The Battle Over Mandatory Seat Belts

[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.

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.

That wouldn't be an issue if, like airbags they were automatically put to use. However, they aren't for some odd reason. Thus the law mandating their use is made, to make the law mandating that they be put into vehicles, actually effective. The Law doesn't exist just to infringe on your right to be a dumbshit, it exists because another law wasn't specific enough!

[Eltoshen]

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.

Sounds like this just boils down to, "You should have the right to kill yourself."

Also, you mentioned a bit about how the car design can prevent other people from being hurt. If you're going to mention something like that, post a link to an article that describes it or whatnot and prove that the design is used in most modern cars.

Right now, I highly doubt that a flying body will simply fly out the window without causing major damage. (and what about the glass?)

Edited August 13, 2009 by Eltoshen

[California Mountain Snake]

Also, you mentioned a bit about how the car design can prevent other people from being hurt. If you're going to mention something like that, post a link to an article that describes it or whatnot and prove that the design is used in most modern cars.

Right now, I highly doubt that a flying body will simply fly out the window without causing major damage. (and what about the glass?)

The burden of proof falls on those wanting to justify a claim. Other people were claiming that seat belts should be mandatory because of the danger an unbuckled person poses to a buckled one, and I said that claim needed to be justified since I found no statistics listing how many, if any significant numbers of people are killed a year by other unbuckled passengers. I don't have to prove a goddamn thing in this scenario. And I most certainly did not say that the car design would prevent other people from being hurt.

Also, it's called safety glass.

That wouldn't be an issue if, like airbags they were automatically put to use. However, they aren't for some odd reason. Thus the law mandating their use is made, to make the law mandating that they be put into vehicles, actually effective. The Law doesn't exist just to infringe on your right to be a dumbshit, it exists because another law wasn't specific enough!

There's a breakdown of communication somewhere here, and it's distressing me. Somewhere I got on a different page, and I just don't understand what you're trying to argue anymore.

[Jyosua]

That wouldn't be an issue if, like airbags they were automatically put to use. However, they aren't for some odd reason. Thus the law mandating their use is made, to make the law mandating that they be put into vehicles, actually effective. The Law doesn't exist just to infringe on your right to be a dumbshit, it exists because another law wasn't specific enough!

There's a breakdown of communication somewhere here, and it's distressing me. Somewhere I got on a different page, and I just don't understand what you're trying to argue anymore.

I'm arguing that the only reason this law exists is because the regulations governing safety features in vehicles isn't specific enough when it comes to seat belts. You're arguing that people should have the right to let themselves get killed, by not using these seat belts. My argument counters yours in that, the right to use the belt or not would not even exist had the original regulations been not-so-shitty. I'm basically trying to say your point is moot because someone fucked up when they wrote the regulations for safety features in standard cars and trucks. If that eventually gets fixed, you're not going to have a say in the matter, regardless.

Regardless, I would like to point out that you're saying people should have the right to allow themselves to be killed, in a nation that still isn't completely for things like euthanasia, and also that commits people who have no desire to keep themselves alive to mental institutions (via things like the Baker Act and shit like that).

[Jyosua]

I'm going to use a little used rule. I believe I put it in the guidelines that people can bump topics with moderator permission if they have something that truly adds to the conversation. I believe I have something.

After a little bit of thinking and research, I found that in one state, a helmet law for motorcycles was repealed, and as a result everyone's insurance was raised. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want to have my insurance raised just because some people feel they shouldn't have to wear their seat belts (And this would most likely happen if it hasn't in some areas already), whereas I always comply with the law; so much so that I have never once in my life forgotten to buckle up. Unless there were some mandate stating that insurance could not be raised as a result of this, it would be punishing others unfairly to repeal the law, and thus I hold it should not be removed.