MOST Australians are quite happy to have seatbelts as mandatory. Hows that? Anyway, I do agree that its indeed a strange conundrum that we need a crime where the only victim (aside from the potential of bodies flying out the windscreen and hitting pedestrians etc at speed and killing them - death by flying corpse... there was a case of this in Aus! ) is the perpetrator of said crime. But in this case I think its warranted as no one is ever really convicted of it in Aus (well none in my experience of life, others have since said they've seen this, but hey its really rare) and its the only realistic way to save so many lives (just see the HUGE drop in fatalities in 1973 when seatbelts became mandatory). Strange concept, yes, but the end result is overwhelmingly good for everyone.

So, what do you think about the EU's intent to introduce ABS and airbags, by law, on all new cars? Is this okay, in the name of safety?

If we can't percieve that the car is any different (than a non-regulated model) and the new safety features don't impinge on our enjoyment of the car and/or its function, then I don't see whats so bad about it providing better safety as a bonus at no drawback to the consumer. My only concern is price, if the safety gear adds significantly to the price of all automobiles not great. I do think the driver should always have the option of turning off driver aids like traction control or ABS, so that they can enjoy a sportscar properly (say off a public road at a track day). But something like ABS helps the safety of ALL road users (pedestrians esp.), whether they are in the car with the ABS or not. So according to your ideaology (of you not wanting to pose a risk to others, but not care about yourself) ABS seems to be a valid thing to include in all cars as an invaluable safety measure.

 

[Danoff]

I thought about you whilst I made that comment, and knew you'd say that. Oh well. Maybe I was being too sweeping to make a point. MOST Australians are quite happy to have seatbelts as mandatory. Hows that? Anyway, I do agree that its indeed a strange conundrum that we need a crime where the only victim (aside from the potential of bodies flying out the windscreen and hitting other people as speed and killing them - death by flying corpse... there was a case of this in Aus! ) is the perpetrator of said crime. But in this case I think its warranted as no one is ever really convicted of it in Aus (well none in my experience of life) and its the only realistic way to save so many lives (just see the HUGE drop in fatalities in 1973 when seatbelts became mandatory). Strange concept, yes, but the end result is overwhelmingly good.

The cost/benefits analysis of someone else's rights isn't yours to make. It's theirs.

 

[James2097]

The cost/benefits analysis of someone else's rights isn't yours to make. It's theirs.

So we should have NO laws! COOL! This really goes full circle as to whether you believe in the democratic process and realise that you need SOMEONE to run the shop.

I believe a human's right to life is a bit more important (in THIS instance) than a human's right to die simply to protect a right. I think we should try and prevent pointless death. Surely this is an alright kinda concept...

Rights ARE great, but when there isn't any right worth preserving in this instance (only a right to die and to save the 1 sec it takes to buckle up) I can't see any logic in preventing the saving of many many lives, except the upholding of a general principle that doesn't have any real positives in this case. Thats just my opinion of course, and its entirely restricted to this particular issue.

Seatbelts are great, but to get the benefits on a big scale, unfortunately you need to waver a very very small right (one that has zero impact on one's life in all reality) and make everyone buckle up. You'll realise its a good idea when you see the road toll drop dramatically, thats if you care about people living. Unless its better that their rights are maintained, although they'll be dead.

Maybe I just like people to stay alive, but thats just me. We're not talking about a padded cell here, its a very small change in routine to get used to using a seatbelt.

 

[Danoff]

So we should have NO laws! COOL! This really goes full circle as to whether you believe in the democratic process and realise that you need SOMEONE to run the shop.

Is that what I said? No laws? When it comes to laws that only protect you from yourself - the cost/benefit analysis is yours. When it comes to laws the protect you from others - the only issue is morality, what is right or wrong. At no point do you get to make a cost/benefit analysis about laws.

 

[Famine]

How about totally automatic cars then? With a computer running the show - rather than just changing gear, steering and braking for us - there'd be no fatalities whatsoever on the road. Boss!


Incidentally, I know that you know that there's a colossal difference between danoff's ideal of law and no law at all.

 

[James2097]

How about totally automatic cars then? With a computer running the show - rather than just changing gear, steering and braking for us - there'd be no fatalities whatsoever on the road. Boss!

Yeah, taking it too far again. Its an interesting concept, as apparently some people would really like the idea, but then again others would really hate it. Because the idea would only work to its full potential (zero fatalities) if EVERY car on the road was fully automatic (resulting in zero driver error), it would never work without pissing off a large section of society a LOT. Hence, it would infringe on our lifestyle too much. It'll never happen anyway, too many variables that simply require a human response to the environment.

Incidentally, I know that you know that there's a colossal difference between danoff's ideal of law and no law at all.

Yeah, I thought it was my turn to take too far what someone else was saying.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, taking it too far again. Its an interesting thing, as aparrently some people would really like the idea of this, but then again others would totally hate it. Because the idea would only work to its full potential (zero fatalities) if EVERY care was fully automatic, it would never work without pissing a large section of society off a LOT. Hence, it infringes on our lifestyle too much. It'll never happen anyway.

Funny how you think you can just decide what "infringes on our lifestyle" too much or not-so-much.

 

[James2097]

Funny how you think you can just decide what "infringes on our lifestyle" too much or not-so-much.

I'm sorry, but last time I checked this was the opinions forum. I'll say what I think. In this particular case, its damn obvious that it would infringe on our lifestyle way too much, its not even vaguely close to being a rational option if you THINK about it a little. Please be a little more constructive with your posts.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

How about totally automatic cars then? With a computer running the show - rather than just changing gear, steering and braking for us - there'd be no fatalities whatsoever on the road. Boss!


Incidentally, I know that you know that there's a colossal difference between danoff's ideal of law and no law at all.

Has Dan's ideal of law ever been practiced before? Can you point to any society that has tried any of what he's advocating?

 

[Danoff]

I'm sorry, but last time I checked this was the opinions forum. I'll say what I think. In this particular case, its damn obvious that it would infringe on our lifestyle way too much, its not even vaguely close to being a rational option if you THINK about it a little. Please be a little more constructive with your posts.

Just pointing out how arbitrary your distinctions are. Just letting you see the slippery slope that you're sitting on, and why you're there and I'm not.

Edit:

Has Dan's ideal of law ever been practiced before? Can you point to any society that has tried any of what he's advocating?

The closest example I have is the early US.

 

[Famine]

I doubt it (it'd only be his ideal of law if it agreed 100% with him), and nope.

Yeah, taking it too far again. Its an interesting concept, as apparently some people would really like the idea, but then again others would really hate it. Because the idea would only work to its full potential (zero fatalities) if EVERY car on the road was fully automatic (resulting in zero driver error), it would never work without pissing off a large section of society a LOT. Hence, it would infringe on our lifestyle too much. It'll never happen anyway, too many variables that simply require a human response to the environment.

Yet you advocate compulsory ABS - something that takes away a human response - in all cars. Interesting.

I could, of course, respond:

"Fully-automatic cars are the only way to realistically cut the US road toll (at the very LEAST!) to zero. 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."


However, to move back to seatbelts, we have a law which states you are committing a criminal act if you do not take physical measures to protect yourself from injury. Where else is there such a law?

 

[James2097]

Just pointing out how arbitrary your distinctions are. Just letting you see the slippery slope that you're sitting on, and why you're there and I'm not.

My distinctions are my opinion, based on rational thought and balancing things up, then stating my opinion. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not doesn't make my views shaky or invalid in the slightest. Each issue is different, life is more complex than trying to apply the same philophoshy to EVERYTHING, hence why I don't see ANY slippery slope whatsoever, it only exists in your mind, constrewed from what you'd like to think my general philosophy is. The problem is that I don't have a generally applicable philosophy. I think about everything in a rational and individual way. If this is too logical for you to accept (OMG he can't REALLY be like that!!), then maybe try and invent something else to put my views on shaky ground. Sorry, but I just don't conform to your generalistic idealogical pidgeon-holing.

The problem isn't that I'm on a slippery slope and you apparently aren't, the fact is that I simply don't agree with you and you'd like to generalise about me to invent a supposed slippery slope. I believe I have the most moral and logical standpoint here. Thats it.

 

[James2097]

Yet you advocate compulsory ABS - something that takes away a human response - in all cars. Interesting.

Not interesting at all, you ignored that I said you should be able to turn all driver aids off. You also happily ignored this disclaimer: "If we can't percieve that the car is any different (than a non-regulated model) and the new safety features don't impinge on our enjoyment of the car and/or its function..."

I could, of course, respond:

"Fully-automatic cars are the only way to realistically cut the US road toll (at the very LEAST!) to zero. 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."

You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference here when it comes to lifestyle impact compared to the minimal impact of making seatbelts compulsory. You're just trying to bait me into saying something contradictory to trip me up, but it just ain't gonna happen. Sorry Famine.

However, to move back to seatbelts, we have a law which states you are committing a criminal act if you do not take physical measures to protect yourself from injury. Where else is there such a law?

I never said it wasn't wierd. I refer you to when I agreed it is a conundrum... I do believe its the only way to turn the potential benefits of seatbelts into reality. Yes it is a strange law when you think about it being a crime, but hey thats fine in this very isolated case when you think about how many people have been saved (INSERT HUGE NUMBER HERE) compared to how many have recieved a small monetary fine (INSERT COMPARITIVELY TINY NUMBER HERE) as a result of the law.

 

[Danoff]

My distinctions are my opinion, based on rational thought and balancing things up, then stating my opinion. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not doesn't make my views shaky or invalid in the slightest.

Agreed.

The problem is that I don't have a generally applicable philosophy.

Agreed.

I think about everything in a rational and individual way.

You separate issues irrationally and apply a gut, emotional reaction to an over simplified version of the problem. Then you check the result against your own opinions and decide that it must be valid for everyone.

If this is too logical for you to accept (OMG he can't REALLY be like that!!), then maybe try and invent something else to put my views on shaky ground. Sorry, but I just don't conform to your generalistic idealogical pidgeon-holing.

Actually you're conforming quite nicely.

The problem isn't that I'm on a slippery slope and you apparently aren't, the fact is that I simply don't agree with you and you'd like to generalise about me to invent a supposed slippery slope. I believe I have the most moral and logical standpoint here. Thats it.

I'm aware that you believe your opinions are correct. But that doesn't mean you're not on a slippery slope (see the french fry ban, excercise police, padded cell, automated car, airbag examples... most of which you've made no attempt to differentiate).

The reason you're on a slippery slope is because you "think about everything in a rational and individual way". The reason you're on a slippery slope is because you don't "have a generally applicable philosophy".

I'm sick of the emotional "good enough for me" or "I think it's a good idea" argument. It lacks any rationality.

 

[Danoff]

You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference here when it comes to lifestyle impact compared to the minimal impact of making seatbelts compulsory. You're just trying to bait me into saying something contradictory to trip me up, but it just ain't gonna happen. Sorry Famine.

You just showed how arbitrary it is. You're talking about making basing law (or perhaps morality) on how much of a perceived impact it has on lifestyle. HOW ARBITRARY CAN YOU GET?

How weak are your principles that they conform to perceived impact on current lifestyle?

Honestly, that's pathetic.

 

[James2097]

I haven't even talked anywhere near enough for you to draw any conclusions or assumptions about me of that nature. All laughably wrong. You basically just don't like my views. Thats ok. If I don't talk about something, then I haven't talked about it yet. Its up to you if you really want to think that means something. It doesn't.

The slippery slope is seriously rubbish mate. What can I say? I dissagree.

 

[FoolKiller]

James,

Are you aware that the majority of the US (All but New Hampshire as of 2003) does have a seatbelt law, yet people are dying at the rate you described? Apparently the law is NOT working in the way you say it does. What is the next step? What should enforcement be? What is going overboard in order to save that life?

And instead of me making generalizations about laws forcing people to keep themselves safe I will ask you, when have you gone too far with these types of laws? How much is okay to take away and how much is too much? We are making these generalized examples because your rationale defends them equally well. The only difference is that one will piss more people off than the other, however they are the same type of law for the exact same reasons. While the issue is seatbelts that rationale opens doors for topics that are becoming issue in the US. So, at what point do you draw the line?

 

[James2097]

You just showed how arbitrary it is. You're talking about making basing law (or perhaps morality) on how much of a perceived impact it has on lifestyle. HOW ARBITRARY CAN YOU GET?

How weak are your principles that they conform to perceived impact on current lifestyle?

You're seriously too thick to see this obvious distinction? My principles aren't for you to make wrong assumptions about. Besides, why decide you want to attack me like a bastard all of a sudden when we were having a nice little debate?

 

[James2097]

James,

Are you aware that the majority of the US (All but New Hampshire as of 2003) does have a seatbelt law, yet people are dying at the rate you described? Apparently the law is NOT working in the way you say it does. What is the next step? What should enforcement be? What is going overboard in order to save that life?

I've only ever said I'm going by Australian road toll data here. If the change isn't as apparent in the US, hey buggered if I know, maybe Americans are just more used to being 'lax' about whether they buckle up... Its not for me to say in any decisive way where the exact line is that is 'going overboard'. I only make a distinction here where I see it as a very obvious benefit, or a very clear distinction. I again stress that what I see as a clear benefit at the expense of a percieved 'right' is simply my opinion.

And instead of me making generalizations about laws forcing people to keep themselves safe I will ask you, when have you gone too far with these types of laws? How much is okay to take away and how much is too much? We are making these generalized examples because your rationale defends them equally well. The only difference is that one will piss more people off than the other, however they are the same type of law for the exact same reasons. While the issue is seatbelts that rationale opens doors for topics that are becoming issue in the US. So, at what point do you draw the line?

I refer you to the above. I have ONLY ever wanted to talk about the issue of seatbelts. I'm not trying to be evasive or not talk about the wider issues, but this was a thread about seatbelts specifically and thats what I concentrated on.

 

[FoolKiller]

I refer you to the above. I have ONLY ever wanted to talk about the issue of seatbelts. I'm not trying to be evasive or not talk about the wider issues, but this was a thread about seatbelts specifically and thats what I concentrated on.

But your rationale should work elsewhere if that is how you feel about imposing laws to save lives. Otherwise you say this life is worth saving here but this one isn't.

But staying within your rationale, why do you have the right to tell me whether I can endanger myself or not?