9 ms·

When new seat belt laws drew fire as a violation of personal freedom (2020)

52 points by hackingforfun 5y ago

vmception 5y ago
You mean the tell me the slippery slope already started? Before I was born? This is the America I grew up in?
timbre1234 5y ago
I'm so sick of people equating seat belt laws w/ Vaccine&Mask mandates. For the 1000th time: Seat Belts affect you, Masks&Vaccines are about other people.
- tokai 5y ago
  Getting injured in traffic poses a risk to the people that come and save you. People getting flung from cars also pose a risk to other road users.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Lobotomy could be efficient way to lower violence to others. I suppose those mandating vaccines and mask also would be for it to be performed to everyone.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Seat Belts affect you If you're a passenger in the back of a car, and the car stops suddenly in an accident, you will be launched into the seat in front of you. Drivers have died as the result of a rear passenger crushing them. Even seat belts can affect others. Crash test footage of an unbelted rear passenger - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM British safety 'advert' about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw2aevh6oZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw2aevh6oZ8 (Maybe not for the squeamish..) This is why people really should wear seat belts in taxis and Ubers.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    Arguably this should be worked out between the driver and passenger before the ride begins.
    - alphan0n 5y ago
      We’re all on this road trip together.
      - nanis 5y ago
        Curiously, no one seemed to think that when they did not get the flu vaccine nor did they seem to think there was anything wrong with one's apartment being surrounded on all sides by heavy pot smokers during winter. I bring up those two because the group of people who stayed away from the flu vaccines and were fully in support of people's right to light up and get high tend to overlap with the current group of people who want to deny others livelihoods and even life for not conforming to their fears. "We" are very distinctly not all in this together. Some, mostly single, mostly well off people (or people who have well off parents back to whose large houses they can retreat) are enjoying themselves very much as every part of society is reformed to match their phobias. And, they are empowering people who would love to expand their power no matter what. The censorship and surveillance infrastructure that is being enhanced to cater to these groups will be used for far worse. But, who am I kidding, it looks like the majority thinks "Killing Fields" is an adventure game and "Cultural Revolution" is a good thing.
    - soco 5y ago
      Which would cause a ruckus in most of the cases. Not exactly what I as a driver, or I as a passenger, want when I think of a ride.
    - cecilpl2 5y ago
      And for those who are unaware of the consequences? Do they just deserve to die?
    - onion2k 5y ago
      "Are you happy risking death because I don't want to wear a seat belt?" doesn't seem like it needs much "working out".
- luis8 5y ago
  I strongly disagree. If I made a mistake while driving a car that results in a crash, without a seat belt I could be responsible for the death of one or more individuals which could have been prevented if they were wearing a seat belt
  - hellisothers 5y ago
    This is what few people take into account. I know someone who was involved in a fatality accident and the family of the deceased sued them even though the deceased person was clearly at fault. That isn’t even the biggest problem though since insurance took care of it, the person who survived the crash had a lot of trauma from feeling that they “killed” somebody. Just wear a seatbelt and put on that helmet.
    - uxp100 5y ago
      I find this logic strange. As someone who's friend was killed in an accident where he was not wearing a seatbelt, this kind of logic makes the person who ran a stop sign at 45 miles an hour the "victim," and not the person who they killed. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I find it wholly uncompelling. And I don't exactly oppose seat belt laws either, I just find this justification, uh, perverted maybe? Bizarre? Utterly unconvincing.
      - avianlyric 5y ago
        Survivors guilt is a real thing, and it destroys people. There’s nothing logical about survivors guilt, but that doesn’t change the very real damage it does. Why would you want to subject your friends and loves one to that type of phycological suffering?
- basch 5y ago
  an unbelted traveler transforms into a meat torpedo during impact, which puts all other passengers in the vehicle at risk. so maybe you can make the case of not getting into vehicles with unbelted persons, however, children among others, often dont have the choice.
- OliverJones 5y ago
  Take the case of motorcycle helmets. Not wearing a helmet increases the risk of traumatic brain injury in a crash. And, people living with TBI get a lot of care at the expense of federal and state taxpayers. Would a "libertarian" approach to motorcycle helmet requirements deny social security disability income or medicaid to persons injured in a motorcycle crash without a helmet? Similar questions apply to car-crash injuries without seat belts, and to serious disease in people who refuse vaccines. At any rate, I do a lot of road bicycling in New Hampshire, always wearing a helmet. Some motorcyclists, legally, don't wear helmets. Enough of those same motorcyclists disrespect other users of the road that it's wise to pull over until they pass. We don't all live in places with less than 100 people per square mile.
- azundo 5y ago
  Not true, seat belts keep the driver in their seat and can allow the driver to maintain control when they wouldn't have been able to without one, potentially reducing the severity of a crash with another vehicle. Admittedly this is not the most common benefit of a seat belt but they are designed with this benefit in mind.
- moate 5y ago
  EMT's who have to come to the scene: Not you Doctors in the ER who have to treat you: Not you. People injured as a result of your body flying around: Not you Seatbelts save lives and lower the costs for everyone by not required additional resources be spent on treating people unwilling to wear a seatbelt. Just like vaccines.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  If you don't wear a seat belt / helmet, you increase the liability risks of other drivers who may cause injury to you. The government mandates liability insurance and also mandates safety features that reduce risk for liability insurance providers. There are reasonable debates be to had if the lines are drawn in the correct places (if motocyclists have to wear helmets, why not other drivers?).
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  Other people had plenty of time to get vaccine. Mandated masks and vaccines is stupid. Everyone should decide for himself. There are few people who can't get vaccine because of medical reasons, but they should not be the reason to strain rest of the society with stupid restrictions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nsxwolf 5y ago
What's the point of this comparison? To prove how futile it is to resist government power? It seems like we're saying "We will make you do whatever the hell we want. You will do it, and we'll bring up how we made you do this next time we force you to start doing something else. And everyone will laugh at how stupid you sound."
- omnicognate 5y ago
  You consider seat belt laws a violation of your personal freedom?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Yes. But I'd wear a seatbelt regardless of the law.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    Yes. But I wear them. I'm also vaccinated, but I'm against mandates.
  - kubanczyk 5y ago
    I wear seat belt and it would be my choice anyway. I wouldn't use the word "violated" but yes, seat belt law decreased the total amount of freedom. If you don't agree to that it means we don't use the same definition of the word "freedom" or the word "law". Because of that law I am either less free on the seat of my car, or (if I ignore that and I am caught and fined) I am less free about how to to spend my own X dollars (the fine).
    - undecisive 5y ago
      I would be interested to see a speed-limit map from parallel universe where there were no seatbelt laws. I suspect that freedom would rebalance itself. Also - and this applies to vaccines too - this definition of "freedom" is an academic one. There should be a competing measure of valuable freedom, defined as how much your freedom helps you to take advantage of the benefits of the world. We then need to work out why so many people are so fiercely wedded to their Zero-value Freedoms...
GDC7 5y ago
It seems to me that government has taken up the job of cracking down on people who have a great deal of self-confidence about anything relating to self. For COVID it's the confidence in one's immune system, for seatbelts it's confidence in one's driving abilities, for drugs such as alcohol and other drugs...it's the confidence in one's abilities to handle it. Not saying government is wrong but it's natural that there will be a pushback from people who want to live and go out and about in the world without fear and with their chin up. Because according to their perspective the government is first insinuating that they are weak and secondly stepping on their freedom to again go out and about in the world without any fears.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > without fear I see this line a lot and it's entirely nonsensical. I don't wear a seatbelt out of fear, I wear a seatbelt as a rational choice to reduce risk of injury in random accidents.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > nonsensical It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt and if they ever have any thought about reducing the risk of random accidents they try and doing it with Horsepower and braking capabilities, which are the things which come as an added bonus to the type of cars they enjoy driving such as Muscle cars, Lambos, 'Vettes etc. It's a very big world out there, if you have a variety of interests you'll find that this sort of people are amazing to be around while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag.
    - crooked-v 5y ago
      > It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement. > while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring? This sounds like the "bad guy" in some 90s car safety education video for kids.
jonstaab 5y ago
They still do, and should. Your personal health is none of the government's business. The whole process for how we got where we are with mandatory seatbelt laws is insane. This could have gone very differently. Once again, ancient Hebrew law comes through: "If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death... But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death" This is pretty directly applicable. Cars are dangerous. If car makers fail to improve their safety, they're liable to being sued by consumers. Seatbelts fit the bill, as do airbags. In a free market, it's in the interest of the manufacturers to take care of their customers. Customers can be as dumb as they want. I guess my question though, is why didn't it work out this way?
- moate 5y ago
  Because "free market solutions adoption" doesn't happen. We live in a society, and there are some amount of beliefs shared by large groups within that society(In this case, "wearing a seatbelt isn't a personal choice, because not wearing one and getting into an accident taxes resources from others and therefor extends beyond "I should get to do whatever I want"). The second you put a formal sate into place, you're giving up freedom in exchange for codification of social beliefs. The problem is that not everyone agrees on these social beliefs. Pick literally any topic, and someone says "no, that's wrong". So no matter what laws you make, someone always disagrees with them. You now need ways to enforce those beliefs, and penalties are easier than rewards (because you need a way to fund/create rewards and that requires more resources than a penalty which often involves taking resources from those involved). The point is, without enforcement there will always be a group that doesn't do the thing everyone else wants. (Side note: your hebrew law example is pointedly NOT how US tort law works, and I think a lot of people are thankful for that. We all know bulls, even those without a history of goring, CAN gore someone to death, and if you don't do everything in your power to prevent that, you're liable.)
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  > Your personal health is none of the government's business. In theory, maybe. But the government's main business in practice seems to be the continuation of its (government's) existence, and having somewhat healthy population, and having population at all, for that matter, really helps -- especially if the measures intended to improve the public health/safety don't really cost the government much if anything. > In a free market, it's in the interest of the manufacturers to take care of their customers [Citation needed]. Anyway, the car market is not free: every car manufacturer has non-infinitesimal market share, and that opens the possibility of all kinds of interesting market manipulations.
JohnFen 5y ago
I do consider seat belt laws as overreaching. I don't consider vaccine mandates as overreaching. But here's the thing -- I live in a society, and that society has decided that seat belt laws are fine. I don't make a fuss about the seat belts because that's a settled issue in society and isn't a huge burden on me. People making the liberty argument against vaccines should adopt the same stance.
- peteradio 5y ago
  There are many kinds of seatbelts really. We have belts to hold kids into booster seats. We have belts to restrain dangerous criminals. We have collars for dogs. The vaccine means different things for different people. For people with poor immunity its a life-saver. For you people<18 years its largely pointless from a life-saving perspective. It would be like advocating for seatbelts on your lazyboy.
- xtracto 5y ago
  I think I agree with you on your first sentence: If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice. Now vaccines, if YOU don't get vaccinated, you might cause the death of one or more people who you get infected directly or indirectly. One is a social good, the other is a personal choice.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    > If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice. This of course assumes there’s no one else in the car. If there is, then you turn yourself into a 80kg human meat pinball moving at between 20-80mph, bouncing around the inside of the car. In this case your pretty much guaranteed to kill or seriously injure the other occupants.
  - cecilpl2 5y ago
    > If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice. And if I accidentally pull out in front of you, causing you to crash while not wearing a seatbelt, now I'm traumatized for life and possibly sued into bankruptcy, instead of simply inconvenienced. Not to mention traumatizing anyone who witnessed you fly through the windshield, and EMT/first responders. You do not exist in a vacuum.
1123581321 5y ago
Seat belt laws still have some opposition. One kind is using the same argument as ever (personal freedom, which is currently out of vogue) and the other argues from an enforcement disparity angle since seatbelt laws are one of the more easily used tools of selective enforcement. The second argument is more appealing right now.
- brazzy 5y ago
  Or how about not being a complete moron and simply doing the unambiguously, obviously right thing with no downsides?
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    There are a few slightly different positions. Several of these positions are more or less agnostic about whether or not the individual arguing for them wears a seat belt. 1. I don't like seat belt laws because I don't like people telling me anything, even if it's the right thing to do and I do it anyways. 2. I don't like seat belt laws because I'm a complete moron and don't want to wear a seat belt even though it's the unambiguously, obviously right thing, I don't like the seat belt itself. I may or may not think that other people should or should not also not wear a seat belt, but I'm mostly worried about personally being penalized for not wearing a seat belt. 3. I don't like seat belt laws because even if I'm wearing my seat belt, police can use it as a tool to pull me over and harass me. 4. I like seat belt laws because they encourage everyone, myself included, to do the right thing, and reduce the societal costs that I'd otherwise have to share if other people wear their seat belts. "Just do the right thing" works for me as an individual, but I'm not just an individual - I am a member of a society, I contribute insurance premiums and tax payments that financially go towards first responders and health care that might be abused by people who don't do something as obvious as wearing a seat belt - not to mention the emotional, moral and ethical weight of driving around people who might be thrown through their windshield and splatter all over you and your car in a crash.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > 1. I don't like seat belt laws because I don't like people telling me anything, even if it's the right thing to do and I do it anyways. This is one of those positions which seem reasonable and valid from the inside, but from the outside feels like watching an adult throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.
strict9 5y ago
For a particularly eye-opening video of how views change over time, a 1984 NBC news report of a mandatory seatbelt ordinance in a small Michigan town: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ
jwally 5y ago
I like the analogy of laws-against-drunk-driving more.
nanis 5y ago
These days you MUST wear a seatbelt because the explosive device that will go off inches from your face will kill you with the slightest provocation if you do not. Ironically, airbags were developed to _replace_ seatbelts as people like Ralph Nader thought people could never be convinced to wear them voluntarily.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Do I understand correctly that someone that doesn't have their seat belt will die from the air-bag? Why? Is it because their face will be too close from the air-bag?
  - nanis 5y ago
    Subject to historical revisionism: > 2. Air bags are designed to work with seat belts, not replace them but accurate regarding the effects of not wearing one: > If you don’t wear your seat belt, you could be thrown into a rapidly opening frontal air bag. Such force could injure or even kill you. Quite a few injuries in low speed crashes are _caused_ by air bag deployment even when you are wearing your seat belt.[1] This is not to detract from the fact that in high speed or high force crashes, the airbag may be the thing that lets you survive ... assuming you are wearing a seatbelt. Also, interesting photo in this article[2]. [1]: https://emj.bmj.com/content/19/6/490 https://emj.bmj.com/content/19/6/490 [2]: https://cei.org/news_releases/if-auto-safety-defects-are-criminalized-shouldnt-ralph-nader-be-in-jail/ https://cei.org/news_releases/if-auto-safety-defects-are-cri...
    - jmnicolas 5y ago
      Thanks.
causi 5y ago
It makes sense from some perspectives. It is intensely hypocritical to require seatbelts while allowing motorcycles on the road at all. What level of deaths-per-mile-traveled is acceptable and what is not?
- foxyv 5y ago
  Yeah, NTSA standards and traffic laws are kind of all over the place. It's kind of why you see 3 wheeled cars going around with almost zero safety standards because they are classed as a "Motorcycle." However, motorcycles do have helmet laws in many states. Really, car drivers should wear helmets also, but good luck getting THAT passed. That's why we have airbags, because no one will wear a helmet in their car. New Hampshire has no seat belt laws. Some states only require seat belts in the front seat. Some states only require seat belts for drivers and under 18s in the front seat.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > That's why we have airbags, because no one will wear a helmet in their car. Airbags are much superior to helmets, allowing for deceleration to occur over ~10 inches rather than over the ~2 inches provided by a helmet. That allows for a much smaller force to be applied to slowing the head. It would be a massive reduction in safety to replace airbags with helmets. Rather, we (still) use helmets because motorcyclists can't take advantage of airbags.
    - foxyv 5y ago
      Motorcyclists use airbags too for spine and neck protection. When inflated they look a little like a life preserver.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        That's pretty awesome!
- vmception 5y ago
  Has anyone challenged this under the equal protection clause? Maybe the differing licensing requirements cover that!
pcmaffey 5y ago
And when roundabouts were introduced into the US they were criticized for being socialist.
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Very interesting to see the argument that the requirement to wear a seatbelt infringes on personal freedoms. Couldn't you argue that the requirement to have a driver's license is similar? 'I know how to drive, why am I required to jump through all those hoops (and pay) to be licensed?' And ad infinitum, why do I have comply with building codes, pay extra for food that's been inspected, etc. True freedom from all that sounds... really terrible.
- soco 5y ago
  True freedom simply cannot exist in a society. Why do I have to be polite to grandma, why do I have to wear pants in public, why can't I just kill that guy... liberty would be so great if it wasn't for so many other people around. Basically our lives are a collection of social restrictions (call them whatever you want) and I think recognizing this fact would bring some ease into this discussion: what makes one new restriction worth.
- vmception 5y ago
  I would love to see a challenge to licensing regimes. It’s like “make <action> without a license federally illegal, while actually going through with licensing requires a ton of arbitrary restrictions by a different government or private sector “ Although this is probably the best example of federalism in our country, instead of a nominally named Federal government simply being the national government
tomjen3 5y ago
There can be no good argument for mandatory seat belts as long as motorcycles are allowed at all.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  That's ridiculous. Seat belts exist in all cars, and making it mandatory to use them imposes only the tiniest of costs. The cost/benefit is overwhelmingly positive and the anti-seatbelt lobby is nonexistent. Motorcycles, as dangerous as they are, have a long history and an entrenched industry. Banning them would be a massive expenditure of political capital.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    You are right. I had assumed the only argument would be that of safety: a motorcycle is far more dangerous than an unbuckled car, but applying a cost-benefit changes the situation.
stmfreak 5y ago
They still are a violation of personal freedom.

52 points by hackingforfun 5y ago

You mean the tell me the slippery slope already started? Before I was born? This is the America I grew up in?

I'm so sick of people equating seat belt laws w/ Vaccine&Mask mandates. For the 1000th time: Seat Belts affect you, Masks&Vaccines are about other people.

tokai 5y ago
Getting injured in traffic poses a risk to the people that come and save you. People getting flung from cars also pose a risk to other road users.
Ekaros 5y ago
Lobotomy could be efficient way to lower violence to others. I suppose those mandating vaccines and mask also would be for it to be performed to everyone.
onion2k 5y ago
Seat Belts affect you If you're a passenger in the back of a car, and the car stops suddenly in an accident, you will be launched into the seat in front of you. Drivers have died as the result of a rear passenger crushing them. Even seat belts can affect others. Crash test footage of an unbelted rear passenger - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM British safety 'advert' about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw2aevh6oZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw2aevh6oZ8 (Maybe not for the squeamish..) This is why people really should wear seat belts in taxis and Ubers.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  Arguably this should be worked out between the driver and passenger before the ride begins.
  - alphan0n 5y ago
    We’re all on this road trip together.
    - nanis 5y ago
      Curiously, no one seemed to think that when they did not get the flu vaccine nor did they seem to think there was anything wrong with one's apartment being surrounded on all sides by heavy pot smokers during winter. I bring up those two because the group of people who stayed away from the flu vaccines and were fully in support of people's right to light up and get high tend to overlap with the current group of people who want to deny others livelihoods and even life for not conforming to their fears. "We" are very distinctly not all in this together. Some, mostly single, mostly well off people (or people who have well off parents back to whose large houses they can retreat) are enjoying themselves very much as every part of society is reformed to match their phobias. And, they are empowering people who would love to expand their power no matter what. The censorship and surveillance infrastructure that is being enhanced to cater to these groups will be used for far worse. But, who am I kidding, it looks like the majority thinks "Killing Fields" is an adventure game and "Cultural Revolution" is a good thing.
  - soco 5y ago
    Which would cause a ruckus in most of the cases. Not exactly what I as a driver, or I as a passenger, want when I think of a ride.
  - cecilpl2 5y ago
    And for those who are unaware of the consequences? Do they just deserve to die?
  - onion2k 5y ago
    "Are you happy risking death because I don't want to wear a seat belt?" doesn't seem like it needs much "working out".
luis8 5y ago
I strongly disagree. If I made a mistake while driving a car that results in a crash, without a seat belt I could be responsible for the death of one or more individuals which could have been prevented if they were wearing a seat belt
- hellisothers 5y ago
  This is what few people take into account. I know someone who was involved in a fatality accident and the family of the deceased sued them even though the deceased person was clearly at fault. That isn’t even the biggest problem though since insurance took care of it, the person who survived the crash had a lot of trauma from feeling that they “killed” somebody. Just wear a seatbelt and put on that helmet.
  - uxp100 5y ago
    I find this logic strange. As someone who's friend was killed in an accident where he was not wearing a seatbelt, this kind of logic makes the person who ran a stop sign at 45 miles an hour the "victim," and not the person who they killed. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I find it wholly uncompelling. And I don't exactly oppose seat belt laws either, I just find this justification, uh, perverted maybe? Bizarre? Utterly unconvincing.
    - avianlyric 5y ago
      Survivors guilt is a real thing, and it destroys people. There’s nothing logical about survivors guilt, but that doesn’t change the very real damage it does. Why would you want to subject your friends and loves one to that type of phycological suffering?
basch 5y ago
an unbelted traveler transforms into a meat torpedo during impact, which puts all other passengers in the vehicle at risk. so maybe you can make the case of not getting into vehicles with unbelted persons, however, children among others, often dont have the choice.
OliverJones 5y ago
Take the case of motorcycle helmets. Not wearing a helmet increases the risk of traumatic brain injury in a crash. And, people living with TBI get a lot of care at the expense of federal and state taxpayers. Would a "libertarian" approach to motorcycle helmet requirements deny social security disability income or medicaid to persons injured in a motorcycle crash without a helmet? Similar questions apply to car-crash injuries without seat belts, and to serious disease in people who refuse vaccines. At any rate, I do a lot of road bicycling in New Hampshire, always wearing a helmet. Some motorcyclists, legally, don't wear helmets. Enough of those same motorcyclists disrespect other users of the road that it's wise to pull over until they pass. We don't all live in places with less than 100 people per square mile.
azundo 5y ago
Not true, seat belts keep the driver in their seat and can allow the driver to maintain control when they wouldn't have been able to without one, potentially reducing the severity of a crash with another vehicle. Admittedly this is not the most common benefit of a seat belt but they are designed with this benefit in mind.
moate 5y ago
EMT's who have to come to the scene: Not you Doctors in the ER who have to treat you: Not you. People injured as a result of your body flying around: Not you Seatbelts save lives and lower the costs for everyone by not required additional resources be spent on treating people unwilling to wear a seatbelt. Just like vaccines.
shkkmo 5y ago
If you don't wear a seat belt / helmet, you increase the liability risks of other drivers who may cause injury to you. The government mandates liability insurance and also mandates safety features that reduce risk for liability insurance providers. There are reasonable debates be to had if the lines are drawn in the correct places (if motocyclists have to wear helmets, why not other drivers?).
vbezhenar 5y ago
Other people had plenty of time to get vaccine. Mandated masks and vaccines is stupid. Everyone should decide for himself. There are few people who can't get vaccine because of medical reasons, but they should not be the reason to strain rest of the society with stupid restrictions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nsxwolf 5y ago

What's the point of this comparison? To prove how futile it is to resist government power? It seems like we're saying "We will make you do whatever the hell we want. You will do it, and we'll bring up how we made you do this next time we force you to start doing something else. And everyone will laugh at how stupid you sound."

omnicognate 5y ago
You consider seat belt laws a violation of your personal freedom?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Yes. But I'd wear a seatbelt regardless of the law.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  Yes. But I wear them. I'm also vaccinated, but I'm against mandates.
- kubanczyk 5y ago
  I wear seat belt and it would be my choice anyway. I wouldn't use the word "violated" but yes, seat belt law decreased the total amount of freedom. If you don't agree to that it means we don't use the same definition of the word "freedom" or the word "law". Because of that law I am either less free on the seat of my car, or (if I ignore that and I am caught and fined) I am less free about how to to spend my own X dollars (the fine).
  - undecisive 5y ago
    I would be interested to see a speed-limit map from parallel universe where there were no seatbelt laws. I suspect that freedom would rebalance itself. Also - and this applies to vaccines too - this definition of "freedom" is an academic one. There should be a competing measure of valuable freedom, defined as how much your freedom helps you to take advantage of the benefits of the world. We then need to work out why so many people are so fiercely wedded to their Zero-value Freedoms...

GDC7 5y ago

It seems to me that government has taken up the job of cracking down on people who have a great deal of self-confidence about anything relating to self. For COVID it's the confidence in one's immune system, for seatbelts it's confidence in one's driving abilities, for drugs such as alcohol and other drugs...it's the confidence in one's abilities to handle it. Not saying government is wrong but it's natural that there will be a pushback from people who want to live and go out and about in the world without fear and with their chin up. Because according to their perspective the government is first insinuating that they are weak and secondly stepping on their freedom to again go out and about in the world without any fears.

crooked-v 5y ago
> without fear I see this line a lot and it's entirely nonsensical. I don't wear a seatbelt out of fear, I wear a seatbelt as a rational choice to reduce risk of injury in random accidents.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > nonsensical It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt and if they ever have any thought about reducing the risk of random accidents they try and doing it with Horsepower and braking capabilities, which are the things which come as an added bonus to the type of cars they enjoy driving such as Muscle cars, Lambos, 'Vettes etc. It's a very big world out there, if you have a variety of interests you'll find that this sort of people are amazing to be around while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    > It might be nonsensical for you, but for the sort of people we are discussing they ditch the seatbelt I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement. > while doing some activities in which the typical rationalists and left-brain people would be such a drag What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring? This sounds like the "bad guy" in some 90s car safety education video for kids.

jonstaab 5y ago

They still do, and should. Your personal health is none of the government's business. The whole process for how we got where we are with mandatory seatbelt laws is insane. This could have gone very differently. Once again, ancient Hebrew law comes through: "If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death... But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death" This is pretty directly applicable. Cars are dangerous. If car makers fail to improve their safety, they're liable to being sued by consumers. Seatbelts fit the bill, as do airbags. In a free market, it's in the interest of the manufacturers to take care of their customers. Customers can be as dumb as they want. I guess my question though, is why didn't it work out this way?

moate 5y ago
Because "free market solutions adoption" doesn't happen. We live in a society, and there are some amount of beliefs shared by large groups within that society(In this case, "wearing a seatbelt isn't a personal choice, because not wearing one and getting into an accident taxes resources from others and therefor extends beyond "I should get to do whatever I want"). The second you put a formal sate into place, you're giving up freedom in exchange for codification of social beliefs. The problem is that not everyone agrees on these social beliefs. Pick literally any topic, and someone says "no, that's wrong". So no matter what laws you make, someone always disagrees with them. You now need ways to enforce those beliefs, and penalties are easier than rewards (because you need a way to fund/create rewards and that requires more resources than a penalty which often involves taking resources from those involved). The point is, without enforcement there will always be a group that doesn't do the thing everyone else wants. (Side note: your hebrew law example is pointedly NOT how US tort law works, and I think a lot of people are thankful for that. We all know bulls, even those without a history of goring, CAN gore someone to death, and if you don't do everything in your power to prevent that, you're liable.)
Joker_vD 5y ago
> Your personal health is none of the government's business. In theory, maybe. But the government's main business in practice seems to be the continuation of its (government's) existence, and having somewhat healthy population, and having population at all, for that matter, really helps -- especially if the measures intended to improve the public health/safety don't really cost the government much if anything. > In a free market, it's in the interest of the manufacturers to take care of their customers [Citation needed]. Anyway, the car market is not free: every car manufacturer has non-infinitesimal market share, and that opens the possibility of all kinds of interesting market manipulations.

JohnFen 5y ago

I do consider seat belt laws as overreaching. I don't consider vaccine mandates as overreaching. But here's the thing -- I live in a society, and that society has decided that seat belt laws are fine. I don't make a fuss about the seat belts because that's a settled issue in society and isn't a huge burden on me. People making the liberty argument against vaccines should adopt the same stance.

peteradio 5y ago
There are many kinds of seatbelts really. We have belts to hold kids into booster seats. We have belts to restrain dangerous criminals. We have collars for dogs. The vaccine means different things for different people. For people with poor immunity its a life-saver. For you people<18 years its largely pointless from a life-saving perspective. It would be like advocating for seatbelts on your lazyboy.
xtracto 5y ago
I think I agree with you on your first sentence: If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice. Now vaccines, if YOU don't get vaccinated, you might cause the death of one or more people who you get infected directly or indirectly. One is a social good, the other is a personal choice.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  > If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice. This of course assumes there’s no one else in the car. If there is, then you turn yourself into a 80kg human meat pinball moving at between 20-80mph, bouncing around the inside of the car. In this case your pretty much guaranteed to kill or seriously injure the other occupants.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  > If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice. And if I accidentally pull out in front of you, causing you to crash while not wearing a seatbelt, now I'm traumatized for life and possibly sued into bankruptcy, instead of simply inconvenienced. Not to mention traumatizing anyone who witnessed you fly through the windshield, and EMT/first responders. You do not exist in a vacuum.

1123581321 5y ago

Seat belt laws still have some opposition. One kind is using the same argument as ever (personal freedom, which is currently out of vogue) and the other argues from an enforcement disparity angle since seatbelt laws are one of the more easily used tools of selective enforcement. The second argument is more appealing right now.

brazzy 5y ago
Or how about not being a complete moron and simply doing the unambiguously, obviously right thing with no downsides?
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  There are a few slightly different positions. Several of these positions are more or less agnostic about whether or not the individual arguing for them wears a seat belt. 1. I don't like seat belt laws because I don't like people telling me anything, even if it's the right thing to do and I do it anyways. 2. I don't like seat belt laws because I'm a complete moron and don't want to wear a seat belt even though it's the unambiguously, obviously right thing, I don't like the seat belt itself. I may or may not think that other people should or should not also not wear a seat belt, but I'm mostly worried about personally being penalized for not wearing a seat belt. 3. I don't like seat belt laws because even if I'm wearing my seat belt, police can use it as a tool to pull me over and harass me. 4. I like seat belt laws because they encourage everyone, myself included, to do the right thing, and reduce the societal costs that I'd otherwise have to share if other people wear their seat belts. "Just do the right thing" works for me as an individual, but I'm not just an individual - I am a member of a society, I contribute insurance premiums and tax payments that financially go towards first responders and health care that might be abused by people who don't do something as obvious as wearing a seat belt - not to mention the emotional, moral and ethical weight of driving around people who might be thrown through their windshield and splatter all over you and your car in a crash.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > 1. I don't like seat belt laws because I don't like people telling me anything, even if it's the right thing to do and I do it anyways. This is one of those positions which seem reasonable and valid from the inside, but from the outside feels like watching an adult throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

strict9 5y ago

For a particularly eye-opening video of how views change over time, a 1984 NBC news report of a mandatory seatbelt ordinance in a small Michigan town: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ

jwally 5y ago

I like the analogy of laws-against-drunk-driving more.

nanis 5y ago

These days you MUST wear a seatbelt because the explosive device that will go off inches from your face will kill you with the slightest provocation if you do not. Ironically, airbags were developed to _replace_ seatbelts as people like Ralph Nader thought people could never be convinced to wear them voluntarily.

jmnicolas 5y ago
Do I understand correctly that someone that doesn't have their seat belt will die from the air-bag? Why? Is it because their face will be too close from the air-bag?
- nanis 5y ago
  Subject to historical revisionism: > 2. Air bags are designed to work with seat belts, not replace them but accurate regarding the effects of not wearing one: > If you don’t wear your seat belt, you could be thrown into a rapidly opening frontal air bag. Such force could injure or even kill you. Quite a few injuries in low speed crashes are _caused_ by air bag deployment even when you are wearing your seat belt.[1] This is not to detract from the fact that in high speed or high force crashes, the airbag may be the thing that lets you survive ... assuming you are wearing a seatbelt. Also, interesting photo in this article[2]. [1]: https://emj.bmj.com/content/19/6/490 https://emj.bmj.com/content/19/6/490 [2]: https://cei.org/news_releases/if-auto-safety-defects-are-criminalized-shouldnt-ralph-nader-be-in-jail/ https://cei.org/news_releases/if-auto-safety-defects-are-cri...
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    Thanks.

causi 5y ago

It makes sense from some perspectives. It is intensely hypocritical to require seatbelts while allowing motorcycles on the road at all. What level of deaths-per-mile-traveled is acceptable and what is not?

foxyv 5y ago
Yeah, NTSA standards and traffic laws are kind of all over the place. It's kind of why you see 3 wheeled cars going around with almost zero safety standards because they are classed as a "Motorcycle." However, motorcycles do have helmet laws in many states. Really, car drivers should wear helmets also, but good luck getting THAT passed. That's why we have airbags, because no one will wear a helmet in their car. New Hampshire has no seat belt laws. Some states only require seat belts in the front seat. Some states only require seat belts for drivers and under 18s in the front seat.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > That's why we have airbags, because no one will wear a helmet in their car. Airbags are much superior to helmets, allowing for deceleration to occur over ~10 inches rather than over the ~2 inches provided by a helmet. That allows for a much smaller force to be applied to slowing the head. It would be a massive reduction in safety to replace airbags with helmets. Rather, we (still) use helmets because motorcyclists can't take advantage of airbags.
  - foxyv 5y ago
    Motorcyclists use airbags too for spine and neck protection. When inflated they look a little like a life preserver.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      That's pretty awesome!
vmception 5y ago
Has anyone challenged this under the equal protection clause? Maybe the differing licensing requirements cover that!

pcmaffey 5y ago

And when roundabouts were introduced into the US they were criticized for being socialist.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago

Very interesting to see the argument that the requirement to wear a seatbelt infringes on personal freedoms. Couldn't you argue that the requirement to have a driver's license is similar? 'I know how to drive, why am I required to jump through all those hoops (and pay) to be licensed?' And ad infinitum, why do I have comply with building codes, pay extra for food that's been inspected, etc. True freedom from all that sounds... really terrible.

soco 5y ago
True freedom simply cannot exist in a society. Why do I have to be polite to grandma, why do I have to wear pants in public, why can't I just kill that guy... liberty would be so great if it wasn't for so many other people around. Basically our lives are a collection of social restrictions (call them whatever you want) and I think recognizing this fact would bring some ease into this discussion: what makes one new restriction worth.
vmception 5y ago
I would love to see a challenge to licensing regimes. It’s like “make <action> without a license federally illegal, while actually going through with licensing requires a ton of arbitrary restrictions by a different government or private sector “ Although this is probably the best example of federalism in our country, instead of a nominally named Federal government simply being the national government

tomjen3 5y ago

There can be no good argument for mandatory seat belts as long as motorcycles are allowed at all.

cecilpl2 5y ago
That's ridiculous. Seat belts exist in all cars, and making it mandatory to use them imposes only the tiniest of costs. The cost/benefit is overwhelmingly positive and the anti-seatbelt lobby is nonexistent. Motorcycles, as dangerous as they are, have a long history and an entrenched industry. Banning them would be a massive expenditure of political capital.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  You are right. I had assumed the only argument would be that of safety: a motorcycle is far more dangerous than an unbuckled car, but applying a cost-benefit changes the situation.

stmfreak 5y ago

They still are a violation of personal freedom.