Seat belt drama erupts again in /r/Libertarian (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
24 ups - 10 downs = 14 votes
62 comments submitted at 09:44:11 on Mar 16, 2014 by sirboozebum
Seat belt drama erupts again in /r/Libertarian (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
24 ups - 10 downs = 14 votes
62 comments submitted at 09:44:11 on Mar 16, 2014 by sirboozebum
>Is it the only realistic, intelligent decision to make? Yes.
>Should it really be a law? I don't think so.
I think that's pretty reasonable. Deciding to not wear a seatbelt is an idiotic decision to make. But does not wearing a seatbelt harm society enough to warrant making it a crime? I don't think it does.
you could fly out and hit someone. plus it costs tax dollars to clean you up of the streets
How often are people injured or killed by someone flying through a windshield? Was it a common occurrence in the days before seatbelts?
And I really don't think we want to go too far down the road of "what could happen". Should we ban people with mild heart conditions from driving because there's always that 1 in a million chance they'll suddenly go into cardiac arrest and cause an accident? Is the potential danger significant enough to justify such a measure?
In fatal accidents ~30% of unbelted occupants are ejected.
~5% for belted occupants.
It's not a rare occurrence.
Plus, there's a video somewhere of a bus driver not wearing a seat belt who falls out of his seat during a swerve and can't get back up onto the seat, and promptly crashes. I'll try to find the video.
When you're controlling a 2 ton object, you're not the only one involved
"If you drink coffee, you could accidentally spill it on a child while you try to stir you sugar in. Coffee is now illegal."
This is the sort of thing I'm getting at.
How little potential to harm others are we willing to allow? There's negligence and recklessness, but when we're banning things on little more than what-ifs, I think that's a problem.
Exactly. And, like others have mentioned, it's not like revoking seatbelt laws is gonna make everybody start not wearing seatbelts. Because, contrary to popular belief, most people are not reckless idiots who don't care whether they live or die.
Read the study I posted.
Seatbelt usage increased 22 percent after the implementation of seat belt laws.
It's almost like people think that I want seatbelt laws revoked because I want to fly through my windshield and kill someone. Hell, I could've done that this afternoon if I had wanted to, seatbelt laws wouldn't have stopped that.
It's more about what the role of government is, and about police officers having one less thing to harass drivers about and fine them for.
>But does not wearing a seatbelt harm society enough to warrant making it a crime? I don't think it does.
You're something like 50% more likely to die in a car accident if you're not wearing a seat belt.
With about 6 million car accidents a year that would be a huge cost in lives and money if significant numbers of people stopped wearing seat belts.
New Hampshire doesn't require adults to wear seatbelts, and yet their rate of seatbelt usage is higher than some states that do have laws.
I think you're making a baseless assumption, that a significant number of people would stop using seatbelts if there was no law enforcing it.
I know I would keep using a seatbelt, and I would encourage others to do the same. I just don't think it is the role of government to mandate, under threat of fines, loss of driving privileges and even imprisonment, that people wear seatbelts when most people already do. And the people that don't, that's their choice to do so.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=waglU6rvKdHloASZ1IC4Aw&url=http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/341.pdf&cd=9&ved=0CEAQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNGeCPbnw0EBlvt4eLopGasRUmFCKQ
Seat belt usage increases 22 percent after implementation of primary enforcement mandatory seat belt laws.
>I just don't think it is the role of government to mandate, under threat of fines, loss of driving privileges and even imprisonment, that people wear seatbelts when most people already do. And the people that don't, that's their choice to do so.
And that would be fine if your medical expenses weren't being paid by me after you're ejected from the vehicle.
Seatbelts don't eliminate injuries caused by traffic accidents though. If you're that worried about paying for other people's injuries, then you should support the banning of automobiles altogether.
Hypothetically, if someone has the means to pay for any and all injuries and damages related to them flying through their windshield, do you still have the right to force them to wear a seatbelt?
>Seatbelts don't eliminate injuries caused by traffic accidents though. If you're that worried about paying for other people's injuries, then you should support the banning of automobiles altogether.
That is so fucking ridiculous that I can't even comment on it.
>Hypothetically, if someone has the means to pay for any and all injuries and damages related to them flying through their windshield, do you still have the right to force them to wear a seatbelt?
The richest man in the world can't bring me back to life.
>That is so fucking ridiculous that I can't even comment on it.
You're worried about being killed by someone flying through your windshield, I think that's pretty ridiculous.
>The richest man in the world can't bring me back to life.
I asked you in another comment but you didn't answer: How often is someone killed by having a driver fly through their windshield? Not nearly as often as other flying debris, I'm sure.
Should we mandate ballistic glass windshields in all cars to protect against that sort of thing? It's very heavy and expensive, but I'm just trying to see how far you think the government should go in the name of safety.
...And whoever is downvoting all of my comments as soon as I make them, grow up.
I answered your question 10 minutes ago but I'll answer it again.
~30% of unbelted occupants are ejected during a fatal accident. It is not rare. I see it almost every single day as a first responder.
And yes, people unconscious on the road cause secondary accidents more often than not.
>Should we mandate ballistic glass windshields in all cars to protect against that sort of thing?
If it can be done with as little impact on the occupants and performance of the vehicle and the cost of manufacture as seat belts, absolutely.
No, you answered a question I did not ask. Please read it more carefully.
How often does the following scenario occur?:
Driver A is not using a seatbelt. They crash, and are thrown through the windshield. They go through the windshield of Driver B's car, killing Driver B.
You're afraid of being Driver B. I'm asking how many Driver Bs there are per year. Not how many Driver As.
The underlying question at hand here is whether or not the public has a legitimate interest in preventing accidental death. When a libertarian is ejected through the windshield of their car and makes a bloody mess all over the highway, there is a significant cost to the public that extends beyond the personal costs to the libertarian and their family. The public therefore has the right to regulate those costs.
Airbag systems can be designed to be more effective under the assumption that passengers wear a seatbelt.
But why do you even care?
I could ask the same question. Why do you care if people want to not wear a seatbelt? What difference does it make to you?
The way I look at it, the burden of proof is always on whoever wants to make something illegal. If you ask me, the question isn't "why should ___ be legal?" It's "Why shouldn't it be legal?" If you can't answer that question, then government is doing more than it aught to.
Not wearing a seatbelt can harm other people both directly and financially. It's reckless to allow your body to fly through the windshield and maim or kill somebody, it's like driving a car that's prone to fall apart on the road, only in the most insane libertarian fantasy-land you're allowed to do that but then the relatives of the victims can sue your corpse for damages. And, as mentioned in the linked thread, we can't reasonably do better than spread the costs of fixing the extra damage you do to yourself over your co-insureds or the rest of the taxpayers.
On the other hand there's no reason at all not to make it illegal. It's not like weed, you don't get all high and happy from not wearing the seatbelt. It seems to me that the only reason for not doing that is adolescent rebelliousness, "fuck you I won't do what you tell me", people don't want to be told what to do on principle, not because they want to do something else.