3 ms·
It's all about reasonable safety balanced with freedom. Wearing a seatbelt keeps people a lot safer and has a really low cost in terms of impinging on freedom.
by TrevorJ 11y ago
It's all about reasonable safety balanced with freedom. Wearing a seatbelt keeps people a lot safer and has a really low cost in terms of impinging on freedom.
There's no equivalent on a motorcycle that checks both those boxes other than the helmet laws we already have in many places.
There's no inconsistency here, it's the same philosophy but the outcomes are different because the situations are different.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago>Wearing a seatbelt keeps people a lot safer and has a really low cost in terms of impinging on freedom. I don't agree with that at all. There are too many opportunities for police to stop motorists, which they use to pivot and further impinge upon peoples' freedom. It is a common tactic for police to stop motorists for any of a number of reasons such as this reason as a tactic to initiate a search of their vehicle, and record the identities of driver and passengers. I am glad that cars are equipped with seat belts, and of course it is wise to use them; but I disagree that the state has much or any legitimacy in stopping a motorist who was causing no negative effect on other motorists simply because their seat belt was not visible. At its worst (and commonly) the seat belt requirement is abused by greedy entities to drum up extra revenue to which they would otherwise not be entitled.
- TrevorJ 11y agoI see what you are driving at and I agree, the laws do get abused. I think though, you may be slightly misunderstanding my point: Wearing a seatbelt doesn't significantly reduce your freedom in any real way. It's not hard to comply with the law, it doesn't cost you time or money and it doesn't effect any of our other freedoms significantly. To your point though: NOT wearing your belt is something that can land you in situations that put you at risk of abuse to your freedoms.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago>Wearing a seatbelt doesn't significantly reduce your freedom in any real way. I agree. I wear my seat belt. I think it is foolish not to do so. I also think it is a driver's right to decide that; and that a driver's failure to wear the seat belt does not harm others in any appreciable way. It's also not a requirement to fail to wear your seat belt in order for an officer to stop you, s/he only needs to fail to notice your seat belt.
- widowlark 11y agoBut are you taking into account the actual safety reasons for seatbelts? thousands of peoples lives are saved every day by a low-cost belt. Can you think of a better way to do this than the current solution?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoYou can extend this argument to the size of your soft drink, the amount of sugar in your diet, the amount of exercise you get. The right to be left alone when you aren't bothering others, and the right to self determination are more important than your right to save other peoples' lives by the threat of fines and arrest. Even for fools who don't wear their seat belts.
- widowlark 11y agoWell at least we can agree that seatbelts should be mandatory for automakers to provide, rather than require people to wear them. I see your point.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago>seatbelts should be mandatory for automakers to provide Absolutely. Such an inexpensive piece of safety equipment.