-- Posted by SteelRain at 12:44 am on July 18, 2008 So far our authoritarian government has forced us [the people who pay their paychecks] to do ridiculous, miscellaneous things. They serve no societal purpose other than "the man" having control over the people. What I would consider a very large issue in that faction of injustice would be state-required seatbelts. Few, if any, studies have shown an overwhelming correlation between increased accidents and lower seat belt useage. Not wearing one hurts no one but yourself. When every state should be modeling Vermont you know we are in a poor being. I'd like someone to try and convince me why my government should be able to force me into doing actions that only effect me and my happiness. -- Posted by Bacon at 2:10 am on July 18, 2008 You'd be stupid not to wear a seat belt anyway. The law attempts to eliminate vehicular safety stupidity. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 2:56 am on July 18, 2008 The question isn't so much about whether the government should be allowed to force its citizens to wear seatbelts or not, but rather, who would pay for the hospital visit if the person without the seatbelt crashes and injures themselves much more critically than they would have had they been wearing a seatbelt? In the US, most people would have health insurance, however, there's a fair chunk of those out there who do not. So if they aren't wearing those seatbelts and crash, causing them to fly through the windshielf at 40 mph, who's paying for that hospital visit? None other than the public obviously. Generally the people who don't have health insurance are among the lower classes, so it's a little unreasonable to expect them to be able to pay for a $1000 ambulance ride (or $12,000 chopper ride if they crashed in the middle of nowhere), another few thousand dollars for the MRIs, CT scans, etc., perhaps some more money for blood transfusion, the ER visit as a whole, etc. At the cheapest, we're looking at $10,000 here, which is a big load for somebody who doesn't have a lot of money to pay. Generally, the state will cover the entire amount right there and they'll wind up paying back the state in small amounts each month. But suppose they default on a loan and have to declare bankruptcy, as so many wind up doing? Looks like the taxpayers will wind up having to eat the costs. Fact is, if there's going to be a chance that paying for peoples' hospital visits like this would be funded by the public, then it's very reasonable to create a law which helps prevent these accidents from becoming as bad and expensive as they do. The less money the state has to spend, the better. -- Posted by iinsurgent at 1:07 pm on July 18, 2008 Quote: from SteelRain at 12:44 am on July 18, 2008 Not wearing one hurts no one but yourself. This is very far from the truth. If you're not the only one in the car, your unbuckled body flying around inside it could collide with and harm whoever else was responsible enough to do so. -- Posted by pocky bot at 6:05 pm on July 18, 2008 There is nothing wrong with having laws regarding seat belts. However, it is the individual's choice whether or not to buckle up when he/she is driving. They cannot force someone to wear a seat belt, but it is their choice if they want to take a trip to the ER if terrible accident occurs. -- Posted by SteelRain at 9:16 pm on July 30, 2008 Bud: There is no evidence that proves that seatbelt being mandatory has lowered healthcare costs at all. If you have data to back your claim, please present it. Insurgent-You are correct. I was pretty much assuming that this is a situation where there is no one else in the car. -- Posted by sakurag at 8:32 am on July 31, 2008 I don't think it's to prevent you from hurting other people, but preventing you from further hurting yourself.  In the end, many, many people do not wear seatbelts.  I doubt in all states that not wearing a seatbelt would get you pulled over.. -- Posted by smokeybacon at 10:08 am on July 31, 2008 Yes we should have to for our own good. My mum is overweight and a seat belt doesn't fit her. How does this fit into the law? Could it endanger me when out and about. -- Posted by Silence of Thought at 2:42 pm on July 31, 2008 Well of course studies won't show an increase of accidents when safety belts are worn, how would wearing a safety belt make you avoid an accident? The purpose of a safety belt is to protect you WHEN that accident comes, so I really don't see why you put that piece of information in there... And this "action" doesn't affect your happiness, it could save your life given certain situations. It's the law because one of the responsibilities of the government is to protect their civilians. By making wearing safety belts the law, thousands of civilians make the safe choice and have a better chance of surviving accidents. -- Posted by HighTide at 2:49 pm on July 31, 2008 Before I begin with my actual post, I'd like to applaud insurgent for his point; I don't know how viable it really is, but bringing up the point of a hurtling human projectile being a risk to bystanders during a crash is fantastic. Now onwards to my point -- the role of any modern government is to protect and support the citizens of its nations. This includes our rights -and- our safety. Sometimes the government is reduced to a role where it is forced to tell you not to do something silly because you might hurt yourself. It's fine and dandy to say, "It's my life, and I'll risk it however I want!" However, it's also fine and dandy for the government to turn around and say, "When we were constructed, we swore to do everything we could to keep you safe; that includes keeping you safe from yourself some of the time." Whereas I appreciate how Darwinian this idea is in theory -- that being that the people silly enough not to wear seat belts will suffer much higher fatality rates and die before fully realizing their procreative potential. Those who survive will teach their children to wear their seat belts and soon, like the good species we are, we will grow stronger overall for it. However, I often hate to apply an idea like Neo-Darwinism to the human species because we have sentience -- this thread is proving that because some of us are trying to convince the others to adopt practices that will increase your odds at survival, where we should really be hoping you die to increase our chances to mate.   Anyway, tangent aside -- buckle up, kids! I've been in a horrendous wreck and my seatbelt saved my bacon -- it's one of those things you only can truly appreciate after it's saved your life, but take my word on it and just wear it anyway in the meantime. -- Posted by allsmiles at 2:53 pm on July 31, 2008 For the record: HighTide, you mean we have sapience. Almost all animals have sentience ;) Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about the issue at hand. When I'm in a car, I wear a seatbelt. When people are in my car, they wear seatbelts. I don't give a fuck whatever else people do that puts them at more of a risk for the sake of going against "the man." It's not a liberty issue for me; I've more important things to worry about and fight for on the liberty front. -- Posted by HighTide at 2:57 pm on July 31, 2008 Allsmiles: Yah yah yah, sorry, I no speak pretti all of the time. -- Posted by allsmiles at 3:44 pm on July 31, 2008 Hey, this is the intellectual forum. I feel obliged to correct people on such fundamental mistakes. -- Posted by HighTide at 3:45 pm on July 31, 2008 I know, I was honestly being appreciative. -- Posted by Alabamarama at 10:12 pm on July 31, 2008 If the government has illegalized suicide, why on earth would they let people go around risking their lives every day by not wearing a seatbelt? -- Posted by Elm at 10:20 am on Aug. 2, 2008 Absolutely not. This is the paragraphs containing the statement acknowledging the idiotic requirement for extra verbosity.      Perhaps some misguided individual believes that more words equates with more thought but the beauty of the English language is in its eloquence - the ability to express a complex thought in a few words. -- Posted by Reefer at 11:33 am on Aug. 3, 2008 Yes we should. The answer is as simple as that. Because many lives have been saved by wearing seat belts in car wrecks. If the government did not legalize seat belts there would have been many more deaths in the world. If the government ever made it legal to not wear your seat belt it would be as bad as legalizing suicide.