4 ms·
[From a NZ perspective] Except you don't live in a bubble. Fire fighters, ambulance staff, doctors, nurses etc have to pick you up in pieces and (hopefully) pu
by RowanH 3y ago
[From a NZ perspective]
Except you don't live in a bubble. Fire fighters, ambulance staff, doctors, nurses etc have to pick you up in pieces and (hopefully) put you back together. The PTSD alone from horrific accidents must be hell on first responders. Can't imagine if we went back to the dark ages and had no seat belts with the cars/speeds we do today.
So yeah on a closed area with no consequence (i.e. no one to rescue you) sure go for your life. But on a public road where people have no option but to rescue you if you fly through the windshield....
The taxpayers have to pay for your care. So it seems like a fair trade-off, if you're going use public roads, wear a seat belt.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LAC-Tech 3y agoWouldn't it tend to kill off the more reckless drivers though? People to cool to drive safely. Roads might end up being a lot safer.
- devmor 3y agoIf reckless people were always the victim of their own actions, and always the only victim, the world would already be a lot safer. As you can see, that is not the case.
- traviswt 3y agoNot only that, but people driving faster because they feel confident in their seat belts hurt other people to a greater degree since they're increasing their own kinetic energy. I think this is commonly called risk compensation, but I prefer the alternative name risk homeostasis [1]. On the flip side, when trucks hauling heavy, dangerous loads have a frontal collision, their loads go forward through the cab, killing the drivers instantly. Makes them think twice before speeding and tailgating. In an AI future, maybe we'll have cars that purposefully hurt drivers when the AI determines they're driving recklessly. Don't like it? Turn on autopilot. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
- LAC-Tech 3y agoI always truck drovers drove - on average - a lot better was because of the very direct impact losing their license would have on their livelihood. Even demerits could effect their work.
- bediger4000 3y agoIf there were a fixed amount of such drivers, sure. There's always people turning 16, though.
- ur-whale 3y ago[flagged]
- RandomLensman 3y agoSo, basically most countries are communist? Germany, UK, Switzerland, etc. Btw. was the US military draft communist?
- WheatMillington 3y agoAre you really trying to make the argument that America is a more free country than New Zealand? My kids get to have kinder surprise eggs, so there's that at least.
- viraptor 3y agoThere's potentially also the family that the disabled/dead person can't provide for anymore. There's a chance they would rely on government programs.
- dude187 3y agoSuch an argument needs to be rejected though, because it's effectively an open ended mandate to ban all unnecessary activities. "You can't skydive, because that has a risk of death, and therefore your kids might end up on welfare". It's a non sequitur.
- viraptor 3y agoThese are different kinds of activities though. You don't need to skydive to work. You don't have a choice between skydiving for groceries or someone else skydiving with them to your house. In many locations driving is not optional.
- stuaxo 3y agoTaken in isolation maybe, but in things aren't isolated they are in context. One bit of context: sky is a rare event, yet driving happens all the time.
- apollo_mojave 3y agoI'm not sure your post, while true, is responsive. Rules are naturally infringements on individual liberty. The question is, which rules can one justify? Put differently, when can the state limit individual liberty? And that naturally raises the question: why is it appropriate in some cases, and not in others? Your justification points to the consequences to the state in terms of economic cost and I suppose the psychological trauma suffered by emergency personnel. Let's push your logic further. I understand you're posting from NZ, and I'm posting from America, but we face a drastic obesity crisis here. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the main cause of obesity is overeating, and if we restricted the number of calories available to people we'd see a drastic decrease in healthcare costs and so forth. Should the state be allowed to control the food you eat, the number of calories you consume, etc.? If not, why not? Could the state make obese citizens go exercise at state run gyms? Or consider the effects of social media use on children. There is at this point pretty good evidence that social media use by teenagers, especially girls, leads to negative mental health outcomes (mood disorders like depression, etc.). Can the state limit the amount of time teenagers spend on tiktok or instagram? My point is, individual choices always have effects on society, insofar as any individual person is a member of a society. The fact that individual choices have negative effects on society broadly cannot itself justify regulating those choices. The justification for state power must be found elsewhere, imo.
- irdc 3y agoIt’s interesting to see the New Zealander making an argument based upon social responsibility and the American responding with an argument based upon individual liberty. I just wanted to share that observation.
- apollo_mojave 3y agoYeehaw :P