5 ms·

People are driving on public roads, using public first responders, being taken to the emergency room, etc. Not wearing a seatbelt costs society time and money.

jstanley 3y ago
Without regard to the merits of this particular case, in general, the offering of public services shouldn't be used as a pretext to infringe on freedoms.
- Schiendelman 3y ago
  When public services are offered on balance, neither infringement can be considered in isolation. You have to compare the two infringements (in this case seatbelt regulation vs hospital responsibilities). Fighting each absolutely can often result in more total infringement!
- WesternWind 3y ago
  The offering of public services would only be pretextual if it wasn't a genuine offer, right? So I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. Also public services are inherently shared services. The delay time and tax payer expense to individuals to have public employees to remove the dead bodies and broken windshields of folks who didn't wear seatbelts on the freeway is an imposition on the shared enjoyment of the freeway and on tax payer income. Likewise even assuming every injury were treatable, every person getting their thumb reattached or whatever because of a preventable injury means a doctor's time isn't available to treat other injuries that couldn't be prevented. uninsured individuals with these injuries also increase the cost of insurance (one of multiple reasons why our medical costs in the US are higher per capita). Nor is every injury treatable to that extent. Bet setting that aside, if you really want the freedom to cut off your own fingers accidentally, I bet all the dangerous tablesaws that currently exist will become available at garage sales or whatever very cheaply, so the frugal consumer still wins. Arguably gives a whole new meaning to five finger discount.
- uoaei 3y ago
  People's actions have impact on the ability of public services to function. Do you think parking a semi trailer in front of the ER is a "freedom" worth defending? What kinds of deterrence or punishment is appropriate?
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  Your right to buy a massive truck for driving two miles to your office job without a reversing camera infringes on the right if my three year old kid to live when you back up out of a parking space and can’t see behind the massive and oddly clean truck bed. Similarly, you aren’t the only one that gets to use your car. Assuming you have friends, they might like a lift from you and not risk their lives doing so because you choose FREEDOM! over seat belts. Or the friends of your kid that you drive to soccer practice. Their mums and dads would like the freedom to have their kids reach adulthood. We live in a society. We’re not Doctor Manhattan floating above the surface of Mars in perfect solipsistic isolation. It’s not about the government. It’s about your friends, family, neighbours, and community… all of whom are represented by the government.
  - starfleet_bop 3y ago
    The safety of your three year old child is your responsibility. If your child is run over then it’s due to your lack of adequate supervision in the face of lack of capability of the child to avoid the accident and/or education of not to stand in the way of moving vehicles.
    - jiggawatts 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - lovich 3y ago
      Where exactly would you draw the line where responsibility would lay on this hypothetical car driver if even running over a child would be someone else’s fault? That’s a legitimate question. Does it need malicious intent otherwise it’s up to everyone to protect themselves from others and no one has a responsibility to mitigate harm?
ImJamal 3y ago
[flagged]
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  Show me the cost-benefit analysis that a lack of bubble wrap is causing a huge number of ER visits and amputations every year, and we'll talk.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    Since nobody walks around in bubble wrap I don't think there would be any existing cost-benefit analyses. I was using bubble wrap as a joke thing more than an actual suggestion. My point is, just because something would lower the number of costs to society doesn't mean we should start mandating it. An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles.
    - A1kmm 3y ago
      > An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles. That's potentially a bad example. The largest cause of mortality (or lost quality-adjusted life years - QALY) is from cardiovascular events, and those events are inversely correlated to physical activity levels. Cycling is physical activity, and helmet laws, where passed, have typically coincided with a marked decrease in cycling. Under some reasonable assumptions, helmet laws cause less cycling, which causes less physical activity in the population, which causes more cardiovascular events, and the overall negative QALY impact outweighs the relatively small positive impact from fewer head injuries (especially compared to government pro-helmet safety messaging that has been optimised to minimise cycling deterrence while increasing helmet uptake as an alternative policy).
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Cardiovascular disease imposes costs society, both direct costs through the medical system, and opportunity cost in lost taxes when workers die. If we apply the logic above, those costs provide justification for mandating and criminalizing diet and exercise.
ein0p 3y ago
You are aware that “first responders” send you a bill after you use their services, right? And that’s in addition to taxes and levies that fund them in the first place. I don’t mind the seat belts of course, but let’s not pretend that all of that is free of charge to begin with. Besides, first responders will likely need to be there anyway in most situations where a seatbelt would save your life.
- streb-lo 3y ago
  In a lot of countries there is no bill, it's all paid for by taxes. Which is why seatbelt mandates make sense, they reduce the cost for everyone.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  Doesn't using seatbelts still reduce cost then, as it can prevent you from having to pay for first responders?
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  In the US that bill is typically paid for by insurance, which means that, even if your neighbor needs the ambulance, you're paying for it in the awkwardly socialized form of raised premiums or perhaps even more awkwardly removed: lower direct compensation due to employer provided health care comprising a larger share of your total comp.
- ipqk 3y ago
  Who do I send the bill to when I'm stuck in traffic for 2 hours waiting for them to mop up the ejected person?
cm2187 3y ago
You could argue the same about people playing sports instead of safely exercising in a gym. And what about those consuming drugs? An argument to ban all drugs. If that's the standard there are a ton of activities you will curb or ban.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  We have required safety gear to participate in most sports leagues too…
  - onedognight 3y ago
    These rules are sponsored by “Big Shin-guard” and everybody knows it.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    By law?
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      Well you won’t be allowed to participate, and could be trespassed if you refuse to follow the rules… so kinda
      - jtbayly 3y ago
        That's not remotely "by law." If I could start a league tomorrow where shin-guards were optional, would the police come knocking or not? If not, there's no law. There's private rules. The whole question under debate is whether actual laws are necessary for this situation. I fail to see how appealing to voluntary association rules have any bearing on the question.
        dghlsakjg 3y ago
        You wouldn’t be allowed to use public fields without insurance, and no one is going to insure you if your whole thing is “no safety gear”. So you would have to use a private field. So the practical effect is identical to seatbelts; you can absolutely operate without seatbelts/shin guards, but only in completely private facilities.
lokar 3y ago
Easy compromise: if you die without a seatbelt (or helmet for a motorcycle) you are considered to have fully donated your remains for medical and scientific use, no opt-out or exceptions.
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  Dying from a crash doesn't mean you don't put pressure on social services. You could die at the scene (first responders and paramedics still), on the way to the hospital, upon arrival, or hours or even days after. This does nothing to alleviate those pressures and the number of organs that are useful for transplant after a violent crash (that kills the occupant!) is basically zero.
  - lokar 3y ago
    It’s mostly head trauma is both cases, the kidneys should be fine
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
Unless done alone in a windowless, lead-sealed basement, almost anything we do affects others. It's too easy to take away freedom that way. I wear seatbelts; I could understand insurance contracts not covering costs if the insured didn't wear a seatbelt; but I don't think government should mandate it. I'm not anti-regulation; I agree with the table saw safety requirement.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  It's not only your life at risk. A British road safety advert: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE https://youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    As I said, everything we do affects others. That can't be the sole basis.
bee_rider 3y ago
I don’t think that’s why we mandated seatbelts. I don’t see any particular reason to believe either way, that seatbelts save money or cost it—if people die quickly they don’t cost the medical system much at all. I think we mandated seatbelts because they prevent tragic deaths and cost almost nothing to manufacture. Sometimes we actually do impose on people’s liberty in the interest of preventing them from doing something stupid, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise. I mean, if we did look up the data and found that they actually do end up costing more, would you be in favor of banning seatbelts? I certainly wouldn’t!
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    What is? My post? Double check it, I haven’t claimed to have any evidence, and I’m saying that the life-saving aspect is sufficient to mandate seatbelts.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Just because society chooses to voluntarily take on a responsibility does not/should not give it the power to mitigate it. The cost to society is voluntary and self imposed. I can't unilaterally decide to pay for you and then use that to impose whatever rules I want on you.
nitwit005 3y ago
You're not wrong, but this is also an argument that you shouldn't ever be allowed to do anything dangerous or risky. We allow all sorts of dangerous activities with the same problems. If we're worried about the rescue and medical costs, we should definitely ban skiing, skydiving, climbing, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

jstanley 3y ago

Without regard to the merits of this particular case, in general, the offering of public services shouldn't be used as a pretext to infringe on freedoms.

Schiendelman 3y ago
When public services are offered on balance, neither infringement can be considered in isolation. You have to compare the two infringements (in this case seatbelt regulation vs hospital responsibilities). Fighting each absolutely can often result in more total infringement!
WesternWind 3y ago
The offering of public services would only be pretextual if it wasn't a genuine offer, right? So I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. Also public services are inherently shared services. The delay time and tax payer expense to individuals to have public employees to remove the dead bodies and broken windshields of folks who didn't wear seatbelts on the freeway is an imposition on the shared enjoyment of the freeway and on tax payer income. Likewise even assuming every injury were treatable, every person getting their thumb reattached or whatever because of a preventable injury means a doctor's time isn't available to treat other injuries that couldn't be prevented. uninsured individuals with these injuries also increase the cost of insurance (one of multiple reasons why our medical costs in the US are higher per capita). Nor is every injury treatable to that extent. Bet setting that aside, if you really want the freedom to cut off your own fingers accidentally, I bet all the dangerous tablesaws that currently exist will become available at garage sales or whatever very cheaply, so the frugal consumer still wins. Arguably gives a whole new meaning to five finger discount.
uoaei 3y ago
People's actions have impact on the ability of public services to function. Do you think parking a semi trailer in front of the ER is a "freedom" worth defending? What kinds of deterrence or punishment is appropriate?
jiggawatts 3y ago
Your right to buy a massive truck for driving two miles to your office job without a reversing camera infringes on the right if my three year old kid to live when you back up out of a parking space and can’t see behind the massive and oddly clean truck bed. Similarly, you aren’t the only one that gets to use your car. Assuming you have friends, they might like a lift from you and not risk their lives doing so because you choose FREEDOM! over seat belts. Or the friends of your kid that you drive to soccer practice. Their mums and dads would like the freedom to have their kids reach adulthood. We live in a society. We’re not Doctor Manhattan floating above the surface of Mars in perfect solipsistic isolation. It’s not about the government. It’s about your friends, family, neighbours, and community… all of whom are represented by the government.
- starfleet_bop 3y ago
  The safety of your three year old child is your responsibility. If your child is run over then it’s due to your lack of adequate supervision in the face of lack of capability of the child to avoid the accident and/or education of not to stand in the way of moving vehicles.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - lovich 3y ago
    Where exactly would you draw the line where responsibility would lay on this hypothetical car driver if even running over a child would be someone else’s fault? That’s a legitimate question. Does it need malicious intent otherwise it’s up to everyone to protect themselves from others and no one has a responsibility to mitigate harm?

ImJamal 3y ago

[flagged]

marcus0x62 3y ago
Show me the cost-benefit analysis that a lack of bubble wrap is causing a huge number of ER visits and amputations every year, and we'll talk.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  Since nobody walks around in bubble wrap I don't think there would be any existing cost-benefit analyses. I was using bubble wrap as a joke thing more than an actual suggestion. My point is, just because something would lower the number of costs to society doesn't mean we should start mandating it. An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles.
  - A1kmm 3y ago
    > An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles. That's potentially a bad example. The largest cause of mortality (or lost quality-adjusted life years - QALY) is from cardiovascular events, and those events are inversely correlated to physical activity levels. Cycling is physical activity, and helmet laws, where passed, have typically coincided with a marked decrease in cycling. Under some reasonable assumptions, helmet laws cause less cycling, which causes less physical activity in the population, which causes more cardiovascular events, and the overall negative QALY impact outweighs the relatively small positive impact from fewer head injuries (especially compared to government pro-helmet safety messaging that has been optimised to minimise cycling deterrence while increasing helmet uptake as an alternative policy).
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Cardiovascular disease imposes costs society, both direct costs through the medical system, and opportunity cost in lost taxes when workers die. If we apply the logic above, those costs provide justification for mandating and criminalizing diet and exercise.

ein0p 3y ago

You are aware that “first responders” send you a bill after you use their services, right? And that’s in addition to taxes and levies that fund them in the first place. I don’t mind the seat belts of course, but let’s not pretend that all of that is free of charge to begin with. Besides, first responders will likely need to be there anyway in most situations where a seatbelt would save your life.

streb-lo 3y ago
In a lot of countries there is no bill, it's all paid for by taxes. Which is why seatbelt mandates make sense, they reduce the cost for everyone.
LoganDark 3y ago
Doesn't using seatbelts still reduce cost then, as it can prevent you from having to pay for first responders?
spywaregorilla 3y ago
In the US that bill is typically paid for by insurance, which means that, even if your neighbor needs the ambulance, you're paying for it in the awkwardly socialized form of raised premiums or perhaps even more awkwardly removed: lower direct compensation due to employer provided health care comprising a larger share of your total comp.
ipqk 3y ago
Who do I send the bill to when I'm stuck in traffic for 2 hours waiting for them to mop up the ejected person?

cm2187 3y ago

You could argue the same about people playing sports instead of safely exercising in a gym. And what about those consuming drugs? An argument to ban all drugs. If that's the standard there are a ton of activities you will curb or ban.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
We have required safety gear to participate in most sports leagues too…
- onedognight 3y ago
  These rules are sponsored by “Big Shin-guard” and everybody knows it.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  By law?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Well you won’t be allowed to participate, and could be trespassed if you refuse to follow the rules… so kinda
    - jtbayly 3y ago
      That's not remotely "by law." If I could start a league tomorrow where shin-guards were optional, would the police come knocking or not? If not, there's no law. There's private rules. The whole question under debate is whether actual laws are necessary for this situation. I fail to see how appealing to voluntary association rules have any bearing on the question.
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        You wouldn’t be allowed to use public fields without insurance, and no one is going to insure you if your whole thing is “no safety gear”. So you would have to use a private field. So the practical effect is identical to seatbelts; you can absolutely operate without seatbelts/shin guards, but only in completely private facilities.

lokar 3y ago

Easy compromise: if you die without a seatbelt (or helmet for a motorcycle) you are considered to have fully donated your remains for medical and scientific use, no opt-out or exceptions.

llbeansandrice 3y ago
Dying from a crash doesn't mean you don't put pressure on social services. You could die at the scene (first responders and paramedics still), on the way to the hospital, upon arrival, or hours or even days after. This does nothing to alleviate those pressures and the number of organs that are useful for transplant after a violent crash (that kills the occupant!) is basically zero.
- lokar 3y ago
  It’s mostly head trauma is both cases, the kidneys should be fine
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 3y ago

Unless done alone in a windowless, lead-sealed basement, almost anything we do affects others. It's too easy to take away freedom that way. I wear seatbelts; I could understand insurance contracts not covering costs if the insured didn't wear a seatbelt; but I don't think government should mandate it. I'm not anti-regulation; I agree with the table saw safety requirement.

Symbiote 3y ago
It's not only your life at risk. A British road safety advert: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE https://youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
- wolverine876 3y ago
  As I said, everything we do affects others. That can't be the sole basis.

bee_rider 3y ago

I don’t think that’s why we mandated seatbelts. I don’t see any particular reason to believe either way, that seatbelts save money or cost it—if people die quickly they don’t cost the medical system much at all. I think we mandated seatbelts because they prevent tragic deaths and cost almost nothing to manufacture. Sometimes we actually do impose on people’s liberty in the interest of preventing them from doing something stupid, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise. I mean, if we did look up the data and found that they actually do end up costing more, would you be in favor of banning seatbelts? I certainly wouldn’t!

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
[flagged]
- bee_rider 3y ago
  What is? My post? Double check it, I haven’t claimed to have any evidence, and I’m saying that the life-saving aspect is sufficient to mandate seatbelts.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Just because society chooses to voluntarily take on a responsibility does not/should not give it the power to mitigate it. The cost to society is voluntary and self imposed. I can't unilaterally decide to pay for you and then use that to impose whatever rules I want on you.

nitwit005 3y ago

You're not wrong, but this is also an argument that you shouldn't ever be allowed to do anything dangerous or risky. We allow all sorts of dangerous activities with the same problems. If we're worried about the rescue and medical costs, we should definitely ban skiing, skydiving, climbing, etc.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]