4 ms·

> it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.

> it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves. Seatbelts increase the chance of remaining in your seat - and thus in at least partial control of your vehicle - mid-accident. That protects more than just the idiots - it protects any passengers, and it protects the pedestrian wheeling a stroller on the sidewalk, when the idiot's car goes flying towards them during an accident, by giving the driver a chance to steer elsewhere. > And then the campaign feels like a direct attack on the people who don't agree with the law, which encourages defiance, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect. With the further effect of making people angry while they're driving a car, which dangerous in itself. Wikipedia has references suggesting it's done more good than harm on at least seatbelt wearing rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_It_or_Ticket#Success https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_It_or_Ticket#Success This doesn't measure anger induced traffic accidents, but anyone that easily angered on a regular basis will probably find some excuse to be angry no matter what if you ask me. At least if they direct their anger at a billboard instead of a fellow driver, they might be slightly less likely to get our of their car and start a fistfight? > The cynic may also notice that such laws are commonly passed in order to generate revenue This resonates with me, though, especially when prosecutors are... lax with evidence requirements.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Seatbelts increase the chance of remaining in your seat - and thus in at least partial control of your vehicle - mid-accident. Is this just speculation? Without a seatbelt you get thrown from the vehicle when you hit something, but by that point it's by definition already too late to avoid it, and then you're just in butterfly effect land. Maybe having someone in the car helps because they keep their foot on the brake and the car stays where it is, maybe that's bad because another car that hits the smashed car has to absorb a harder impact when the other car is held in place by the brake instead of being pushed away. > Wikipedia has references suggesting it's done more good than harm on at least seatbelt wearing rates This is not the right comparison because the thing to be compared is not seatbelt use prior to the campaign, it's seatbelt use under a different seatbelt campaign, e.g. one that emphasizes the risks to your life rather than the risk of a ticket -- which may actually be more effective regardless, because dying is a lot worse than getting fined. > This doesn't measure anger induced traffic accidents, but anyone that easily angered on a regular basis will probably find some excuse to be angry no matter what if you ask me. That's just a rationalization. Volatile individuals exist. Removing triggers for their volatility while they're engaged in a dangerous activity is an advantage.
- MaulingMonkey 7y ago
  > Is this just speculation? Common sense / official government propaganda: "In addition to protecting you from injury as a driver, seat belts help you keep control of the vehicle. If you are struck from the side or make a quick turn, the force could push you sideways and therefore you cannot steer the vehicle if you are not behind the wheel." https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/seatbeltuse.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/seatbeltuse.... For some reason there's a lack of double blind studies on the exact statistics of if low/medium-speed T-bone impacts disloge the driver more often with a seatbelt vs without a seatbelt, but don't let me stop you from volunteering... > Without a seatbelt you get thrown from the vehicle when you hit something, but by that point it's by definition already too late to avoid it, and then you're just in butterfly effect land. Many lighter side tbone impacts might simply throw you into your passenger's lap, or even just into the center of the vehicle. Are you really asserting that in such impacts, being behind the wheel of your vehicle is no better than leaving it up to chance? I don't think you're that bad of a driver! > This is not the right comparison because the thing to be compared is not seatbelt use prior to the campaign, it's seatbelt use under a different seatbelt campaign Fair. > That's just a rationalization. So is what I'm initially replying to.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Seatbelts increase the chance of remaining in your seat - and thus in at least partial control of your vehicle - mid-accident. Is this just speculation? Without a seatbelt you get thrown from the vehicle when you hit something, but by that point it's by definition already too late to avoid it, and then you're just in butterfly effect land. Maybe having someone in the car helps because they keep their foot on the brake and the car stays where it is, maybe that's bad because another car that hits the smashed car has to absorb a harder impact when the other car is held in place by the brake instead of being pushed away. > Wikipedia has references suggesting it's done more good than harm on at least seatbelt wearing rates This is not the right comparison because the thing to be compared is not seatbelt use prior to the campaign, it's seatbelt use under a different seatbelt campaign, e.g. one that emphasizes the risks to your life rather than the risk of a ticket -- which may actually be more effective regardless, because dying is a lot worse than getting fined. > This doesn't measure anger induced traffic accidents, but anyone that easily angered on a regular basis will probably find some excuse to be angry no matter what if you ask me. That's just a rationalization. Volatile individuals exist. Removing triggers for their volatility while they're engaged in a dangerous activity is an advantage.

MaulingMonkey 7y ago
> Is this just speculation? Common sense / official government propaganda: "In addition to protecting you from injury as a driver, seat belts help you keep control of the vehicle. If you are struck from the side or make a quick turn, the force could push you sideways and therefore you cannot steer the vehicle if you are not behind the wheel." https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/seatbeltuse.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/seatbeltuse.... For some reason there's a lack of double blind studies on the exact statistics of if low/medium-speed T-bone impacts disloge the driver more often with a seatbelt vs without a seatbelt, but don't let me stop you from volunteering... > Without a seatbelt you get thrown from the vehicle when you hit something, but by that point it's by definition already too late to avoid it, and then you're just in butterfly effect land. Many lighter side tbone impacts might simply throw you into your passenger's lap, or even just into the center of the vehicle. Are you really asserting that in such impacts, being behind the wheel of your vehicle is no better than leaving it up to chance? I don't think you're that bad of a driver! > This is not the right comparison because the thing to be compared is not seatbelt use prior to the campaign, it's seatbelt use under a different seatbelt campaign Fair. > That's just a rationalization. So is what I'm initially replying to.