5 ms·
If that's the justification, then shouldn't the law only apply to the driver and not the passengers?
by sparky_z 11y ago
If that's the justification, then shouldn't the law only apply to the driver and not the passengers?
- loco5niner 11y agoHere's an argument for that: Just like the car can become an unguided missile endangering others, an unseat-belted passenger can become an unguided missile endangering fellow passengers/driver.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoAre we going to legislate that all of the potatoes in the back seat are secured against becoming missiles as well?
- loco5niner 11y agoHardly a worthy comparison. How about this comparison instead? If I were to transport my 25 lb kettle-bell, you can bet it will go in the trunk, legislation or not.
- rakk 11y agoUnless one of the passengers knocks out the driver while bouncing around in the car.. The argument mentioned by tghw is the only reason I agree with the law on this point. Considering law's meant to protect people from themselves (and only themselves) in general I'd pick freedom over mandatory safety any day.
- base698 11y agoBecause it's easy to continue to pilot the vehicle after your friend smashes into and breaks both your arms?
- mod 11y agoThe law sometimes does apply only to the driver--I think that was labeled in an image in the article, in fact. At the very least, it does not apply to riders in the back seat very often.