Ce sujet est fermé
Turnip Root wrote...
Only fat people complain about not wearing seat belts so if they don't die in a car crash they'll die of heart disease or diabetic ketoacidosis. I'm fine if they die but I don't want to get blamed for their death if their death was a result of them not wearing a seatbelt.
On the bright side their fatness may prevent them from flying through the windshield. They'll get stuck.
Boiny Bunny wrote...
I haven't named you an 'idiot' personally, and have no intention of speaking for others partaking in this discussion. I'm merely taking issue with your assertion that your personal opinion on a subjective matter is correct in an absolute sense, when really, this is impossible, as the matter is entirely subjective.
Hopefully that's a little bit clearer.
Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 15 juillet 2011 - 09:03 .
Lord Sullivan wrote...
Rockworm503 wrote...
Yes your human rights are being trampled on by needing to wear a peice of leather over your shoulder... Jesus I really hope you die in a car crash some day it would only be fitting.
If you don't see that as trampling of human rights, then you're in big trouble and one of these days you'll find out the hard way. Anyhow, "Me get killed in a car crash?" not likely as I'm an expert driver... however if against all odds some tractor trailer hits me and I really can't prevent it? I wouldn't be suprised given the fact that cars are practicaly made out of cardboard since the 80s and being tied up by a seat belt and all...
Rockworm503 wrote...
LOL its not hard to imagine the tin foil hat "must stop this conspiricay before it has a chance to get bigger. Sad thing is if people had f-ing common sense this wouldn't even need to be a law.. Sorry but no amount of cry foul is going to change what is simple common sense. You can wrap it up in any package you want to make your silly argument sound smart but common sense wins every time. Great your a professional driver that accounts for you out of everyone else on the road. Some idiot can slam into you before you have a time to react. If making you wear a seat belt is "trampling on your human rights" I seriously laugh at the term here because then common sense is trampling on your human rights.
Its like getting in trouble for trying to set fire to an abandoned building while your in it. Is it trampling human rights just because theres a rare possibility someone else might be in it?
Bryy_Miller wrote...
One time, some kid made a thread on a forum asking why he couldn't call african-Americans the n word.
chunkyman wrote...
Jeez, no need to be hostile. You can disagree without being disagreeable...
Modifié par lobi, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:56 .
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
(...)
As for being a victimless crime, imagine a situation where you have a car full of passangers, and one of them decides to use his right not to wear a seatbelt, while the others value their safety more, and buckle up. The car then gets into an accident, and this one person slams at a great force to the people next to him.
It isn't just this one person who gets hurt, it is the others in the car as well - others who made the choise to use a seatbelt, and would have been ok, had there not been a single passanger who did not. Clearly not a victimless crime here.
grregg wrote...
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
(...)
As for being a victimless crime, imagine a situation where you have a car full of passangers, and one of them decides to use his right not to wear a seatbelt, while the others value their safety more, and buckle up. The car then gets into an accident, and this one person slams at a great force to the people next to him.
It isn't just this one person who gets hurt, it is the others in the car as well - others who made the choise to use a seatbelt, and would have been ok, had there not been a single passanger who did not. Clearly not a victimless crime here.
Well, I agree that wearing seatbelts is beneficial, but I still don't see why the government should get involved. If an unrestrained passenger kills another passenger, it's their problem. If they didn't want to risk injury, they should have told the guy to buckle up.
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
(...)
That is easier said than done, in some circumstances - consider a group of young people going out to a party. No law to make buckling up necessary. Now imagine that some in the group feel uncomfortable going into the car without the other occupants buckling up too - peer pressure may make them hesitate in even asking the others to bucle up, and their chance of succeeding in getting their will through isn't too great if they do. The option would then be to refuse to get on - given peer pressure, that's not likely to happen either.
It is much, much easier, when you have a law such as we have in Finland about buckling up - it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that all the passangers are wearing seatbelts, and if they get stopped with someone not wearing seatbelts, the driver gets fined. This way, the one sober guy or girl in the group has a great motivation and excuse for demanding that everyone buckle up.
The "restriction of freedom" if you can even call it that, in the case of a law requiring the use of seatbelts, is so minor as not to be worth mentioning, and the practical effect is clearly beneficial to both individuals in traffic, as well as the society that saves in medical costs, lives of citizens, and in workhours that would be lost with traffic accident victims. With seatbelts, a minor accident will truly be minor.
I understand the libertarian view of having as little government interference as possible, but this seems such a clear cut case with great benefits to be had with minimal interference, that I really see no reason not to have legislation requiring the use of seatbelts.
88mphSlayer wrote...
because people got tired of scraping body pieces off of asphalt
Modifié par KenKenpachi, 15 juillet 2011 - 05:00 .
grregg wrote...
On a side note, is it really the case that in Finland people (or perhaps just teenagers) are more afraid of a ticket than a violent death? Or are the police controls so widespread that encountering one is practically a certainty?
Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 15 juillet 2011 - 05:30 .
RhiGibson wrote...
My girlfriend has only ever forgotten to wear her seatbelt ONCE.
She was going on a short drive to the shops, another drive had lost control of the car and crashed straight into her and then pushing her into one of the road side barriers.
As she wasn't wearing a seatbelt she got thrown around the car, she got a broken femur and a few bruises and cuts ... If she had been wearing her seatbelt she would have been impaled through the chest by a bit of the barrier because she would have been restricted in her movements. IMO it was VERY VERY VERY lucky that she decided not to put it on ...
However, I do believe that seatbelts should be worn at ALL times and so does she even after her incident. In the UK you are pulled over and fined for not wearing a seatbelt as well.
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
grregg wrote...
On a side note, is it really the case that in Finland people (or perhaps just teenagers) are more afraid of a ticket than a violent death? Or are the police controls so widespread that encountering one is practically a certainty?
No, but basic human psychology isn't entirely rational - while it may not be "cool" or plausible for a designated driver in a group of drunk youths to appeal to the possibility of violent death, it IS acceptable to complain that you won't pay for the fine IF the cops stop you. Unfortunately threats to the wallet are often more effective than threats to life - when every youth thinks they are immortal, especially after a few drinks. Thus the law gives a more convenient excuse for doing the right thing.
There's being libertarian to the point of actually doing practical harm, and there's compromizing in the light of practical realities, that'll end up saving lives, and social security and insurance costs, for the most minimal cost imaginable. Even if you are a libertarian, you should not be a libertarian DOGMAGICALLY, but rather take into account practical outcomes.
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
No, but basic human psychology isn't entirely rational - while it may not be "cool" or plausible for a designated driver in a group of drunk youths to appeal to the possibility of violent death, it IS acceptable to complain that you won't pay for the fine IF the cops stop you. Unfortunately threats to the wallet are often more effective than threats to life - when every youth thinks they are immortal, especially after a few drinks. Thus the law gives a more convenient excuse for doing the right thing.
There's being libertarian to the point of actually doing practical harm, and there's compromizing in the light of practical realities, that'll end up saving lives, and social security and insurance costs, for the most minimal cost imaginable. Even if you are a libertarian, you should not be a libertarian DOGMAGICALLY, but rather take into account practical outcomes.
Rockworm503 wrote...
Nice just dismiss everything I say because it challenges your point of view.
I'm done with this thread. Common sense << it won this argument before it started.
Retour en haut
