5 ms·

You are implying that the consequence of not wearing a seat belt and having an accident hurts only the idiot? That's not the case. There's a cost to society (

You are implying that the consequence of not wearing a seat belt and having an accident hurts only the idiot? That's not the case. There's a cost to society (we have to clean up the mess) and to the family (if any). It's incredibly selfish and irresponsible to take such completely pointless risks.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
And yet there are still a large number of people who disagree with you, take the campaign as an affront and respond with defiance, which still makes use of that campaign instead of a less threatening one inherently dangerous. Notice that this is true even if you're right about the seatbelt law. > There's a cost to society (we have to clean up the mess) and to the family (if any). The cost of cleaning up the accident site is de minimis. The cost to the family is an internal family matter -- if you care about your loved ones, get them to wear their seat belts.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  >And yet there are still a large number of people who disagree with you, take the campaign as an affront and respond with defiance, which still makes use of that campaign instead of a less threatening one inherently dangerous. Do you have figures to back that up or is this conjecture?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You can find polls of popular support for seatbelt laws anywhere. The numbers depend on the poll but generally some large plurality of people (e.g. 30-40%) disagree with the law, sometimes more. It's obviously basically impossible to measure how many of them respond to the campaign by not wearing their seat belts, but out of what would be something like a hundred million people who disagree with the law, do you really expect the number to be zero?
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      Well, if I need to guess how many of the 30-40% people who disagree with the seatbelt law would use seatbelts if not mandated, and are now not using them to spite their own face, I am guessing a very low figure (not a large amount of people). Lower than the amount of people who were not using seatbelts and are now using them if for no other reason than to save themselves a fine at least.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        It doesn't have to be larger than the number of people who use a seat belt because of the law, only the number of people who use a seat belt because this campaign was more effective than an alternative campaign that isn't so antagonistic, e.g. one that emphasizes the risk of death rather than the risk of fine, which you would generally expect to be a bigger motivator anyway. And the better campaign may in particular be more effective at getting the people who weren't wearing their seat belts originally and still don't under this campaign, because they're more likely to be the defiant ones to begin with, so they're more likely to be receptive to a less antagonistic campaign.
        Hamuko 6y ago
        How many people disagreed with the campaign then?
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        You're asking for something you have to know nobody has polled on one way or the other. But the number of people who disagreed with the law to begin with is probably a pretty good approximation for the number of people who disagreed with a campaign which is effectively promoting the law.
        Hamuko 6y ago
        >You're asking for something you have to know nobody has polled on one way or the other. Yeah, since you're arguing that the campaign was bad because people disagreed with it and stating it as a fact. >But the number of people who disagreed with the law to begin with is probably a pretty good approximation for the number of people who disagreed with a campaign which is effectively promoting the law. In what way?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > The cost to the family is an internal family matter -- if you care about your loved ones, get them to wear their seat belts. That's a nice ideal, but you have to contrast it with the systems-level view: people indeed are idiots, barely a step up from a chimpanzee, and absolutely need to be protected from their own idiocy. We all do, some to larger extent than others. We often don't notice it, because we've been born into a complex world, and have internalized many rules that protect us without even thinking about it. Note that risking the lives of you and other people in the name of hurry is also a form of idiocy; a very common one with otherwise smart people. We're creatures of emotion after all, and the thinking mode that processes impatience isn't good at cost-benefit analysis.
true_religion 6y ago
From my perspective, I have to wonder if I don’t already pay enough taxes for the government to scrape my blood off the pavement after an accident without having to act as if it incurred more of a loss than me (who is a corpse in this scenario).
- Kudos 6y ago
  That's the cheaper outcome. What if you survive and are badly maimed and unable to work?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    As usual the solution to this type of problem exists in insurance. If you get into an accident and you weren't wearing a seat belt then you pay correspondingly higher insurance premiums for the rest of your life sufficient to pay for the claims filed by other people not wearing seat belts who become disabled. Assuming they want to be able to file a disability claim, because the problem is caused by the insurance to begin with -- if the problem is that people will be more likely to file an insurance claim then the solution is for those people to pay a higher premium if they want the insurance.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      I'd say the better solution would be to deny insurance coverage for people that were not wearing their seatbelt for the damages that they suffered.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        That's theoretically a possibility -- make it like smoking for health insurance. You have to answer the question up front but if you say yes you pay higher premiums and if you lie then it's justification for denying your claim. A lot of people hate that because it means people can choose not to be covered and then have a Very Bad Time when they can't file a claim. But it's not like they have anyone to blame but themselves.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

And yet there are still a large number of people who disagree with you, take the campaign as an affront and respond with defiance, which still makes use of that campaign instead of a less threatening one inherently dangerous. Notice that this is true even if you're right about the seatbelt law. > There's a cost to society (we have to clean up the mess) and to the family (if any). The cost of cleaning up the accident site is de minimis. The cost to the family is an internal family matter -- if you care about your loved ones, get them to wear their seat belts.

Hamuko 6y ago
>And yet there are still a large number of people who disagree with you, take the campaign as an affront and respond with defiance, which still makes use of that campaign instead of a less threatening one inherently dangerous. Do you have figures to back that up or is this conjecture?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You can find polls of popular support for seatbelt laws anywhere. The numbers depend on the poll but generally some large plurality of people (e.g. 30-40%) disagree with the law, sometimes more. It's obviously basically impossible to measure how many of them respond to the campaign by not wearing their seat belts, but out of what would be something like a hundred million people who disagree with the law, do you really expect the number to be zero?
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    Well, if I need to guess how many of the 30-40% people who disagree with the seatbelt law would use seatbelts if not mandated, and are now not using them to spite their own face, I am guessing a very low figure (not a large amount of people). Lower than the amount of people who were not using seatbelts and are now using them if for no other reason than to save themselves a fine at least.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      It doesn't have to be larger than the number of people who use a seat belt because of the law, only the number of people who use a seat belt because this campaign was more effective than an alternative campaign that isn't so antagonistic, e.g. one that emphasizes the risk of death rather than the risk of fine, which you would generally expect to be a bigger motivator anyway. And the better campaign may in particular be more effective at getting the people who weren't wearing their seat belts originally and still don't under this campaign, because they're more likely to be the defiant ones to begin with, so they're more likely to be receptive to a less antagonistic campaign.
      - Hamuko 6y ago
        How many people disagreed with the campaign then?
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        You're asking for something you have to know nobody has polled on one way or the other. But the number of people who disagreed with the law to begin with is probably a pretty good approximation for the number of people who disagreed with a campaign which is effectively promoting the law.
        Hamuko 6y ago
        >You're asking for something you have to know nobody has polled on one way or the other. Yeah, since you're arguing that the campaign was bad because people disagreed with it and stating it as a fact. >But the number of people who disagreed with the law to begin with is probably a pretty good approximation for the number of people who disagreed with a campaign which is effectively promoting the law. In what way?
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> The cost to the family is an internal family matter -- if you care about your loved ones, get them to wear their seat belts. That's a nice ideal, but you have to contrast it with the systems-level view: people indeed are idiots, barely a step up from a chimpanzee, and absolutely need to be protected from their own idiocy. We all do, some to larger extent than others. We often don't notice it, because we've been born into a complex world, and have internalized many rules that protect us without even thinking about it. Note that risking the lives of you and other people in the name of hurry is also a form of idiocy; a very common one with otherwise smart people. We're creatures of emotion after all, and the thinking mode that processes impatience isn't good at cost-benefit analysis.

true_religion 6y ago

From my perspective, I have to wonder if I don’t already pay enough taxes for the government to scrape my blood off the pavement after an accident without having to act as if it incurred more of a loss than me (who is a corpse in this scenario).

Kudos 6y ago
That's the cheaper outcome. What if you survive and are badly maimed and unable to work?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  As usual the solution to this type of problem exists in insurance. If you get into an accident and you weren't wearing a seat belt then you pay correspondingly higher insurance premiums for the rest of your life sufficient to pay for the claims filed by other people not wearing seat belts who become disabled. Assuming they want to be able to file a disability claim, because the problem is caused by the insurance to begin with -- if the problem is that people will be more likely to file an insurance claim then the solution is for those people to pay a higher premium if they want the insurance.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    I'd say the better solution would be to deny insurance coverage for people that were not wearing their seatbelt for the damages that they suffered.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      That's theoretically a possibility -- make it like smoking for health insurance. You have to answer the question up front but if you say yes you pay higher premiums and if you lie then it's justification for denying your claim. A lot of people hate that because it means people can choose not to be covered and then have a Very Bad Time when they can't file a claim. But it's not like they have anyone to blame but themselves.