4 ms·
Ugh what? If you're not directly hurting someone there shouldn't be a law against it. For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill peopl
by lettergram 9y ago
Ugh what? If you're not directly hurting someone there shouldn't be a law against it.
For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI agree. Just relaying what I believe the common logic is for supporters of such bans.
- GotAnyMegadeth 9y agoUnless you have state run health care, in which case a law enforcing seat belt wearing (I assume that's what you meant?) could save everyone money.
- Joeboy 9y agoUnless it decreases short-term fatalities.
- GotAnyMegadeth 9y agoHello! Sorry I'm a bit confused by your reply, do you mean if it ONLY decreases short term ones and not long term?
- Joeboy 9y agoI just mean there will be additional costs to the state if it means more people survive car crashes and therefore need medical care. But those costs might be outweighed if longer-term survivors tend to have less severe injuries.
- irishsultan 9y agoIf you don't wear a seatbelt and are in an accident you are much more likely to hurt others than if you do wear a seatbelt.
- cloakandswagger 9y agoCitation needed
- irishsultan 9y agohttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602072793/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673...