Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by Salty, Oct 23, 2006.
Should seat belts be required
Should we be required to wear hard hats? Something may fall on your head.
The crux of the issues (and many others regarding personal responsibility) is not seat belts per se...it is socialized medicine.
An argument used in this and other issues is: "well, since I would have to pay for your medical bills and rehab if you are injured in an accident, then I have a right to force you to wear a seat belt." And since to some degree (larger by the year) our medical care is socialized, that is a valid point.
The difficult issue to me is making medical care that results from one's irresponsibility into a personal, rather than collective, matter. If I want to be stupid and not wear a safety belt...I should have to pay for those consequences...not you and other taxpayers.
If we could ever have a society that worked in that manner, it would be much easier to allow stupid decisions to rest on the head of stupid decision makers. Until then, issues such as these will always be thorny.
All ya'll just make it easier on us and wear your seat belts. :smilewinkgrin:
Nothing to do with socialized medicine. It has been proven in both Australia and Canada, plus many European countries, that wearing seatbelts saves lives; the driver and passengers. If we have to protect people from their own stupidity, sobeit.
Protecting from each other's stupidity, as well.
And the hard hat thing isn't a good argument, either. We all drive, everyday. Odds are, most of us will never get hit in the head by anything falling, unless you are in a specific area where that could happen, in which case, you'd be an idiot to not wear a helmet.
You can roughly guess feet per second with this equation. (Not applicable to the metric system, sorry)
FPS=MPH+MPH/2 (It's not as hard as you think.)
For 50 mph...
50/2 = 25
50 + 25 = 75
So at 50 MPH, you are going roughly 75 feet per second. Without restraint, a body will want to move about 18 feet in the first 1/4 second after impact.
Plain good sense dictates a mandatory safety belt law. We should all do it, for each other's sake.
No, or at least not for anyone other than children not old enough to drive.
The true essence of required seat belt laws is lobbying from insurers. Without it, few if any states would require them. As one who is no fan of the 'big daddy' approach of governments, I will have to say I oppose them, except for children (insurers notwithstandingfor those without the maturity to understand the risks they take).
I have heard the argument of "if I will have to pay a portion of your medical bills....."; but often a person continues with that facsimile and says "...if even one less person will be injured...." I don't buy that, because requiring pedestrians to wear helmets any time they are out in public will almost definitely prevent one-- and many more-- from some type of head injury.
But... if all drivers should be required to wear safety belts, but not all pedestrians should be required to wear helmets (if this is your view), then exactly what is the potential risk factor that makes that determination-- give a probability. [Or, more colloquially, tell me how many head injuries to pedestrians compared to the number of injury auto accidents are allowable before helmets on pedestrians should be required.]
I voted only for Children. Thank goodness I live in the great state of New Hampshire where they don't require you to wear it.
I am opposed to 'having' to wear a seat belt. "Big Brother" has too much say in what I do in my private life...
It does keep the kids in one spot - but if it is for the safety of children - why aren't they required on school buses???
I have known several people who have died from internal injuries that resulted from wearing a seatbelt - I don't want to be one of them.
Let me be clear: not wearing a seat belt is stupid. I always wear one.
However, I've noticed a trend in recent years that government is more and more taking a role in protecting us from ourselves:
Watch on the horizon: junk foods will be outlawed. Why? Because they're dangerous, and cost our country billions in healthcare costs (note the socialized medicine angle). The reasoning is the same. Heck, New York is about to outlaw trans-fats in foods sold in the city limits.
I'm just worried about the slippery slope. Having said that, I wear my seatbelt. It's stupid not to.
Other then children I see it as government interference in my life, just one more part of my life I am not in control of, big government is.
I've also heard of quite a few people who died in seat belts, and a few who died becasue of the seat belts.
It is amazing how many agree that is good for children to be safely harnessed in a vehicle, but these people don't mind leaving those surviving children as orphans.
The people normally who die wearing a seatbelt would have done so anyway due to the horrific crashes and circumstances. The odds are far better for survival. Seat belts, when maintained properly, save lives.. The car responsible for the smash and the innocent parties too.
I don't walk down highways, and I don't drive without a working seat belt in place.
On school buses, studies have shown that the children are safer without seat belts....not that seat belts won't help, but making the children stay buckled would cause far too much driver distraction and perhaps cause accidents.
We hear about the tragic accidents, but don't hear about the millions of school buses driving safely over their routes and delivering children safely to school and home again. Crunch the numbers!
G'day from Down Under
I think by now everyone has worked out that generally I hate politicians and never agree with anything they've done.....
.....and then someone finally finds the exception to the rule
A big YES vote from me on this one. While I'ld like speed limits to be a bit more realistic (HIGHER), I agree with compulsory seatbelt wearing we have in most states Down Under. Better to be wearing it and not need it, than not wearing it and need it. Of course it's not the magical cure, but does give you a bit better chance if things go wrong
Just because something is a good idea does not mean that the government should mandate it. Just because something is a bad idea does not mean that the government should outlaw it.
BTW, I wear a seat belt. I just don't like the government telling me I have to...
Also, if it is mandatory for me to wear one, then the government ought to have to pay to have one installed OR to pay me back $600.00 for repairing mine last year! It would have been MUCH cheaper to just get 50 tickets for not wearing one!
See why I'm more than just a little miffed with "Big Brother"???
I always wear a seatbelt, I've never minded wearing one. It kept me from wrapping around the steering wheel when I hit a deer a few weeks ago and has been helpful on other various occasions as well. Yes, I do want my kids to wear a seatbelt ... and I intend to be a consistent example. :thumbs:
I've heard of people dying in car accidents who they said would not have had they been wearing a seat belt. My brother was in an accident once, they police told my mom had he been wearing a seat belt he'd have been decapatated, the driver threw himself agaisnt my brother and knocked himout of the way, and was badly injured. My brother was about 14 the driver about 18. They were run off the road, and went threw a fence, and snaped sever posts, one of which went through the windshield, on the passenager side, the boy driver shoved my brother out of the way, it hit him in the back of the head and neck sideways not straight on, it severed the muscle that holds your head up. My brother got out and ran for help, they said he saved the drivers life, he would have bled to death.
had the driver been wearing a seat belt he could not have thrown himself at my brother and saved him, had my brother been wearing a seat belt he could not have been shoved out of the way.
Isn't this rather silly??
Government "mandates" a lot of things that are for the good of society -- helmet laws for motorcycles, heavy taxes on tobacco, speed limits on the roads, and benefits for those who own their own homes, just to name a few.
Isn't one of the major issues being discussed today is government "mandating" that marriage be between a man and a women. If you want to be totally libertarian -- that this is a personal issue and that big brother should not be involved, then you would have to be OK with marriage being between two men, two women or even multiple partners. After all, it is a personal issue.
However, not only is marriage between a man and a women right in God's eyes, it is also good for society.
Also, you and I do pay for those who are in car accidents and don't wear seat belts. They help overwhelm our already super-busy emergency rooms. And the un/under insured ones are still going to be treated at the public's expense (one of the major reasons for outrageous healthcare costs is the cost shifting that medical providers do due to non-paying patients).
My reasons for supporting a federal seatbelt law are all purely selfish, I admit. I don't want somebody's newly lifeless carcass becoming a projectile hurtling towards me and my other travelmates. There are plenty of other ways to tempt fate, without risking other people's lives. If you are on the road with others, it seems the least you could do is buckle up.
What is the exact minimal risk factor for requiring pedestrians [who may leave their children orphaned] to wear helmets as opposed to requiring drivers to wear seat belts?