Click it or ticket

[Zierro]

Nah, I'll probably take it easy on debate topics for a while. I'll let TIF recover from this one.

 

But I will say that a centralized power can be a good thing, as long as people are free to live their normal lives without too much interference. I just happen to think personal safety is a step too far.

 

Now off to make a topic about post counts. :razz:

[Jaziek]

whatever floats your boat.

[Lenin64]

Back on topic: Why do you seem to hate everything that the government does Zierro? Ticketing for not wearing a seatbelt has no negative effects except for "it's uncomfortable". Just because it's that individual person's life doesn't mean the country can just allow them to throw it away. Part of the governments job is to make sure it's population isn't killing themselves off.

This is something I wanted to bring up previously. Part of the goverment's job is to ensure the safety of its citizens; that is why governments were created in the first place. Laws like this just means the system is working correctly.

[____]

what kind of a cop is going to be sharp eyed to spot a missing seatbelt at X-mph anyway? Seems absurdly hard to enforce.

They get you at stoplights or when they stop you on the road for whatever reason.

Or driving past you at X-mph where they'd have a good 5-15s to see inside your car. They can also see a seatbelt that hasn't been buckled for a fair way off from behind/in front also. They also get you for using mobiles phones, etc like that. It isn't hard, even I can pick it up and I'm not looking for it, I'm just driving.

 

 

 

A while ago the UK brought out a new 'shock-campaign' about not wearing a seatbelt.

The only link I can find atm for an ad part of that campaign is here: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=34323827

 

Slightly on the extreme side of things (the scenario in general) but not far off the concept that unrestrained person = lethal projectile

 

 

 

I wasn't wearing my seatbelt once while off road (neither was another friend of mine). It's a huge no-no to do that, even at low speeds. Driver hit a concealed rut, my mate (front passenger) hit the windshield and cracked it. I hit the passenger seat with my shoulder and almost hit the dash or the windscreen - would've if I hadn't hit the seat first. Our speed? 25km/h. We'd been driving for a grand total of < 1min and would've been hoping out of the vehicle in another minute to lock the wheels once we made it further in. So speaking from personal experience, the movement of the unrestrained guy in the above 'ad' isn't that far from the practicality of what can happen. I know, because it moved almost exactly the same way.

 

And if the only thing you can take away from it is:

Not wearing a seatbelt saved his life, therefore not wearing a seatbelt is good.

 

 

Then you truly are a [wagon], as the situation is actually:

His not wearing a seatbelt didn't save his life, it took the life of three people. Sure he may be alive, but he'd also be alive, and so would his mates, if he wore his seatbelt in the first place.

[Bloodstain]

There are tons of crazy laws. One I heard was that it's illegal to wear high heels on the sidewalk because one lady got her foot stuck in one of the cracks.

 

Just take a look at some of these. A lot of those don't happen even once, yet there are laws about them. They are much rarer than cars lugging around inanimate projectiles, which probably happens everyday.

 

No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

 

See what I mean? They don't just make laws if it is a common thing, so nothing would be stopping them from making projectile laws, if they actually even cared about projectiles in the first place that is.

Yeah,

" It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle."

Pretty crazy stuff.

 

 

Children of incestuous couples are deemed legitimate.

 

Incestuous marriages are legal.

If these are real/still around, then what the [bleep] Alabama?

[Lenin64]

You guys think those incest laws are crazy? Take a looky here

[toast647]

It's stupid to not wear a seatbelt

[remoteman]

It's stupid to not wear a seatbelt

 

Basically. Personally i find the mere fact that this topic exists funny, because in Australia it's just the done thing. There is no debate, everyone acknowledges the live-saving power of the seat belt.

[meol]

Argh, there's so much derailment in this thread it's not funny. Make a new thread about ridiculous laws, about the government in general or about the climate change, but please, please stay on topic..

[stonewall337]

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.

 

The ratio of deaths saved to deaths cause is soooo great, that seatbelts are better than no seatbelt.

 

The government also doesn't allow you to drink or drive.

 

If you are killed because you don't have your seatbelt on, in an accident where you were not at fault, your family shouldn't get extra cash. You die due to your own stupidity.

[Danqazmlp]

This is the video I thought of when I first read the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT5e44lty88

[jemathonical]

It's stupid to not wear a seatbelt

 

Basically. Personally i find the mere fact that this topic exists funny, because in Australia it's just the done thing. There is no debate, everyone acknowledges the live-saving power of the seat belt.

 

I guess Aussies just go with the flow and don't really feel the need to question everything

[1_man_army]

This is the video I thought of when I first read the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT5e44lty88

 

I was looking for that one as well, I couldn't find it though.

[Zierro]

By the looks of some of your posts, some of you guys still don't get my point and seem to be thinking I am against wearing seat belts. I'll try to clarify one more time.

 

I am not arguing the effectiveness of seat belts. I am arguing that not wearing one doesn't warrant a fine. It's like if the government fined you if you didn't lock your windows at night. Yeah, if they did, there would probably be a lot less break-ins and whatnot, but that's not what kind of world I want to live in. The government should save their energy for actual crimes, and not just preventing people from making stupid mistakes by punishing them for it. Besides, it's pure hypocrisy that they allow you to smoke as many cigarettes as you want, but when it comes to seat belts they all of a sudden care about our health.

 

I'm surprised so many of you are fine with paying tickets for something as simple as not strapping your own body down.

[____]

You are endangering the lives of passengers, and other drivers by not wearing a seatbelt; pretty fair to give you a fine for that.

 

It's just like driving around with an unsecured load. You can get fined for that (for good reason) people are no different when the mechanics of an accident come into play.

[Lateralus]

Besides, it's pure hypocrisy that they allow you to smoke as many cigarettes as you want, but when it comes to seat belts they all of a sudden care about our health.

 

The purpose of the fine is to protect other people and try to minimise pressure on emergency services and road crews. It's closer to the ban on smoking in public places than it is to a blanket ban. In both cases (seatbelts and smoking in public places) the general public are being protected, not the individual.

 

I agree with you that it's a very sad case that consideration for others has to be legislated, but unfortunately that is the world we live in.

[Zierro]

Smoking and eating unhealthy can be dangerous to other people just as well. There is secondhand smoking, fires are caused by lit cigarettes, and you can get a heart attack from unhealthy eating which can result in the fatality of another person if you are driving, operating heavy machinery, etc. There are many legal things that can cause the death of others, but the thing is that they are just rare freak accidents. If we made a law against everything that can potentially cause the death of another person, theme parks would be illegal, toys that you can choke on would be illegal, making stairs would be illegal. Death is all around us. The important thing to look at is how often deaths are caused - not just because death is possible. In the case of a human killing another human because he didn't wear his seat belt, that's pretty damn rare. Killing yourself by not wearing one, now that is common and this is where I think a lot of you get the two confused.

 

You're really just splitting hairs when your whole argument comes down to, "Well there's a small chance that it can kill someone else."

 

The purpose of the fine is to protect other people and try to minimise pressure on emergency services and road crews.

 

Fair point, but what about hospitals? If tobacco and unhealthy eating were banned, don't you think hospitals would have a lot less on their chests too? If they wanted to minimize pressure on emergency services, why do they allow millions of people to get cancer and heart disease?

 

I think the difference between killing yourself from smoking and killing yourself from getting in a crash is money. They get money from letting you smoke. They get money from making you wear your seat belt.

[Lenin64]

which can result in the fatality of another person if you are driving

Not if they're wearing their seatbelt :wink:

 

I think that public area smoking ban pretty much covers your argument there. It isn't about protecting your life; it's about protecting the lives of others.

[Lateralus]

Smoking and eating unhealthy can be dangerous to other people just as well. There is secondhand smoking, fires are caused by lit cigarettes, and you can get a heart attack from unhealthy eating which can result in the fatality of another person if you are driving, operating heavy machinery, etc. There are many legal things that can cause the death of others, but the thing is that they are just rare freak accidents. If we made a law against everything that can potentially cause the death of another person, theme parks would be illegal, toys that you can choke on would be illegal, making stairs would be illegal. Death is all around us. The important thing to look at is how often deaths are caused - not just because death is possible. In the case of a human killing another human because he didn't wear his seat belt, that's pretty damn rare. Killing yourself by not wearing one, now that is common and this is where I think a lot of you get the two confused.

 

You're really just splitting hairs when your whole argument comes down to, "Well there's a small chance that it can kill someone else."

 

The effectiveness of the legislation here is the issue. Everything is a cost/benefit analysis. Stairs and toys and cigarettes are such a massive part of life that it would be impossible to get rid of them, but what you can do is implement safety measures to restrict the possibility of accident or injury. Catching someone not wearing their seatbelt is much easier than catching someone having a sneaky cigarette in their dining room. The likelihood of being ejected from your car and killing someone is not where the weight of my argument lies, it lies with the following.

 

The purpose of the fine is to protect other people and try to minimise pressure on emergency services and road crews.

 

Fair point, but what about hospitals? If tobacco and unhealthy eating were banned, don't you think hospitals would have a lot less on their chests too? If they wanted to minimize pressure on emergency services, why do they allow millions of people to get cancer?

 

I think the difference between killing yourself from smoking and killing yourself from getting in a crash is money. They get money from letting you smoke. They get money from making you wear your seat belt.

 

Tobacco and alcohol are always terrible examples to bring up. On the face of it they look like fine arguments, but I'm sure entire volumes have been written on the myriad reasons why tobacco and alcohol are likely play large parts in society for a long time, and why they are exceptional circumstances that just don't submit to normal reasoning. People will not have their cigarettes and alcohol taken away from them, but they're likely to budge on the issue of seatbelts.

 

I like your defence of individual freedom very much, but I think this is a case of picking your battles. Wearing a seatbelt is just a sensible thing to do. It's not great that the government will fine you for not doing it, but neither of the extremes of the argument are desirable. On one hand we will see an increase in freedom and an increase in road accidents and traffic jams (no seatbelt fines), and on the other we'll be losing out on freedoms and therefore enjoyment (seatbelt fines, no smoking, no drinking). Wearing a seatbelt is a point I am happy to compromise on.

 

Really the argument is not worth the time.

[stan18]

Smoking and eating unhealthy can be dangerous to other people just as well. There is secondhand smoking, fires are caused by lit cigarettes, and you can get a heart attack from unhealthy eating which can result in the fatality of another person if you are driving, operating heavy machinery, etc. There are many legal things that can cause the death of others, but the thing is that they are just rare freak accidents. If we made a law against everything that can potentially cause the death of another person, theme parks would be illegal, toys that you can choke on would be illegal, making stairs would be illegal. Death is all around us. The important thing to look at is how often deaths are caused - not just because death is possible. In the case of a human killing another human because he didn't wear his seat belt, that's pretty damn rare. Killing yourself by not wearing one, now that is common and this is where I think a lot of you get the two confused.

 

You're really just splitting hairs when your whole argument comes down to, "Well there's a small chance that it can kill someone else."

 

The purpose of the fine is to protect other people and try to minimise pressure on emergency services and road crews.

 

Fair point, but what about hospitals? If tobacco and unhealthy eating were banned, don't you think hospitals would have a lot less on their chests too? If they wanted to minimize pressure on emergency services, why do they allow millions of people to get cancer and heart disease?

 

I think the difference between killing yourself from smoking and killing yourself from getting in a crash is money. They get money from letting you smoke. They get money from making you wear your seat belt.

 

When you argue these things, you can't nitpick. Why X when theres Y? Well, are X and Y the same thing? No, there are things to consider for everything, you consider some things more because there are large factors to consider, some things less because there are minor things to consider. Seatbelts, the reasons are clear. There are fines to enforce them. The purpose of laws aren't to restrict every action, but to take out the big ones. Which ones are big? Thats subjective. Maybe we'll invent cars that, in an accident, only the person not wearing a seatbelt would ever be injured, and blame is always rightly placed afterwards.

 

Tobacco and unhealthy eating only have minimal government intervention because the things that back them lobby like hell. Thats what you want, though: little government control, right? Of course, thats another issue (which you should bring up in your government topic, should that ever happen)