The Battle Over Mandatory Seat Belts

[California Mountain Snake]

This is true. Fine, I'll give you a better reason. Safety regulations exist for pretty much everything. Why should a seatbelt in a car be any different? 98% of the time, it will minimize your injuries in a crash, so it makes sense to enforce it's use. Logically, the only real way to enforce this in a manner in which the majority will respond positively, is to make those who violate the law, incur a fine. Their logic is sound, and thus there is no reason why this should even be up for debate.

The difference is that most safety regulations are in place to prevent one person's negligence from harming other people. Regulations concerning proper waste disposal, maintaining a safe workplace, traffic regulations like stop signs and speed limits, limiting smoking in public areas, et cetera all have to do with negligent actions you can make which can physically harm other people. Only in rare instances, however, does not wearing a seat belt physically harm anyone but yourself. I'm having trouble thinking of many other safety regulations which impinge on your ability to hurt yourself. Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use. Unless you can definitively link not wearing a seat belt from a young age leading to a life of crime and disregard for the law later in life, I think that there is no more justification for the government to step in here than there is in the government making it illegal to punch yourself in the face.

[Suichimo]

I keep noticing you guys talking about accidents where people get thrown out of their windshields and stuff. That seat belt law is already mandatory in every state except for New Hampshire. This article is talking specifically about seat belts in the rear seat. I'm perfectly fine with not wearing those and I constantly wear my seat belt in the front seat.

I wish I could find some information to help my case though.

[Eltoshen]

Their logic is sound

Our government actually acts out of logic now?! When did that happen?

What exactly was the point of your post? Sure, the government is shit for the most part, but do you seriously think they don't have a shred of common sense? >_>

[Crystal Shards]

This is true. Fine, I'll give you a better reason. Safety regulations exist for pretty much everything. Why should a seatbelt in a car be any different? 98% of the time, it will minimize your injuries in a crash, so it makes sense to enforce it's use. Logically, the only real way to enforce this in a manner in which the majority will respond positively, is to make those who violate the law, incur a fine. Their logic is sound, and thus there is no reason why this should even be up for debate.

The difference is that most safety regulations are in place to prevent one person's negligence from harming other people. Regulations concerning proper waste disposal, maintaining a safe workplace, traffic regulations like stop signs and speed limits, limiting smoking in public areas, et cetera all have to do with negligent actions you can make which can physically harm other people. Only in rare instances, however, does not wearing a seat belt physically harm anyone but yourself. I'm having trouble thinking of many other safety regulations which impinge on your ability to hurt yourself. Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use. Unless you can definitively link not wearing a seat belt from a young age leading to a life of crime and disregard for the law later in life, I think that there is no more justification for the government to step in here than there is in the government making it illegal to punch yourself in the face.

And on the other side, just because you have a right doesn't mean you need it or should use it. I have the right to stab myself in the kidney but that isn't exactly one I need or want. I kind of put "not wearing a seat belt" in with those.

[Aitherion]

Their logic is sound

Our government actually acts out of logic now?! When did that happen?

What exactly was the point of your post? Sure, the government is shit for the most part, but do you seriously think they don't have a shred of common sense? >_>

Common sense =/= acting logically. The government working out of self-interest is still sensible, if not logical.

[Jyosua]

Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use.

I demand links for this.

[Eltoshen]

Their logic is sound

Our government actually acts out of logic now?! When did that happen?

What exactly was the point of your post? Sure, the government is shit for the most part, but do you seriously think they don't have a shred of common sense? >_>

Common sense =/= acting logically. The government working out of self-interest is still sensible, if not logical.

Name one job that isn't based on self-interest.

Actually, answer this for me:

How is basing things on self-interest not logical?

Edited August 7, 2009 by Eltoshen

[California Mountain Snake]

Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use.

I demand links for this.

It's called a victimless crime (see link for justifications, as well as an example relating to drug use) or between two people (such as a drug dealer and user) it's called a consensual crime. Many try to justify such a law by because it's for "the good of society" or even sometimes "because you would have to be crazy to want to do this in the first place," but such reasons step all over the constitution (reserved rights) and the Declaration of Independence (which acknowledges the natural rights of people). Even today, trying to defend a law in court for the simple "good of society" would most likely fail if you didn't defend it with statistics, in the case of drug use you must prove that other kinds of other illegal activity will pop up because of it, or possibly in the case of seat belts, how you flying about in the car is dangerous to others, or if you let yourself die it will drain the taxpayers of money for you family's social security checks. Everything has to be justified this was for a law to make sense, otherwise it would simply be the government enforcing their moral views upon you. Which isn't to say that the government doesn't try to do exactly this. The fact that sodomy was only made legal on the federal level 10 years ago, and the government still sticks its nose into who can get married or not, are obvious violations of these founding principles of liberty.

For more on victimless crimes and consensual crimes and how they don't jive with the American conception of freedom, see the book Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do (the link goes to the full text, but reading the first page will give you the gist).

Common sense =/= acting logically. The government working out of self-interest is still sensible, if not logical.

Name one job that isn't based on self-interest.

Actually, answer this for me:

How is basing things on self-interest not logical?

Congressmen largely do not act out of self interest in policy. They act out of constituent interest, which in time serve their self interest. Political theorists generally agree the number-one goal of a congressman is to be reelected, and this has proved largely true. Veteran congressmen are very smart people, and they know that if they want to continue riding the train, which they want to do either because it's a source of gravy or because they have long sighted policy goals, then they realize that they have to pass a lot of popular bills that will get them support for another term. In the case of special interests, money can also play a role when that money is used for future campaign funds and hiring more staff to deal with more issues. Thinking of the "government" as a single system in the United States is an incorrect conception. Each Senator and Representative have their own private staff, intentions, voting districts, and constituents. Each of them sets up shop within the congressional market, they are not all CEOs of the same company. So yes, congressmen act in their own self interest, but this is accomplished only by working in the majority's self interest in terms of public policy.

[quanta]

Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use.

Hardly true that things are argued this way. As long as we're arguing by anecdote, the point of every anti-pot commercial I've ever seen is that your actions are bad for you and your family. If anything, the illegal activities that sprout up in association with drug use are an argument against making it illegal.

Also, for those of you arguing that laws enforcing the use of rear belts being ineffective or that the efficacy of rear belts is just anecdotal, I highly recommend you read the first post.

A recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that 85% of rear-seat passengers wore seat belts in the 20 states with laws requiring their use. In states without such laws, the number was 66%. An earlier NHTSA study found that rear belts greatly reduce fatalities in crashes, particularly those involving passenger vans and sport utility vehicles.

There's a positive correlation between states with laws enforcing said practice and people using them more often. And people with seatbelts are less likely to die. Granted correlation is not causation (perhaps these states also have more public campaigns about automobile safety and that's the real cause, but hey these things tend to go hand in hand), but you'd have to be a bit disingenous to argue that there isn't any worthwhile evidence pointing towards these laws possibly having a positive effect.

If one looks at the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation , one can find a fairly well done recent study on the benefits of seat belt usage and the efficacy of laws mandating their use that also attempts to control for a variety of important environmental variables (although this is a study only on front seat belts and laws enforcing their use, but a priori, it's probably best to assume that there is some gain in safety for back seat usage as well and that laws enforcing usage would have a similar effect). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=293582

There are also two papers linked directly on wikipedia that claim the opposite (that seat belts raise mortality). If anyone wishes to discuss the validity of those papers I will do so gladly, but by my judgment their data is poorer, they compare the wrong variables and between overly different environments, they fail to interpret data properly by not controlling for any known error, and are just generally of lower quality then the study I linked above. Furthermore, their importance of their theory of risk homeostasis is largely discredited by the study I linked (at least in the U.S.).

EDIT: and yes, I realize the Wikipedia page itself seems anti-seatbelt legislation. There's a good reason you should always look at the sources as well as the wiki page itself.

Edited August 7, 2009 by quanta

[California Mountain Snake]

Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use.

Hardly true that things are argued this way. As long as we're arguing by anecdote, the point of every anti-pot commercial I've ever seen is that your actions are bad for you and your family. If anything, the illegal activities that sprout up in association with drug use are an argument against making it illegal.

Anti-pot commercials are far far away from legal enforcement. They're a form of education and persuasion that only hope to encourage, not force, you to take certain actions, and thus are justified in using appeals for self-interest. Education is vital, even in a society with no laws restricting consensual action, because it tells us why even though we may be allowed to do things like not wear our seat belts or abuse drugs, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea, and hopes to do its best convince us not to make that choice. The difference is it doesn't force us to make that choice. This conception of education jives with even the most ardent libertarians. The problem is that people nowadays who end up getting the raw deal on a risk they took are too quick to shout "I got hurt taking this risk, so it should be illegal for everyone."

Also, for those of you arguing that laws enforcing the use of rear belts being ineffective or that the efficacy of rear belts is just anecdotal, I highly recommend you read the first post.

A recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that 85% of rear-seat passengers wore seat belts in the 20 states with laws requiring their use. In states without such laws, the number was 66%. An earlier NHTSA study found that rear belts greatly reduce fatalities in crashes, particularly those involving passenger vans and sport utility vehicles.

I don't think anyone's doubting whether a law would be effective or not, obviously if the government made a law that people will not wear baseball hats on Monday and enforced it, the number of people wearing baseball hats on Monday would show a decrease. The question is whether the government has the right to make that law, not whether such a law would work.

Edited August 7, 2009 by California Mountain Snake

[quanta]

I don't think anyone's doubting whether a law would be effective or not, obviously if the government made a law that people will not wear baseball hats on Monday and enforced it, the number of people wearing baseball hats on Monday would show a decrease. The question is whether the government has the right to make that law, not whether such a law would work.

The anecdotes were flying. I figured I may as well lay down something concrete.

First I'll address what I view as the most oft-given reason as to why the government shouldn't be able to legislate this: people have a right to not wear their seatbelts and/or the only person harmed is the one who doesn't wear it.

The problem with this argument is one runs into the reality of the fact that others have to clean up the mess and it costs more people money than just the person who dies. Rights are important, but one needs to be able to demonstrate why something is a right in the case that it's quite clear that doing the opposite confers much more measurable benefits.

There's a huge difference between rights to things like freedom of speech, press, and religion- things which overall can be very clearly argued to be beneficial to both society and the individual (the ideal situation)- and the right to be slightly more comfortable or something (I don't know it's rather nebulous exactly what the fuck you have some abstract right to here) at the trade-off of costing others time and money, something which has nearly zero benefit to society, a definite cost to society, and isn't even of any realistic benefit (actually it's almost assuredly the opposite) to the individual in any way, shape, or form either.

I would agree with the assumption that a priori one should not legislate unnecessarily, but once it has been clearly demonstrated that there is a benefit to some form of legislation and one can implement it at very modest and acceptable costs... I see no reason to not be pragmatic (obviously one must be very careful and treat these things on a case-by-case basis). Whether or not to adopt the law in the first place (before anyone had any rules about this or knew about possible unintended side effects) might be a bit more debatable, but a very slight level of comfort in a car for some people is a very low cost. Plus, once you have decent evidence of how it has worked out in some areas... there's no reason to regress or not adopt the law in other areas as if you had never gained a decent knowledge of the effects of the legislation. Common sense also ought to kick in to in this case; we're not talking about contract law, tariffs, financial disclosure rules, or some other policy that can clearly have unpredictable or unwanted repercussions.

Not to mention if you drive on a road there's a good chance it is government owned and maintained so it's not like you are even exercising some right on your own property by not buckling up.

EDIT: almost forgot

Anti-pot commercials are far far away from legal enforcement. They're a form of education and persuasion that only hope to encourage, not force, you to take certain actions, and thus are justified in using appeals for self-interest. Education is vital, even in a society with no laws restricting consensual action, because it tells us why even though we may be allowed to do things like not wear our seat belts or abuse drugs, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea, and hopes to do its best convince us not to make that choice. The difference is it doesn't force us to make that choice. This conception of education jives with even the most ardent libertarians. The problem is that people nowadays who end up getting the raw deal on a risk they took are too quick to shout "I got hurt taking this risk, so it should be illegal for everyone."

Wait, are you arguing that those in favor of legal enforcement would not also use the same argument to justify said laws? Because I was responding to this

Even the regulation and illegalization of hard drugs, for example, is justified in the United States not by the fact that it's bad for you, but because of the other illegal activity that sprout up in association with drug use.

Not that I necessarily agree with the argument I said was used, but it is indeed used despite what you say.

Furthermore...

Unless you can definitively link not wearing a seat belt from a young age leading to a life of crime and disregard for the law later in life, I think that there is no more justification for the government to step in here than there is in the government making it illegal to punch yourself in the face.

Blatantly and utterly nonsensical. A) It would be very difficult and costly to monitor, deter, and catch people punching themselves in the face to the point where you would be very unlikely to have any effect whatsoever; there are already cops on the roads anyways. B) Someone punching himself in the face usually doesn't result in an emergency room visit, the cost of which is fronted by those others than the one who punched himself in the face. C) The frequency of an event matters. People punching themselves in the face isn't really an issue at all. I doubt there are even a dozen people each year who killed themselves by repeatedly punching themselves in the face. People who die due to not having a seatbelt is a number two or three orders of magnitude higher.

Edited August 7, 2009 by quanta

[-Cynthia-]

If it's true that not wearing a selt belt is actually dangerous to other passengers in the car and/or the other driver, the law should be enforced, because you're infringing on someone else's right to live. I would guess this is the case, because people traveling at high velocity tend to be dangerous.

If it's only dangerous to the driver, I would classify it as "Stupid things I wouldn't recommend doing, but will not legally prohibit you from doing because it's your choice".

[Meteor]

If it's true that not wearing a selt belt is actually dangerous to other passengers in the car and/or the other driver, the law should be enforced, because you're infringing on someone else's right to live.

If you're in the passenger seat and feel uncomfortable with someone who refuses to buckle behind you, trade or get out of the car. This doesn't need to become something that involves the government. It's even easier if you're the driver. Tell them to buckle or fuck off.

[Jyosua]

A loose body of about 100-200 pounds traveling at a speed of 50 or more mph creates an incredibly amount of force and can cause a great amount of damage when slammed into something that has stopped moving previously, such as someone who was actually buckled in. Trust me, you can hurt others by not buckling in, just as you can hurt yourself.

[California Mountain Snake]

A loose body of about 100-200 pounds traveling at a speed of 50 or more mph creates an incredibly amount of force and can cause a great amount of damage when slammed into something that has stopped moving previously, such as someone who was actually buckled in. Trust me, you can hurt others by not buckling in, just as you can hurt yourself.

I tried doing a Google search on seat belt death statistics, and none of the websites I've encountered have mentioned any figures about people killed yearly due to other passengers not wearing a seat belt (although some pro-seatbelt websites listed great speculation of how much a damage a flying body could potentially do, this was never backed up by any reports of actual injuries or deaths). I think before you make this argument, you need to prove that a non-negligible amount of people are injured by unbuckled passengers.

And to me, this is the only argument, if even true in the first place, which makes sense to justify the law. To people arguing that the state has to pay to clean up your body, remember that as a taxpayer the road and the services of the state are as much yours as anyone else's, so to claim you're "stealing money" by forcing the state to clean up an accident is preposterous; we pay taxes for those services.

[Eltoshen]

So...since we're paying the taxes, they're doing us a favor, amirite?

Sounds like a poor law to fight over.

[quanta]

And to me, this is the only argument, if even true in the first place, which makes sense to justify the law. To people arguing that the state has to pay to clean up your body, remember that as a taxpayer the road and the services of the state are as much yours as anyone else's, so to claim you're "stealing money" by forcing the state to clean up an accident is preposterous; we pay taxes for those services.

There's also the much more important fact that the state (and by extension other taxpayers) might have to absorb a large portion of the cost of emergency care. And in no way does the fact that someone pays taxes somehow entitle him to medical care for his mistake or a free clean-up of his dumb-ass corpse. The money he pays in taxes is not meant for his personal benefit alone, nor is the money others pay intended for his personal benefit alone. I find it hard to believe that it's more of an infringement upon liberty for someone to be lawfully obligated to buckle his seatbelt, than for someone else to be forced to pay for his idiocy.

The mere fact that one pays taxes does not entitle one to having tax money be spent in an idiotic and wasteful way that could have easily been prevented with no meaningful sacrifice or cost. That's just stupid.

The only way it might even vaguely be acceptable from the standpoint supposedly defending liberty (but still a way more difficult to defend policy than just legally requiring seatbelt use) is if the driver's family and estate are legally obligated to pay for the clean-up and any associated medical costs if he didn't wear a seatbelt (good luck getting that to go over well compared to the far more sane alternative). It strikes me as rather hypocritical to oppose some sort of supposed over-regulation or "nanny-state" behaviors that allegedly infringe upon personal "liberty" while explicitly relying upon nanny-state policies to cover up the cost of said stupidity and free the individual from a portion of responsibility for their actions.

There is no sane reason to favor the liberty of one person's comfort (a liberty which doesn't even really exist) over the liberty of someone else's wallet from unnecessary taxation (something which most certainly exists and is all too often trampled over for no good reason). If one wishes to explicitly devalue money as if it wasn't relevant (yeah, it's o.k. for you to be forced to pay for my health care, but it's not o.k. for me to be forced to cost you less money), then he must be willing to put his money where his mouth is directly into the law itself.

Edited August 9, 2009 by quanta

[Jyosua]

A loose body of about 100-200 pounds traveling at a speed of 50 or more mph creates an incredibly amount of force and can cause a great amount of damage when slammed into something that has stopped moving previously, such as someone who was actually buckled in. Trust me, you can hurt others by not buckling in, just as you can hurt yourself.

I tried doing a Google search on seat belt death statistics, and none of the websites I've encountered have mentioned any figures about people killed yearly due to other passengers not wearing a seat belt (although some pro-seatbelt websites listed great speculation of how much a damage a flying body could potentially do, this was never backed up by any reports of actual injuries or deaths). I think before you make this argument, you need to prove that a non-negligible amount of people are injured by unbuckled passengers.

And to me, this is the only argument, if even true in the first place, which makes sense to justify the law. To people arguing that the state has to pay to clean up your body, remember that as a taxpayer the road and the services of the state are as much yours as anyone else's, so to claim you're "stealing money" by forcing the state to clean up an accident is preposterous; we pay taxes for those services.

Sorry, but that's not speculation. If you'd like, we can set up some dummies in a car and do some rollover crash tests, and prove the laws of physics for you, because apparently you're completely unaware of Newtonian Laws.

I have an idea though. Let's also make it so that Air Bags are optional, and must be turned on manually each time the car is started, because hey, it should be up to the passenger whether they should be protected by an air bag, and not the government's safety regulations on the manufacturing of cars. I mean look at it this way, you don't get into a crash, you're fine! Same goes for seat belts!

[California Mountain Snake]

I tried doing a Google search on seat belt death statistics, and none of the websites I've encountered have mentioned any figures about people killed yearly due to other passengers not wearing a seat belt (although some pro-seatbelt websites listed great speculation of how much a damage a flying body could potentially do, this was never backed up by any reports of actual injuries or deaths). I think before you make this argument, you need to prove that a non-negligible amount of people are injured by unbuckled passengers.

Sorry, but that's not speculation. If you'd like, we can set up some dummies in a car and do some rollover crash tests, and prove the laws of physics for you, because apparently you're completely unaware of Newtonian Laws.

Oh well fuck me, I guess I'll just go NURRRRRRRRRRR.

Of course I fucking understand that a moving body (human) acts with great force in an accident. This however, doesn't mean that there aren't structural factors in the car which neutralize them as a threat to the front seat passengers, something which can only be backed up with statistics. Who knows, maybe something about how the seats are designed could block most of that force, and someone sitting bitch would probably just go into the front of the car (possibly out the window) without hitting any of the front passengers. The point is you can't just apply Newtonian physics in a complex system (like a rollover) without taking into account all of the variables. Saying a heavy guy will do a lot of damage, always, and not factor in all the other things which could be having an effect, is not fact. You can't speculate that a lot of people are actually killed a year just because of some offhand physics calculation.

The entire idea of risk compensation defies easy statistical prediction. Many, many studies show that despite the increase in car safety devices such as front and curtain airbags, seat belts, ABS, 4x4 and AWD, and frontal crumple zones, the amount of people per capita dying yearly in auto accidents has not decreased much for a long time. The theory simply goes, when people feel safer, they take more risks. Despite 40% of skiers now wearing helmets, the number of yearly deaths has not decreased. Similarly with four-wheel and all-wheel drive and anti-lock breaks, accidents in bad weather have not decreased because now people drive more recklessly in bad weather because they think their ABS and AWD will protect them. Some have argued the same thing applies to seat belts, but do we know? No. And we can't calculate it physically either, because there are psychological factors at play. Only actually statistics mean anything.

There's also the much more important fact that the state (and by extension other taxpayers) might have to absorb a large portion of the cost of emergency care. And in no way does the fact that someone pays taxes somehow entitle him to medical care for his mistake or a free clean-up of his dumb-ass corpse. The money he pays in taxes is not meant for his personal benefit alone, nor is the money others pay intended for his personal benefit alone. I find it hard to believe that it's more of an infringement upon liberty for someone to be lawfully obligated to buckle his seatbelt, than for someone else to be forced to pay for his idiocy.

The mere fact that one pays taxes does not entitle one to having tax money be spent in an idiotic and wasteful way that could have easily been prevented with no meaningful sacrifice or cost. That's just stupid.

The only way it might even vaguely be acceptable from the standpoint supposedly defending liberty (but still a way more difficult to defend policy than just legally requiring seatbelt use) is if the driver's family and estate are legally obligated to pay for the clean-up and any associated medical costs if he didn't wear a seatbelt (good luck getting that to go over well compared to the far more sane alternative). It strikes me as rather hypocritical to oppose some sort of supposed over-regulation or "nanny-state" behaviors that allegedly infringe upon personal "liberty" while explicitly relying upon nanny-state policies to cover up the cost of said stupidity and free the individual from a portion of responsibility for their actions.

There is no sane reason to favor the liberty of one person's comfort (a liberty which doesn't even really exist) over the liberty of someone else's wallet from unnecessary taxation (something which most certainly exists and is all too often trampled over for no good reason). If one wishes to explicitly devalue money as if it wasn't relevant (yeah, it's o.k. for you to be forced to pay for my health care, but it's not o.k. for me to be forced to cost you less money), then he must be willing to put his money where his mouth is directly into the law itself.

The state/insurance already pay for cleanup of an accident; scraping your body off the road is largely inconsequential to the cost (especially since at a serious accident an ambulance on the scene is standard anyways, for trauma and sometime whiplash or other injuries which come regardless of wearing a seat belt or not). Getting the wrecker out there and holding up traffic is where all the expense comes from, regardless of whether there are any dead bodies (dead bodies probably make the stock of the evening news channel on the scene go up though...).

Earlier though I did state some things badly. I was trying to respond to the claim that somehow we had no rights over how the road was run or controlled because it was "government owned", when I merely wanted to point out that we had ultimate control as the road is taxpayer owned and the government is voter controlled (but this is not the place to go into electoral dynamics). I realize, upon rereading, how stupid the claim was that taxpayers should be able to do anything because they pay taxes, that was a bit of an exaggeration of the moment. I agree with your third paragraph, that a person who decides not to wear a seat belt must cover the extra expenses could result from this stupidity. You have a right to damage yourself as much as you want, but not the right to demand others pay for it.

[Jyosua]

I notice you didn't quote or reply to the second paragraph of my post. I'm guessing this is because it likely shows the flaw in your logic.

[California Mountain Snake]

I notice you didn't quote or reply to the second paragraph of my post. I'm guessing this is because it likely shows the flaw in your logic.

I also notice you didn't quote or reply to any part of my post, and are indirectly attempting to refute my post by simply saying I didn't follow the unwritten procedure of replying to everything you said first, rather than critiquing actual arguments. But fine:

I have an idea though. Let's also make it so that Air Bags are optional, and must be turned on manually each time the car is started, because hey, it should be up to the passenger whether they should be protected by an air bag, and not the government's safety regulations on the manufacturing of cars. I mean look at it this way, you don't get into a crash, you're fine! Same goes for seat belts!

And...?

That's all I can say. That and 'Sounds like a great idea.'My argument this entire time is that you're allowed to be a retard and get yourself killed, because that's your choice. Maybe not a good choice, but no one has the right to force you to do otherwise. By attempting to provoke a response with this post you simply demonstrate that even now, after all of this, you still do not even understand the argument. A better post would have called into question the right for people to make choices they would have to be insane to make in the first place, or would argue that for the sake of society the government should protect the good of its people as a whole. But the way it's phrased now, it doesn't address the argument, and promotes a worrywart set of morals as an ethical code that everyone else should be obliged to follow simply because of the convictions of the poster.

[Jyosua]

You claimed earlier that there were no other laws that mandated safety regulations for passengers. Air Bags are mandatory, as part of safety regulations, yet I don't see you complaining to get rid of those. There's even a way to turn them off in most vehicles, but people don't.

[California Mountain Snake]

You claimed earlier that there were no other laws that mandated safety regulations for passengers. Air Bags are mandatory, as part of safety regulations, yet I don't see you complaining to get rid of those. There's even a way to turn them off in most vehicles, but people don't.

What does that have to do with anything?

Either you need to reread the topic, or you are willfully obfuscating the argument. No one in this thread has said that seat belts should be removed from cars, nor air bags. Let me reiterate, I think using them is a very good idea, and I use them mostly without fail. But that doesn't mean that I think my "common sense" should override another person's right to choose what they want to do in a decision that largely concerns only them (although this is debatable). Your statement doesn't forward any argument, other than that I forgot passive restraints were also required in cars (which most commonly means airbags, but doesn't limit it to them).

[Jyosua]

Your statement doesn't forward any argument, other than that I forgot passive restraints were also required in cars (which most commonly means airbags, but doesn't limit it to them).

That's exactly my point. They're required. The only difference is that seat belts need to be actively put on by the passenger, thus in order to make them effective, you need two laws to accomplish one thing, whereas in the case of airbags you only need 1. Now, we could fix this by having seatbelts automatically fasten themselves (This has been done before to an extent), but instead people are stupidly arguing over whether or not we should even use them.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Your statement doesn't forward any argument, other than that I forgot passive restraints were also required in cars (which most commonly means airbags, but doesn't limit it to them).

That's exactly my point. They're required. The only difference is that seat belts need to be actively put on by the passenger, thus in order to make them effective, you need two laws to accomplish one thing, whereas in the case of airbags you only need 1. Now, we could fix this by having seatbelts automatically fasten themselves (This has been done before to an extent), but instead people are stupidly arguing over whether or not we should even use them.

You make no sense. Nobody is arguing over whether or not we should use them. That's been flat out said like 20 times. The argument is whether IF for some reason you don't want to use on, should you have to. Nobody is saying we shouldn't use them. They're saying you shouldn't HAVE to.