1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Seatbelts: Mandatory or Not?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Kaiser, Jan 26, 2015.

  1. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Buckled pasingers can be killed by flying unbundled passengers in the event of a crash, so yes, very clearly.

    Adrienne
     
  2. crazycat

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Eeeehhhh honestly I always wear my seatbelt and expect people in my car to wear their's so it doesn't effect me either way. IDK on one hand it is a waste of police time for them to pull over people for a seatbelt violation, but on the other hand for some people it's the only thing that gets them into the habit of wearing a seatbelt in the first place.
     
  3. NingyoBroken

    NingyoBroken Guest

    Well if you don't there is more change of dying in an accident.
     
  4. Maeve

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Female
    I've always wondered: what happens if somebody causes an accident, and someone in the other car wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and died?
     
  5. Andrew99

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2013
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I think people should wear there seat belt but I don't think they should get a ticket for not wearing there seat belt.
     
  6. C06122014

    C06122014 Guest

    Yes! No-brainer I mean come on? Here in ax there are signs everywhere-EVERYWHERE- that say "click it or ticket" catchy! Burn Ed it should be mandatory because, well that's what they're for? Fairly sinple to put on a seatbelt no excuses
     
  7. resu

    Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    4,968
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Of course, unless you sign a waiver that you will not sue and will pay for the extra medical expenses if you need to go to a hospital. Can't expect others to pay for your mistakes.

    ---------- Post added 26th Jan 2015 at 09:47 PM ----------

    Also, a few weeks ago I went with my dad to pay a fine for not wearing his seatbelt. I know it's a constant problem with him making excuses (he has an old car, but our newer car has a warning light if the belt's not on), and it's good he had to pay to realize he is making bad decisions.
     
  8. PatrickUK

    Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    6,943
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Location:
    England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I think it should be mandatory and I would find it odd to drive a car without being strapped in. In actual fact, if I attempt to drive my car without wearing a seatbelt I get an audible warning alarm go off.

    Interestingly, the Police in the UK often find that motorists who fail to wear seat belts are guilty of other offences besides. When stopped, further investigations often reveal drink driving (DUI), disqualifications, no insurance, no MOT test, no road tax or carrying drugs. The seat belt issue is only the starting point.
     
  9. White Knight

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Istanbul, TR
    Like making it mandatory works... in here it is mandatory and police officers usually do good job of making people sorry for not buckling up. Also cars has that alert who insist you should buckle or it wouldn't stop.

    So what people do in here instead?
    - Buckle up if you see a police on the road
    - Buy that thing which is only head of seatbelt to put in socket so you don't hear the alarm.

    I don't have a car and don't use transport much as my work is close to my home. However knowing from taxi drivers reaction my instant buckling is very rare event. They always comment of my behavior.

    In general you can trust your driving skills for not making an accident but roads are full of drunk, careless or speed junkie idiots..

    Pfft I am living in a country where people "accidentally" bump on elder people because they are too slow to cross roads. People whom afraid to hit someone or something because their car might be damaged.
     
  10. tulman

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kenosha Co, WI
    Hooray for Andrew! The only one who got it right.
     
  11. redneck

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ft. Smith, Ar
    Gender:
    Male
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I lost an aunt and a cousin in a rollover because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. I also lost another cousin in a motorcycle accident where he wasn't wearing a helmet. Because of these two accidents I always wear my seatbelt and will not move a motorcycle/atv across the yard without a helmet.

    That said wearing a seatbelt/helmet is MY choice. If you are stupid and want to bounce you skull off of the windshield or the pavement, then that is YOUR choice. The laws that require adults to wear seatbelts/helmets are nothing more than a revenue generating scam. It's your head if you are too dumb to take 30 seconds to protect it then it's your risk. Requiring children to wear them is logical because they don't know enough to make an informed decision not to.
     
  12. Cam7125

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Out Status:
    All but family
    I'm not sure if its a national thing, or just my area, but the driver and front passenger are required to always be buckled. The backseat passengers are encouraged to be buckled, but it's not required.
     
  13. kindy14

    kindy14 Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    Gender:
    Male
    Boy, all you people need a nanny state to keep you safe???

    Sorry, libertarian in me. But, really, I've used seat belts since they were available in the car. I don't need a law to tell me I should be doing it. Just like I don't need a law to tell me it's a good idea to have a fire extinguisher in your house, or a bath mat so you don't slip and fall in the tub.

    We cant expect to have the government make every decision for us. About the only thing that should be mandatory in the car is buckling up your kids.

    Or else, it is now mandatory for all males to always wear a condom when having sex. And to wear safety helmets in the shower, lest you slip, fall, and crack your head open.

    Where does it stop?
     
  14. SonicBoom

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Trying to find my way.
    Gender:
    Male
    I do feel seat belt laws are necessary.

    I personally always buckle up.
     
  15. PlantSoul

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Venus
    Gender:
    Other
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    A few people
    It should be considered mandatory. Really, they should teach about seatbelt safety in schools.

    ---------- Post added 27th Jan 2015 at 10:46 AM ----------

    You have a point, Sir.
     
  16. greatwhale

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,582
    Likes Received:
    413
    Location:
    Montreal
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I completely agree with you Kindy, I live in a province whose reach into our personal lives (and taxes!) far exceeds what is reasonable, but that's the way they like it here (deficits be damned).

    Nevertheless, I would like to see statistics on lives saved in jurisdictions where it is mandatory vs. those where it isn't.
     
  17. Martin

    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    This seems to be where the libertarian argument goes off the rails somewhat, as the essence of your post was undermined by this very point. To be honest, the reason I sought to emphasise children within my previous post was because that's usually the territory you need to drag 'opponents' (for lack of a better word) into in order to get them to concede their point.

    So, let's take that point and place it into a child-centred focus. If we are to protect the welfare of the child, it is not only about protecting them, but about what is around them that could cause a risk of harm. As Pret highlighted, a crash involving unbuckled passengers causes them to go flying through the air and risks hitting other people with the force of a brick to the face. If there's a risk that one of those people getting hit could be a child, it doesn't matter whether they're wearing a seatbelt, because the risk of significant harm (or death) from being hit by a flying person is just as much of a risk to their welfare. As a result, you then have to pragmatically shift the catchment of the law, so it then becomes a law that requires all passengers to wear a seatbelt if in the presence of somebody under the age of X. The main problem for this issue is that it's a child-centred approach that actually justifies an all-encompassing policy, as merely looking at their physical health whilst sat in our car would be akin to looking at the issue through a toilet roll. Child welfare extends to safeguarding their support network (such as the health of their parents and other family members) as much as it does to protecting that child, therefore it's arguably in the best interests of a child not to see their loved ones crashing into a window at x miles per hour.

    There's two important points to make here:

    Firstly, the slippery slope argument can be used to justify not having any laws whatsoever. I can't think of a single country that has ever introduced laws on wearing seatbelts, and has then gone on to use said approach to justify the mandatory inclusion of particular items within a shower, or requiring you to wear a condom etc etc. Plus, those exact same slippery slope possibilities could be said to you, as you already indicated that a law covering children would be justified as being mandatory. The slippery slope is an unwarranted assumption fallacy, in that people arbitrarily use it to justify an unnecessary fear of extension based on a non-existent "What if?". If somebody was going to use a slippery slope argument to make such ludicrous overreaches based on a seatbelt law, they'd be just as easily able to do so under the 'mandatory for children only' law.

    Secondly, we have to understand the reasons for a law existing if we're to accept the necessity of it. A law isn't just there to tell us what to do. In many cases, laws are redundant to us, as our morality framework helps keep us largely in check to ensure we're functioning in a civil and cohesive manner. For example, the reason we aren't abusing children isn't because there's a law stopping us. We just know it's the right thing to do, and should such a law be repealed I don't doubt we'd still find it easy to go on not abusing children. However, the reason a law has to exist, even to spell out the most obvious of offences, is to give the appropriate legal body the justification for intervening. It is not simply enough to just have certain issues left to common sense, because we know there are people who operate outside of such parameters, therefore there needs to be a legal framework so that an intervention can be attained. I wouldn't, for example, be able to access somebody's home to investigate an allegation of abuse without that legal authority, otherwise I'd be prosecuted for violation of Article 8 (right to privacy and family life) within the European Convention on Human Rights. However, as the framework of Human Rights treat that particular right as being qualified, it allows for laws to be used as the single point of authority to justify an intervention that would seemingly violate a right, within reason. [To clarify, this isn't meant to sound patronising, as I know you'll be aware of all this already. It's connected to the point below.]

    With those points in mind, it highlights the illogical nature of the examples you specified, as there's no legal necessity for an intervention to force people to wear condoms or shower helmets, nor can it easily be adapted into a child-centred focus. Such cases, such as slipping on a slippery surface, falls into the everyday risks that we face just by living in a home and having hygiene, and it doesn't easily fall into the collective public fora in the same way as driving, as such acts in a private home limit the risk to ourselves. Driving, on the other hand, is a risk to anybody and everybody. If you showering is a risk to everybody else then you're doing something fundamentally wrong. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: There is no safeguarding component to private and individual acts (such as showering) beyond common sense, so there's no necessity for it to be a law, hence why it isn't. If you had felt this was something that was going to be a risk of extension, I doubt you would have conceded the point that seatbelt wearing can be justified as a mandatory requirement in some situations. After all, if you're able to differentiate the difference between a child wearing a seatbelt and a child wearing a safety helmet in the shower, then it seems rather pointless for us to discuss it just for the sake of accommodating baseless extensions of a law underpinned by fallacious "what ifs?". :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

    Whoa, that post got so much longer than I had intended. A couple of concise discussion points in my head don't seem to remain concise once my hand hits the keyboard. :eusa_doh:
     
  18. CyanChachki

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia
    I'm pretty sure there's a law here in BC (if not Canada). There's this commercial on the radio saying, "Click it or ticket". As for everywhere else, I hope that there's a law for it. If you get into a car accident, you're better off in your vehicle than flying through your windshield and into oncoming traffic.
     
  19. raiden04

    raiden04 Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere in Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Although having seatbelts on buses would only increase passengers' safety, here are a couple reasons why I think manufacturers don't install them:

    1. Passengers sit higher off the ground on buses and therefore buses are relatively safer than regular vehicles.
    2. Buses are heavier and have tougher exterior frames which absorb a lot of energy in an impact collision (with another motor vehicle for example). In addition to this, the closely-spaced seats and high arching backs of the seats aid in shock absorption, increasing passenger safety.
    3. Lastly, they're an added cost to the company and take up seating space.
     
  20. Drew55

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kaiserslautern
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh to wear or not to wear…

    Legislating a good idea is a really bad form of government. I work in a career field that pushes the use of the seatbelt. But I disagree with forcing anyone to evaluate the action themselves and making a personal determination to use or not. I guess it’s the libertarian in me.
    In Germany, wearing seatbelts are compulsory. Should you be in a motor vehicle accident and are found to not be wearing them, you are held responsible for 51% of your injuries. I rather like that train of thought. What this does is put the onus on the individual as to any costs as a result of the incident back on the person not complying.
    It is a waste of valuable resources to have a seatbelt law as a primary violation. Law enforcement has enough to deal with and these laws are only used by the former hall monitor types that pull everyone over for anything.
    I personally like Darwinian approach to life, clear away the fodder for the rest of use to enjoy our golden years.