7 ms·

Who cares if you kill yourself through your own negligence? There shouldn't be a fine at all for seatbelts. DUI, OTOH, should be treated even more harshly than

Who cares if you kill yourself through your own negligence? There shouldn't be a fine at all for seatbelts. DUI, OTOH, should be treated even more harshly than it is.

greedo 4y ago
Because your death becomes an externality that others have to pay for.
- goatcode 4y ago
  Should we treat all behaviors that are associated with a significantly increased mortality rate the same way, or should we pick and choose depending on the political and social context at the time, like we do with seatbelts?
  - scoopertrooper 4y ago
    Few other behaviors associated with increase mortality can also turn you into a missile. https://youtu.be/bdW_3oQFO0c?t=42 https://youtu.be/bdW_3oQFO0c?t=42
    - goatcode 4y ago
      Be that as it may, that wasn't the point I was replying to.
      - scoopertrooper 4y ago
        Is not missiling into another person a form of externality?
        goatcode 4y ago
        Perhaps, but that's not what the comment was addressing. If it were, your point would not address living after having become a missile.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I would say we generally do exactly that, when the threshold is significant enough and it's a behavior that has no beneficial/ safe level (we tax and restrict cigarettes heavily, but not so much overconsumption of food etc. Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles).
    - goatcode 4y ago
      >Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles This is my point: we pick and choose, and we're subject to the whims of society, when it comes to what we deem unacceptable. Citing a collective norm that potentially could have been influenced by societal ebbs and flows is not an objective argument, ever.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Absolutely - regulation is hard. I wonder if there are successful instances of government using big-data/ML to determine where, when and in what manner it makes sense to apply it. And would people vote for governments that relied solely on that for what legislation to enact...
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Generally yes. That’s why sugar taxes are needed and popular with economists.
    - goatcode 4y ago
      What would you say should be the threshold for increased mortality that would subject a given behavior to heavy taxation and regulation?
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Cyclists take note.
  - californical 4y ago
    Riding a bicycle is incredibly safe. It’s cars that are dangerous, around bicyclists and pedestrians alike (and even other car drivers).
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Bicycle deaths per mi is like 6x of cars. Maybe bicycling around cars is a big reason for that, but we're measuring against the reality there is not the world we want to move towards. I'd say bicycling should be outlawed before driving without a seatbelt is (although I'd prefer both be legal). https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901....
      - californical 4y ago
        I think that alternatively, considering how approximately every death of a bicyclist or pedestrian, or car driver, is all caused by someone driving an enormous 5,000lb machine irresponsibly, we should redesign our cities in such a way that most people don’t need to drive those cars in the first place for most trips. And if you do need to drive a car, you have much less congested and smaller streets for those trips. That also allows us to repurpose some of that road space that’s not needed anymore, for separate bike and bus infrastructure that will also be more convenient and safer for everyone. I don’t want to live in a world where you have to own a giant dangerous $20k machine just to move around, when there are cheaper, safer, healthier, and better-for-the-environment ways to accomplish the same thing. And I drive too, a lot! I just don’t want to be forced to anymore, but we’ve kinda built society so that you only have one option, and it creates all sorts of problems.
        notch656a 4y ago
        That sounds pretty nice to me. There's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation here IMO. We should privatize all the roads and let the free market dictate what people like, and I think a lot of people would fall back to bicycles and walking more if they actually had to pay private tolls wherever they drove.
- Fricken 4y ago
  Everybody is entitled to one free death.
wizofaus 4y ago
Aside from the fact your own death is always going to impose a cost on society, I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision, reducing your chance of injuring others (both in and outside said vehicle).
- WalterBright 4y ago
  You have a right to be stupid, even if it results in your death. > I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision Not a chance. The g forces are tremendous, and you're just along for the ride in a collision. In my major accident, I had a lap belt on, but my arms and legs and torso flung about totally out of my control.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    In my own accident, despite being slammed against the driver's door by the impact, I was able to keep my foot stabbed onto the brake pedal throughout the event thanks to the belt keeping me more or less in the driver's seat.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      There's no doubt that the belt played a role in reducing your injuries.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        But you'd then argue being able to keep your foot on the brake doesn't help your chances of avoiding causing injury/death to others?
        WalterBright 4y ago
        If you're hit from the side, you were already traveling forward.
kyleamazza 4y ago
Because your body tumbling around in your car during a crash can kill passengers, or be catapulted onto the street causing another accident/injury from someone trying to avoid it
nextstepguy 4y ago
Because if you don't kill yourself, insurance will care footing the bill to send you to the hospital. Maybe insurances shouldn't cover people without seatbelts and have the ambulance let them be injured at the scene.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Frankly, if the injured person wasn't wearing a belt, I wouldn't award him medical damages regardless of who was at fault in the collision.
- bhahn 4y ago
  I would imagine that most auto insurance policies require seatbelts (under some general safety baseline provision) for coverage to be valid.
fumeux_fume 4y ago
Believe it or not, cleaning dead bodies off the road everyday has a cost.
- powerhour 4y ago
  A cost borne by others, in fact.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Forcing manufacturers to put in a seatbelt in cars is a cost born by others for something many of them never wanted, forced on them by people who legislate not only having seat belts in their own car but installed in every car.
GLGirty 4y ago
In the linked article, Strong Towns doesn't say much about the nature of these deaths, but in other articles, (e.g. below) they explore how many of these killings are vehicle-on-pedestrian deaths, and how we've normalized blaming victims. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/14/new-report-americas-epidemic-of-traffic-deaths-is-getting-worse https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/14/new-report-ame...
mauvehaus 4y ago
First, you're welcome to move to New Hampshire if you feel this way and drive around with your seatbelt unbuckled. You're also welcome to ride your motorcycle without a helmet there. Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as possible until it comes to a complete stop. If the first impact of a crash throws you out of the position required to drive the car, you're no longer capable of controlling the vehicle in such a way that reduces the severity of or prevents further impacts. As some of these further impacts stand to involve persons not involved in the initial impact, it follows that wearing a seatbelt stands to protect them as well as you. Third, We are in absolute agreement that DUI should be treated more seriously.
- ghastmaster 4y ago
  > Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as possible... I largely agree with this sentiment, however, practically speaking I doubt it matters much. Any impact hard enough to significantly displace you would likely render you useless at operating the vehicle if you are wearing a seatbelt. The forces at work during crashes are stronger that most people realize. I read hundreds of traffic accident reports every day. If you must traverse the roads, wear your seatbelt, don't ride a motorcycle, and avoid excessive speeds. A large portion of the reports I see with deaths are single vehicle excessive speed loss of control, with a significant portion of those not wearing their seatbelts. Driving is dangerous. Stay safe.
seabea 4y ago
If your accident involves more than one vehicle, the other driver shouldn't need to live with your death on their conscience (as it would for most people, regardless of whether or not they were at fault).
SheetPost 4y ago
your body yeeted out of the car makes an even bigger mess and could hurt/kill sb. so wear your damn seatbelt
vel0city 4y ago
Who cares? Loads of people. My wife lost a coworker from an auto accident, one that they probably would have survived had they been wearing their seatbelt. She was a single parent to a small child. Losing his mom at such a young age probably made a big difference to him. It probably had significant impact on her mom, who now has a complicated custody battle with an abusive deadbeat dad and massively different life having to try and take care of her grandson. She had a lot of friends, I'm sure they cared about her. My wife cared about her. My wife's other coworkers also cared. Its incredible how selfish so many people are on this site. Is there nobody you care about?
- notch656a 4y ago
  Won't someone think of the children?

Who cares if you kill yourself through your own negligence? There shouldn't be a fine at all for seatbelts. DUI, OTOH, should be treated even more harshly than it is.

greedo 4y ago

Because your death becomes an externality that others have to pay for.

goatcode 4y ago
Should we treat all behaviors that are associated with a significantly increased mortality rate the same way, or should we pick and choose depending on the political and social context at the time, like we do with seatbelts?
- scoopertrooper 4y ago
  Few other behaviors associated with increase mortality can also turn you into a missile. https://youtu.be/bdW_3oQFO0c?t=42 https://youtu.be/bdW_3oQFO0c?t=42
  - goatcode 4y ago
    Be that as it may, that wasn't the point I was replying to.
    - scoopertrooper 4y ago
      Is not missiling into another person a form of externality?
      - goatcode 4y ago
        Perhaps, but that's not what the comment was addressing. If it were, your point would not address living after having become a missile.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I would say we generally do exactly that, when the threshold is significant enough and it's a behavior that has no beneficial/ safe level (we tax and restrict cigarettes heavily, but not so much overconsumption of food etc. Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles).
  - goatcode 4y ago
    >Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles This is my point: we pick and choose, and we're subject to the whims of society, when it comes to what we deem unacceptable. Citing a collective norm that potentially could have been influenced by societal ebbs and flows is not an objective argument, ever.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Absolutely - regulation is hard. I wonder if there are successful instances of government using big-data/ML to determine where, when and in what manner it makes sense to apply it. And would people vote for governments that relied solely on that for what legislation to enact...
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Generally yes. That’s why sugar taxes are needed and popular with economists.
  - goatcode 4y ago
    What would you say should be the threshold for increased mortality that would subject a given behavior to heavy taxation and regulation?
SoftTalker 4y ago
Cyclists take note.
- californical 4y ago
  Riding a bicycle is incredibly safe. It’s cars that are dangerous, around bicyclists and pedestrians alike (and even other car drivers).
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Bicycle deaths per mi is like 6x of cars. Maybe bicycling around cars is a big reason for that, but we're measuring against the reality there is not the world we want to move towards. I'd say bicycling should be outlawed before driving without a seatbelt is (although I'd prefer both be legal). https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901....
    - californical 4y ago
      I think that alternatively, considering how approximately every death of a bicyclist or pedestrian, or car driver, is all caused by someone driving an enormous 5,000lb machine irresponsibly, we should redesign our cities in such a way that most people don’t need to drive those cars in the first place for most trips. And if you do need to drive a car, you have much less congested and smaller streets for those trips. That also allows us to repurpose some of that road space that’s not needed anymore, for separate bike and bus infrastructure that will also be more convenient and safer for everyone. I don’t want to live in a world where you have to own a giant dangerous $20k machine just to move around, when there are cheaper, safer, healthier, and better-for-the-environment ways to accomplish the same thing. And I drive too, a lot! I just don’t want to be forced to anymore, but we’ve kinda built society so that you only have one option, and it creates all sorts of problems.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        That sounds pretty nice to me. There's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation here IMO. We should privatize all the roads and let the free market dictate what people like, and I think a lot of people would fall back to bicycles and walking more if they actually had to pay private tolls wherever they drove.
Fricken 4y ago
Everybody is entitled to one free death.

wizofaus 4y ago

Aside from the fact your own death is always going to impose a cost on society, I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision, reducing your chance of injuring others (both in and outside said vehicle).

WalterBright 4y ago
You have a right to be stupid, even if it results in your death. > I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision Not a chance. The g forces are tremendous, and you're just along for the ride in a collision. In my major accident, I had a lap belt on, but my arms and legs and torso flung about totally out of my control.
- Arrath 4y ago
  In my own accident, despite being slammed against the driver's door by the impact, I was able to keep my foot stabbed onto the brake pedal throughout the event thanks to the belt keeping me more or less in the driver's seat.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    There's no doubt that the belt played a role in reducing your injuries.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      But you'd then argue being able to keep your foot on the brake doesn't help your chances of avoiding causing injury/death to others?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        If you're hit from the side, you were already traveling forward.

kyleamazza 4y ago

Because your body tumbling around in your car during a crash can kill passengers, or be catapulted onto the street causing another accident/injury from someone trying to avoid it

nextstepguy 4y ago

Because if you don't kill yourself, insurance will care footing the bill to send you to the hospital. Maybe insurances shouldn't cover people without seatbelts and have the ambulance let them be injured at the scene.

WalterBright 4y ago
Frankly, if the injured person wasn't wearing a belt, I wouldn't award him medical damages regardless of who was at fault in the collision.
bhahn 4y ago
I would imagine that most auto insurance policies require seatbelts (under some general safety baseline provision) for coverage to be valid.

fumeux_fume 4y ago

Believe it or not, cleaning dead bodies off the road everyday has a cost.

powerhour 4y ago
A cost borne by others, in fact.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Forcing manufacturers to put in a seatbelt in cars is a cost born by others for something many of them never wanted, forced on them by people who legislate not only having seat belts in their own car but installed in every car.

GLGirty 4y ago

In the linked article, Strong Towns doesn't say much about the nature of these deaths, but in other articles, (e.g. below) they explore how many of these killings are vehicle-on-pedestrian deaths, and how we've normalized blaming victims. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/14/new-report-americas-epidemic-of-traffic-deaths-is-getting-worse https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/14/new-report-ame...

mauvehaus 4y ago

First, you're welcome to move to New Hampshire if you feel this way and drive around with your seatbelt unbuckled. You're also welcome to ride your motorcycle without a helmet there. Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as possible until it comes to a complete stop. If the first impact of a crash throws you out of the position required to drive the car, you're no longer capable of controlling the vehicle in such a way that reduces the severity of or prevents further impacts. As some of these further impacts stand to involve persons not involved in the initial impact, it follows that wearing a seatbelt stands to protect them as well as you. Third, We are in absolute agreement that DUI should be treated more seriously.

ghastmaster 4y ago
> Second, part of the purpose of the seatbelt is to keep you in the driving position for the entire duration of the crash so that you can maintain as much control of your vehicle as possible... I largely agree with this sentiment, however, practically speaking I doubt it matters much. Any impact hard enough to significantly displace you would likely render you useless at operating the vehicle if you are wearing a seatbelt. The forces at work during crashes are stronger that most people realize. I read hundreds of traffic accident reports every day. If you must traverse the roads, wear your seatbelt, don't ride a motorcycle, and avoid excessive speeds. A large portion of the reports I see with deaths are single vehicle excessive speed loss of control, with a significant portion of those not wearing their seatbelts. Driving is dangerous. Stay safe.

seabea 4y ago

If your accident involves more than one vehicle, the other driver shouldn't need to live with your death on their conscience (as it would for most people, regardless of whether or not they were at fault).

SheetPost 4y ago

your body yeeted out of the car makes an even bigger mess and could hurt/kill sb. so wear your damn seatbelt

vel0city 4y ago

Who cares? Loads of people. My wife lost a coworker from an auto accident, one that they probably would have survived had they been wearing their seatbelt. She was a single parent to a small child. Losing his mom at such a young age probably made a big difference to him. It probably had significant impact on her mom, who now has a complicated custody battle with an abusive deadbeat dad and massively different life having to try and take care of her grandson. She had a lot of friends, I'm sure they cared about her. My wife cared about her. My wife's other coworkers also cared. Its incredible how selfish so many people are on this site. Is there nobody you care about?

notch656a 4y ago
Won't someone think of the children?