4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNot 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 agoSeatbelts 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]