5 ms·

If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory?

by Ardon 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
furgooswft13 5y ago
They are mandatory only in the sense you might get a small fine if you happen to be caught and pulled over without one. You still keep your drivers license, and your car, and your job. Also you can take the seatbelt off when you get out of the car. It's still nonsense (click it or ticket laws), but you gotta pick your battles. Though I'm ready to murder the people who invented/mandated "beep incessantly if the seatbelt is not clicked, even if the car is stationary".
newsclues 5y ago
Do we ban people from driving if they refuse to wear seatbelts?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  …yes? I thought that’s what license penalties are for.
- messe 5y ago
  Depending on country, yes?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  In some places, yes (Northern Ireland), otherwise we just repeatedly fine. A better example would be driving drunk, given that you are at an increased risk of injuring others.
- Orphis 5y ago
  You can always lose your license in some places if you are not wearing a seatbelt repeatedly. Remember that a seatbelt also prevents your body from being a projectile that would be launched against other people in an accident, you're not just a danger to yourself when you don't wear one.
- drunkpotato 5y ago
  You get a ticket, and too many of those tickets and you lose your license, so yes.
- scott_w 5y ago
  In most places with seatbelt laws: yes
- m-p-3 5y ago
  You can if you rack up too many unpaid fines.
q-big 5y ago
> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory? While I do agree that wearing a seatbelt is in most cases a good idea, there still do exist people who are opposed to the mandatory seatbelt laws (even decades after they were introduced).
logicalmonster 5y ago
Whatever one thinks about seatbelts and the ethics of seatbelt laws, they’re a horrendously bad analogy for “vaccines”. A seatbelt can always be removed after use. A “vaccine” cannot. If somebody is concerned about potential issues with the “vaccine” comparing it to a seatbelt feels disingenuous because the “vaccine” can never be undone.
- thakoppno 5y ago
  A seat belt you can’t take off.
- Orphis 5y ago
  Your body is undoing the vaccine just fine. It's just ARN, it's discarded after a while. Didn't you learn that in your bio classes or did you think it would never be useful? The rest is just practice for that precious immune system. What's wrong about it? Don't you trust it to do the right thing? I personally don't because I know about autoimmune diseases, but hey, you seem to be of that "crowd" who only talks in quotes because they don't understand much.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    > Your body is undoing the vaccine just fine. It's just ARN, it's discarded after a while. Let's not be willfully disingenuous here. Obviously, the types of "vaccine" injuries or potential long-term problems that many people are fearful about don't dissipate into the ether.
finite_jest 5y ago
> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory? Interestingly, your comparison is relevant, but you are responding to an argument which I don't think is being made. The OP is _not_ arguing that vaccines shouldn't be mandatory because they aren't 100% effective. On the contrary, the OP's argument is that since vaccines are relatively effective, one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them. Your seatbelt example is relevant, in that the same "no-harm-to-others" argument can be made in that case too.
- MaxDPS 5y ago
  Not wearing a seatbelt puts other passengers at risk. If you are t wearing a seatbelt you have a chance of being flung into someone, even if the other person is wearing a seatbelt. This can cause serious injury.
- ttmb 5y ago
  It's a great analogy because the no-harm-to-others argument doesn't apply in either case. In an incident, an un-seat-belted occupant can turn into a projectile and harm or kill others in the vehicle that might be wearing seatbelts.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    Perhaps, I'm really not sure how often would that happen though. I actually think the analogy is a relatively good one. Parallels also also run for the question of how much "paternalism" do we want (the limits of "for-your-own-good" argument). Interests of insurance providers (whether social or private) is also involved in both cases. In the case of vaccines, immunocompromised people's health is also a consideration. And there is the issue of side-effects, especially for young people. And there is "bodily autonomy". And the stress on healthcare system, etc. I think there could reasonable discussion about these issues. However, the sad reality is that things quickly get reduced to repeating trite "rallying cries".
- Orphis 5y ago
  If some group of the population is responsible for 85 to 90% of the spread of a disease, then they are directly harming also all the other people who can't be vaccinated for health reasons, they are helping the virus spread and mutate more often to promote new variants that the vaccinated people might not be resistant to, and they thus are the main reason why we still need to have measures in most countries to limit the spread. If you're not seriously doing your part, then you are actively supporting the virus and working against all the rest of the population that is either unable to get critical care or just tirelessly working in the healthcare sector treating all those avoidable critical patients.
moralestapia 5y ago
No one is going to fire you, no store would deny you entrance for that, and no government will deny you basic services if you don't wear your seatbelt. That's the difference.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  >> No one is going to fire you for that https://www.hrreporter.com/labour/news/fort-mcmurray-alta-truck-driver-fired-after-being-caught-not-wearing-seatbelt/296818 https://www.hrreporter.com/labour/news/fort-mcmurray-alta-tr... >> No store would deny you entrance for that You can’t really wear a seatbelt into a store but i can cite examples of being denied service for refusing to wear one (taxi, airplane, fun fair ride, etc.) >> No government will deny basic services to you for that You get fined by the government if you don’t wear a seatbelt. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seatbelts-1980s-vaccines-masks-covid-b1921664.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
tdrdt 5y ago
- roganp 5y ago
  1% of the population dying a preventable death is alot of bodies.
  - tdrdt 5y ago
    Let's talk about eating unhealthy and heart diseases.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      Earnestly, yes let’s talk about unhealthy eating and heart disease! Let’s talk about the food system, food education, food availability, pricing, and governmental subsidies. Let’s talk about the socioeconomic factors behind unhealthy lifestyles. Let’s talk about heart disease! Let’s talk about racial and sex disparities in heart disease. Let’s talk about class disparities in heart disease. Let’s talk about why these disparities exist. Public health is super fascinating and very complicated. We should be talking about it more!
      - tdrdt 5y ago
        Especially because people who are overweight have a 70% more chance to get very ill from covid.
    - m-p-3 5y ago
      Which aren't transmissible through the air.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  <edit- my math is wrong and I retract this statement.>
  - mkl 5y ago

If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory?

by Ardon 5y ago

If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

furgooswft13 5y ago

They are mandatory only in the sense you might get a small fine if you happen to be caught and pulled over without one. You still keep your drivers license, and your car, and your job. Also you can take the seatbelt off when you get out of the car. It's still nonsense (click it or ticket laws), but you gotta pick your battles. Though I'm ready to murder the people who invented/mandated "beep incessantly if the seatbelt is not clicked, even if the car is stationary".

newsclues 5y ago

Do we ban people from driving if they refuse to wear seatbelts?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
…yes? I thought that’s what license penalties are for.
messe 5y ago
Depending on country, yes?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 5y ago
In some places, yes (Northern Ireland), otherwise we just repeatedly fine. A better example would be driving drunk, given that you are at an increased risk of injuring others.
Orphis 5y ago
You can always lose your license in some places if you are not wearing a seatbelt repeatedly. Remember that a seatbelt also prevents your body from being a projectile that would be launched against other people in an accident, you're not just a danger to yourself when you don't wear one.
drunkpotato 5y ago
You get a ticket, and too many of those tickets and you lose your license, so yes.
scott_w 5y ago
In most places with seatbelt laws: yes
m-p-3 5y ago
You can if you rack up too many unpaid fines.

q-big 5y ago

> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory? While I do agree that wearing a seatbelt is in most cases a good idea, there still do exist people who are opposed to the mandatory seatbelt laws (even decades after they were introduced).

logicalmonster 5y ago

Whatever one thinks about seatbelts and the ethics of seatbelt laws, they’re a horrendously bad analogy for “vaccines”. A seatbelt can always be removed after use. A “vaccine” cannot. If somebody is concerned about potential issues with the “vaccine” comparing it to a seatbelt feels disingenuous because the “vaccine” can never be undone.

thakoppno 5y ago
A seat belt you can’t take off.
Orphis 5y ago
Your body is undoing the vaccine just fine. It's just ARN, it's discarded after a while. Didn't you learn that in your bio classes or did you think it would never be useful? The rest is just practice for that precious immune system. What's wrong about it? Don't you trust it to do the right thing? I personally don't because I know about autoimmune diseases, but hey, you seem to be of that "crowd" who only talks in quotes because they don't understand much.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > Your body is undoing the vaccine just fine. It's just ARN, it's discarded after a while. Let's not be willfully disingenuous here. Obviously, the types of "vaccine" injuries or potential long-term problems that many people are fearful about don't dissipate into the ether.

finite_jest 5y ago

> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory? Interestingly, your comparison is relevant, but you are responding to an argument which I don't think is being made. The OP is _not_ arguing that vaccines shouldn't be mandatory because they aren't 100% effective. On the contrary, the OP's argument is that since vaccines are relatively effective, one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them. Your seatbelt example is relevant, in that the same "no-harm-to-others" argument can be made in that case too.

MaxDPS 5y ago
Not wearing a seatbelt puts other passengers at risk. If you are t wearing a seatbelt you have a chance of being flung into someone, even if the other person is wearing a seatbelt. This can cause serious injury.
ttmb 5y ago
It's a great analogy because the no-harm-to-others argument doesn't apply in either case. In an incident, an un-seat-belted occupant can turn into a projectile and harm or kill others in the vehicle that might be wearing seatbelts.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  Perhaps, I'm really not sure how often would that happen though. I actually think the analogy is a relatively good one. Parallels also also run for the question of how much "paternalism" do we want (the limits of "for-your-own-good" argument). Interests of insurance providers (whether social or private) is also involved in both cases. In the case of vaccines, immunocompromised people's health is also a consideration. And there is the issue of side-effects, especially for young people. And there is "bodily autonomy". And the stress on healthcare system, etc. I think there could reasonable discussion about these issues. However, the sad reality is that things quickly get reduced to repeating trite "rallying cries".
Orphis 5y ago
If some group of the population is responsible for 85 to 90% of the spread of a disease, then they are directly harming also all the other people who can't be vaccinated for health reasons, they are helping the virus spread and mutate more often to promote new variants that the vaccinated people might not be resistant to, and they thus are the main reason why we still need to have measures in most countries to limit the spread. If you're not seriously doing your part, then you are actively supporting the virus and working against all the rest of the population that is either unable to get critical care or just tirelessly working in the healthcare sector treating all those avoidable critical patients.

moralestapia 5y ago

No one is going to fire you, no store would deny you entrance for that, and no government will deny you basic services if you don't wear your seatbelt. That's the difference.

CraigJPerry 5y ago
>> No one is going to fire you for that https://www.hrreporter.com/labour/news/fort-mcmurray-alta-truck-driver-fired-after-being-caught-not-wearing-seatbelt/296818 https://www.hrreporter.com/labour/news/fort-mcmurray-alta-tr... >> No store would deny you entrance for that You can’t really wear a seatbelt into a store but i can cite examples of being denied service for refusing to wear one (taxi, airplane, fun fair ride, etc.) >> No government will deny basic services to you for that You get fined by the government if you don’t wear a seatbelt. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seatbelts-1980s-vaccines-masks-covid-b1921664.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...

tdrdt 5y ago

roganp 5y ago
1% of the population dying a preventable death is alot of bodies.
- tdrdt 5y ago
  Let's talk about eating unhealthy and heart diseases.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Earnestly, yes let’s talk about unhealthy eating and heart disease! Let’s talk about the food system, food education, food availability, pricing, and governmental subsidies. Let’s talk about the socioeconomic factors behind unhealthy lifestyles. Let’s talk about heart disease! Let’s talk about racial and sex disparities in heart disease. Let’s talk about class disparities in heart disease. Let’s talk about why these disparities exist. Public health is super fascinating and very complicated. We should be talking about it more!
    - tdrdt 5y ago
      Especially because people who are overweight have a 70% more chance to get very ill from covid.
  - m-p-3 5y ago
    Which aren't transmissible through the air.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
<edit- my math is wrong and I retract this statement.>
- mkl 5y ago