Seat Belt Laws

Quote:

---

It is illegal to parrachutte in most areas due to people on the ground, buildings, utilitie wires and the lies, so you don't hurt anyone or any thing. this is akin to the speed limit laws in my mind.

---

I would think this is mostly due to "Common Sense" then anything to do with the Gov't just saying no you can't do that, I know I wouldn't want the instructor to shove me out over..... say the Eiffel Tower :p

Quote:

---

does the government have the right to tell you that you have to be safe when it only affects yourself, and I feel that the shouldn't be able to.

---

Like I said earlier, to be allowed to drive is a "Privilege" not a right:

Quote:

---

privilege

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is an honour, or permissive activity granted by another person or even a government. A privilege is not a right and in some cases can be revoked. For example in most countries driving on publicly-maintained roads is a privilege, if one violates certain rules driving privileges can be revoked.

---

So if the law says you must, then you must, otherwise you give up your privilege to operate a vehicle, right or wrong the argument is moot.........."Buckle Up"

I am afraid that again I must go back to costs and the monetary aspect.

If injuries are more severe, then payouts must be larger so insurance premiums are higher, and that affects everyone, not just those who do not wear seatbelts.

I assume that the paramedics in the USA are a public service, funded by the taxpayer? or do they say "no insurance buddy? just lie there and die then"................somehow I think not.

Then there is the cost of investigating the accident, cost of autopsies etc...................all that is taxpayers' money?

Over here if we have an accident, and no-one is injured, all we have to do is exchange insurance details and get on with our lives. BUT as soon as someone is injured then the accident MUST be reported to the police and WILL be investigated at the taxpayers' expense. Failing to report such an accident is an offence in its own right.

We have had seatbelt laws for years now, and they seem to be very well complied with. Firstly because of the "contributory negligence doctrine" that our laws have, and secondly because if you are a known habitual offender you will be busted in rapid succession until you lose your drivers' licence for a year.

The only exceptions are vehicles that were manufactured before seatbelts. Now, if these are actually roadworthy they are worth a lot of money and are only driven on special occasions in rallies, shows or whatever, where the risk of accidents is negligible.

All studies and statistics indicate that seatbelts save lives and substantially reduce injuries. This reduces the burden on the state/taxpayer and the emergency services' resources. This is why most European countries enforce a law that seatbelts must be worn, even if it is only on roads outside urban speed restrictions.

:)

Quote:

---

I assume that the paramedics in the USA are a public service, funded by the taxpayer? or do they say "no insurance buddy? just lie there and die then"................somehow I think not.

---

Heh actualy not quite but close. If you don't have insurance then they will treat you anyway, but you will be paying for it. I am almost posative that paramedics here are not funded by the taxpayer. Perhaps there are some that are, kinda like a state school vs a private school, but thats not something i am well versed in.

Quote:

---

Firstly because of the "contributory negligence doctrine" that our laws have, and secondly because if you are a known habitual offender you will be busted in rapid succession until you lose your drivers' licence for a year.

---

Now this is something i would actually like to see here in the states. Even though i am not aware of any studies that have been done in this regard i would be willing to bet money that there is a very very strong cooralation between those who do not wear seatbelts regardless of the law and reall unsafe drivers. If the cops were to impliment something like this then maybe our roads would be a little safer. Its almost scary how many accidents and people pulled over i see on a daily bases while i drive to and from work.

Quote:

---

BUT as soon as someone is injured then the accident MUST be reported to the police and WILL be investigated at the taxpayers' expense.

---

Again im not posative but im pretty sure that this holds true here in the states as well. And while yes i agree that i would rather not have my tax monies spent on investigating stupid people doing stupid things, but the accident would have most likely happened regardless of seat belt status, so its really only an issue of how severe the investigation is, and therefore how costly, due to the lack of a seat belt vs if they had been wearing one.

However, with all the ways the our govnt is wasting our tax money i feel that overall the waste put into investigating in the above mentioned scenerio is not that big of a deal in the big picture.

Hi,

Quote:

---

so its really only an issue of how severe the investigation is, and therefore how costly, due to the lack of a seat belt vs if they had been wearing one.

---

The scenario I had in mind was where the seatbelts prevented any injury, so no investigation is required, and no paramedics.

I must comment that I have not heard of anyone complaining about seatbelts in years. Certainly the introduction of the dynamic variety that let you move around seems to have improved their acceptance.

Also, I have never heard anyone complain about airbags?

:)

Quote:

---

The scenario I had in mind was where the seatbelts prevented any injury, so no investigation is required, and no paramedics.

---

aahh that actually never crossed my mind, and is a damn good point.

Question for ya though. Around where i live even without any bodily injury if the damage of property total is over a certain amount, i believe its somehwere like 500 bucks, then you also still have to report it. does this hold true for your area?

The reason i bring this up is i was thinking that any accident at all that causes the set amount of damages or more will be investigated regardless of injury status, thereby making it a moot issue as to wether or not a seatbelt prevented an injury, of course the scope of said investigation would change depend on the severity of the accident. And since it is so easy to cause 500 dollars in damage, hell i can do that going 5 miles poer hour, i would hazard to say that any accident that needs reporting due to injury will require investigation regardless due to property damage.

Ah! that explains a lot!

Over here, the monetary value of property damage is irrelevant. The insurance companies sort that out and there is no burden on the taxpayer :) Only injury to people counts.

Incidentally you also have to report accidents involving dogs and farm animals as the owner is liable :) Typically you would insure your dog in the sum of £2million liability (£1 = $1.7)

:)

A tid-bit to chew on...

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outr...aws-states.htm
States With Primary Safety Belt Laws

even though it is not said...as I stated before...everyone under the age stated...eg. 4+...has to be buckled by law...this state to state comparison is only a reflection of mandatory seat-belt law above the mandatory child seat-belt law...

or, inotherwords, everyone under the age mentioned has to be buckled up!

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
[B]seat-belt law was instituted as a way to protect people from dumb-a@@es...as virtually all common laws are. Smart people do not need to be told to look both ways before they cross a street...dumb-a@@es do...smart people do not need to be told not to take a pi@@ outside of a elementary school...dumb-a@@es do...smart people do not need to be told not to use a cat as a football to see how far you can punt it...dumb-a@@es do...

---

I have to go with Kublikan on this one. There is a lesson to be had in Darwinism. There will always be the weak and foolish of a species, but perhaps we have so many human ones because we keep them alive? Cure the disease, not the symptom. Lol, I can be so cynical at times.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dalek
I think what most people tend to forget, (and this is going to get a few individuals riled up), but the act of being allowed to operate a vehicle is in fact a "privilage" not a right...

---

I heavily disagree with this. While fire-arms are the only items garunteed by the US Constitution, I hardly doubt the Fore-Fathers thought it necessary to write horses and wagons into the Contsitution to be protected. While there are a few indirect ills that can come from someone not wearing their seatbelt, I still find it to be a person choice that Big Gov. should stay out of. Someone gets screwed on their insurance policy because they didn't wear a seatbelt? They are the only individual to blame either out of ignorance of it's function or ability to comprehensively sign a contract.

While I do wear my seatbelt and force those in my vehicle (when I had one) always, I don't condone laws telling me how to live my life when the situation doesn't cause harm to others.

Hi Evil Moo,

Quote:

---

I have to go with Kublikan on this one. There is a lesson to be had in Darwinism. There will always be the weak and foolish of a species, but perhaps we have so many human ones because we keep them alive? Cure the disease, not the symptom. Lol, I can be so cynical at times.

---

You need to read ' all ' the posts ;)

Like I said...Kublikhan's logic was flawed in that the wrong people keep getting killed...go back and read about granny and the kids in the yard.

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

I heavily disagree with this. While fire-arms are the only items garunteed by the US Constitution, I hardly doubt the Fore-Fathers thought it necessary to write horses and wagons into the Contsitution to be protected.

---

Most definatley a privilege, if the law can take your license away for life where are your rights then. If it was a "right" then we should be able to drive at birth, screw getting a license right....!

Quote:

---

I have to go with Kublikan on this one. There is a lesson to be had in Darwinism. There will always be the weak and foolish of a species, but perhaps we have so many human ones because we keep them alive? Cure the disease, not the symptom. Lol, I can be so cynical at times.

---

You know a guy back in our recent past had a similiar take on the weak.........what was that man's name again?? oh yeah....it's coming to me now....."Hitler" :rolleyes:

I thought this thread was about the merits of the seat belt law, why are you guy's debating about something not related.Like the extermination of all people who don't live up to "your standards".

Why can't you get to the fact, that this all boils down to "Common Sense", now I know some people inherintly don't have this skill, but it can be aquired over time and through education and leaving the important things (like Laws) to people who do know better, some laws are ridicilous, but the "Lawmakers" are the people you vote into office, so live with it......and if you break the law by not wearing a seatbelt or worse are in some way involved in allowing your children to be injured through your negligence, then they should take the kids away from you.

Also, parents should be setting the examples, sending the right messages, just because you don't like the laws, and will go out of your way to break them, at least have the decency to tell your kids right from wrong....so they don't make the same mistakes you make.