Poll: Legality of Seatbelt Wearing

[cairocat]

Like many other crimes, it can be argued that choosing not to wear a seatbelt is 'victimless', hurting only the one committing the crime. Victimless crimes are the subject of much debate in all countries, but the recent PSA push encouraging seatbelt-wearing is not talking about the dangers of not wearing one, but the penalties at the hands of police officers for the offense. Do you have an opinion, Escapist? There's not good reason to not wear a seatbelt, but should it really be government business?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Not wearing a seatbelt is a victimless crime. Unless you're in the back seat and you crush the person sitting in front of you because your were too stupid to not use it.

So yeah.

Victimless crime.

 

[Grospoliner]

Of course it should. When some dip-shit gets launched out of his front windshield because he was involved in an accident, paramedics have to spoon his dumb ass off the pavement and that means that the street is going to be shut down delaying hundreds to thousands of people and expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in both manpower and resources among emergency workers and civilians alike just because some idiot was too childish to buckle his safety harness.

If you're not going to wear your belt for yourself, you damn well better wear it for other people.

As for it being a victimless crime, well. That's complete bullshit. Not only do you expose onlookers and emergency workers to trauma when someone dies but as I said before you tie up traffic and cause other problems.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

hurting only the one committing the crime

Right. The cops that have to try rescuscitate your disfigured corpse are not victims.
And what if you get paralysed for life? Everyone has to pay more insurance to cover your expenses. Etc. There's more consequences than you think.

 

[Verlander]

It's far from victimless. A seatbelt does more than stop you from flying, it's constrains you in a good position. I don't think anyone can disagree that driving while being bounced all over the place is safe for passengers or road users. Similarly, when that driver flies out of the windscreen, and into a car, or other people, or just splashes all over the pavement in front of a school, there are more victims than just the driver.

This is a bit of a silly thread, I find it hard to believe that anyone can condone driving without a belt on. What a ridiculous idea. This isn't the fifties you know...

 

[jakko12345]

Victims
- the paramedic who gets traumatized for having to scrape you off the road
- any onlookers who are also traumatized
- the government in healthcare costs

not victimless.

 

[Plurralbles]

technically there's a chance that when you fly out you'll hit something and damage it- be it a person or whatever.

Really, I hate the way you asked the quesetion. "drivers" I'd think that it should be everyone in the car. I hate the stories of the rear seat passenger killing the driver.

 

[Spade Lead]

Not wearing a seatbelt is a victimless crime. Unless you're in the back seat and you crush the person sitting in front of you because your were too stupid to not use it.

So yeah.

Victimless crime.

I believe that we should let the idiots who don't want to wear their seatbelts die in their survivable accidents. Personally, I don't move the car unless all of my passengers are seatbelted in.

 

[Cabisco]

I find it really strange that nobody has mentioned the family and friends who are affected by the death. I'm pretty sure I'd count them as victims.

Whats significantly worse than the government telling you to wear a seatbelt is the fact the government actually has to tell you to do such a thing.

 

[Scipio1770]

no such thing as a victimeless crime. lets sum up everyone's points and include my own:

-children or family members forced to live without your contributed income
-family members forced to pay for medical/funeral bills
-everyone on the road delayed to clean up the mess
-hospitals and paramedical personel wasting resources for preventable injuries
-therefore any other injured people put on hold to treat your more serious injuries
-personal trauma for all people surrounding the event

 

[cairocat]

no such thing as a victimeless crime. lets sum up everyone's points and include my own:

-children or family members forced to live without your contributed income
-family members forced to pay for medical/funeral bills
-everyone on the road delayed to clean up the mess
-hospitals and paramedical personel wasting resources for preventable injuries
-therefore any other injured people put on hold to treat your more serious injuries
-personal trauma for all people surrounding the event

How about buying alcohol on a Sunday? I mean, compared to buying it any other day. In some states that's illegal.

And by the way, I came here expecting to be given a dozen and a half reasons why it exists, and that's what happened. Thanks Escapist, I can always count on your for an effective counterpoint or ten.

 

[Bags159]

How is it a "victimless" crime considering you, the driver, are a victim? Also, considering there are no good reasons to not wear your seat belt... yes, it should be illegal to not wear a seat belt.

no such thing as a victimeless crime. lets sum up everyone's points and include my own:

-children or family members forced to live without your contributed income
-family members forced to pay for medical/funeral bills
-everyone on the road delayed to clean up the mess
-hospitals and paramedical personel wasting resources for preventable injuries
-therefore any other injured people put on hold to treat your more serious injuries
-personal trauma for all people surrounding the event

How about buying alcohol on a Sunday? I mean, compared to buying it any other day. In some states that's illegal.

Not really sure how this is relevant.

 

[emeraldrafael]

It should be, but just because I've had some bad experiences where i was glad I was wearing a seatbelt.

 

[Kamehapa]

IMO riding motorcycles should be in the same boat as not wearing a seatbelt. Personally I think they should both be legal, but I find it hard to argue for seatbelts and not apply it to motorcycles.

 

[Kamehapa]

-Double Post-

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

IMO riding motorcycles should be in the same boat as not wearing a seatbelt. Personally I think they should both be legal, but I find it hard to argue for seatbelts and not apply it to motorcycles

thats where mandatory helmet laws come into play

There's not good reason to not wear a seatbelt, but should it really be government business?

to put it simply, duty of care. government has that towards all of its countries residents