Anybody want a Corona?

[4/5]

That's fine. Now that Spike mentions it, it wouldn't bother me if seatbelt laws were repealed.

[McParadigm]

That's fine. Now that Spike mentions it, it wouldn't bother me if seatbelt laws were repealed.

I get it, B-. You’d hardly be the first person to give away their humanity for political ideals.

[4/5]

Down with the tyranny of Big Seatbelt, I guess?

[McParadigm]

Tyranny is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

[BurtReynolds]

That's fine. Now that Spike mentions it, it wouldn't bother me if seatbelt laws were repealed.

We're doing this for your own good. Now pay this fine, for your own good. Not paying? Ok, now we'll take your license for your own good. Driving anyway? Ok we'll take your car, for your own good. Refuse to give it up? Ok we'll throw you in prison, for your own good.

We're the good guys!

[Anders]

Does save a lot of people.

[4/5]

That's why I'm pro-seatbelt.

[Bammer]

Good to see the “mask = seatbelt” debate thriving after my “vaccine = seatbelt” attempt was swiftly debunked.

[Rob]

I was under the impression that the reason for seatbelt laws isn't necessarily to protect you, but because not wearing it (obviously) greatly increases the risk of major injury, which creates extra costs on the healthcare system for all of us.

[JuanHamm]

I was under the impression that the reason for seatbelt laws isn't necessarily to protect you, but because not wearing it (obviously) greatly increases the risk of major injury, which creates extra costs on the healthcare system for all of us.

But what about my right to be a petulant moron?

[BurtReynolds]

I was under the impression that the reason for seatbelt laws isn't necessarily to protect you, but because not wearing it (obviously) greatly increases the risk of major injury, which creates extra costs on the healthcare system for all of us.

But what about my right to be a petulant moron?

It overrides idiotic appeals to the healthcare system (that we are all also forced to participate in)?

[JuanHamm]

I was under the impression that the reason for seatbelt laws isn't necessarily to protect you, but because not wearing it (obviously) greatly increases the risk of major injury, which creates extra costs on the healthcare system for all of us.

But what about my right to be a petulant moron?

It overrides idiotic appeals to the healthcare system (that we are all also forced to participate in)?

We're living in a society here, Burt.

[4/5]

I was under the impression that the reason for seatbelt laws isn't necessarily to protect you, but because not wearing it (obviously) greatly increases the risk of major injury, which creates extra costs on the healthcare system for all of us.

Obviously that's logical and it's almost certainly true regarding the costs. But from a very quick (5 minute) perusal of trasnportation.gov, nhtsa.gov, cdc.gov, and iihs.org pages on this topic don't have anything about that. It's virtually all about the decrease in likelihood of death or major injury for people wearing seatbelts. I think what you're describing is true and might be a bigger part of this if there was a single payer healthcare system, but I'm curious if insurance companies were/are vocal proponents of seat belt laws for this reason.

[Rob]

From wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Opponents have objected to the laws on libertarian principles.[50] Some do so on the grounds that seat belt laws infringe on their civil liberties. For example, in a 1986 letter to the editor of the New York Times, a writer argued that seat belt legislation was "coercive" and that "a mandatory-seat-belt law violates the right to bodily privacy and self-control".[51]

A counterpoint to the libertarian view is that by reducing death and serious injury, mandatory seat belt use and enforcement of seat belt laws results in substantial social benefits. For example, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2010 non-fatal injuries to motor vehicle occupants cost the United States $48 billion in medical expenses and lost work.[52] An example is an unbelted driver who kills or injures another road user because he/she slides out of proper seating position and cannot regain control of the vehicle during slippery conditions. Another notable scenario is of rear-seated passengers being forced forward in a crash and thus inadvertently harming the driver or front passenger. A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seat belts cost the hospital (and the state, in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more.[53]

[BurtReynolds]

The amount of infringements you can justify by appealing to the continued existence of our comically ineffective medical system is so vast I can't believe anyone would fall for it. If our medical system can only exist by an ever increasing nanny state taking care of us (at gunpoint), then we'd be better off without it. Find a way to pay for it while allowing humans to still be free to be idiots, or admit you are just want to rule people (fOr ThEiR oWn gOoD.)


What are some other things that weigh on our healthcare system? Drugs? Alcohol? Red meat? Sugar? Motorcycles? Too much TV?

We can save so many lives!

[BurtReynolds]

From wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Opponents have objected to the laws on libertarian principles.[50] Some do so on the grounds that seat belt laws infringe on their civil liberties. For example, in a 1986 letter to the editor of the New York Times, a writer argued that seat belt legislation was "coercive" and that "a mandatory-seat-belt law violates the right to bodily privacy and self-control".[51]

A counterpoint to the libertarian view is that by reducing death and serious injury, mandatory seat belt use and enforcement of seat belt laws results in substantial social benefits. For example, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2010 non-fatal injuries to motor vehicle occupants cost the United States $48 billion in medical expenses and lost work.[52] An example is an unbelted driver who kills or injures another road user because he/she slides out of proper seating position and cannot regain control of the vehicle during slippery conditions. Another notable scenario is of rear-seated passengers being forced forward in a crash and thus inadvertently harming the driver or front passenger. A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seat belts cost the hospital (and the state, in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more.[53]

Those are especially terrible arguments. I can't believe they even made them.

[4/5]

From wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Opponents have objected to the laws on libertarian principles.[50] Some do so on the grounds that seat belt laws infringe on their civil liberties. For example, in a 1986 letter to the editor of the New York Times, a writer argued that seat belt legislation was "coercive" and that "a mandatory-seat-belt law violates the right to bodily privacy and self-control".[51]

A counterpoint to the libertarian view is that by reducing death and serious injury, mandatory seat belt use and enforcement of seat belt laws results in substantial social benefits. For example, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2010 non-fatal injuries to motor vehicle occupants cost the United States $48 billion in medical expenses and lost work.[52] An example is an unbelted driver who kills or injures another road user because he/she slides out of proper seating position and cannot regain control of the vehicle during slippery conditions. Another notable scenario is of rear-seated passengers being forced forward in a crash and thus inadvertently harming the driver or front passenger. A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seat belts cost the hospital (and the state, in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more.[53]

Yeah, none of that is surprising but I don't think it supports the statement, "that the reason for seatbelt laws isn't necessarily to protect you, but because not wearing it (obviously) greatly increases the risk of major injury, which creates extra costs on the healthcare system for all of us." It's a nice additional argument to have evidence that there are external benefits to others outside of the people buckling up, but I don't think that'd be anybody's primary argument over, for example, nhsta's claim that seatbelts saved 14,955 lives in 2017.

[BurtReynolds]

It's not even a counterpoint to the libertarian view, as the libertarian view is wider and includes values of freedom and personal autonomy, and not just the value of saving lives. It's not a counterpoint. It's ignoring the point entirely.

[Rob]

It's not even a counterpoint to the libertarian view, as the libertarian view is wider and includes values of freedom and personal autonomy, and not just the value of saving lives. It's not a counterpoint. It's ignoring the point entirely.

Can you expand on this? I might be an idiot on this, but if your recklessness contributes to damages (physical or financial) to other people, is "freedom" the defense?

[BurtReynolds]

It's not even a counterpoint to the libertarian view, as the libertarian view is wider and includes values of freedom and personal autonomy, and not just the value of saving lives. It's not a counterpoint. It's ignoring the point entirely.

Can you expand on this? I might be an idiot on this, but if your recklessness contributes to damages (physical or financial) to other people, is "freedom" the defense?

If someone is injured due to their own actions, and their healthcare is paid for voluntarily by other people, then these people haven't been damaged by the injured person.

If someone is injured due to their own actions, and their healthcare is paid for by other people, and these other people were forced to pay for it by a third party, then the injured person hasn't damaged them. The third party that forced them to pay for it has damaged them.

In neither scenario is the "reckless" person responsible for the financial damages incurred on the people paying his medical expenses.