5 ms·

It might be old, but its still true. I'm not anti seat belt (I track cars, and I understand safety), I'm anti seat belt laws, since it gives the police a read

It might be old, but its still true. I'm not anti seat belt (I track cars, and I understand safety), I'm anti seat belt laws, since it gives the police a ready made excuse to pull you over for yet another reason. I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident.

Steltek 5y ago
Removing seat belt laws will not curb police abuse of power. It's treating a symptom, not a cause. Accepting a philosophy of withholding medical care in cases like that would lead to a society of cripples and dead. I don't see how that's desirable or an improvement.
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  Health Insurance and medical care are too completely separated things. Denying health insurance would just ensure medical bankruptcy and financial woes for anyone who was believed to have been seatbeltless, regardless of proof, since this isn't a court of law, but a "private company" decision.
DSMan195276 5y ago
> I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident. Ultimately that just means we as a society pay for it, since they're still going to get emergency treatment but won't be able to pay the bill. IMO any of these approaches are unlikely to do much, because most people don't consider the potential consequences when they're assuming something won't happen to begin with. Or IE. If people aren't wearing seat belts, they're already assuming they won't get in a crash, so the potential financial consequences don't matter. If they were actually considering such things they would probably be wearing their seat belt, since the potential risk of death or being maimed is always there regardless of your insurance policy ;) Also FWIW I'm pretty sure the police cannot pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, they have to be pulling you over for some other reason (Not saying it's not still a problem, but there's some nuance there).

Steltek 5y ago

Removing seat belt laws will not curb police abuse of power. It's treating a symptom, not a cause. Accepting a philosophy of withholding medical care in cases like that would lead to a society of cripples and dead. I don't see how that's desirable or an improvement.

ThunderSizzle 5y ago
Health Insurance and medical care are too completely separated things. Denying health insurance would just ensure medical bankruptcy and financial woes for anyone who was believed to have been seatbeltless, regardless of proof, since this isn't a court of law, but a "private company" decision.

DSMan195276 5y ago

> I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident. Ultimately that just means we as a society pay for it, since they're still going to get emergency treatment but won't be able to pay the bill. IMO any of these approaches are unlikely to do much, because most people don't consider the potential consequences when they're assuming something won't happen to begin with. Or IE. If people aren't wearing seat belts, they're already assuming they won't get in a crash, so the potential financial consequences don't matter. If they were actually considering such things they would probably be wearing their seat belt, since the potential risk of death or being maimed is always there regardless of your insurance policy ;) Also FWIW I'm pretty sure the police cannot pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, they have to be pulling you over for some other reason (Not saying it's not still a problem, but there's some nuance there).