Poll: Legality of Seatbelt Wearing

[loc978]

Say you're a parent who doesn't wear their seatbelt. You have a collision one day and you snuff it but your securely belted offspring survives. That child now has to cope with the loss of a parent very early in their life, if the child loses both parents this way then the state has to intervene to take care of them at least temporarily.

Death is never victim-less and your actions will have an effect on the lives of others whether you think they will or not, if you can't conceive of a way in which your not wearing a seatbelt couldn't hurt someone else then you're simply not trying hard enough, after all I'm sure most of you have parents who would miss you if you died.

The child in that scenario is not a victim of a crime, they're simply traumatized by their parent's stupidity. If the parent had been buckled up but the front of the car had been completely crushed, same result.

 

[loc978]

Spoiler: snip

I'm with Daystar Clarion on this one. It's a victimless crime. The aftermath of an accident is no worse for bystanders if the driver is injured worse (and I'm not a believer in rewarding for "mental trauma". If you don't want to be traumatized, you'll just have to stay in the house).

Realistically, you use up less of a hospital's resources by dying in a horrible accident than by coming through with no more than whiplash. If you survive with horrible injuries, sure, but that's far from a given. A crime with a victim always victimizes similarly.

I'm a big believer in not protecting anyone from themselves through law. Let people protect people they care about from themselves if they want... the government should only protect people from other people.

And the impact on the driver's family?

As I said, rewarding for mental trauma is utter stupidity. It's called life, and it has to end some time.

The cost when you are not killed but made a paraplegic?

Euthanasia, my friend. I'm a big proponent of it.

The results when your body impacts someone else and injures them?

One in a million, if not worse odds. You're more likely to be killed by lightning. Quote me one such incident, please.

 

[Heathrow]

The child in that scenario is not a victim of a crime, they're simply traumatized by their parent's stupidity. If the parent had been buckled up but the front of the car had been completely crushed, same result.

More accurately they are a victim of circumstance, belt laws attempt to enforce a set of circumstances where a very specific type of death is prevented in all cases. It has no bearing on accidents beyond the scope of those preventable by wearing a seatbelt.

As I said, rewarding for mental trauma is utter stupidity. It's called life, and it has to end some time.

The inevitability of death does not mean that death has no victims, it just means that everyone will be victimized by a death at some point, and not necessarily just when you die.

 

[loc978]

The child in that scenario is not a victim of a crime, they're simply traumatized by their parent's stupidity. If the parent had been buckled up but the front of the car had been completely crushed, same result.

More accurately they are a victim of circumstance, belt laws attempt to enforce a set of circumstances where a very specific type of death is prevented in all cases. It has no bearing on accidents beyond the scope of those preventable by wearing a seatbelt.

That's really beside my point. The child still isn't the victim of a crime. Circumstance happens. I'm not saying there's no sense in wearing a seatbelt, I wear mine any time I'm likely to encounter traffic of any sort. I'm just saying the only sense in punishing people for not wearing a seatbelt is increasing revenue through ticketing... which takes up the time of police officers who could be enforcing laws that have more impact on peoples' lives. Such as passing dangerously, use of turn signals, et cetera.

As I said, rewarding for mental trauma is utter stupidity. It's called life, and it has to end some time.

The inevitability of death does not mean that death has no victims, it just means that everyone will be victimized by a death at some point, and not necessarily just the person who dies.

Once again, this isn't a criminal victimizing someone. The death may be tragic and preventable, but the dead person isn't a criminal any more than the guy who intentionally overdoses on sleeping pills, slits his wrists, and drops a plugged in, old fashioned toaster in his bath just for good measure.

 

[Particulate]

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?

If I hit your car or you hit me its pretty bad, I dont want your body splattering all over the hood of my car though.

 

[EHKOS]

I think this borders on the anti assisted suicide laws which I find ridiculous.

 

[Fanboy]

In Canada you better damn well wear your seatbelt. I don't want what little health care budget and hospital beds we have being used up on car crash victims who could have avoided serious injury by belting up.

There is no reason not to wear a seatbelt. Every car has them, they take five seconds to put on, and they save your damn life.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

In the UK since the 1980's you have to legally have seatbelts in all seats of a car, but I don't think there's any legal obligation to wear them. If you don't wear a seatbelt, you're an idiot...

 

[Heathrow]

That's really beside my point. The child still isn't the victim of a crime. Circumstance happens. I'm not saying there's no sense in wearing a seatbelt, I wear mine any time I'm likely to encounter traffic of any sort. I'm just saying the only sense in punishing people for not wearing a seatbelt is increasing revenue through ticketing... which takes up the time of police officers who could be enforcing laws that have more impact on peoples' lives. Such as passing dangerously, use of turn signals, et cetera.

I wasn't asserting that the child was the victim of any crime, only that they are an injured party and there is a great deal of legislation which aims to prevent injured parties from occurring. Your example of someone not using their turn signal is exactly the same, when you don't use your turn signal no one comes to immediate harm unless you actually have a collision, but police will ticket you for it anyway because you might have created an injured party.

While we're on the subject: all ticketable driving offenses are used to increase revenue, that does not necessarily mean that is their only purpose.

Once again, this isn't a criminal victimizing someone. The death may be tragic and preventable, but the dead person isn't a criminal any more than the guy who intentionally overdoses on sleeping pills, slits his wrists, and drops a plugged in, old fashioned toaster in his bath just for good measure.

I believe you will find suicide is illegal in a great many states.

 

[loc978]

Spoiler: snip

I'm with Daystar Clarion on this one. It's a victimless crime. The aftermath of an accident is no worse for bystanders if the driver is injured worse (and I'm not a believer in rewarding for "mental trauma". If you don't want to be traumatized, you'll just have to stay in the house).

Realistically, you use up less of a hospital's resources by dying in a horrible accident than by coming through with no more than whiplash. If you survive with horrible injuries, sure, but that's far from a given. A crime with a victim always victimizes similarly.

I'm a big believer in not protecting anyone from themselves through law. Let people protect people they care about from themselves if they want... the government should only protect people from other people.

And the impact on the driver's family?

As I said, rewarding for mental trauma is utter stupidity. It's called life, and it has to end some time.

Who said anything about mental trama? How about the financial impact of losing a parent/spouse? Or the even more serious bills if you have to support a disabled parent/spouse?

while I agree that people with kids and such should think of these things and wear their damn seatbelt, I don't think it's the government's job to make sure of it.

The cost when you are not killed but made a paraplegic?

Euthanasia, my friend. I'm a big proponent of it.

And if they aren't...the costs are still there

a cremation costs less than what your average driver owns, I should hope. Any further costs are a choice of the dead's family.

The results when your body impacts someone else and injures them?

One in a million, if not worse odds. You're more likely to be killed by lightning. Quote me one such incident, please.

I already mentioned it earlier in this thread. When I was driving a tow truck under contract with the OPP about 20 years ago I was early on scene on a fatal collision in which a rear seat passanger flew into the front windshield was kills on impact, then came back and broke the nose of someone in the front seat. And while you don't care to consider mental trama, she was having a fair bit of mental trama in addition to the broken nose and other injuries she might have had. I do agree though its a very low chance of happening.

...a broken nose? That could've happened from anything flying off the wreck, and any other injury sustained would have been a result of the wreck itself, not the flying body. I should think that was the least of the person's worries.

In short, I'm more worried about our lack of common sense in driver's training in the states than seatbelts. If an accident is preventable, that should be our focus, not preventable injuries after an accident.

 

[loc978]

That's really beside my point. The child still isn't the victim of a crime. Circumstance happens. I'm not saying there's no sense in wearing a seatbelt, I wear mine any time I'm likely to encounter traffic of any sort. I'm just saying the only sense in punishing people for not wearing a seatbelt is increasing revenue through ticketing... which takes up the time of police officers who could be enforcing laws that have more impact on peoples' lives. Such as passing dangerously, use of turn signals, et cetera.

I wasn't asserting that the child was the victim of any crime, only that they are an injured party and there is a great deal of legislation which aims to prevent injured parties from occurring. Your example of someone not using their turn signal is exactly the same, when you don't use your turn signal no one comes to immediate harm unless you actually have a collision, but police will ticket you for it anyway because you might have created an injured party.

While we're on the subject: all ticketable driving offenses are used to increase revenue, that does not necessarily mean that is their only purpose.

The difference is, not wearing your seatbelt is never going to cause an accident... and I've never seen anyone ticketed for not using their turn signal (which is quite obviously a traffic violation that can become a crime with a victim)... but maybe our traffic cops are just stupid over here.

Once again, this isn't a criminal victimizing someone. The death may be tragic and preventable, but the dead person isn't a criminal any more than the guy who intentionally overdoses on sleeping pills, slits his wrists, and drops a plugged in, old fashioned toaster in his bath just for good measure.

I believe you will find suicide is illegal in a great many states.

...and it shouldn't be. That's just a fundamentalist leaving from a bygone age.

 

[Kopikatsu]

People get rights and privileges confused quite frequently.

[HEADING=3]Driving is a privilege, not a right.[/HEADING]

Observe traffic rules, including seatbelts and alcohol limits, or do not drive.
This is the same logic that applies to the question of insurance-- you must have insurance, or you just don't drive.

/thread

I don't see why people feel the need to ***** about laws. If you want them to change, then send a letter to whoever is in charge of that and/or actually get off your ass and vote.

Unless you feel like sending a letter/voting won't change anything. In which case, you shouldn't believe that your bitching will change anything, either.

 

[Heathrow]

The difference is, not wearing your seatbelt is never going to cause an accident... and I've never seen anyone ticketed for not using their turn signal... but maybe our traffic cops are just stupid over here.

The legal system is unconcerned with what "causes an accident" only what aggrieves a prosecuting party. Let me put it plainly, if we didn't have belt laws then we would have people suing the state over not doing enough to prevent needless deaths, and then we would have belt laws.

And for the record I was in a car with a friend when he got pulled over for not signaling, he talked himself out of the ticket but police do pay attention to this sort of thing.

...and it shouldn't be. That's just a fundamentalist leaving from a bygone age.

And the fact that in spite of that the laws have persisted to this day hasn't encouraged you to examine if and why they are still used? I don't think I can have a conversation with you.

 

[loc978]

The difference is, not wearing your seatbelt is never going to cause an accident... and I've never seen anyone ticketed for not using their turn signal... but maybe our traffic cops are just stupid over here.

The legal system is unconcerned with what "causes an accident" only what aggrieves a prosecuting party. Let me put it plainly, if we didn't have belt laws then we would have people suing the state over not doing enough to prevent needless deaths, and then we would have belt laws.

...and it shouldn't be. That's just a fundamentalist leaving from a bygone age.

And the fact that in spite of that the laws have persisted to this day hasn't encouraged you to examine if and why they are still used? I don't think I can have a conversation with you.

I suppose we can't converse, then. I'm firmly of the mind that our legal system is mostly broken. I do examine reasons why laws I disagree with are still in use, and those reasons tend to be due to the existence of other laws I don't agree with, such as granting rewards to a plaintiff in any case, let me be plain... ever... in excess of immediate financial losses. Shit happens and we live with it. It's not the system's job to make a person rich because they were hurt by an idiot.

As for people suing over "needless deaths" because the law didn't offer them incentive to avoid punishment for not protecting themselves... well, if that wouldn't be immediately thrown out by any judge, laughing all the way... well, the system is more broken than I ever realized.

An open statement to anyone who cares to read it:
The government is not your mommy. If you are an adult, you should take responsibility for your own actions. If you are unable to, and no one else is willing to, you should report to be humanely euthanized and dumped into a vat with the correct cultures for your body to help produce methane and subsequently electricity.

 

[Heathrow]

I suppose we can't converse, then. I'm firmly of the mind that our legal system is mostly broken. I do examine reasons why laws I disagree with are still in use, and those reasons tend to be due to the existence of other laws I don't agree with, such as granting rewards to a plaintiff in any case, let me be plain... ever... in excess of immediate financial losses. Shit happens and we live with it. It's not the system's job to make a person rich because they were hurt by an idiot.

As for people suing over "needless deaths" because the law didn't offer them incentive to avoid punishment for not protecting themselves... well, if that wouldn't be immediately thrown out by any judge, laughing all the way... well, the system is more broken than I ever realized.

An open statement to anyone who cares to read it:
The government is not your mommy. If you are an adult, you should take responsibility for your own actions. If you are unable to, and no one else is willing to, you should report to be humanely euthanized and dumped into a vat with the correct cultures for your body to help produce methane and subsequently electricity.

The legal system is broken but you need to understand why the laws persist as well as how people think if you want to have any hope of improving anything; just saying that people who's perspective throws a wrench in your ideal world should just be removed from the gene pool is a remarkably juvenile reaction.

The government is here to take care of us after all, that's what we made it for.

Good day.

 

[loc978]

You continue to ignore the costs of them being a parpalegic or other serious injury that would have ongoing costs and impact on the family.

I covered this in a sentence, but let me spell it out for you:
It's their choice not to euthanize. The cost is their choice, and it is avoidable. I won't apologize for being callous.

In short, I'm more worried about our lack of common sense in driver's training in the states than seatbelts. If an accident is preventable, that should be our focus, not preventable injuries after an accident.

Since it is impossible to avoid all accidents, damage mitigation is an important focus.

Yet less important than avoiding what accidents can be avoided... and while seatbelts themselves do help mitigate damage, seatbelt laws convince fewer people than the simple fact that the seatbelt can save their life.
Don't get me wrong, the seatbelt is a good thing. It's the law enforcing their use that I'm against.