5 ms·

Jillette even called out seatbelts seemingly as something he believes should be personal choice rather than mandated - in an "it affects the person making the c

Jillette even called out seatbelts seemingly as something he believes should be personal choice rather than mandated - in an "it affects the person making the choice, it doesn't affect other people" way. I might be on a bit of a stretch here, but the after-effects of a car crash involving people not wearing seatbelts could be quite a fair bit worse for witnesses and bystanders than if seatbelts were worn. Being at fault for a car crash where someone is killed because they weren't wearing their seatbelt will weigh psychologically no matter the logic. First responders dealing with a non-seatbelted puddle of recently-functioning-human. Public roads are public. To the nth degree, however, everything is interconnected, so everything we do can affect everyone else. Government gets the (what should be) unenviable job of choosing where to draw that line.

em-bee 3y ago
also healthcare cost if you do survive, or social security for those left behind. it's the same thing with smoking. even ignoring how it affects bystanders it does raise the cost of healthcare
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency. Every single choice is a choice someone else can say had an adverse impact on others. For the public good, it's valid to have the regulations that say the manufacturer must include seat belts and that they must actually meet a testing standard, and even that kids and others who are not responsible for themselves must be protected from the random judgement of parents until the kids reach an age of taking over responsibility for themselves. But that's it. There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous to everyone outside the car, similar to how bicycle helmets have an element of actually increased risk from a reduction in care taken by both cyclists and drivers.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    If I do not have the liberty to fly torpedo-like through the rear window of a car that I’ve slammed into at speed can it be said that I have any liberty at all?
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      Because (I think) it's a great song and because there may be precious few songs appropriate as response to this comment, and because I'll take any opportunity to introduce people to the genius of MC 900ft Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo "he wasn't one to sacrific torque or horsepower for easy starts or other such petty concenrs" "an impossible arc across the night sky"
      - defrost 3y ago
        On a related tangent of cars, windshields and songs within a radio play from the 1970's [sfx: frogs, Eartha Kitt on the radio] I was just waking up when the front tyre went. At the same time a horse appeared, the headlights blew and the horizon came through the windshield. I kissed Ertha Kitt and left the road like a jumbo jet diving into a swamp. Some time later I regained a level of consciousness more ugly than the one I just left. I'd seen some strange movies on the insides of my eyelids again and now I was wide awake. https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html
  - em-bee 3y ago
    Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency my liberty ends where your liberty starts. as far as i know new zealand is phasing out smoking completely There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous that can be measured and policy be changed accordingly. personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it.
    - chucksta 3y ago
      >my liberty ends where your liberty starts. >i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it. To your point, who cares about the justification to your liberties? I drive. Yours end where mine start.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        who cares about the justification how about the car accident statistics? or this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 but what i was trying to point out is that not having a car does not reduce your liberty to move around. it actually increases it. now you can argue the specifics, but you can't argue that without a car your general freedom to move around is reduced. because it isn't. (unless of course you make up some specific example that probably does not apply to the majority of the population. i am sure, for any specific case that you can come up with we can find a workable solution. being that there are cars for rent for the few cases that you need one or something else)
    - riskable 3y ago
      > personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. This stance intrigues me. I'm curious how much it would cost--economically--to provide every citizen in the US (or even just a single state) with public transport. I'm not so sure it would be more beneficial--macroeconomically--than letting everyone own their own car. The biggest problem being that, unless you live in a densely-populated area that was planned with public transport in mind, you're going to have a whole lot of people spending a ton of time waiting (e.g. for the bus). And all that time spent waiting is going to have negative economic side effects similar to the negative consequences of people being stuck in traffic. Something like a free or low-cost, government-run taxi service might work if carpooling was implemented via a decent traveling salesman algorithm but I've never heard of anyone even proposing such a thing. It certainly would make a lot of sense with self-driving, electric vehicles though.
johngladtj 3y ago
That argument only works if you're actually measuring those effects and those are the only effects impacting the decision to make it mandatory or not, and those effects are more negatively impactful than other effects caused by other things. In other words, if you want to make seatbelts mandatory as a result of that reasoning, you must first: - set a threshold for impact that is applicable to everything - demonstrate that you are applying the threshold everywhere (and not just arbitrarily) - demonstrate that the effects you mention exist - that the effects are more impactful than the threshold - that there is no other way to reduce the impact below the threshold without such a mandate (or that the mandate is the least oppressive way to do it) Sadly, none of this has been done, so there is no justification for the mandate
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Not disagreeing, but that's true for any political decision ever, unfortunately that includes the "sadly, none of this has been done" statement as well. Writing the above has distilled a previously nebulous feeling: Politics is emotion, not facts.
- tzs 3y ago
  Seatbelts also make it easier to maintain control during a sudden sharp swerve, which can reduce the chances that a sudden swerve to avoid something in your lane will turn into an out of control excursion into other lanes. That's probably sufficient to justify a mandate for the driver and possibly front seat passengers (since a sharp swerve toward the passenger side could cause an unbelted front seat passenger to hit the driver).
- mcv 3y ago
  [dead]

em-bee 3y ago

also healthcare cost if you do survive, or social security for those left behind. it's the same thing with smoking. even ignoring how it affects bystanders it does raise the cost of healthcare

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency. Every single choice is a choice someone else can say had an adverse impact on others. For the public good, it's valid to have the regulations that say the manufacturer must include seat belts and that they must actually meet a testing standard, and even that kids and others who are not responsible for themselves must be protected from the random judgement of parents until the kids reach an age of taking over responsibility for themselves. But that's it. There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous to everyone outside the car, similar to how bicycle helmets have an element of actually increased risk from a reduction in care taken by both cyclists and drivers.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  If I do not have the liberty to fly torpedo-like through the rear window of a car that I’ve slammed into at speed can it be said that I have any liberty at all?
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    Because (I think) it's a great song and because there may be precious few songs appropriate as response to this comment, and because I'll take any opportunity to introduce people to the genius of MC 900ft Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugb5aGZbEo "he wasn't one to sacrific torque or horsepower for easy starts or other such petty concenrs" "an impossible arc across the night sky"
    - defrost 3y ago
      On a related tangent of cars, windshields and songs within a radio play from the 1970's [sfx: frogs, Eartha Kitt on the radio] I was just waking up when the front tyre went. At the same time a horse appeared, the headlights blew and the horizon came through the windshield. I kissed Ertha Kitt and left the road like a jumbo jet diving into a swamp. Some time later I regained a level of consciousness more ugly than the one I just left. I'd seen some strange movies on the insides of my eyelids again and now I was wide awake. https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 https://youtu.be/t5o-AxAlHYM?t=60 http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html http://www.simonrumble.com/psychedelicatessen/rangoon.html
- em-bee 3y ago
  Those can't be arguments though because that removes all individual agency my liberty ends where your liberty starts. as far as i know new zealand is phasing out smoking completely There is even a possible argument that the feeling of safety given by a seatbelt makes drivers more dangerous that can be measured and policy be changed accordingly. personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it.
  - chucksta 3y ago
    >my liberty ends where your liberty starts. >i don't drive and the liberty i get from not having a car that i have to park somewhere is huge. better public transport would increase my liberty to move around even further. so this would not reduce my individual agency, but it would increase it. To your point, who cares about the justification to your liberties? I drive. Yours end where mine start.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      who cares about the justification how about the car accident statistics? or this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39191767 but what i was trying to point out is that not having a car does not reduce your liberty to move around. it actually increases it. now you can argue the specifics, but you can't argue that without a car your general freedom to move around is reduced. because it isn't. (unless of course you make up some specific example that probably does not apply to the majority of the population. i am sure, for any specific case that you can come up with we can find a workable solution. being that there are cars for rent for the few cases that you need one or something else)
  - riskable 3y ago
    > personally, i'd go as far as banning private car ownership. instead replace that with better public transport, and smaller mobility devices and taxis for the last mile. This stance intrigues me. I'm curious how much it would cost--economically--to provide every citizen in the US (or even just a single state) with public transport. I'm not so sure it would be more beneficial--macroeconomically--than letting everyone own their own car. The biggest problem being that, unless you live in a densely-populated area that was planned with public transport in mind, you're going to have a whole lot of people spending a ton of time waiting (e.g. for the bus). And all that time spent waiting is going to have negative economic side effects similar to the negative consequences of people being stuck in traffic. Something like a free or low-cost, government-run taxi service might work if carpooling was implemented via a decent traveling salesman algorithm but I've never heard of anyone even proposing such a thing. It certainly would make a lot of sense with self-driving, electric vehicles though.

johngladtj 3y ago

That argument only works if you're actually measuring those effects and those are the only effects impacting the decision to make it mandatory or not, and those effects are more negatively impactful than other effects caused by other things. In other words, if you want to make seatbelts mandatory as a result of that reasoning, you must first: - set a threshold for impact that is applicable to everything - demonstrate that you are applying the threshold everywhere (and not just arbitrarily) - demonstrate that the effects you mention exist - that the effects are more impactful than the threshold - that there is no other way to reduce the impact below the threshold without such a mandate (or that the mandate is the least oppressive way to do it) Sadly, none of this has been done, so there is no justification for the mandate

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Not disagreeing, but that's true for any political decision ever, unfortunately that includes the "sadly, none of this has been done" statement as well. Writing the above has distilled a previously nebulous feeling: Politics is emotion, not facts.
tzs 3y ago
Seatbelts also make it easier to maintain control during a sudden sharp swerve, which can reduce the chances that a sudden swerve to avoid something in your lane will turn into an out of control excursion into other lanes. That's probably sufficient to justify a mandate for the driver and possibly front seat passengers (since a sharp swerve toward the passenger side could cause an unbelted front seat passenger to hit the driver).
mcv 3y ago
[dead]