Click it or ticket

[Zierro]

In the state of Florida, you can get a ticket if you do not wear your seat belt.

 

If you don't want to take safety measures I think that should be your business - not the government's. Seat belts might be able to save lives but they have also been known to be the cause of some traffic deaths. For example, if your car is submerged in water or on fire, you need to escape the car ASAP. Sometimes wearing a seat belt will just get in the way. Not only that, but defective seat belts can cause major injuries even in normal accidents. Even if seat belts were risk free, I still think it should come down to the individual's choice instead of the state's.

 

Thoughts? Opinions? Tangents?

 

Here's a good link.

[Sam]

I do think they are a good idea, most seatbelts are manufactured to a good standard - most of the time, it's you're own fault when you crash a car, so if you see seatbelts as a risk, it's got to be a risk you are prepared to take.

[Rainy_Day]

If the person behind you in a car does not wear a seat belt, then they are most likely going to hit you (they go flying and smack) when you are sitting in the front in a crash. I would rather people were fined for not wearing seatbelts then let it be your own business and risk hurting/killing others through your own stupidity.

 

I know in the UK the police deal with many incidents of people dying due to not wearing a seatbelt, so enforce the law strictly when it comes to seatbelts.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Wear my seatbelt on the car, on a coach I don't as there ussualy uncumftorble

[Dizzle229]

What if someone else is in the car with you? Even if they're wearing seatbelts, if you aren't and you get into a crash you become what they call a projectile. If you fly out of your seat and hit someone else in the car it's going to do serious harm to both of you.

 

And btw, how hard is it to just put the damn seatbelt on?

[1_man_army]

It isn't just your safety you're putting at risk by not wearing a seat belt, if a passenger in the back doesn't wear one the can smash the the person sitting in front of them, this has the potential to kill somebody (edit - as Rainy_Day stated) . Also, it isn't exactly a big thing to ask, they aren't like straight jackets a seat belt. Plus if your car is submerged in water (lets just say you drove into a pond) then you're supposed to wait until you get to the bottom so the pressure equalises out so you can open the door easily. As for faulty seat belts, that should come up when your car is serviced, any sensible person would get a defective seat belt sorted.

[The Observer]

You can go flying and injure yourself even if you're not in an accident, for example, hitting on the break very hard. I believe this is a pretty standard law, as it encourages people to wear their seatbelt which should lower traffic fatalities. And obviously there is a lower chance of being submerged in water than being in a car crash.

[Skull]

You're legally required to wear a seat belt where I live too. I've always worn my seat belt though, and would even if it wasn't mandatory, so it's not really affecting me at all.

[Lunar_Drifter]

It's a law in North Carolina as well. I don't see what's so wrong about not wearing it. The cases in which people are killed from not wearing seat belts far outweigh the cases in which people die because of seat belts. That's like saying you should not require corrective lenses to be worn while driving, if they are prescribed. In most of the cases, they will save your life because you'll actually be able to see the oncoming potential accident, avoiding it altogether. But, there may be a few cases where the glasses shattered and got in your eye and you died from blood loss or something. But that doesn't mean you should make them optional.

[Lateralus]

I agree with the above posters. You'd have every right to splatter yourself all over your windshield if that was the extent of the damage done.

[mlclm]

I'd imagine insurance rates would increase if such laws didn't exist, though I do agree that if someone wants to act like an idiot and not wear it, that's their prerogative.

[meol]

Also, it's usually cheaper to treat someone who had an accident if they had a seatbelt on. It's better for the common good if such a law is enforced, especially if there's some kind of state healthcare in place. Cases of fire or falling into water aren't significant when compared to other kinds of accidents, too.

[Zierro]

I've never heard of a body project and hit somebody else in car accidents, but it does sound likely. Still, I doubt that is the reason these laws exist. I think it's in the same vein as making it mandatory to have motorcyclists wear a helmet (in fact, wearing a helmet would make you an even deadlier projectile) and having suicide be illegal. These laws most likely exist because it is "for your own good", which is the main point I was trying to get at. There shouldn't be laws forcing you to live. I don't condone suicide or anything but to add to my point, you did not choose to be born, so you shouldn't be legally obligated to pay other people if you are not willing to stay alive. It just sounds like a fishy way of making money to me.

 

And also, projectiles aren't only limited to bodies. Anything that isn't fastened to the car could be a projectile - groceries, furniture, tools, toys, etc. I mean, imagine a pineapple shooting through the windshield. I don't think you can get a ticket for that though.

[1_man_army]

(in fact, wearing a helmet would make you an even deadlier projectile)

 

It's different for motorcyclists though, they aren't likely to hit another person if they crash. The most likely thing to damage somebody in a bike crash is another vehicle or the ground - that is why helmets are needed.

 

And also, projectiles aren't only limited to bodies. Anything that isn't fastened to the car could be a projectile - groceries, furniture, tools, toys, etc. I mean, imagine a pineapple shooting through the windshield. I don't think you can get a ticket for that though.

 

The difference is that those items (and the vast majority of items that can be stored in a car) don't have the weight behind them to make them extremely hazardous - a person hitting you at speed (like in a crash scenario) has a lot of weight to hit you with (weight is linked to power - Power = weight/time I think).

[Stilev]

i really think that getting people to where seatbelts is a good thing, but im not a big fan of getting a ticket for it, i think that its a stupid to get a ticket for it

[Zierro]

The difference is that those items (and the vast majority of items that can be stored in a car) don't have the weight behind them to make them extremely hazardous - a person hitting you at speed (like in a crash scenario) has a lot of weight to hit you with (weight is linked to power - Power = weight/time I think).

 

Yeah, you're right that most items in a car are smaller than a body, but what about a vehicle loaded with metal furniture? Those are far more deadly of a projectile than a body and yet there is nothing illegal about it. I really doubt that the reason the law exists is because of projectiles or else something would probably be done about transporting heavy loads. And also, like you said about motorcycles, you aren't likely to hurt another person - you are way more likely to hurt yourself. That should be enough to point out their intentions behind these laws. If you don't care about the well-being of your own body, then you are obligated to pay a government fine. What's next? Making it illegal to eat too many hamburgers?

 

PS: I guess I should have made this topic more general. I was trying to get at the "Either take care of your body or pay me" attitude.

[Ouchy]

They are doing it, to encourage people to wear seat belts. If we were told by the Government that we don't have to wear seat belts, then no one will, and more people will die because of it.

By enforcing that you get a fine, people wear it, so they don't have to pay the Government more money, and they won't die.

[Stilev]

The difference is that those items (and the vast majority of items that can be stored in a car) don't have the weight behind them to make them extremely hazardous - a person hitting you at speed (like in a crash scenario) has a lot of weight to hit you with (weight is linked to power - Power = weight/time I think).

 

Yeah, you're right that most items in a car are smaller than a body, but what about a vehicle loaded with metal furniture? Those are far more deadly of a projectile than a body and yet there is nothing illegal about it. I really doubt that the reason the law exists is because of projectiles or else something would probably be done about transporting heavy loads.

 

every car has people in it, not all cars are moving furniture

[Zierro]

I never said they did. If a car has furniture in it, there are no rules against projectiles or whatever though, even if it is sharper, harder, and larger than a person. A cop will not give you a ticket if you have metal pole projectiles in your car. Doesn't that point to the true intentions behind these laws?

[Wongtong]

I'm pretty sure you can also be fined everywhere in New Zealand if you don't wear a seatbelt. If you're a child, it's your parents responsibility to put on your seatbelt; if it's not on, they can be fined. If you're 15+ (I think) you're fined if you don't wear a seatbelt.

 

I mean, what's wrong with making it mandatory to wear seatbelts? There are so many injuries that could have been prevented by simply wearing a seatbelt.

 

Wait. now that I think about it, I don't think buses in New Zealand have seat belts.. well I never wear them in buses anyways. :S eek.

I've always worn my seat belt though, and would even if it wasn't mandatory, so it's not really affecting me at all.

I doubt you would.

 

Being put into a country where the laws on seat belt wearing are not so strict, you would feel inclined to not wear your seat belt because you'd get weird looks. I got weird looks for wearing a seat belt in China, they laughed at me. :( . So I didn't wear my seat belt, even though I think seat belts are life saving.

[1_man_army]

I know what you mean Zierro but how often do you have furniture in the back of a car? Probably not often, which is why there isn't as much need to legislate. Plus you'll probably get a ticket for the chairs obstructing your view of the back window :thumbup: .

[The Observer]

I agree with what Ouchy said, not fining would mean the government is basically sanctioning it and would make the country liable.

[jemathonical]

The way all of you talk about car crashes, it's like we are going at 100km/h straight into a Kenworth. I just wear a seatbelt incase I get into a little prang and saves my head from getting smashed against the wheel. And if we don't wear one here we get hit with a massive fine and lose 3 points so regardless of me whinging about the ifs and buts, I just click it in.

[Lenticular_J]

I thought it was the same way across the country? It's mandatory in Texas now, and everybody in the car has to wear a seatbelt. It used to be, if you were in the back and older than like 12 you didn't have to.

 

Cops generally don't care, though. I wear one anyways, just unconsciously because a lot of my friends do. It depends who I'm riding with. More of my friends that drive don't wear one, but my friends that don't drive always wear one. I was always confused by that because I never used to wear one. But, I just got over it.

[ElkNight]

I think it should be mandatory. It saves tons more lives then the rare deaths it causes. Also if you have a few people in the car and someone doesn't have their seatbelt on they just become something that hurts everyone else.

 

I think all the seatbelt propaganda in drivers ed got to me. :-|