UPDATE x2: Could someone show me why I'm wrong?

[joystickjunki3]

TITLE EDIT: I have been made aware that my original title may have been the wrong phrasing. For reference, the original title was "Could someone provide a legitimate argument here?"

Recently there have been an exceedingly large amount of seatbelt commercials ("Click it or Ticket").

Now I'd like to hear a legitimate argument for pro-seatbelt laws because I find that forcing people to participate in something like that is infringing on individual freedoms.

I wear my seatbelt most of the time because it's safer in general, but shouldn't it be a personal choice?

EDIT: I suppose this argument also applies to helmets for motorcycles, etc.

EDIT EDIT: Just to make sure we're all clear, I'm not arguing about the practicality of seatbelts/helmets/etc., I'm just debating the constitutionality and implications in the long run (where to draw the line in the future) of laws forcing individuals to wear them.

EDIT x3: I concede that if others are in the car, then my initial argument is often invalid. Not all the time (see my example involving my aunt - page 2, post #45), but often enough that I admit defeat in that battle. But what if you're the only individual in the car? Most autos nowadays provide enough secondary safety equipment to prevent your body catapulting out the window.

EDIT x4: I've made my peace and it can be found here ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.115193?page=4#2123437 ), along w/ another interesting post that I've quoted here:

A big point people seem to be hitting on is the responsibility of the driver to protect their passengers.

Certainly from a legal standpoint, the responsibility falls on the driver should anyone in the car be injured and they weren't wearing their seat belt.

But at the end of the day, this is no different from the personal choice of the driver to not wear a seat belt. The passenger(s) has acknowledged that the person driving is human, and that through unforeseeable circumstances (or not so much depending on how good the driver is), that a traffic accident may occur. The risk is equal for both the passenger and the driver. Should they choose not wear their seatbelts, what makes them any different from the driver?

 

[Datalord]

The purpose of law is to provide safety for the people unless the security is not worth the freedom it costs, Seatbelts are only a MINOR infringement of freedom, taking 2 second to use at the beginning and end of a car ride, but they can significantly decrease the chances of someone dying or receiving serious injury in a car accident, so its a gamble of 4 second of your time against several decades of your life. That is a legal bargain, so why not have a law enforcing that?

 

[Talendra]

Because it makes people wear seat belts, and save lives. Kind of how they force you not to drive through the streets at 250km/h, and how they force you to stop at traffic lights.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

This happened several days ago.

We decided we're ok with natural selection.

 

[joystickjunki3]

The purpose of law is to provide safety for the people unless the security is not worth the freedom it costs, Seatbelts are only a MINOR infringement of freedom, taking 2 second to use at the beginning and end of a car ride, but they can significantly decrease the chances of someone dying or receiving serious injury in a car accident, so its a gamble of 4 second of your time against several decades of your life. That is a legal bargain, so why not have a law enforcing that?

But you agree that it's an infringement nonetheless? Where exactly do we draw the line if we allow any infringement, even a minor one?

Because it makes people wear seat belts, and save lives. Kind of how they force you not to drive through the streets at 250km/h, and how they force you to stop at traffic lights.

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

This happened several days ago.

We decided we're ok with natural selection.

My bad.

 

[Talendra]

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

If there are others in the car you are also risking their life, a body crashing around can be very dangerous for others in an accident.

 

[joystickjunki3]

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

If there are others in the car you are also risking their life, a body crashing around can be very dangerous for others in an accident.

How often does a body crash around in the car enough to harm others in the car?

Regardless of that, airbags generally minimize movement of bodies.

 

[Arcade_Fire]

Recently there have been an exceedingly large amount of seatbelt commercials ("Click it or Ticket").

Now I'd like to hear a legitimate argument for pro-seatbelt laws because I find that forcing people to participate in something like that is infringing on individual freedoms.

I wear my seatbelt most of the time because it's safer in general, but shouldn't it be a personal choice?

I guess if you wanted to stop society from accommodating people's stupidity, this would be a surefire way to let natural selection do it's job.

Hell, let's just take warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of it's self.

Weed out the dumb ones, if you will.

 

[Fingerprint]

Safety. If your not wearing it and you crash, chances are your going to be going through the windscreen (assuming your in the front). I'd rather have minor whip-lash that be cut to ribbons.

 

[Skeleon]

But you agree that it's an infringement nonetheless? Where exactly do we draw the line if we allow any infringement, even a minor one?

Every law is an infringement on our freedoms.
We still need them for our society to work.
Where to draw the line? More difficult to answer.
Whatever the actual answer may be, it's not at "seatbelts".

 

[Arcade_Fire]

Recently there have been an exceedingly large amount of seatbelt commercials ("Click it or Ticket").

Now I'd like to hear a legitimate argument for pro-seatbelt laws because I find that forcing people to participate in something like that is infringing on individual freedoms.

I wear my seatbelt most of the time because it's safer in general, but shouldn't it be a personal choice?

Oooh also, I think this varies by state, but I'm pretty sure in some areas a cop can't pull you over just for not wearing your seatbelt. If you get pulled over for speeding AND you're not wearing your seatbelt, then you can get ticketed for both.

 

[joystickjunki3]

Safety. If your not wearing it and you crash, chances are your going to be going through the windscreen (assuming your in the front). I'd rather have minor whip-lash that be cut to ribbons.

I'm not saying that I would want to fly through the windshield, but isn't that an individual's choice?

But you agree that it's an infringement nonetheless? Where exactly do we draw the line if we allow any infringement, even a minor one?

Every law is an infringement on our freedoms.
We still need them for our society to work.

You're absolutely right. But I believe the only laws that are justifiable are the ones that protect an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I realize it sounds cheesy, but I wholeheartedly believe and laws that extend beyond that are the actual infringements.

 

[Skeleon]

I'm not a specialist on legislation or jurisdiction or whatever, but I guess it's a question of proportionality.

"Is the freedom we have to take away for this worth the profit?" "It'll safe many lives. And it takes just a few seconds of time to follow the law." "Well, that's a fine trade-off then. Make it a law."

I'd assume/hope any law gets evaluated on its own merits. There'd probably not be a specific line drawn but decisions made from case to case, law to law, based on their proportionality of infringement and profit.

EDIT: Also note that I added this while you were posting:
"Where to draw the line? More difficult to answer.
Whatever the actual answer may be, it's not at "seatbelts"."

 

[Prons]

Because I don't want to be cleaning your ass off my windshield.

 

[WinkyTheGreat]

I wear my seatbelt most of the time because it's safer in general, but shouldn't it be a personal choice?

Most likely, the only reason you feel this way is because of the reactance effect. You feel that a freedom is being suppressed and because of that you feel the need to lash out. There have been studies done that show this.

Now to stay on topic. Say you are in an accident that is your fault. The person in the other car isn't wearing a seat belt and is killed. While the person's death isn't necessarily your fault because they were the ones who chose not to wear the seat belt, don't you think you'd feel guilt? It can cause some psychological problems.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Also you can be ejected and become a hundred and something pound high-speed projectile. As for how often a body crashes around in the car enough to harm others, I'd say any time you roll a car or are involved in a side impact you're going to collide with your passengers. At that speed any collision will constitute harm for a given value of "harm."

It doesn't have to kill somebody every single time it happens to make it a worthwhile law. As has been mentioned earlier, seatbelts don't take long to fasten and you already have a seatbelt anyway, so what exactly is the big deal? What are you doing in your car that you need to be unbelted for? I sit in my seat looking forward and keep my hands on the wheel and shifter. If you're doing something else, I suspect you're an unsafe driver and need a seatbelt even more than I do.

If you're desperate to legally not wear a seatbelt all you have to do is find an old car that was manufactured without a seatbelt before seatbelts becamse mandatory in your state. Since the US Constitution provides that a legislature may not pass retroactive laws, that vehicle cannot be legally required to possess seatbelts and its passengers cannot be legally required to wear them. My grandfather successfully defended himself in court with this argument. Of course, you should still expect to BE ticketed, GO to court and PAY a lawyer if you want to try it, so I'd probably just wear my seatbelt.

 

[Spartan Bannana]

Well if you stop enforcing a law there, where does it end?
Isn't murder a personal choice as well? And rape? Everything is personal choice, friend, because we have free will.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Safety. If your not wearing it and you crash, chances are your going to be going through the windscreen (assuming your in the front). I'd rather have minor whip-lash that be cut to ribbons.

I'm not saying that I would want to fly through the windshield, but isn't that an individual's choice?

But you agree that it's an infringement nonetheless? Where exactly do we draw the line if we allow any infringement, even a minor one?

Every law is an infringement on our freedoms.
We still need them for our society to work.

You're absolutely right. But I believe the only laws that are justifiable are the ones that protect an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I realize it sounds cheesy, but I wholeheartedly believe and laws that extend beyond that are the actual infringements.

How does "wear a seatbelt while you're driving" interfere with your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You lose nothing by wearing a seatbelt - and, as someone mentioned earlier, if the car crashes, an unrestrained body is threat #1 to people inside a car.

If you want a source on that, you can find all the information you need right here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dangers+of+not+wearing+seatbelt
and another
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unrestrained+body+passengers+car+crash

 

[dontworryaboutit]

This happened several days ago.

We decided we're ok with natural selection.

My bad.

Don't worry. I'm not a dick.

Usually.

 

[Fingerprint]

Safety. If your not wearing it and you crash, chances are your going to be going through the windscreen (assuming your in the front). I'd rather have minor whip-lash that be cut to ribbons.

I'm not saying that I would want to fly through the windshield, but isn't that an individual's choice?

I suppose it is. The law is in place to try to help/save people. So yes, it is an infringement but on the other hand its there for a reason. I do agree that it should be optional, if you don't want to wear a seat belt and your happy to run the risk why shouldn't you be able to?