5 ms·
> I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare..
by amatix 11y ago
> I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...)
Wat? So because the taxpayer isn't directly picking up the healthcare bill, it's somehow okay to double serious crash-related injuries and deaths[1]?
[1] "Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html
- alkonaut 11y agoIt's an age-old debate of "is it ok to (risk) hurting yourself?". Obviously car crashes and other injuries/deaths come at high cost to society even in the case of privatized health insurances, but the cost is at least indirect rather than direct. It's probably even true that the majority of the cost is indirect, and not related to healthcare. That said, not having a seat belt/helmet law is... well, stupid.
- the-dude 11y agoIn the case of seatbelts I think there is more than only thyself. You might be able to control the vehicle better post-crash, preventing injury to bystanders or passengers.
- RyanMcGreal 11y agoAlso, if you are belted in you are not a projectile ricocheting around the inside of the car and hitting other passengers.
- jessaustin 11y agoThere are always tradeoffs. In this case, risk compensation might lead a seat-belted driver to drive in more reckless fashion.
- praptak 11y agoIt's pretty direct unless you have a private ambulance. Otherwise it's tying up a valuable shared resource that could be used to save others whose life is in danger for reasons other than own stupidity.