3 ms·
Good. Now, we have an active act of non-compliance with an (hopefully? please?) existing law that forces you to buckle up. Let's start the fines with 1k and see
by sgift 11y ago
Good. Now, we have an active act of non-compliance with an (hopefully? please?) existing law that forces you to buckle up. Let's start the fines with 1k and see if this helps, if not, go up. Not buckling up is so insane, I cannot even begin to imagine it ..
- sukilot 11y agoFine someone for hurting themself? How nanny. Just note that negligence is liability for their injury medical costs.
- eropple 11y agoThis might be a surprise to you, just a touch, but liability for injury costs is effectively meaningless when you've killed someone.
- lotsofcows 11y agoYes, because people are so good at judging risk. Go on, say something using the word, "Darwin".
- learnstats2 11y agoGiven that person is only harming themselves, it's totalitarian to apply a fine here. If someone makes such a deliberate and conscious decision not to wear a seatbelt, maybe you could assume they have their own reason for that. It's not even clear that forcing people to wear a seatbelt saves lives. It may increase the risk to other people, if people are seeking out a level of risk that they're comfortable with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Risk_compensation
- DanBC 11y agoThey're not; they risk harming other people in the vehicle and there is extra effort to recover the injured body of someone from an RTA if that person wasn't wearing a seatbelt which puts emergency services at increased risk of harm.
- learnstats2 11y agoI'll repeat my point in your terms: By forcing people to wear the seatbelt, other risk-taking behaviour is increased, which appears to result in more RTAs. The evidence on either side is not enough to justify bankrupting fines.