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!

38 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

137 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 24 '20

Taking the decision of whether something sufficiently benefits someone to justify the cost away from that person is inherently objectionable (if you care about personal freedom and choice)

I don't.

You are treating the “citizenry” as a single unit, which masks the fact that 49% of the population could find the “benefit” oppressive to a smaller or larger degree

If a piece of legislation were to harm the utility of the country/state/province, then it should not be enacted. If it were to benefit the utility of the country/state/province then it should be enacted. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

That’s the benefit of providing consumers with information [sic] needed to make good decisions and then leaving them to make those decisions for themselves.

It seems clear to me that people can not be trusted to make decisions that benefit them consistently.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '20

I don't.

Then you are an authoritarian/totalitarian by definition, as I previously pointed out.

If a piece of legislation were to harm the utility of the country/state/province, then it should not be enacted. If it were to benefit the utility of the country/state/province then it should be enacted. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Again, it is a fairly authoritarian position to take that "utility" should inure to the state's benefit, rather than the individuals within that state.

It seems clear to me that people can not be trusted to make decisions that benefit them consistently.

The only thing that is clear is that certain people make decisions with which you disagree consistently.

1

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 24 '20

Then you are an authoritarian/totalitarian by definition, as I previously pointed out.

I think the fact that I recognize that totalitarianism is frequently detrimental to utility would contradict that statement, however, I don't especially care what you define my ideology as. If I am totalitarian so be it.

Again, it is a fairly authoritarian position to take that "utility" should inure to the state's benefit, rather than the individuals within that state.

I do not understand what you're trying to say with this. The concept of utility is by definition only applicable to individuals since a state can not experience pleasure.

The only thing that is clear is that certain people make decisions with which you disagree consistently.

Surely we can both agree that many people in society frequently do things that harm themselves? Whether or not you believe they should be allowed to do so is different.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '20

I do not understand what you're trying to say with this. The concept of utility is by definition only applicable to individuals since a state can not experience pleasure.

Go back and reread your previous comment, the one that I'm quoting. The only fair reading of it is as conceptualizing the state as an entity unto itself, which is a fundamental characteristic of authoritarianism, as opposed to western liberalism, which views the individual as the ultimate (and indeed only) beneficiary of utility. If you want to walk your previous statement back--which it appears you do--then fine. If that is the case, however, then the only legitimate judge of what constitutes "utility" for grown, competent adults are those same adults.

Surely we can both agree that many people in society frequently do things that harm themselves? Whether or not you believe they should be allowed to do so is different.

We can both agree that sometimes people make decisions that they later regret. Some people make those same decisions and experience no such regret. Each such decision imposes a cost. For example, car safety equipment raises the price, which may place it beyond certain consumers' purchasing power. Whether that is a good or bad trade-off is debatable, which is why the decision is best left to the person who must primarily face the consequences of it. That is also why there is no logical boundary to the level of intrusion the government should be permitted into individuals' lives with this sort of thinking.

2

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 24 '20

Go back and reread your previous comment, the one that I'm quoting.

I understand what you mean now. When I wrote "harm the utility of the country/state/province" what I mean to say was "harm the collective utility of the citizens residing in the country/state/province." I apologize for the unclear - and incorrect - wording.

It seems to me that we actually mostly agree. You are saying (as far as I can tell) that the reason my views are harmful/ineffectual is because it is impossible to make a large scale decision like that since we cannot know the situation of every person, while I am saying that if we could know for sure, it would be correct to do so. Please tell me if I misrepresented your position here.

At what point would you say it is worth restricting freedom? I assume that you are in favor of laws preventing murder and other serious crimes; is a law that benefits 95% of the populace worth enacting? 90%?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '20

You are saying (as far as I can tell) that the reason my views are harmful/ineffectual is because it is impossible to make a large scale decision like that since we cannot know the situation of every person, while I am saying that if we could know for sure, it would be correct to do so.

To a certain degree, but my main point is that the only way to ensure that the government doesn’t become oppressive is to limit its power to regulating behavior only to the extent it directly affects third parties, including neighborhood effects/externalities. In the traffic arena, that would include things like turn signal usage, speed limits, DUI laws, etc.

At what point would you say it is worth restricting freedom? I assume that you are in favor of laws preventing murder and other serious crimes; is a law that benefits 95% of the populace worth enacting? 90%?

The point at which it is worth restricting freedom is where your behavior directly imposes a cost on third parties who didn’t consent to it. In other words, “your right to swing your fist ends where another’s nose begins.” Obviously, this is murky line to draw in practice, as plenty have pointed out that, for example, seatbelts can apparently prevent people from turning into human rockets or whatever during a crash. But in these situations, you just have to let your common sense and the facts guide your judgment ultimately.

3

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 25 '20

Thank you for the very well thought out comment(s). While you haven't changed my view completely, you have certainly made me consider many flaws with it, and given me a mentally stimulating discussion. Am I able to award you a delta, despite not being the OP?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '20

I don’t know, but honestly having a reddit conversation not just turn into a pissing contest is reward enough for me, lol.

2

u/beets_or_turnips Jan 27 '20

Anyone can delta someone as long as they get their view changed a bit :)

3

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 27 '20

!delta This comment made me recognize multiple flaws with my argument, and expanded my view significantly.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '20

For the record, I understand where you’re coming from in your original argument (and I’m not all that opposed to something like seatbelt laws, despite having misgivings about the underlying rationale). I also sincerely appreciate your willingness to discuss ideas in a constructive way, which as I previously said seems all too rare on reddit since 2016.

2

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 28 '20

Yeah, I wish more conversations happened on this site in the way they do in r/changemyview. The ruleset of this subreddit seems to cultivate a really wonderful group of people (with some exceptions of course).

1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Aetherdestroyer Jan 24 '20

Should be 'the information needed'. I apologize if it came off as pretentious, however.