Red Mosquito

4/5 wrote:That's fine. Now that Spike mentions it, it wouldn't bother me if seatbelt laws were repealed.

4/5 wrote:That's fine. Now that Spike mentions it, it wouldn't bother me if seatbelt laws were repealed.

Rob wrote: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 wrote:

Rob wrote: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 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:

Rob wrote: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)?

Rob wrote: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.

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]

Rob wrote: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]

Rob wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: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?