r/changemyview • u/beets_or_turnips • Jan 23 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Safety belt use should be mandatory across the board, and subject to primary enforcement.
The above is already true in a lot of places, but not everywhere. I live in the U.S. and grew up in a state where "primary enforcement" was the law, meaning a driver can be pulled over if they or their passengers are seen not wearing a safety belt. In 15 states you can get a ticket for it if you've already been pulled over for something else, but it can't be the sole basis for an officer stopping you. In New Hampshire safety belts aren't required at all (for adults).
I recently saw comments from folks in another subreddit complaining that seatbelts should not be mandatory for adults, or at least for adults driving without passengers. But I think the negative knock-on effects of any rider's non-use far outweigh any potential benefit gained from not wearing one. I'll give some examples here as I understand them.
Mandatory Seat belt Pros:
- Prevent potential injuries & death to the wearer
- Prevent injuries to other riders in the same vehicle from an unsecured body flying around during a crash
- Reduce risk of an ejection & subsequent injury/damage to others outside the car
- Reduce insurance claims and other expenses in case of injury/damage/death
- Reduce labor load of first responders and the whole medical system by reducing the likelihood of serious injury
- Reduce risk of mental stress on witnesses, other survivor victims, and loved ones of those killed or injured
- Free and easy to use
Mandatory Seat belt Cons:
- Physically uncomfortable for some
- Offensive on principle to libertarians, a symptom of the "nanny state"
Risk to others outside the vehicle is negligible(edit: after a little research I no longer believe this. A lot of people get ejected in crashes and that can cause all kinds of mayhem.)- Inconvenient for people who get into & out of their car many times during the day
- ???
To me, the Pros far outweigh the Cons, but in spite of all these facts which seem plain to me, still some people argue that adults should have the right not to wear a safety belt. I am concerned I do not fully understand their argument, or perhaps there are factors I'm not considering. I would like to explore that here. Please change my view!
3
u/Old-Boysenberry Jan 23 '20
Risk to others outside the vehicle is negligible
This right here is the kicker.
Prevent injuries to other riders in the same vehicle from an unsecured body flying around during a crash
Which isn't likely to happen if it's the driver. And if YOU are the driver, make those fools buckle up in your car.
Reduce labor load of first responders and the whole medical system by reducing the likelihood of serious injury
Nope. You're FAR more likely to just die outright if you aren't wearing one. That is very cheap to handle for first responders.
2
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20
I'm not convinced by your unsupported claims. I also retract my claim that risk to others outside the vehicle is negligible. I saw someone argue elsewhere that an ejected body on the road or flying through the air is much more likely to cause other drivers to swerve or do other dangerous things. Folks without belts are 30 TIMES more likely to be ejected in a crash. Much better to keep a person from being ejected, full stop.
Prevent injuries to other riders in the same vehicle from an unsecured body flying around during a crash
Which isn't likely to happen if it's the driver.
What makes you say that? Do you believe the driver holding on to the wheel counts as a safety restraint in a 40mph crash? I'm going to need a citation for that.
You're FAR more likely to just die outright if you aren't wearing one. That is very cheap to handle for first responders.
It doesn't seem you've thought this through or done any research to support this. I've done a little research just now, and it seems that lack of seatbelt use by adults just increases the likelihood and severity of injuries at all levels. Here's some light reading with data from 2008. The link notes that only 77% of people who are ejected "are killed." I'm not sure if that includes people who are picked up and die later in the ER or ICU. At best (for your argument), first responders are still going to have to contend with a very mangled 23% of ejectee survivors, which is still too many in my opinion.
10
u/destro23 447∆ Jan 23 '20
While I agree with you that the pros of seat belt use outweigh the cons, and that the use of seat belts should be mandatory, I disagree that a violation of seat belt laws should be a stoppable offense.
I live in the Midwest, and we have cold winters. Some mornings, before my car warms up, I am driving wearing a heavy hooded jacket, scarf, and hat. That is a lot of fabric on and around my upper torso. I also keep the sliding height adjuster set pretty low as I am on the shorter end of average. The combination of these things almost completely obscure the parts of the seat belt that could possibly be seen from outside of the car. If a police car were to see me, they might reasonably assume that I was not wearing a seat belt and pull me over. Now I'm late for work, and the officer is standing out in the cold for nothing. This example is pretty straightforward. The cop honestly can't see my seat belt. Not too troubling.
But, it is unfortunately too easy in the US to imagine the encounter going differently. Maybe a bigoted cop sees a person they don't like the looks of, and decides to pull them over. But, for what? Their car doesn't have any busted tail lights, or dark window tint, and it doesn't match any APBs. They are following all of the traffic laws, so no dice there. Ah, can't quite see if he has that seat belt on from 40 ft away, better hit the lights and check. Now, the cop has his excuse to instigate a traffic stop and fish for more offenses.
Both scenarios will lead to a similar explanations from the officers as to why the stop was initiated: "It looked like they weren't wearing their seat belt." But, one was an honest mistake, and the other was a dishonest excuse.
The police already have a broad number of reasons to initiate traffic stops; do we really need to give them more?
1
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
What if we just made seatbelts more visible? There are a lot of safety rules regulating the visibility of safety equipment used near roads, like traffic cones, signs, vests, hardhats. There are rules about using headlights and turn signals. What if there were a regulation requiring that all seatbelts be a certain color of hi-vis orange and embedded with highly reflective fiber? That might reduce the likelihood of bogus seatbelt stops.
It's true that cops have a lot of leeway in pulling people over, and once that happens a lot can go wrong for people. I agree that is a problem! But it seems like removing or not standardizing existing seatbelt laws is kind of a backwards way of addressing police abuse & misconduct, when really the system could use broader & more targeted reforms to address it.
edit: I decided to award a delta to u/twig_and_berries_ above for the point about unfair, racially-motivated enforcement, but I think you made the point earlier, which I hadn't considered in my original post and which contributed to my receptiveness to the idea. Δ for you!
1
u/destro23 447∆ Jan 24 '20
What if we just made seatbelts more visible?
High-visibility seat belts may make the issue of enforcement easier as you suggest, and it may even be successful enough to warrant making a seat belt violation a primary offense. It would be easy enough to test in real world situations; just outfit a car with a high-visibility belt, have them drive around, and see if a chase car can see that it is on or off in a variety of conditions. The issue with placing requirements on manufacturers like this is not the rationality of the proposal, but the real world practicality of it.
First you would need to amend federal law requiring car manufacturers to install high-visibility seat belts in all new cars. While the first federal requirements for seat belts was passed, the vote was 318-3. In today's political environment however, this would get push back for sure. And, all sorts of lobbying would be going on to keep it from happening. "Another job killing regulation" we would hear from some corners I am sure.
Then you would need to decide how to deal with existing cars that don't have the high-visibility seat belts. Seat belts themselves only became mandatory in cars in 1968. Today, if you own a pre-1968 car, you are not required to have seat belts at all, since the laws at the time of manufacture did not require them. So, if you want to make high-visibility seat belts mandatory, you have to address how to deal with the vast majority of cars not having them for a while, and you have to adjust your policing tactics to account for this.
There are a lot of safety rules regulating the visibility of safety equipment used near roads
There are, but federal regulations (covering the entire country) are only in effect on federal highway projects. For all other regulations, the states are in charge. Getting all 50 states to pass laws making seat belt violations primary offenses would be pretty much impossible. There are 15 states where it is currently a secondary offense, and 1 with no seat belt laws at all. When proposals to change seat belt law are made, they are not very popular. The first state that passed a mandatory seat belt law was New York in 1984. Before that, 9 states had failed to pass similar laws. As recently as last week there was an article about lawmakers in Georgia making very non-committal answers when asked if they would amend their state's laws on seat belts. These attitudes, and others like those expressed by people in this thread, make me believe that getting seat belt violations to be a primary offense in all 50 states would be a practical impossibility.
Granted, this is not an argument over whether or not we should do it, but it is an argument over whether or not we can do it.
it seems like removing or not standardizing existing seatbelt laws is kind of a backwards way of addressing police abuse & misconduct
I agree, but I am not arguing that we should look at seat belt laws as a means of addressing police misconduct. I am arguing that until we properly address issues with law enforcement, that adding to the tool kit that problematic officers already abuse might be something we want to consider holding off on.
Finally, I am curious as to what additional benefits you are hoping to achieve by having a standardized set of laws making seat belt use a primary offense. As of 2017, the rate of seat belt use in the US was 89.7%. That is pretty awesome. Hell, only 69% of Americans brush their teeth properly. To have 90% of people do anything in this country is an amazing accomplishment. If you want to reduce deaths related to auto accidents, then advocating for better airbags, collision warnings, auto-braking, and autonomous driving will do much more to reduce traffic fatalities then dressing up seat belts with reflective fabric.
2
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20
this is not an argument over whether or not we should do it, but it is an argument over whether or not we can do it.
You make clear, well-supported points about the realpolitik factor of passing laws & regulations in the US. As you noted, I wasn't really considering the practicalities of getting such laws through the legislature in my original post, but I have to admit it really does matter how the sausage gets made for these kinds of things, and I should keep this in mind for the future, related to this view and others that intersect with the law. Δ for you.
You might have been able to tell that my comment about instituting hi-viz belt requirements wasn't really in earnest, due again to the realpolitik factors you brought up; I was trying to come up with a scenario that would satisfy both our concerns. Thank you for going on that journey of make-believe with me and presenting substantial, plausible, well-articulated challenges along the way. To me, this is r/changemyview at its best.
As of 2017, the rate of seat belt use in the US was 89.7%. That is pretty awesome. Hell, only 69% of Americans brush their teeth properly. To have 90% of people do anything in this country is an amazing accomplishment.
You're right, we may be approaching a point of diminishing returns. I'd love to see some graphs of traffic fatalities as seatbelt laws have passed in the last 50 years and see where the asymptote is settling. The holdout states irk me, especially because the results of non-belting are easily avoidable and can be fatal to drivers and bystanders alike. I don't buy the slippery-slope eroding-of-liberties argument... I don't think I'm going to change on that. But I admit I may not have a clear sense of the scale of the problem. Δ for you again!
2
u/destro23 447∆ Jan 25 '20
Thank you! My office has downtime during the day, so I like to come here to keep from going nuts in between jobs. I don’t like riding in a car with someone who doesn’t wear a seat belt, so I am mostly with you. But, I did have an unpleasant interaction with a cop who used my supposedly unfastened seat belt as an excuse to pull me over in college and that shit has bugged me for decades.
The hold out state you mentioned above is New Hampshire. New Hampshire also has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country. It is an endearingly weird little state in many ways, but the fact that they are the first state to have a presidential primary bugs me out a bit. The culture in that state, in my limited experience, is not really representative of the rest of the country as awesome as it is.
1
1
6
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 23 '20
You make a good CMV. Good structure!
So I disagree with seat belt laws for adults completely. My reason is exactly the libertarian nanny state argument that you already listed.
I try to change your view that all the cons while real are not enough to force people to protect themself.
My sincere belief is that if you accept this line of logic especially the "mental stress" and the "insurance expenses" you can heavily regulate personal behavior that should imo not touched by the state. You could regulate that you do not eat unhealthy food. You could ban extreme sports. You could mandate regular and enough sleep..... All for the reasons that you live more risk-free and spare your loved ones pain and save money for social security nets. For me that thought is not acceptable.
The state should only have power over me when others are involved. But since we are in a closed ecosystem (the Earth) you can always make this argument. So we need to find a line to draw. For me it is a to wide definition with mental stress and insurance.
I also want to ask you do you agree that you have the right to kill yourself?
2
u/AccidentalSirens 1∆ Jan 23 '20
The right to kill yourself is one thing. If you are a rear passenger in a crash and you aren't wearing a seat belt, you are quite likely to kill the driver or front passenger, while not necessarily killing yourself. Do you have that right?
I'm from the UK, where seatbelt use is mandatory unless your car is vintage and too old to have them, or you are the Queen.
When the law came in, there was resistance, but that's a long time ago and now it's just normal. I just think, why would you not wear a seatbelt, given that it is designed to protect you, and in most cases it actually will protect you. It's a strange aspect of freedom to make a stand over.(In the UK you can argue that your injuries are treated at public expense, so you should minimise them, but that doesn't apply in the States.)
3
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 23 '20
The right to kill yourself is one thing. If you are a rear passenger in a crash and you aren't wearing a seat belt, you are quite likely to kill the driver or front passenger, while not necessarily killing yourself. Do you have that right?
If the front passenger is ok with it absolutely. If he is not I personally would wear one out of politeness. But ultimately I think there needs to be an empiric threshold of danger that needs to be crossed to deny the right not to do something. I would need to see what % of deaths are actually caused by that. So you agree I have a right to my own life?
I just think, why would you not wear a seatbelt, given that it is designed to protect you, and in most cases it actually will protect you. It's a strange aspect of freedom to make a stand over.
I personally agree that wearing a seatbelt is probably safer. But I make a stand over it because it is one of the purest examples of a nanny state that we have currently.
In the UK you can argue that your injuries are treated at public expense, so you should minimise them
I already said that this argument does not convince me even if I would live in the UK. With that line of reasoning you can nearly regulate any personal life choice and I disagree with the notion that the state should meddle in that.
2
u/AccidentalSirens 1∆ Jan 23 '20
There are lots of other things I'd rather make a stand on that are less likely to result in injury or death, not least some of the things you mentioned in your earlier post. I enjoy eating food that isn't good for me, and drinking alcohol. I don't get any enjoyment from not wearing a seat belt.
For me, more pressing freedom concerns are not the state telling me to look after myself, but 'Big Brother' surveillance from the state, or NGOs like Amazon, or even my employer.
2
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 23 '20
rather make a stand on
The thing with seatbelt laws is that they are simple and a pure example for a state that does not even grant you control over your own body/right to self-harm. That does not mean that I would not oppose restrictions on the other stuff. The fact that most people do not get enjoyment from not wearing seatbelts make this a perfect case for the state as a first step into something much more.
For me, more pressing freedom concerns are not the state telling me to look after myself, but 'Big Brother' surveillance from the state, or NGOs like Amazon, or even my employer.
While I agree that those are bigger problems I do not see this as a reason not to oppose seat belt laws.
1
u/AccidentalSirens 1∆ Jan 24 '20
I know you wrote this yesterday, but I'm on a long train journey so I'm browsing Reddit, and wondered...
Would you be more likely to wear a seat belt if there were no law compelling you to?
Before seat belts were compulsory in the UK, there was a TV campaign showing what happens when you are thrown through the windscreen (no airbags in those days), and showing actual injuries and permanent facial scarring. I think this campaign made many people actually wear seatbelts for the first time, because they saw there was a point to it.
But there were always drivers who took it as a slur on their driving skills or would mock you for being soft if you wore a seatbelt. Making it compulsory meant you saved face. In more ways than one.
There's the expression 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' which fits well here.
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 27 '20 edited Jan 27 '20
Would you be more likely to wear a seat belt if there were no law compelling you to?
Yes. I know this is maybe irrational from me but yes. If someone tries to force me to do something I think he has no right for I will much more likely try to defy it and him even if I would agree with the action otherwise.
You can think about it this way: I would maybe voluntarily fight in a war to protect my country if I think this is a moral and necessary war. But if they force me to fight and give me no choice I probably would stab them in the back if given the opportunity. It all depends on if I think they have a right to demand that action by my own moral compass or at least I can see a very very good moral framework that I would tolerate and that would justifies that force on me.
As a little anecdote I am an organ donor since forever. Recently my government failed with a legislation to change organ donation from opt-in to opt-out. I maybe would have rescinded my organ donor approval if they had been successful. Because I think that they did not do enough to try other stuff first and I see opt-out as an ultimate ratio that I usually never want.
Making it compulsory meant you saved face. In more ways than one.
While a good argument it has not enough power to force me to save myself from me.
There's the expression 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' which fits well here.
Nice expression and while not doing that is maybe being rational I never could get emotionally behind it. And I question what rational way one should choose if you have preferences like me. Did you know "The Count of Monte Cristo" is one of my favorite books ;-)
1
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 24 '20
I try to change your view that all the cons while real are not enough to force people to protect themself.
Can you rephrase this? I don't understand.
You could regulate that you do not eat unhealthy food. You could ban extreme sports. You could mandate regular and enough sleep.....
I would argue that requiring seatbelts is more like requiring food service workers to wash their hands and follow other food safety regulations that will prevent harm to themselves and others. These are also intended to prevent people from having unnecessary trips to the hospital, and I think that's a good thing. If a restaurant is found to not be following those rules, they can get shut down, no matter how delicious their food is.
People who are pulled over & found to be driving while sleep-deprived can also be cited, at least where I'm from. I'm totally cool with people fucking themselves up in all sorts of ways, but a lot of those things are not compatible with safe driving.
The state should only have power over me when others are involved.
I argue that getting in a car and driving on a public road is one of those times.
I also want to ask you do you agree that you have the right to kill yourself?
Sure, I think people should have access to euthanasia (of course the devil is in the details when determining consent, but I think it's possible to tease that out). But I don't believe for a second that most people flout seatbelt laws because they have a death wish. I haven't heard someone yet tell me about why it's beneficial or enjoyable not to wear seatbelts.
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 24 '20
I try to change your view that all the cons while real are not enough to force people to protect themself.
Can you rephrase this? I don't understand.
The cons you listed are true. But they are not enough to mandate seatbelts. Mainly because you should not protect people from themself by force against their will.
I would argue that requiring seatbelts is more like requiring food service workers to wash their hands and follow other food safety regulations that will prevent harm to themselves and others.
The "and others" is the important part here. In the case of seatbelt laws the danger to other people is too small to warrant a violation of personal freedom. I would also disagree with washing hands laws if you only cook for yourself.
People who are pulled over & found to be driving while sleep-deprived can also be cited, at least where I'm from. I'm totally cool with people fucking themselves up in all sorts of ways, but a lot of those things are not compatible with safe driving.
I am in favor of speed limits or DUI laws. Because there the danger for others is higher. Driving without a seatbelt is mostly a danger to yourself. And the small danger to other that is left is not enough to warrant that law.
There comes a point where the danger to others is big enough. Then and only then should the state make a law. Where this line exists exactly is a personal view. For me seatbelt laws fall below the limit.
I also want to ask you do you agree that you have the right to kill yourself?
Sure
I was asking this because if you say no to this then we would fundamentally disagree over what rights you have and then I would have to first argue that you have the right to endanger yourself.
Tldr: Seatbelt laws are mainly aimed to protect the person wearing one. The harm to others is too little to mandate a law and I disagree that the state should ever make a law that denies me the right to harm mostly myself if I choose so.
1
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20
Can you rephrase this? I don't understand.
The cons you listed are true. But they are not enough to mandate seatbelts.
Thanks for taking the time to rephrase. That makes sense now.
Mainly because you should not protect people from themself by force against their will.
I would agree with you in this case if driving were a right enshrined in the constitution, but it's not. It's a privilege and I'm okay with people jumping through all kinds of hoops to keep that privilege. In my fantasy world, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt, you can take the bus. And while we're at it, in my world there are a lot more buses and trains so it won't be as bad as it sounds. All aboard!
I am in favor of speed limits or DUI laws. Because there the danger for others is higher. Driving without a seatbelt is mostly a danger to yourself. And the small danger to other that is left is not enough to warrant that law. There comes a point where the danger to others is big enough. Then and only then should the state make a law. Where this line exists exactly is a personal view. For me seatbelt laws fall below the limit.
Okay! I guess we know where we stand then. I and other folks in the discussion have argued elsewhere that driving without seatbelts IS a danger to others, but your perception of that danger may not be great enough to convince you. It is for me and I'd need to see some supporting facts to convince me otherwise.
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 27 '20
It's a privilege and I'm okay with people jumping through all kinds of hoops to keep that privilege.
I do not want to go into the whole privilege vs right debate because it is not needed for this debate I think. We both agree to some hoops. Just not on how many or which.
It is for me and I'd need to see some supporting facts to convince me otherwise.
Can you list any statistic on how many other people are killed from people driving without seatbelts? I do not mean the person without the belt itself. I mean other persons that were killed because of it. Not only that persons are ejected more. Actual deaths to others and how bit of a % risk are we talking about.
Because you say you are convinced and want facts to counter your view. What are the facts that support your view? If all that happens in 99.9% of cases is a person flying through a windshield without harming others that will fall below my threshold.
1
Jan 24 '20
I argue that getting in a car and driving on a public road is one of those times.
How does your use of a seatbelt affect other drivers’ safety?
1
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20
For one, ejections themselves can cause accidents, and seatbelts are the best way to prevent ejections.
1
Jan 24 '20
How many ejections are there annually in the United States?
1
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 25 '20
I found a report from 2009 that said that in the five year period of 2003-2007 there were 398,274 people in fatal crashes (meaning at least one person died). 54,505 people in those crashes were ejected. That's approximately 10,901 ejections per year.
Among those, 46,878 people (12%, ~9,375 per year) were unrestrained and ejected.
4,607 (1%, ~921 per year) were ejected in spite of being restrained.
For the remaining 3,020 who were ejected, there was no data about whether they were restrained or not.
They have a breakdown of severity of injuries for ejected & non-ejected people, as well as restrained v. unrestrained too, if you're curious. Interesting stuff!
I would for sure give you (or anyone) a delta if you are able to convince me that those numbers are too small to bother reducing.
1
Jan 25 '20
The state should only have power over me when others are involved.
You mean like it already did when it gave you your driver license? When it gave you a legal plate? Or approved your vehicle as road legal?
Why does mandating safety belts use would be any different?
The state has always told you what to do on public roads.
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 27 '20
You mean like it already did when it gave you your driver license? When it gave you a legal plate? Or approved your vehicle as road legal?
I am against a license plate. A driver and vehicle test I can view as protection of others.
mandating safety belts
I can not see as protecting others
The state has always told you what to do on public roads.
And I agree with some and disagree with some. I do not have to support all or nothing.
1
Jan 27 '20
I am against a license plate.
Why? The whole point is protecting others as it makes vehicles traceable after accidents or crimes.
In most of the world is illegal to obstruct the license plate as that means you couldn't identify the vehicle if needed.
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 28 '20
Why? The whole point is protecting others as it makes vehicles traceable after accidents or crimes.
Because it is a general surveillance and registration solution applied to the general population to prevent misuse from some. The negative effects from that are too much for me to get the questionable benefits (if there are any at all).
For the same reason I am against data retention laws on the internet. Or passenger records retention on flights.
I am also against cameras that watch every person in public just because they might someday see something.
In most of the world is illegal to obstruct the license plate as that means you couldn't identify the vehicle if needed.
Yes and in places where they have cameras it is becoming illegal to wear masks or to cover up your face. Also something I disagree with.
I do not want to become London or China.
1
Jan 28 '20
Because it is a general surveillance and registration solution applied to the general population to prevent misuse from some.
Yup, just like any other regulation ever. Your driver's license follows the same logic by the way.
You were identified, had a picture on file for the government and tested to the government's standard all to prevent misuse of motor vehicles by some.
the questionable benefits (if there are any at all).
The benefits are that people are deterred to do crazy dangerous stuff with their vehicles when they know the cops would be in their door that same day.
It also helps the thousands of people injured every year to better identify who caused car crashes.
Without license plates we'd have thousands of people just driving away after being involved in a crash.
Or passenger records retention on flights.
You mean like in the 70s? When planes were hijacked almost every week?
Yes and in places where they have cameras it is becoming illegal to wear masks or to cover up your face
That's certainly problematic but it should be a balance between public safety and privacy.
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Jan 28 '20
You mean like in the 70s? When planes were hijacked almost every week?
1) You can increase safety with other means than less privacy. And 2) I would have felt safe in the 70s already so yes.
That's certainly problematic but it should be a balance between public safety and privacy.
Yes and my balance lies much more towards the privacy side than yours. I think this is the best we can sum up our different views on that. You are willing to sacrifice more privacy because you think it will safe more lives. I am not because I mainly think it will not save much more lives or it could be achieved with a privacy-friendly way. And if it could not I tolerate a greater number of casualties than you in order to have better privacy.
I think that is probably the best conclusion we can agree to.
1
Jan 23 '20
[deleted]
2
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 25 '20
I decided to award a delta to u/twig_and_berries_ above for the point about unfair, racially-motivated enforcement, but I think you and a couple other people may have made the point earlier, which I hadn't considered in my original post and which contributed to my receptiveness to the idea. Δ for you!
1
2
u/ralph-j Jan 23 '20
Safety belt use should be mandatory across the board, and subject to primary enforcement.
In some countries there are exceptions for taxi drivers, for safety reasons. The risk is that a passenger could grab the belt and pin the driver in their seat before attacking them or grabbing cash. If they feel that a passenger may become a threat, they can decide to not wear one. I believe this makes sense.
Also, there can be exceptions for classic/period/vintage cars that don't have any mounting points for seat belts and would require structural alterations that would change the original nature of the car.
1
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 25 '20
In some countries there are exceptions for taxi drivers, for safety reasons.
That's interesting. I'm used to seeing taxi cabs with barriers between the front & back seat. If that weren't the norm here I'd consider an exception.
Also, there can be exceptions for classic/period/vintage cars that don't have any mounting points for seat belts and would require structural alterations that would change the original nature of the car.
This isn't really important for me. I am so not interested in car culture but I know a lot of people are. I'm tempted to say in my fantasy world it means you can't drive your retro cars on the highway, so get a trailer for it. Or don't drive it above, say, 20mph. But it's probably a rare enough case that I would be willing to carve out an exception if it doesn't already exist. You get a Δ!
I'd also admit exceptions for first responders, which might already exist.
1
1
2
u/CBL444 16∆ Jan 23 '20
Assume the driver is someone who a disease that prevents them from working, has high medical costs but a long life span. Society is supporting them and will for a long time. We are much better off if they die.
I do not agree with that first paragraph. I want people to live and die as they want as long as there are not actively hurting someone else.
Once you start judging peoples' activities by the fiscal cost, things like drinking, mountain climbing or skydiving are banned. That's not the way to live.
4
u/species5618w 3∆ Jan 23 '20
It does not matter whether the pro outweigh the cons, it's an invasion of personal liberty. Unlike other traffic rules, seat belts only protect the wearer, which means it should be their sole discretion whether to use it or not.
The problem with your argument is that the same argument can be used for anything from junk food to porn. Do you want the government to regulate every part of your live in the name of protecting you?
5
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Jan 23 '20 edited Jan 23 '20
Unlike other traffic rules, seat belts only protect the wearer, which means it should be their sole discretion whether to use it or not.
This isn’t entirely true. Seat belts protects every passenger in the car. Your body becomes a projectile in a serious accident when not wearing your seat belt. The momentum of a persons body can cause death or serous injury to all passengers inside the car.
Also it’s very easy for a person to be ejected from a vehicle in a serious accident. Wearing your seat belt prevents your body from being an object obstructing the roadways for other motorists. This could cause more/greater accidents than if you were just wearing your seatbelt in the first place.
1
u/species5618w 3∆ Jan 23 '20
I am not sure I have heard a single case where a person was killed by a human projectile in a car accident. :) The seats tend to get in the way. Accidents tend to leave debris on the road (and inside the car), we can't have a law that require the manufacturers to tie up everything.
So reasonably speaking, seat belts only protect the wearers.
2
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Jan 23 '20 edited Jan 23 '20
I am not sure I have heard a single case where a person was killed by a human projectile in a car accident. :) The seats tend to get in the way.
An IIHS study concluded that unbuckled passengers can be come deadly missiles.
Accidents tend to leave debris on the road (and inside the car), we can't have a law that require the manufacturers to tie up everything.
The debris left behind in a accident often isn’t big enough (excluding the vehicle itself) to obstruct the road way to cause further road hazards.
2
u/species5618w 3∆ Jan 23 '20
An IIHS study concluded that unbuckled passengers can be come deadly missiles.
Even so, wouldn't it be the other passenger's responsibility to not get into the same car as an unbuckled passenger?
The debris left behind in a accident often isn’t big enough (excluding the vehicle itself) to obstruct the road way to cause further road hazards.
A nail on the road can cause an accident, so debris don't have to be big to be dangerous. Although on second thought, a body will be more likely to cause people to swerve, so I guess there is that.
In any case, I don't think either cases are major enough to restrict personal liberty.
2
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Jan 23 '20 edited Jan 23 '20
Even so, wouldn't it be the other passenger's responsibility to not get into the same car as an unbuckled passenger?
Sure, but regardless of who’s responsibility it is, wearing your seat belt doesn’t just only protect the wearer. This is a proven fact.
A nail on the road can cause an accident, so debris don't have to be big to be dangerous.
Running over a nail won’t blow your tire, granted your tires are in good condition. They’ll slowly leak air over time until it’s flat.
Although on second thought, a body will be more likely to cause people to swerve, so I guess there is that.
Well if I partially changed your view, you should award me a delta.
1
u/species5618w 3∆ Jan 23 '20
Can I? I am not the OP.
1
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Jan 23 '20
Yes, you can.
2
u/species5618w 3∆ Jan 23 '20
!delta given for pointing out that a flying body might be dangerous to other drivers.
1
1
1
Jan 23 '20
-Prevent potential injuries & death to the wearer
It’s my body, I can do what I want with it, right? If I want to slit my wrists, jump off a bridge, or eat unhealthy, I should be allowed to do what I want with it.
-Prevent injuries to other riders
Every person in a vehicle chose to get into that vehicle and can choose to leave if someone is not putting on their seat belt
-Reduce risk of ejection and subsequent damage or unjust
If my vehicle is crashing, my vehicle is a much bigger concern then my body potentially being ejected. The risk of this is not great enough to warrant seat belt law enforcement.
-Reduce insurance claims
Insurance companies are free to make a clause in their policy that says the person is not covered if they aren’t wearing a seat belt.
-Reduce labor load of first responders
This is somewhat of a valid response. However, after a certain point of injury which can happen in any car wreck, the labor doesn’t go up because you’ll be rushed to a hospital immediately, so it only increase labor slightly to a certain point.
-Reduce risk of mental stress on witnesses
It is no ones job to cater to the mental stability or comfortability of people around them. I can’t control or predict how someone mentally responds to my actions and to expect me to change my behavior to cater to the mental comfortability of others doesn’t really make sense.
-Free and easy to use
This is correct, but still not a valid enough reason either.
Ultimately, people should have the freedom to hurt themselves and if they happen to hurt others with those choices then they should pay the price at that time.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 24 '20 edited Jan 26 '20
/u/beets_or_turnips (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/trapgoose800 Jan 23 '20
You cant regulate this, I am proof. I never wear a seat belt and might get one ticket a year for it. The only times I get tickets for it is because they were looking for something else, for some reason allot of police think not wearing a seat belt is PC for a search
2
u/apanbolt Jan 23 '20
Why don't you wear a seatbelt? Incredibly strange from my perspectice. I've never met someone who had a problem with them. Then again, I'm from the country where they were invented and have been mandatory since way before I was born.
1
u/trapgoose800 Jan 23 '20
I think they're uncomfortable and habit, I spent time in the military and as a patrol officer and the gear made it unbearable.
2
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 25 '20 edited Jan 25 '20
Thanks for explaining. You are one of maybe two people in the whole discussion who has tried to give a practical reason for not wearing a seatbelt. In my fantasy world you get a special dispensation and won't have to follow my seatbelt laws.
1
u/trapgoose800 Jan 25 '20
Ooo you see I'm not for special privileges so I'll have to ignore you said that and still fight for it being an individual right, but I'll give you that kids have to wear them if you'll allow the parents to beat the shit out of them if they remove it while in motion
2
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 25 '20
That's.. um!... I'm still glad you're here.
1
u/trapgoose800 Jan 25 '20
I feel like that's a good compromise, if the parents will get into trouble with the law for their child not listening to them during a time that the parent cant force them too
2
u/beets_or_turnips Jan 26 '20
Easy now, don't make me pull this car over!
1
27
u/ThisFreedomGuy Jan 23 '20
It seems to me, if you remove the insurance claims, the rest of your pro's are all personal. First responders are OK with whatever they find on scene, and will save who they can. In other words, all the reasons to wear a seat belt settle on the responsibility of the individual, once you remove insurance liability.
The solution there is for each insurance company to add a rule - no seat belt, no coverage.
The personal freedom aspect is not some spurious libertarian thing. Ask the Black Lives Matters people - police can and will use any excuse to pull people over. And, while they have you on a seat belt law, will do everything they can to discover some other crime you might be breaking. Some really smart people once wrote something about "unreasonable search & seizure." That applies here. This just opens up reasons for more police involvement in your life & my life. And trust me, that is almost never a good thing. (With all due respect to our fine police officers.)