Federal Seatbelt Laws?!!?

[corplinx]

the amazing Walter E Williams explains (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/ticket.html)

I didn't even realize this was in the works. What a waste of money. As always, Walter E. Williams approaches the subject in way easily approachable and showing the inconsistent fallacy of the program.

[The Fool]

Winston Wu would be proud of this essay.....
I have no problems with Idiots not wanting to wear seatbelts, just make them carry a card that instructs emergency workers to just let then die on the side of the road so they don't clutter the hospitals that are needed by sensible people.

[subgenius]

From the link:

"Click It Or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty.

This guy "amazing"?

Simple minded more like it. I can see why you want him to fill in for Rush.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
From the link:
This guy "amazing"?

Simple minded more like it. I can see why you want him to fill in for Rush.

Its a woo woo tactic to say that its so beyond you that you cannot understand it. So I won't say that. :)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Its a woo woo tactic to say that its so beyond you that you cannot understand it. So I won't say that. :)
I see we still haven't learned a new word recently.
Yes, you are correct because you're smarter than me.

[a_unique_person]

No, he's right. One day seat belts, the next we invade Poland. Can't you see the link here?

[Zep]

Well, I'm glad MY government mandatorily forced me to wear my seatbelt nine years ago. Otherwise I would have been just a smear on the dashboard, and today I would have been just a faint memory.

Never mind the fact that the road toll here dropped dramatically (about 25%) following their mandatory introduction about 1975. I should try to find the links for this...

[xouper]

OK, pardon my curiosity, but would someone who thinks that essay (by Williams) is flawed logically, could you give some examples and explain what the logical fallacy is?

[Zep]

What logic? It was just a personal interpretation and a basic rant. He's entitled to it.

[xouper]

Zep: What logic?That's what I'm asking. Please point to a specific logical flaw and explain what kind of logical fallacy it is.

[Zep]

It's just a statement of his position. Like a waiter reading you the specials menu.

You would need to ask me something like, "Do you agree with him?" in order to start using logic. (Answer is: With sympathy for his position, still no.)

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by xouper
That's what I'm asking. Please point to a specific logical flaw and explain what kind of logical fallacy it is.


If you're the least offended by the notion of government dictating our diets, pray tell me how it differs in principle from seatbelt laws...

Really bad metaphor?

"Click It Or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty.

Insane slippery slope fallacy.

[subgenius]

"Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty."

He's the one who needs to back up and explain his position.
Which Americans, for instance? And why? All health and safety? If not, which ones?
Health and safety more of a justification for attacks on liberty than "Homeland Security"? And if not, why focus on them rather than the greater threat to liberty.
Its all typical Rush Limbaugh pandering to a certain audience.
Starting with a conclusion and then squeezing facts in to fit it.
Talk about vague conspiracy theories, which some are so ready to accuse others of.

[subgenius]

Oh, I just noticed he's a "Dr." Ph.d's who call themselves doctors are usually silly pompous asses.
I always like to ask them about my medical condition.
(By the way I have a doctorate, and would never consider calling myself "Dr.")

[a_unique_person]

Your a Doctor? Tell me, why does it hurt when I do this? "Hggghyrrrmmmpppffff pfpfpfpfpfpfpfpf".

[subgenius]

Here's the most blatant fallacy:

"History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. "

So, everything with a noble goal leads to totalitarianism?

[a_unique_person]

He also says the only cost to society of not wearing seat belts is medical cost, and that we are under no obligation to help people in a free society.

However, he forgets the effect on people who have to clean up the mess. A lot of people get deeply affected by the road carnage.

Also, minors in a car. Even if mom and dad don't want to wear the belts, the kids will suffer a crash too.

There is also the issue of simplicity. Regulating food is something that is going to be incredibly difficult, if at all possible. Putting on a seat belt is very simple. 'Click'.

It also means that in a country where manufacturers can assume that people will be wearing seat belts, then the air bags can be put on a much less aggressive setting. They fire only at higher impacts and they don't explode as violently. Hence, they work much better and more safely.

It is interesting to note that the death rate of the US on the roads is pretty static at present, while in Australia it is still falling.

[xouper]

OK, y'all need to explain better than that. Pretend the lurkers and I are a bunch of students in a crtitical thinking class and explain WHY you think they are logical fallacies. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

subgenius: Oh, I just noticed he's a "Dr." Ph.d's who call themselves doctors are usually silly pompous asses.How does being a silly pompous ass make his logic flawed?

"Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty." He's the one who needs to back up and explain his position.What was wrong with the explanation he gave to back up his assertion?

Which Americans, for instance?Automobile drivers and passnegers.

And why?Why what? I'm not following this question?

All health and safety? If not, which ones?I believe he was referring to mitigating injury to drivers and passengers if they should be in an automobile accident.

Health and safety more of a justification for attacks on liberty than "Homeland Security"?What logical fallacy are you claiming here?

And if not, why focus on them rather than the greater threat to liberty.Why is it a logical fallacy for an essay to focus on one specific problem to the exclusion of others? Is it a logical necessity that all essays about government infringement on liberties should address all the ways the government infringes? I think not. But if you disagree, then please explain what logical fallacy you are claiming here.

Its all typical Rush Limbaugh pandering to a certain audience.What logical fallacy are you claiming here?

Starting with a conclusion and then squeezing facts in to fit it.What in that essay tells you it's not the other way around? Please be specific.

Talk about vague conspiracy theories, which some are so ready to accuse others of.What vague conspiracy did the author assert?

Here's the most blatant fallacy: "History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. " So, everything with a noble goal leads to totalitarianism?How do you infer that from what he said? I don't see where he makes that claim. [Edited to add: Seems to me he is saying that just because the gubmint has noble goals does not automatically mean they are not on a path to totalitarianism. I don't see that he claims that all noble goals lead to totalitariansim.]

Nesarius: If you're the least offended by the notion of government dictating our diets, pray tell me how it differs in principle from seatbelt laws...Really bad metaphor?What is bad about that metaphor?

Nesarius: "Click It Or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty.Insane slippery slope fallacy.What slope are you referring to, and what's slippery about it?

[xouper]

a_unique_person: He also says the only cost to society of not wearing seat belts is medical cost, ...Where did he say that was the only cost?

and that we are under no obligation to help people in a free society.What is the logical fallacy here?

Also, minors in a car. Even if mom and dad don't want to wear the belts, the kids will suffer a crash too.What logical fallacy are you claiming here?

There is also the issue of simplicity. Regulating food is something that is going to be incredibly difficult, if at all possible. Putting on a seat belt is very simple. 'Click'.What logical fallacy are you claiming the author made here?

It also means that in a country where manufacturers can assume that people will be wearing seat belts, then the air bags can be put on a much less aggressive setting.What logical fallacy are you claiming the author made? He didn't even address the airbag issue. The same arguments against mandatory seatbelt use can be made against mandatory airbag use.

It is interesting to note that the death rate of the US on the roads is pretty static at present, while in Australia it is still falling.And your point is?

[a_unique_person]

One of his strawmen is



Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways, is that if they become injured or sick society will be burdened with higher healthcare costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism. There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another.



I was just pointing out that the cost is more than just the money.

Perhaps is would be better if you re-write the article for him in a logical manner, then it would be easier to argue rather than just addressing his strawmen.

[tedly]

In Canada, seat belt legislation is in force in all provinces. Seat belt use is on th e order of 90%. In the U.S it is 30% or less. So the insurance industry has forced legislation requiring air-bags in all cars. Now air-bags were designed as replacements for seat belts, not as adjuncts to them.
My seat belt, complete, can be replaced for a couple hundred. Should the air bags fire in my 15K Mazda it will be 4K each to replace them.
Air bags offer no protection in a side impact, destroy your ability to manouever after an initial impact, and can fire accidentally, causing the driver to lose control. Seat belts, on the other hand, also hold the driver behind the wheel and allow more aggressive avoidance manoeuvres.

We have these travesties thanks to the US identification of compulsory safety action with totalitarianism. Compulsory safety equipment is not seen in the same light. Another victory for clear thinking.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by xouper
The same arguments against mandatory seatbelt use can be made against mandatory airbag use.


And that argument is?? We will turn into Goose-stepping Nazis? some warm fuzzy free feeling will go away? My children may actually enjoy wiping my arse and sitting me back up when I keep falling forward into the soup that I get fed at the nursing home?

Ever wondered why the government control freaks say kids are not allowed to ride on the roof? I guess they will have to live without that special feeling of liberty that only riding on the roof can give you.. I have no doubt some people would argue that construction workers should not be "forced" to wear hard hats either....

I am not free to drive my car without my seatbelt on, or at 100mph, or with the kids on the roof....

Another thing that annoys me is this rediculous argument that nobody is at risk but the person who chooses not to wear a belt. This is rubbish. If you are not securely retained in the drivers position you are not in proper control of the car....I don't think the kids in the back would enjoy seeing mommy and daddy both in the front passenger seat when one of them is supposed to be in control of the car as you attempt to recover from the initial impact...

[subgenius]

Which Americans, for instance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automobile drivers and passnegers.

Mr. X:
He said its the American justification for restricting liberty.
Which Americans use this justification for restrictin liberty?
All Americans? Which segment? Who are they?
Your response is confusing. Automobile drivers and passengers want to restrict liberty? Huh?

He said health and safety is the excuse for restricting liberty. Which health and safety regs in addition to seat belts. You do see that he's trying to draw a bigger picture than just that one example right? Otherwise how is his premise correct?

How about since he's the one making the assertion that health and safety regs are just a ruse to restrict liberties, we require him to back it up? Otherwise, as has been pointed out he's just a waiter reading the menu.

"Starting with a conclusion and then squeezing facts in to fit it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What in that essay tells you it's not the other way around? Please be specific."

What facts does he cite? The proposed law and his theory.

That's why I asked about other regs he feels are part of the conspiracy to restrict liberty. If he can show a pattern then let's see it. Specifically health and safety regs being a ruse just to restrict liberty.

Once again who are the nefarious devils behind all this?

Its one thing to say that seat belt legislation infringes on liberty and another to say that health and safety regs are a ruse for the purpose of restricting liberty. As my daddy said that's trying to fit 5 pounds of manure in a 2 pound bag.

[subgenius]

"There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another. Under socialism one is obliged to care for another. A parent-child relationship emerges between the citizen and the government. That was not the vision of our Founders."

"Dr." Williams, do you find any reason to care for others in our society? If so, what is it?

Requiring seat belt usage is caring for the needs of others? How so?

[xouper]

a_unique_person: One of his strawmen is
Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways, is that if they become injured or sick society will be burdened with higher healthcare costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism. There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another.Why is that argument made of straw? I have heard those points presented as justification for requiring seatbelt use.

I was just pointing out that the cost is more than just the money.I agree. Nonetheless, what logical fallacy did the author commit here?

Perhaps is would be better if you re-write the article for him in a logical manner, then it would be easier to argue rather than just addressing his strawmen.Well, that's what I am asking, what's illogical about his essay? What are his strawmen and why are they straw? If I were to rewrite it in a logical manner, then what should I change?

[a_unique_person]

He implies that the cost of people not being forced to wear seat belts is only a cost to them, that is, a victimless crime. I am saying that is not so.


I think "Some might argue, but falsely so" is a pretty good indicator of a strawman coming up.

[xouper]

subgenius: He said its the American justification for restricting liberty. Which Americans use this justification for restrictin liberty? All Americans? Which segment? Who are they? Your response is confusing. Automobile drivers and passengers want to restrict liberty? Huh?Ah, I misunderstood your question. I mistakenly thought you were asking whose liberties were being restricted. My bad. Let me try again.

My take on the article is that Williams is referring to the federal government trying to restrict our liberty. He also specifically mentions Congress.

He said health and safety is the excuse for restricting liberty. Which health and safety regs in addition to seat belts.I don't follow your question.

You do see that he's trying to draw a bigger picture than just that one example right? Otherwise how is his premise correct?I agree that he provides only one example of restriction of liberties (seatbelt laws), but seems to claim there are other such restrictions without mentioning them. However, his point still stands on the one example. I don't think he needed to list other examples, since (to me anyway) they should be self-evident. But maybe not. You are correct that his case could have been stronger had he mentioned other examples. I don't see how this is a logical fallacy, though.

Also, would a reasonable person deny that there are any other examples of the federal government restricting our liberties on the justification of health and safety? For example, do YOU deny it? If not, then why the requirement that Williams list any of them other than the seatbelt issue?

How about since he's the one making the assertion that health and safety regs are just a ruse to restrict liberties, we require him to back it up?Where does he make the claim that it's a deliberate ruse of any kind? My take on his essay is that he claims that some restrictions of liberties are being justified on the grounds of health and safety, not that health and safety regulations are a ruse to restrict liberties.

subgenius: "Starting with a conclusion and then squeezing facts in to fit it.

xouper: What in that essay tells you it's not the other way around? Please be specific."

subgenius: What facts does he cite? The proposed law and his theory.I don't follow how that answers my question. Clarify please?

[Jude]

Originally posted by Zep
Well, I'm glad MY government mandatorily forced me to wear my seatbelt nine years ago. Otherwise I would have been just a smear on the dashboard, and today I would have been just a faint memory.

You only where your seatbelt because Grandma Government tells you to?

[xouper]

a_unique_person: He implies that the cost of people not being forced to wear seat belts is only a cost to them, that is, a victimless crime.Where does he imply this?

I am saying that is not so.I agree that there are non-monetary consequences to certain others if a person gets injured while not wearing a seatbelt.

In my opinion (which is not a part of William's essay), I do not agree that these consequences are sufficient to justify restricting the liberties of a driver or passenger. For example, if I die skydiving, there will be non-monetary consequences to my family, as you already observed. Is this sufficient justification to outlaw skydiving? Not in my opinion.

The question then is where is the line drawn.

Williams doesn't directly address the non-monetary consequences, other than to assert that, "In a free society, each person owns himself. As such he has the broad discretion to make his own choices regardless of what others think of the wisdom of his choices." What logical fallacy are you claiming here?

I think "Some might argue, but falsely so" is a pretty good indicator of a strawman coming up.Except in this case, it is an argument that has actually been made by advocates of seatbelt laws, so where's the straw?

[Ladewig]

"History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. "

So, everything with a noble goal leads to totalitarianism?

No. The contrapositive of "all totalitarian agendas started with noble goals" is "Starting with no noble goals will ensure no totalitarian agendas." So, the surest way to avoid totalitarianism is to have no noble goals.

Counter examples to the original claim include Kubla Kahn and Alexander the Great.

[xouper]

subgenius: "There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another. Under socialism one is obliged to care for another. A parent-child relationship emerges between the citizen and the government. That was not the vision of our Founders."

"Dr." Williams, do you find any reason to care for others in our society? If so, what is it?How is that question relevant to his argument? He is arguing that people should not be compelled by government to care for others. That does not imply that there are not other reasons why people care for others. I interpert his position to mean that people are always free to voluntarily care for others. I suspect you already know why people might volunteer to care for others, so why is it relevant to ask Williams what his reasons might be?

Requiring seat belt usage is caring for the needs of others? How so?I don't see where he said that. What he does say, and you already quoted it, is that under socialism, others are forced to pay for the care of those who get injured while not wearing seatbelts. The inference should be obvious. If people were not forced to pay for the treatment of those injured while not wearing seatbelts, then that argument is no longer relevant. The Fool hit upon this exact point when he suggested (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that non-seatbelt wearers carry a card saying they are not imposing on others to pay for their stupidity.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

There is an increased danger to other road users from people not wearing seatbelts - whether that is due to reduced ability to control the car in an accident or the risk that they will be thrown out of the car striking another road user as they will decelerate slower than the vehicle.

Therefore why is the seatbelt law any different from laws which prevent people driving while drunk? Or indeed which require people to have a driving license before they can drive?

[xouper]

Ladewig: No. The contrapositive of "all totalitarian agendas started with noble goals" is "Starting with no noble goals will ensure no totalitarian agendas." So, the surest way to avoid totalitarianism is to have no noble goals.That's not quite accurate, or at the least, incomplete. The full contrapositive of Williams's assertion is "Not using noble goals to justify restrictions of liberties will ensure no totalitarian agendas." So, the surest way to avoid totalitarianism is to not use noble goals to justify restrictions on liberties.

I do not know if Williams's assertion is factually correct or not. Nonetheless, he does not seem to be claiming that having noble goals, by themselves, leads to totalitarianism.

Williams's claim that "History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification" may qualify as a bald assertion, since he only gives two examples in support. If someone were to point to that as a logical fallacy, I would probably concede the point. However, I would add that even if his assertion is not completely true, he could salvage his argument by restating it in less absolute terms.

[xouper]

xouper: The same arguments against mandatory seatbelt use can be made against mandatory airbag use.

The Fool: And that argument is??The one Williams made in his essay.

Ever wondered why the government control freaks say kids are not allowed to ride on the roof?Yeah, those dang butt-inskies. :)

Another thing that annoys me is this rediculous argument that nobody is at risk but the person who chooses not to wear a belt. This is rubbish. If you are not securely retained in the drivers position you are not in proper control of the car....I don't think the kids in the back would enjoy seeing mommy and daddy both in the front passenger seat when one of them is supposed to be in control of the car as you attempt to recover from the initial impact... That's an interesting point, but it only applies to the driver, not the passengers. Since passengers, especially back seat passengers, are not controlling the vehicle, why should they be required to wear belts? And what about drivers without passengers? Also, even if no drivers wore seatbelts, how big a problem is this really? As you observed elsewhere, sensible people will voluntarily wear seatbelts. The essence of a free society, however, is that people should not be forced by law to behave sensibly. If they harm someone else with their senseless behavior, then stick them with the consequences. Instead of a mandatory seatbelt law for everyone, the law could say that if you harm someone else and the proximate cause is your failure to wear a seatbelt, then you pay. I could live with that.

[a_unique_person]

A human body in the back seat, in a car that is performing extreme changes of velocity, as happens in a car crash, is a lethal force in itself.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by xouper
Instead of a mandatory seatbelt law for everyone, the law could say that if you harm someone else and the proximate cause is your failure to wear a seatbelt, then you pay.

How can you pay if you are dead? :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by tamiO


How can you pay if you are dead? :D

And what good does it do if you are dead, that is, their body smacked into yours.

[fsol]

yup. A non restrained back seat occupant can kill a front seat occupant and walk away from the crash.

[Jude]

Originally posted by tamiO


How can you pay if you are dead? :D

Your assets don't just vanish into thin air when you die. Well, usually.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jude


Your assets don't just vanish into thin air when you die. Well, usually.

And of course, everyone makes sure that when they die, all their liabilities will be covered.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by xouper

I don't see where he said that. What he does say, and you already quoted it, is that under socialism, others are forced to pay for the care of those who get injured while not wearing seatbelts. The inference should be obvious. If people were not forced to pay for the treatment of those injured while not wearing seatbelts, then that argument is no longer relevant. The Fool hit upon this exact point when he suggested (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that non-seatbelt wearers carry a card saying they are not imposing on others to pay for their stupidity.
That is not the complete cost. Idiots who don't wear seatbelts drive up the insurance cost for everyone by increasing the costs of accidents.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, he's right. One day seat belts, the next we invade Poland. Can't you see the link here?

Sorta. I saw the second hand smoke debate as providing a rationale for a series of liberty restricting laws. The idea idea is "sure you can do it to yourself but you cannot do it to others". Which argument can be taken to say that if your behavior might result in additional strain on health services it should be regulated.

Today, if you want something restricted, banned, **** upon, just say that "it is for the children".

The lawsuits by fatties against McD are really "for our own good". You watch, fat parents are going to come under scrutiny soon "for their children's sake".

Life is not risk free.

[Boo]

Given my line of work I have a somewhat vested interest in seatbelt law and use. The Feds can mandate it's use, the Feds can mandate the use of car seats and motorcycle helmets. Enforcing it is an altogether different thing.

At best in most states you can be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt only after you have been stopped for another offense. There are a few places where it is a primary offense. The same goes for car seats.

As for airbags, they are designed to be supplemental not replacements for seatbelts. An unrestrained individual that has an airbag deploy is usually worse off than someone that is wearing a seatbelt without an airbag.

There is a cost to society from individuals that don't wear seatbelts. It is usually measured in terms of lost work days, productivity, etc. Not to mention if an individual is permanetly incapacitated insurance caps mean that eventually they will end up on state and federal programs for disablity. That's tax payer money.

The peripheral costs to individuals like myself that have to take care of them and must live with the nightmares, the family members that lose a loved one and now must dedicate themselves to taking care of them or place them in long term care, etc. while not insignificant are a little harder to quantify.

I will admit I have not read the link. It would be preaching to the choir. Most anyone that has dealt face to face the horrors that come with unrestrained crashes would while not agreeing in total would still be agreeing in principle.

Legislate or not, enforce or not, there will always be the freethinkers that feel that things like seatbelts and car seats and helmets interfere with their personal liberties and will refuse to wear or use them. That, after all, is what keeps me employed along with the staff of Trauma Units.


Boo

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Thanz

That is not the complete cost. Idiots who don't wear seatbelts drive up the insurance cost for everyone by increasing the costs of accidents.

If this is such a problem, then the government should make obesity and poor diet illegal also. The cost is far greater to our health care system than that from traffic accidents.

Of course, if you had read the article you would have seen that is the point.

How about awareness campaigns versus click-it or ticket laws? Do laws really prevent people from driving unbuckled? Of course not. The issue isn't whether government should recommend you drive with a seatbelt on but whether government has the authority to force you to.

Seatbelts are just another way of keeping stupid people in the gene people. Would you rather some idiot died in a car accident or lived and kept on having more accidents? Which then is the greater cost on insurance?

[MoeFaux]

"Let those who ride decide". My response to helmet laws works for seatbelts as well.

Of course, I always use protection.

It really ought to be your choice. In my car, when I'm driving, I make sure everyone is wearing their seat belt. It's not that hard to do. It's the law of my car by my choice, and I think that's fine. But having the nanny state come in a MAKE me do it is ridiculous.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
"Let those who ride decide". My response to helmet laws works for seatbelts as well.

Of course, I always use protection.

It really ought to be your choice. In my car, when I'm driving, I make sure everyone is wearing their seat belt. It's not that hard to do. It's the law of my car by my choice, and I think that's fine. But having the nanny state come in a MAKE me do it is ridiculous.
No is not.
The state will have to spend more money on health care,
and will make a lot of cash by fining those who don't use it

[tamiO]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
"Let those who ride decide". My response to helmet laws works for seatbelts as well.

Of course, I always use protection.

It really ought to be your choice. In my car, when I'm driving, I make sure everyone is wearing their seat belt. It's not that hard to do. It's the law of my car by my choice, and I think that's fine. But having the nanny state come in a MAKE me do it is ridiculous.

I agree completely.

BTW, I absolutely hate the click-it or ticket roadblocks.

[Jude]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

No is not.
The state will have to spend more money on health care,
and will make a lot of cash by fining those who don't use it

Hence why Walter Williams said it was a problem of socialism.

[LuxFerum]

The state have to pay his bills too:D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
"Let those who ride decide".

It really ought to be your choice.

Does that mean we can get rid of driving licences as well? Lets just leave it up to the driver / passengers to decide if they want to drive / get in a car with an unlicensed driver (or a drunk one for that matter).

If not, why not?

[Jude]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Does that mean we can get rid of driving licences as well? Lets just leave it up to the driver / passengers to decide if they want to drive / get in a car with an unlicensed driver (or a drunk one for that matter).

If not, why not?

They can; just not on state roads.

Also, please procure data that shows the number of deaths or accidents caused as a result of someone not wearng a seatbelt--and by that I mean harm caused to others by someone not wearing a seatbelt. You're free to include the deaths of children not wearing seatbelts, however. Then, compare the figures to DUI-related deaths and accidents and tell me why your argument is fallacious.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Does that mean we can get rid of driving licences as well? Lets just leave it up to the driver / passengers to decide if they want to drive / get in a car with an unlicensed driver (or a drunk one for that matter).

If not, why not?

It is already up to the driver / passengers to decide if they want to drive / get in a car with an unlicensed driver (or a drunk one for that matter).

:)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

No is not.
The state will have to spend more money on health care,


By that logic, the government should also make homosexuality illegal since gays are more likely to contract aids. The costs of aids care is astronomical.

I think the best point Walter Williams made is that seat belt laws are inconsistent at best.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by xouper
How is that question relevant to his argument? He is arguing that people should not be compelled by government to care for others. That does not imply that there are not other reasons why people care for others. I interpert his position to mean that people are always free to voluntarily care for others. I suspect you already know why people might volunteer to care for others, so why is it relevant to ask Williams what his reasons might be?

I don't see where he said that. What he does say, and you already quoted it, is that under socialism, others are forced to pay for the care of those who get injured while not wearing seatbelts. The inference should be obvious. If people were not forced to pay for the treatment of those injured while not wearing seatbelts, then that argument is no longer relevant. The Fool hit upon this exact point when he suggested (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that non-seatbelt wearers carry a card saying they are not imposing on others to pay for their stupidity.

He is mixing people with government. The question is relevent to whether there's any instances where our government has a legitimate reason for caring for others, or in his and your parlance, forcing others to care for them. He says any time it does care for others, that its socialism (and bad because that leads to totalitarianism). If that's his position, so be it. What a miserable society that would be.
Forcing the wearing of seat belts is not caring for others, anyway. But, if someone gets injured it may be that the government cares for that person, or in your terms, forces the taxpayers to care for them. So not wearing seat belts increases the likelihood that we all will be forced to care for injured people. Thankfully our society has not yet degenerated to the point of letting them die by the side of the road.

There is not any point for me to continue this discussion, because, as you have said, you have a different "take" on the article, and certain things are "self-evident" to you, that are not to me. Can't argue with that.

[Jude]

Originally posted by corplinx


By that logic, the government should also make homosexuality illegal since gays are more likely to contract aids. The costs of aids care is astronomical.

I think the best point Walter Williams made is that seat belt laws are inconsistent at best.

I think making condoms mandatory would be more analogous.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


By that logic, the government should also make homosexuality illegal since gays are more likely to contract aids. The costs of aids care is astronomical.

I think the best point Walter Williams made is that seat belt laws are inconsistent at best.

What a butt-wad of an argument. You could only make that similie if L-F was saying that cars should be banned, not seatbelts. We're talking about unsafe behaviour, not an unsafe lifestyle.

Seat belt laws are inconsistent? With what?

[Mr Manifesto]

The whole seat-belts-diet comparison is an apples-and-oranges argument. There are a lot of factors that contribute to heart failure. A healthy diet is only part of preventing that. There is also exercise, stress, genetic factors... regulating the diet isn't necessarily going to impact on heart disease one way or another.

However, wearing a seat belt has been identfied as a major factor in surviving a car accident.

Anyway, why all the whining? Why not just wear a seat belt and quit whinging about your precious liberties being impinged upon.. all the while forgetting about the people detained at Guantanamo Bay?

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
"History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. "

So, everything with a noble goal leads to totalitarianism?

The latter does not logically follow from the former. Saying that all totalitarian agendas are based on noble goals is NOT the same as saying that all noble goals lead to totalitarianism. The statement does not preclude the existance of noble goals that did not lead to totalitarianism, merely the existance of totalitarianism agendas not based on noble goals.

The fallacy is yours.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of his strawmen is

quote:

Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways, is that if they become injured or sick society will be burdened with higher healthcare costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism. There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another.

That isn't a strawman. Many people make that exact claim. Just because people make other claims too doesn't make this one a strawman.

[shanek]

Originally posted by tedly
In Canada, seat belt legislation is in force in all provinces. Seat belt use is on th e order of 90%. In the U.S it is 30% or less.

Source? Here in NC, seat belt usage is over 88%.

So the insurance industry has forced legislation requiring air-bags in all cars.

With fatally harmful levels of deployment force.

Now air-bags were designed as replacements for seat belts, not as adjuncts to them.

No, they weren't. They were meant to supplement seat belts, not replace them. The government mandated the lethal levels of deployment force because they wanted air bags to protect people not wearing their seat belts, something they were neveer designed to do. GM warned them in 1978 that this was a bad idea.

Air bags offer no protection in a side impact,

Unless, of course, you have a side air bag. Some cars have them.

destroy your ability to manouever after an initial impact,

They're only supposed to deploy when the car crashes to a stop. They don't deploy in minor bump-ups where you'd want to keep going.

and can fire accidentally,

Not unless there's something really, really, really wrong.

[Thanz]

from the article:"Click It Or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty.
Can we invoke Godwin's law here? Comparing seatbelt laws to the nazi's and soviet regimes, and saying that it is a bold step along the road to serfdom? Give me a break. I am sure that many other countries in the western world have mandatory seatbelt laws. How many have gone down the road to serfdom as a result?

We have mandatory seatbelt laws, and I certainly don't feel like a serf. In fact, there was just a safe driving blitz by the cops over the weekend: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/10/14/225392.html

Count yourself privileged that the greatest attack on your liberty is being required to use a life saving device with little to no negative consequences.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
The state will have to spend more money on health care,

The state shouldn't be spending any money on health care.

And besides, from the article:

Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century, the federal government is spending $500 million to aggressively enforce seatbelt laws.

So this really isn't about the state spending money, is it?

[egatley]

There is an angle on the seat belt laws that few people seem to be aware of, that of what is sometimes called "risk compensation" or what you might call the safety net factor. People will take more risks when they feel safe and secure, like when they are belted up.

There is a fair amount of data on this, here is something from the UK relating to the topic at hand:

http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/seat_belts.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jude


They can; just not on state roads.



OK then, so if you are going to use state roads, you will have to obey their requirement that you use a seat belt as well.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by The Fool
Ever wondered why the government control freaks say kids are not allowed to ride on the roof? I guess they will have to live without that special feeling of liberty that only riding on the roof can give you..

I think it's really stifling the way they make us stop at those red light too...


Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto
Anyway, why all the whining? Why not just wear a seat belt and quit whinging about your precious liberties being impinged upon.. all the while forgetting about the people detained at Guantanamo Bay?

I couldn't agree more...get some perspective. So much outrage over something so small. We've had compulsory seabelt legislation here for years and no-one gives a damn....it's become automatic, you just put on your seatbelt. Big deal. I've never met anyone who feels *violated* by being compelled to wear a seatbelt.

Originally posted by Corplinx
[b]Seatbelts are just another way of keeping stupid people in the gene people. Would you rather some idiot died in a car accident or lived and kept on having more accidents? Which then is the greater cost on insurance?[b]

Sheesh...are you suggesting the non-enforcement of seatbelts is a good "population-culling" exercise?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
OK then, so if you are going to use state roads, you will have to obey their requirement that you use a seat belt as well.

That doesn't mean that it makes sense for them to require thus.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jude

You only where your seatbelt because Grandma Government tells you to? Because the "Grandma Government" which I elected took heed of many, many compelling facts from people whose job it is to determine these things and decided that the total health and welfare of our nation would benefit greatly from not having its citizens turned into chopped liver. Or, in American terms, protecting its citizens from an "internal enemy" by compelling them to perform an action that they all agreed benefits them.

Really, the thrust of the original argument is quite baseless - I fail to see what "basic personal liberties" could possibly be surrendered, what "freedom of lifestyle" is curtailed, by deploying an effective, cheap, already existing and hardly inconvenient safety device in a motor vehicle.

To argue against that level of "inconvenience" is also to argue that you are free to drive on any side of the road should you feel the urge. However there are existing rules that do say that particular "freedom" is actually curtailed, to the extent that it is illegal... Of course, we won't mention that it is also inordinately and dangerously stupid either, will we!

AUP had it right - a strawman argument.

[Tony]

Seatbelt and helmet laws are indicative of government tyranny. As long as the lemmings accept government laws put in place for "safety", government oppression and civil rights violations will continue to get worse (ie. the patriot act).

[xouper]

I go away from the board for less than a day, what do I see when I come back? I am simply appalled at all the fallacious logic being used in this thread to defend state mandated seatbelt use. Some of you may rightfully request that I back up my claim. If I had all day to compose proper responses to it all, perhaps I would.

I agree completely with Tony's sentiment.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
I go away from the board for less than a day, what do I see when I come back? I am simply appalled at all the fallacious logic being used in this thread to defend state mandated seatbelt use. Some of you may rightfully request that I back up my claim. If I had all day to compose proper responses to it all, perhaps I would.

I agree completely with Tony's sentiment.

But all Tony is doing is using the 'slippery slope'.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: But all Tony is doing is using the 'slippery slope'.It's not a fallacy if it's factually correct and supportable by evidence. Do you have any reason at all to believe that, if left unchecked, this will be the last time Congress restricts our liberties? If not, then your objection is refuted.

[a_unique_person]

Each law has to be considered and passed on it's own merits. It is a slippery slope.

How did having seat belt laws enable the patriot act to be passed?

How can they require drivers to obtain a license to drive on the roads, then?

[Zep]

I'll ask once again: What "liberties" and "freedoms" need to be given up, what will be ripped from your bosom, that injustice is there that will force a national uprising against your government, if you are required to do up your car seat-belt for your own and others' safety and that of your nation?

Look at it the other way. You CAN indeed ignore this "unjust" and "oppressive" law and simply not use your seatbelt nor require others in your car to do so. The cost to you for that freedom is that you could lose your own life more easily, you could kill someone else through your negligence who may have remained alive otherwise, you could be out-of-pocket monetarily through traffic fines and insurance premium hikes, you could face fines, jail and loss of driving license for failing to adhere to your own country's laws, and you could be treated as a pariah in your community.

I say - go for it! Your "freedom" has no price or limit! :)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by subgenius
From the link:

"Click It Or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty.

This guy "amazing"?

Simple minded more like it. I can see why you want him to fill in for Rush.

Exactly, and as for woo wooism, Walt is the woo wooer here.

The Nazis did tons of stuff, most of it good actually.

If you are worried about living ina Nazi type country then its too late, after WWII America essentially remodeled itself after the majority of Nazi policy

The New Deal is fascist policy based on the economic polices of Mussolini, the heavy investments in science and technology were modeled after German programs an using German scientists, our military based economy is of a German design, the Federal Reserve was done by the same people who degised the Nazi banking system, the Federal Highway program, Nazis did it first, bans on smoking, Nazis did it first, international anti-Communism definetly copied from the Nazis, etc, etc, etc.

Nazi Germany was one of the most progressive societies of the 20th century, they just went off the hook with concentration camps and imperialist war, but a lot of what they did you will see copied all over the world and especially in America. America today is more Nazi than Germany is, and that's not always a bad thing, and yes I mean that as someone who hates the Nazis and is pro-Marxist. The fact simply is that they did a lot of things that were successful.

As for a Federal Law on this matter I don't care either way.

In cases of economic and environmental laws I prefer Federal Laws, in this case I don't think it matter that much. I never wear my seat belt and every state I have lived in has it as part of the law that you have to wear it, so I could care less.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: Each law has to be considered and passed on it's own merits. It is a slippery slope. How did having seat belt laws enable the patriot act to be passed?Yes, they are considered separately, but they have in common the same fundamental justification. Tony's point was that as long as people continue going along with this justification, it will be used again. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

How can they require drivers to obtain a license to drive on the roads, then?For the same reason they can require any of the other restrictions of liberties.

Zep: I'll ask once again: What "liberties" and "freedoms" need to be given up ...Since you don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make, I give up trying. You've expressed your opinion, and I strongly disagree.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by egatley
There is an angle on the seat belt laws that few people seem to be aware of, that of what is sometimes called "risk compensation" or what you might call the safety net factor. People will take more risks when they feel safe and secure, like when they are belted up.

There is a fair amount of data on this, here is something from the UK relating to the topic at hand:

http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/seat_belts.html

This is absurd. According to this logic it is not the LAW that is a problem, but seatbelts themselves.

Essentially it is saying that use of seatbelts caused in increase in the numebr of deaths of pedestrians greater than the lives saved by the use of seatbelts, so by his logic, its not that seatbelt laws should not be made, but rather that seatbelts should be banned.

Retarded.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zep
I'll ask once again: What "liberties" and "freedoms" need to be given up, what will be ripped from your bosom, that injustice is there that will force a national uprising against your government, if you are required to do up your car seat-belt for your own and others' safety and that of your nation?


I've never seen so many people that obviously support the patriot act on this forum before.

Inconsistency at its best.

How about a mandatory condom law for homosexual sex if each partner hasn't had a recent aids test?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx


I've never seen so many people that obviously support the patriot act on this forum before.

Inconsistency at its best.

How about a mandatory condom law for homosexual sex if each partner hasn't had a recent aids test?

Supporting a Federal Safety Law that is already on the book in most states has nothing to do with the Patriot Act in any way shape or form.

[Zep]

Originally posted by corplinx


I've never seen so many people that obviously support the patriot act on this forum before.

Inconsistency at its best.

How about a mandatory condom law for homosexual sex if each partner hasn't had a recent aids test? I don't care about your Patriot Act, what it is, what it implies, and what it means to you or this argument. In Australia, the pretty much identical seat-belt law that people are apparently getting so het up about in the US has been in place for 25 years with measureable improvements as a result. We have no "Patriot Act" or anything else like it in force, nothing even remotely piggybacked off that law, nothing. It was for the benefit and safety of the nation's car drivers, that's all. So as far as any linking of a US seat-belt law to some Patriot Act or any other laws about sexual proclivities or some other subversive leftist plot in any way, forget it - completely different subject as far as I'm concerned. Is that quite clear?

Xouper seems to have given up on me because I continue to ask a question that has yet to be answered: What actual tangible freedoms do you lose by having a federal seat-belt law for cars enforced?

I can keep asking it until someone answers...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zep
What actual tangible freedoms do you lose by having a federal seat-belt law for cars enforced?


You are asking the wrong question. You are asking the government's question.

The citizen's question is, what right does the government have to dictate your private self-contained behavior as long as it doesn't affect others? Seat belts are private behavior.

If the cost of treating people injured without seatbelts is too burdensome in a socialist country where everyone pays everyone else's healthcare, than by that logic in the socialist (or non-free) country greasy foods and cigarettes should be outlawed as well as unsafe sex since all of thsoe contribute to health costs.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/n_157.htm)
A new program of incentive grants (under Section 157 of chapter 1 of Title 23) to encourage States to increase seat belt use rates. A State may use these grant funds for any project eligible for assistance under Title 23. [1403] [my emphasis] Basically, the government is making grant money available to the states: $500 million over 5 years (1998-2003) for any safety belt program they choose.

Also, the Click It or Ticket program was created by the state of North Carolina and was adopted by other states: http://www.ncdot.org/secretary/GHSP/ClickIt/clickit.html
Former Gov. Jim Hunt launched North Carolina's "Click It or Ticket" program in 1993 to increase seat belt and child safety use rates through stepped-up enforcement of the state's seat belt law. There is plenty of educational and advocacy information about the program on the NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/) website, but I did not see anything approaching a mandate that states must implement the program. Yet according to Williams this is a "federal enforcement program" and Congress is asserting its "ownership" of citizens??

If someone plays fast and loose with the facts, why should I care what their opinioin is?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
Yes, they are considered separately, but they have in common the same fundamental justification. Tony's point was that as long as people continue going along with this justification, it will be used again. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

For the same reason they can require any of the other restrictions of liberties.


You don't believe people should be licensed to drive on the roads either?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
Here's the most blatant fallacy:

"History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. "

So, everything with a noble goal leads to totalitarianism?

Silly Rabbit, money is the root of all evil.

From the article:
Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the federal government is spending $500 million to aggressively enforce seatbelt laws.

What grabs me about most of these type of laws, is that they almost always have a justification of "this will save so many hundred million in health care costs, blah blah blah". Then it usually turns out that the costs of administration and enforcement of these laws cost way, way more than they supposedly save.

Being a Californian, this is another one of those "been there done that" things for us. We, in fact, already have the food police. It is actually economical, though, as it is made up of private citizens. You can't hardly eat anything in California without some arshlock having something to say about it :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
Seatbelt and helmet laws are indicative of government tyranny. As long as the lemmings accept government laws put in place for "safety", government oppression and civil rights violations will continue to get worse (ie. the patriot act).

Hopefully, they aren't lemmings but informed voters who kick out a government that passes legislation they don't like, and votes in governments whose policies they do like.

Now, if they aren't doing that, then they get what they deserve. No one has come up with a better system than democracy, so far. If you aren't going to use it, then there is no problem.

[Zep]

Originally posted by corplinx

You are asking the wrong question. You are asking the government's question.

The citizen's question is, what right does the government have to dictate your private self-contained behavior as long as it doesn't affect others? Seat belts are private behavior.

If the cost of treating people injured without seatbelts is too burdensome in a socialist country where everyone pays everyone else's healthcare, than by that logic in the socialist (or non-free) country greasy foods and cigarettes should be outlawed as well as unsafe sex since all of thsoe contribute to health costs. Are YOU telling ME what question to ask now? Is it so that you can answer your own question because mine's too tough? I'm a big boy - I can formulate my own questions, thanks all the same.

Margaret Thatcher used to do that sort of thing, you know...

Seat-belt enforcement is NOT a private citizen's behaviour. On public roads, it VERY MUCH affects the community and others directly, both monetarily and personally. If you decide not to wear a seat-belt while driving on your own property then fine, but that's a different issue.

And this gratuitous catagorisation of countries that DO enforce these types of impositions as law as "socialist (or non-free)" is indicative of a VERY closed and uneducated mind, if you don't mind me pointing that out to you. Give it up as an argument - it does you no credit at all.

[Pvt. Stash]

90% of all accidents happen in the home!!

Half of those in the Bathroom!!

We MUST act now! , Non-slip Rubber grippy-mats in the bathtub should be LAW !!

Dont make ME pay for your concussion after that slip-n-fall!

hey an while we're at it what about Smoke Alarms ? hell yeah why not that'll make us Safer! Make it a Law!
Fire Extinguishers, CO detectors, and HEPA filters (we all Know how bad 2nd hand smoke is! my God think of the Children!)


Its for your own good y'know...



PS

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm a big boy - I can formulate my own questions, thanks all the same.


I don't see what the size of your butt has to do with your intellect. If you think there is a correlation then I think I'm wasting my time debating with you.

[The Fool]

Might I suggest a compromise? All those that feel that pulling something down over thier shoulder and clicking it into a slot near your bum is going to turn you into a slave or a Nazi or something.....try this..... simply loosly tie the belt in place with fine cotton or a strand of wool. This ensures your freedom to be a danger to yourself and others on the roads is maintained as the belt will not offer you any restraint and you will not get a ticket....best of both worlds really.....
Maybe you could also sponsor the "liberty 500" see how many good ol Nascar drivers will join your cause and run a race with no seatbelts... Spectators who pay extra could sit on the bonnets of the cars until the wind pressure gets too much....Remember, its all about personal liberty and has nothing to do with head injuries, or a governments concerted attempts to prevent idiots from receiving them.

Then again, anyone who drives without a seatbelt would probably not be greatly affected by head injuries....no brain no pain?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Pvt. Stash
90% of all accidents happen in the home!!

Half of those in the Bathroom!!

We MUST act now! , Non-slip Rubber grippy-mats in the bathtub should be LAW !!

Dont make ME pay for your concussion after that slip-n-fall!

hey an while we're at it what about Smoke Alarms ? hell yeah why not that'll make us Safer! Make it a Law!
Fire Extinguishers, CO detectors, and HEPA filters (we all Know how bad 2nd hand smoke is! my God think of the Children!)


Its for your own good y'know...



PS
Hi Stash welcome to the forum.

Cars are big metal things with tyres at each corner, they travel at high speeds very close to things that don't travel at high speeds, or even travel at high speeds in the other direction! (pretty cool eh?). Bathrooms are where you wash and brush your teeth, They generally don't move much. I'm sure you may be correct and people die and are seriously injured when bathrooms collide but I just can't think of any examples off hand, can you?

I'll put you on the list of people who chose liberty or death.....I'm impressed. Ever seen a head after its been through a windscreen? Talk to a paramedic who has to deal with it, talk to them about liberty.....I'm sure they will be amused.

[xouper]

The Fool: Then again, anyone who drives without a seatbelt would probably not be greatly affected by head injuries....no brain no pain?I haven't seen anyone suggest that wearing a seatbelt is not a good idea. That is not the argument here. The argument here is whether the gubmint has the right to mandate seatbelt use. And aside from people's opinions on the matter, I specifically asked what logical fallacies (if any) were in Williams's essay, and so far, the responses to that question has been quite unsatisfactory.

[Cain]

A few random comments from an armed American.

I fail to see how the right-leaning/libertarian/conservative contingent here can be so opposed to seat-belt laws. When you get issued a driver's license, you essentially have to consent to a contract saying you'll submit to a test for alcohol in the system. This same "contract" could include that you swear to make sure all passengers in your vehicle are buckled up. (unless you believe the government has no business creating roads and issuing licenses, this shouldn't be a problem).

My thinking has wavered on the topic. I used to believe that of course there should be a law requiring people strap on their seat belts. Later I viewed it as an act of unjustified state paternalism, and my opinion still slightly leans that way.

The odious comparison to Nazi Germany should be completely ignored. The analogy of a health inspector randomly entering a person's backyard should also be ignored. Enforcing a seat-belt law is not a gross violation of privacy, nor is it a burdensome requirement.

Can the government require that you buckle in your children? Omigod, that means they're going to install cameras in your home to make certain you don't give little Michael too many oreos after his well-balanced meal.

I do have a problem with government treating adults as children, however. It's a stupid topic because people who fiercely oppose seat-belt laws end up sounding exactly like irresponsible children unable to take care of themselves.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
It's not a fallacy if it's factually correct and supportable by evidence. Do you have any reason at all to believe that, if left unchecked, this will be the last time Congress restricts our liberties? If not, then your objection is refuted.

The minute you accept you are part of a country with a government, you accept that you are trading some liberty for some other benefit. If I was a born serial killer, I would not be able to just go out and act on my natural impulses.

The question then becomes, where do we draw the line between acting collectively and acting individually. That is for democracy to sort out. It does a remarkably effective job of doing just this, considering all it's failings.

[Cleopatra]

Interesting discussion.

I wasn't able to spot any logical fallacies in the article but this doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.

I believe that there must be a way to prevent the social problems that someone who ended up tetraplegic just because he refused to wear a seat-bealt causes.

I am not referring to the cost of his hospitalization but to the pain such a person can cause to his family and his environment.

Also, there is the issue AUP mentioned in his last post. By the moment we live in the society we have to sacrifice part of our liberties in order to enjoy the priviliges that a life in a society offers to us. I don't understand why this is a bad thing.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Also, there is the issue AUP mentioned in his last post. By the moment we live in the society we have to sacrifice part of our liberties in order to enjoy the priviliges that a life in a society offers to us. I don't understand why this is a bad thing.

I know you are Greek and therefore take on Socrates' philosophy on this matter, or perhaps it's just a coincidence, either way I don't agree with you. When any society asks you to sacrifice anything that is one thing and I have no problem with that, however, when a society FORCES you to sacrifice part of your liberties that becomes a huge problem with me. Even though I might agree with the rule forced on me -- wearing a seat-belt -- the mere notion of being forced to do it is something I have a problem with. When "societies" start forcing the sacrifices they usually never stop.

[a_unique_person]

Do you have a drivers license?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I know you are Greek and therefore take on Socrates' philosophy on this matter, or perhaps it's just a coincidence, either way I don't agree with you. When any society asks you to sacrifice anything that is one thing and I have no problem with that, however, when a society FORCES you to sacrifice part of your liberties that becomes a huge problem with me. Even though I might agree with the rule forced on me -- wearing a seat-belt -- the mere notion of being forced to do it is something I have a problem with. When "societies" start forcing the sacrifices they usually never stop.

Ok for one more time I will sound like father Portokalos in the movie " My big Fat Greek Wedding..." :p

*clears throat*

Your reference to Socrates concerns the obedience to Laws and not the sacrifice of the personal freedoms :)

I understand that it's the paternalistic model of a society that you resent and I think that I must agree that by the moment a society starts asking for sacrificies it won't stop.

BUT I think that philosophically and practically ( even linguistically ) speaking the phrase "living in a society" means living with certain rules and under certain conditions.

Those who invented organized societies the way we know them in the West, the Greeks, used the word <font face="symbol">koinvnia</font> (pronounced : kinonia) to describe both societies and marriages...

By the moment you step your foot into an organized group of people you deny part of your personal freedom and you have to treat even yourself in a way that won't harm others.

[michaellee]

Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the federal government is spending $500 million to aggressively enforce seatbelt laws.


I read the entire thread, and find a majority here believe that:

Wearing a selt-belt is not an arduous task nor any big inconvenience and does not infringe on one's liberties.

By wearing a selt-belt, the chances of surviving or reducing injuries is greater than if not wearing one, and this reduces medical costs to society.

Little Johnny, if not strapped in, could quite possibly be a 65 lb. deadly missile one second, and three 21.67 lb. pieces of human shrapnell the next.

Only an idiot does not wear a seat belt.

While the minority opinion seems to be that:

Government mandated seat-belt use, increased federal spending to enforce such laws are just another infringement on our freedoms and liberties in the Government's effort to slowly and quietly eliminate all of what is left of our once great Republic.

Regardless of the possible benefits derived from these laws and their enforcement, these cannot begin to compare to the price of liberty, and as such, do not justify these laws even if proven to be true.

And my own opinion is that:

I CHOOSE to wear a seat belt, if one is AVAILABLE, for personal reasons only.

I question any law or regulation that infringes in any way, on the rights granted to the people by the Constitution.

I question any expenditure by the Govt, especially $500 million ones just for the "enforcement" of a law.


So I ask the wise ones here the following questions:

1. Is it true that: This Clickit or Ticket program, at a cost of $500 million, is going to save lives and reduce costs to society by ticketing and imposing stiff fines and penalties on the estimated 20-40 % of drivers not buckled up? If so, isn't this stated in simpler terms by saying "We, the Govt, knowing whats best for you and your children and society, are going to educate the idiot population, through penalties and fines, in order to get them to fasten their seat belts. We have the money, we have the enforcement, and we have the ability to increase the IQ of all unbuckled drivers.

If 60-90% of drivers currently buckle up, then this new program is not targeting these drivers; it only targets the stupid idiots; the ones who will not learn or change their behavior no matter how much money or effort the Gov't tosses at it.

So the Govt's real goal is not to save lives or reduce costs or "to do it for the children", it is to write up more tickets, collect more fines and to do this to only the dumbest portion of the population. Sounds like a novel Govt program to me.

Nothing could be more hypocritical coming from the Gov't than this program. Why do I say this?

If safety, reduction of costs, and the children are the reasons behind this program, then why:

1. Do millions of our children, ages 5-18, 200 a days a year, every year, travel to and from government schools in buses WHILE NOT WEARING SEATBELTS????? Oh, thats right, its not that they are not wearing them, its that THERE ARE NOT ANY SEATBELTS INSTALLED!!!!

2. Do millions of citizens, children and adults, greatly increase risk of injury and death, by riding daily on subways, public buses, public trains and light-rails, all at high speeds, not only NOT WEARING A SEATBELT, but not even having the choice because there ARE NONE????

And of course, our government has had the wonderful insight to ensure our safety in one particular area when it comes to seat belt use other than in our privately owned automobiles. You got it! ON AN AIRPLANE!! Not only is it mandated on every flight, we are instructed each and every trip of this fact; and also are given verbal and visual instructions on how to actually buckle and unbuckle the belt!

Yes, those airplane seatbelts come in real handy when your plane makes an "emergency landing"-when a 3000 ton vehicle traveling near the speed of sound impacts the ground or water, I must be sure to be safely buckled in! And because I listened to the instructions, I know how to unfasten the metal buckle from the harness, so I can get up to assist others who may be injured!

So how many lives have been saved by wearing seat belts on airplanes when they evaporate upon contact? Maybe the Govt should draft some new legislation requiring a study into this matter. The children on the school bus? Commuters on subways, trains, and buses? Naw, there is no efficient way to fine or ticket these people. But we're working on it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by michaellee
So how many lives have been saved by wearing seat belts on airplanes when they evaporate upon contact? Maybe the Govt should draft some new legislation requiring a study into this matter.

I take it you will be volunteering to fly through heavy turbulence and an emergency landing without a seat belt on as part of this study?

[Graham]

Originally posted by michaellee
So how many lives have been saved by wearing seat belts on airplanes when they evaporate upon contact? Maybe the Govt should draft some new legislation requiring a study into this matter. The children on the school bus? Commuters on subways, trains, and buses? Naw, there is no efficient way to fine or ticket these people. But we're working on it.

Not to interrupt your rant or anyhting (nice rant by the way :) ) but I don't think airplane seatbelts are supposed to save your life if the 'plane dissolves into a 3000 degree fireball.

What they are supposed to do is prevent a situation where 300 passengers are bouncing around the cabin like ping-pong balls on speed every time the plane hits turbulance and to try and to ensure that, should you actually survive a crash, you don't wake up to find yourself at the bottom of a pile of 300 other semi-conscious people.

Surely you can see the advantages of that?

Graham

[Zep]

The "liberty or death" proponents should think very carefully about coming to Australia. NOT wearing seat-belts, compulsory by law, is a seriously finable offence. But if you feel that it is acceptable for someone else's gubmint to "transgress your constitutional freedoms" while driving, why whinge about your own?

Herewith the official NSW one page guide for overseas visitors when driving in Australia (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/overseas_visitors.pdf). Note the third point, highlighted for the dummies.

The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales wishes you a safe and enjoyable stay and has produced this brochure to outline some of our road rules. Please familiarise yourself with the following safety measures for both drivers and pedestrians.
• Drivers must always keep to the left hand side of the road.
• Pedestrians should always look right first before crossing a road.
• Seat belts and child restraints must be worn by all vehicle occupants.
• ...etc

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Malachi151


This is absurd. According to this logic it is not the LAW that is a problem, but seatbelts themselves.

Essentially it is saying that use of seatbelts caused in increase in the numebr of deaths of pedestrians greater than the lives saved by the use of seatbelts, so by his logic, its not that seatbelt laws should not be made, but rather that seatbelts should be banned.

Retarded.

The site appears to have facts to back up the argument that introducing compulsory seatbelts leads to increased deaths/injuries in other road users. I have not looked at any of the quoted studies in detail, but is it that surprising?

How fast would you drive if there was a large spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel so that even a minor accident would lead to injury/death? I would suspect a lot slower than without it. As the speed of the vehicle is a factor in the severity of injuries sustained in accidents, anything (seatbelts or absence of spikes) that reduces the perceived risk to the driver and may consequently increase speed could be expected to have an impact on the severity of injuries sustained even if the number of accidents was unchanged.

If (and its a big if) the wearing of seatbelts increased overall injuries/deaths, it would be logical to discourage people from wearing them.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


The site appears to have facts to back up the argument that introducing compulsory seatbelts leads to increased deaths/injuries in other road users. I have not looked at any of the quoted studies in detail, but is it that surprising?

How fast would you drive if there was a large spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel so that even a minor accident would lead to injury/death? I would suspect a lot slower than without it. As the speed of the vehicle is a factor in the severity of injuries sustained in accidents, anything (seatbelts or absence of spikes) that reduces the perceived risk to the driver and may consequently increase speed could be expected to have an impact on the severity of injuries sustained even if the number of accidents was unchanged.

If (and its a big if) the wearing of seatbelts increased overall injuries/deaths, it would be logical to discourage people from wearing them.

#1 The facts on this are simple. If you wear a seatbelt it does not matter if you were "forced" to wear it or you "choose" to wear it, the impact is the same.

The complain is about "compulsory" seatbelt laws, but the only difference in before and after the laws is a rise in the use of seatbelts. The law didn't cause the accident rates to change, it, according to the study, was cuase by PEOPLE WEARING SEATBELTS.

So either this study is correct and ALL SEATBELT USE should be banned and seatbelts should be removed from cars in order to save lives, or the study is wrong and pointless.

Let's say that prior to the law seatbelt use of 30% and after the law seatbelt use was 80%. And as a"result" (according to this guy) total deaths from car accidents went up.

Now if you repeal the law but seatbelt use stays at 80% then you still have the same problem. Your hope then would be to reduce seatbelt use. By this logic the best seatbelt use is zero seatbelt use.

If seatbelts make people less safe then why would you want any seatbelt use?

The whole idea of seatbelts is to increase safety. If this study proved that they decrease safety then they should be banned. There is no middle ground here, either they increase safety or they don't. If they do then laws requiring them are laws that increase safety. If they don't then there is no reason to have them at all.

As for the law, its absurd that people get upset about this. Why? Because these laws have been implimented by states for years and no one cared. Why is it all good whena state passes and enforces the law, but tyranny when the federal government does? Again, if the law is good then its good and should be federal, if its bad then none of the states should have it.

And lastly, the argument about pedestrians is mute in America anyway because America has different diving conditions which include much, much fewer pedestrians and much more highway driving.

[LW]

Originally posted by michaellee

1. Do millions of our children, ages 5-18, 200 a days a year, every year, travel to and from government schools in buses WHILE NOT WEARING SEATBELTS????? Oh, thats right, its not that they are not wearing them, its that THERE ARE NOT ANY SEATBELTS INSTALLED!!!!

2. Do millions of citizens, children and adults, greatly increase risk of injury and death, by riding daily on subways, public buses, public trains and light-rails, all at high speeds, not only NOT WEARING A SEATBELT, but not even having the choice because there ARE NONE????

One thing to note is that the heavier vehicle you are in, the less often you need seat belts.

Few weeks ago one of my friends was in an accident. He was riding in a bus when a car [whose driver mistakingly believed he had the right of way] run into its side. The car was deformed into unrepairable condition. The bus didn't even shake and the only indication of the collision was a loud crashing noise.

Seatbelts are really useful in heavy vehicles in two cases:

(1) it collides with another heavy vehicle
(2) it goes offroad.

Here long-distance busses have to have seatbelts installed (wearing them is recommended but not mandatory) while short-distance commuter busses don't.

As for the case of railway traffic, the accidents where they would be useful are very, very rare.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Malachi151
So either this study is correct and ALL SEATBELT USE should be banned and seatbelts should be removed from cars in order to save lives, or the study is wrong and pointless.

...

The whole idea of seatbelts is to increase safety. If this study proved that they decrease safety then they should be banned. There is no middle ground here, either they increase safety or they don't. If they do then laws requiring them are laws that increase safety. If they don't then there is no reason to have them at all.

Don't think it is that clearcut at all. What if by wearing a seatbelt I increase MY safety, but at an increased risk to other road users? Should I be prevented from reducing my risk by a law banning seatbelts?

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Graham

What they are supposed to do is prevent a situation where 300 passengers are bouncing around the cabin like ping-pong balls on speed every time the plane hits turbulance and to try and to ensure that, should you actually survive a crash, you don't wake up to find yourself at the bottom of a pile of 300 other semi-conscious people.

Surely you can see the advantages of that?


Certainly I can and do. I just find it somewhat humorous when comparing the overall importance placed on seatbelts between airplanes, autos, and government ran transportation(schoolbuses most notably).

I travel frequently, both in my car and by plane. My car is 10 years young and has 250,000 miles on it- most of this driving is in congested city traffic so I see it all. I would never not wear my seat belt and any passengers must buckle up... my car, my rules. Half the drivers are using cell phones, eating, reading, putting on make-up- and these are the good drivers! The other half resemble the cast from the Night of the Living Dead. So I am fully aware of the possibility of being smashed into at any given moment.

But when it comes to the airlines... I know it is better to be safe than sorry, and there is no harm in requiring the same old, tired instructions to be read on every flight. But in reality, the seatbelts on an airplane may help out under the circumstances you describe, but that type of turbulence occurs rarely, and usually briefly, and most passengers are seated already.

Most of the public doesn't give much thought to this, but professional athletes, like basketball, football, and baseball players, travel via airplane quite a bit. Rarely is this part of their lives discussed or even mentioned, be it on television, newspaper, radio or the Internet. You would think after the thousands of flights taken, year after year, there would be mention of a scary flight- one with extreme turbulence or something of that nature. You don't hear about it because it almost never occurs. My point? I know a few pro athletes, and have questioned them about the flights they take, and how they differ from standard coach travel.

Well, for one thing, all of the players and coaches and others.... NEVER give a second thought about what a seatbelt is, let alone use one. From the moment they board, while taxiing, lifting-off, cruising, landing etc...most if not all of these guys are standing, leaning, milling around, discussing gameplans- anything but receiving instructions on how to buckle their seatbelts.

The same goes for those responsible for the seatbelt laws. When your local, state or federal politician hops on a jet, do you think for a moment that they follow the rules they created and impose on us? NOT!

I can picture GWB, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney, seated quietly, listening attentively while instructions are given on how to insert the metal strap into the buckle. When the flight attendant asks "if you have the need for any additional assistance, we will be glad to demonstrate further or clarify any instructions", GWB raises his hand and says "Can I get a little clarification on that seat belt thing. Did you say insert the metal strap into the buckle, or am I supposed to put the buckle over the metal strap?"

Once again, government hypocrisy at its best. Nothing shows this better than the blatant lack of seatbelts on schoolbuses. Why is this? The excuse typically given is that the buses in use are too old- old enough that when they were built, seat belts weren't even a thought. And to add them now would cost too much money. Ha. Too much money to spend? And this coming from our govt? And for our children? Man, just try telling the public that the school lunch program is cutting out one extra packet of ketchup and all you hear is "starving our children".

I think out of the 700 BILLION DOLLARS + spent this last year alone on Education, somehow the cost of seatbelts on schoolbuses could be squeezed in. You do the math.

So, lets recap. Government officials and politicos, wealthy athletes and schoolchildren need not be troubled with the seatbelt thing, for one trifle reason or another.

But for Joe stupid public, wear your seatbelt, or a new 500 million enforcement program is coming to your neighborhood soon. And when you still refuse to comply, we will ticket and fine you, you rebels you, you 20% who will never change your ways.

What good for the goose...

[Malachi151]

Actually I read a study on seatbelts on busses that found they were more dangerous because of the number of accidents that involved the need to immediatly get off the bus, such as stalling on train tracks, going off the road, going into the water, etc.

With buses the danger is not typically from being in a crash, where seatbelts help, but from not being able to get off the bus fast enough in the event of an acident where a bus is on fire or under water or stuck.

[michaellee]

Yes, I read frequently of stories about how students on schoolbuses narrowly avoided being killed by that speeding train because they all escaped only because their seatbelts did not trap them inside. And just yesterday, the one schoolbus that drove into Lake Michigan, and all the kids, uninjured, managed to escape the watery grave only because... they were not trapped by those dangerous seat belts! You ask, where did you read this? The same place your "studies" are located.... in Hypocrite City, USA.

[Graham]

Originally posted by michaellee
Yes, I read frequently of stories about how students on schoolbuses narrowly avoided being killed by that speeding train because they all escaped only because their seatbelts did not trap them inside. And just yesterday, the one schoolbus that drove into Lake Michigan, and all the kids, uninjured, managed to escape the watery grave only because... they were not trapped by those dangerous seat belts! You ask, where did you read this? The same place your "studies" are located.... in Hypocrite City, USA.

Ask him where to get the best, most unbiased information about the Nazi party (not the rubbish you read in - turns away and spits - history books). Go on, ask him . . . it's hilarious, if only because it's so absolutely tragic.

By the way, as a regular cyclist I'm well aware of the many and varied strange habits of motorists. I think the overriding problem is exactly what is evident in your last post re sitting in traffic, etc - complacency.

You think that just because you do it every day adn you've never had an accident that you never will. Believe it or not, the girl puttingon her makeup and the guy reading his newspaper are thinking exactly the same thing. My mother is a (reasonably) intelligent adn sensible person and firmly "believes" in wearing a seatbelt but quite often doesn't bother putting it on until she's already well away from the house. Why? Because nothing's going to happen in those few minutes :rolleyes:

Graham

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by michaellee
Yes, I read frequently of stories about how students on schoolbuses narrowly avoided being killed by that speeding train because they all escaped only because their seatbelts did not trap them inside. And just yesterday, the one schoolbus that drove into Lake Michigan, and all the kids, uninjured, managed to escape the watery grave only because... they were not trapped by those dangerous seat belts! You ask, where did you read this? The same place your "studies" are located.... in Hypocrite City, USA.

Maybe that is why school buses here aren't required to have seat belts. However, for long distance buses, where there are collisions that cause deaths, they are being considered.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by xouper
It's not a fallacy if it's factually correct and supportable by evidence. Do you have any reason at all to believe that, if left unchecked, this will be the last time Congress restricts our liberties? If not, then your objection is refuted.
Not quite, there xouper. Is it factually correct ans supportable by evidence? Can you provide me with any examples where seatbelt laws have somehow opened the floodgates and acted as a bold step towards serfdom?

I don't have to show that Congress will never again restrict liberties. That is just a stupid requirement - all laws, no matter how benign, restrict freedom in some way. If you want to argue that the seat belt law actually is a bold step towards serfdom, lets see some evidence. If you don't have any, the argument is nothing more than the scaremongering tactics of a slippery slope argument.

[tamiO]

The bottom line for me is that I do not trust the cops.

Seat-belt laws make money. It gives cops an opportunity to pull you over, run your driver's license, and search your car.

I am not sure, but it seems that roadblocks are unconstitutional.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by tamiO
The bottom line for me is that I do not trust the cops.

Seat-belt laws make money. It gives cops an opportunity to pull you over, run your driver's license, and search your car.

I am not sure, but it seems that roadblocks are unconstitutional.

They only make money if you aren't wearing your seat belt. They would not be allowed to search your car without cause. A drivers license check would not turn up anything if you were just driving on a normal license.

And more people will be alive because of it.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by tamiO


I am not sure, but it seems that roadblocks are unconstitutional.

Ah-Ha !

Roadblocks designed to check drivers for sobriety and drug possession are unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that police roadblocks set up to nab drug offenders violate constitutional Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
( http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4234 )

Pretty clever..... just set up roadblocks to check for seatbelts instead!

[tamiO]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They only make money if you aren't wearing your seat belt. They would not be allowed to search your car without cause. A drivers license check would not turn up anything if you were just driving on a normal license.

And more people will be alive because of it.

When you come upon a roadblock for seatbelts, you just buckle up before you get within view of the officers.

As you get to the front of the line, they will look at your eyes... do you appear to be under the influence? Is there a funny smell? Do you fit the description of someone wanted?

It is cheaper to scan for bench warrants off driver's licenses than it is to actually serve the warrants in the first place.

Of course, they need the dogs present in order to protect the officers.

:rolleyes:

[tamiO]

From the article at
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4234


In penning the Court's opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote "We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime"

Is this statement by Sandra Day O'Connor saying that seatbelt roadblocks are unconstitutional, as well?

That is how I interpret it.

[jimlintott]

There are a set of laws that demand the use of seat belts that not a single living person can violate. The laws of physics.

The idea that buckling up increases bravado and decreases safety is silly. The opposite effect also works. Having to use safety equipment often serves as reminder to how dangerous the activity can be.

I find that the whole argument is bizzarre and actually has nothing to do with seat belts. I suspect that if a law was passed requiring the use of smoke detectors that people would suddenly be pissed at smoke detectors and the governments forcing them on us.

The seat belt law is what I call a stupid law. You need a law because some people are to stupid to do it themselves.

Yes, I believe that not wearing your belts can affect your ability to control your vehicle in an emergency. This is why your wearing your belts is important to me.

I believe that because of this:
C.F. = V^2/gR
Where
V = velocity (ft/sec)
g = Acceleration of gravity
R = Radius of corner (ft)

This formula calculates lateral acceleration for a given speed in a given radius of corner. This formula predicts that you will not be able to stay behind the wheel without belts in certain curcumstances. The anti seat belt people are free to yell all their best arguments at this formula and if it, or one of the constants changes, let me know.

Until then Buckle up. Don't be stupid.

[heath]

This "liberty or death" extremism for such trivial things appears to be a purely American afliction. Many (all?) other western countries don't feel this tragic opression from things like laws and government. We have these things, sure, but recognise them as a requirement for a society. Laws and goverment can be oppressive. Doesn't mean they are by definition.

It's not even like the US has less laws than other countries, or more freedom for that matter. Try to build a nuclear weapon in your bedroom or make threatening phone calls to your president and you'll find that most of the "freedom" you assume you have is loaned to you by the society you live and it can take em away pretty quick smart too. (or as pointed out elsewhere just driving on the wrong side of the road).

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by michaellee
Yes, I read frequently of stories about how students on schoolbuses narrowly avoided being killed by that speeding train because they all escaped only because their seatbelts did not trap them inside. And just yesterday, the one schoolbus that drove into Lake Michigan, and all the kids, uninjured, managed to escape the watery grave only because... they were not trapped by those dangerous seat belts! You ask, where did you read this? The same place your "studies" are located.... in Hypocrite City, USA.

Gee this was "rea hard" to dig up...

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1990/HAR9002.htm

After the collision, the truck came to rest facing west on he right shoulder of FM 676. The school bus continued in a northwest direction and dropped approximately 24 feet into a caliche pit (excavation pit) partially filled with water, located in the northwest corner of the intersection. The bus came to rest on its left side facing southeast, totally submerged in approximately 10 feet of water, approximately 35 feet from the nearest shoreline. The bus front boarding door was jammed shut, but the rear emergency exit door was operable. No other emergency exits were on the bus.

Nineteen students died at the accident scene, and two died later in the hospital. The 21 fatalities were the result of drowning or complications related to the submersion. Furthermore, 3 students sustained serious injuries, 46 others sustained minor injuries, and 11 students were not injured.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the truckdriver's inattention and subsequent failure to maintain sufficient control of his vehicle to stop at the stop sign. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the lack of a sufficient number of emergency exits on the school bus to accommodate the rapid egress of all 81 students.

Safety recommendations addressing these issues were made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Texas Department of Public Safety; Texas Education Agency; Hidalgo County; City of Alton, Texas; Mission Consolidated Independent School District; Coca-Cola Enterprise, Inc.; Valley Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc.; and the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board made the following recommendations:

to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to include a requirement that floor level emergency exits should be designed so that once opened they remain open during emergencies and school bus evacuations. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-74)

Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to include a requirement that lap shoulder belt systems for the driver position be installed in all newly manufactured buses, including city, intercity, small, and large. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-75)

Cooperate with the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services to prepare a comprehensive school bus emergency evacuation - rescue guide. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-76)

Conduct research to determine the safety benefits and disadvantages of larger school bus side windows. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-77)

Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to include a requirement for larger side windows in school buses if research proves that larger windows are more beneficial to school bus occupant safety. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-78)

--to the Texas Department of Public Safety

Examine the status of emergency management response plans statewide and work in coordination with and provide guidance to county and local governments in complying with the Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management emergency response plans requirements. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-79)

Evaluate in cooperation with Hidalgo County its compliance with the Texas Disaster Act of 1975. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-80)

--to the Texas Education Agency:

Coordinate the modification of school bus specifications prepared jointly with the State Purchasing and General Services Administration and the Texas Department of Public Safety, to include a requirement that lap shoulder belt systems for the driver position be installed in all newly manufactured buses including city, intercity, small, and large. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-81)

--to the Hidalgo County:

Develop a system to identify all traffic regulations and traffic control devices in the county and other appropriate jurisdictions within Hidalgo County. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-82)

Review emergency response plans in coordination with the Texas Department of Public Safety and update and enforce these plans to be in compliance with the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 and the Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management requirements. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-83)

--to the City of Alton:

Provide public safety personnel assigned to telephone duties with training in techniques of handling calls for emergency assistance. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-84)

Provide public safety personnel with guidance in handling emergency response, command, and on-scene control of community-wide emergencies and disaster. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-85)

--to the Mission Consolidated Independent School District:

Institute procedures that will ensure accurate review of the school busdriver medical examination report form and related documents and enforcement of any limitations. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-86)

--to the Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.:

Conduct a review and evaluate the number of mechanics and the provided resources in each of its operations to ensure that proper vehicle maintenance is performed in accordance with manufacturer specifications. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-87)

--to the Valley Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc.:

Develop and implement a formal truck driving training program including classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction with emphasis on driving articulated vehicles, using seatbelts, and complying with traffic regulations. The program should include maintaining adequate records and other documentation of driver examinations, including road test results. The training should be performed by qualified instructors). (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-88)

Establish procedures and provide adequate resources to ensure that proper vehicle maintenance is performed in accordance with manufacturer specifications. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-90-89)

Nowhere is it recommended that seatbelts be used for passengers.

This was just one fo my first picks off a google search using the words: school bus drowning

Facts are not that hard to find if you use just a "wittle bit" of effort. :rolleyes:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by heath
This "liberty or death" extremism for such trivial things appears to be a purely American afliction. Many (all?) other western countries don't feel this tragic opression from things like laws and government. We have these things, sure, but recognise them as a requirement for a society. Laws and goverment can be oppressive. Doesn't mean they are by definition.

It's not even like the US has less laws than other countries, or more freedom for that matter. Try to build a nuclear weapon in your bedroom or make threatening phone calls to your president and you'll find that most of the "freedom" you assume you have is loaned to you by the society you live and it can take em away pretty quick smart too. (or as pointed out elsewhere just driving on the wrong side of the road).

I am getting sick and tired of this insinuations that just because I don't want the government to force me to buckle-up I also hate laws and want anarchy to overturn the government. This is absurd logic that only a person who has nothing good to add to the debate would say.

Oh? Don't like my conclusion? Well I am just using your logic in this.

[egatley]

Originally posted by heath
This "liberty or death" extremism for such trivial things appears to be a purely American afliction. Many (all?) other western countries don't feel this tragic opression from things like laws and government. We have these things, sure, but recognise them as a requirement for a society. Laws and goverment can be oppressive. Doesn't mean they are by definition.

It's not even like the US has less laws than other countries, or more freedom for that matter. Try to build a nuclear weapon in your bedroom or make threatening phone calls to your president and you'll find that most of the "freedom" you assume you have is loaned to you by the society you live and it can take em away pretty quick smart too. (or as pointed out elsewhere just driving on the wrong side of the road).

As far as extremism for "trivial things," from what I see it's pretty much the same all over, at least where it is allowed. Definitely in the UK. There are a lot of people who don't like being controlled, even a little bit.

As far as non trivial things, I was very encouraged reading today about the recent first large scale public protest in Saudi Arabia (where it is illegal to protest, mind you) with tear gas and everything.

You are quite correct about nuclear weapons and threatening the president, these are serious things after all, but as far as our overall freedom, umm, yes we actually do have quite a bit. Don't know specifically about laws, but surprisingly enough we are about no. 6 in the world regarding freedom from unnecessary regulation, tho I expect we're fading fast.

If you want less regulation, you have only Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, New Zealand, and Ireland to choose from. Don't know about the rest of them, but Ireland really turned it's economy around in the past 10 years by lowering spending and taxes, abolishing government agencies, and by cutting regulation.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by egatley
Don't know about the rest of them, but Ireland really turned it's economy around in the past 10 years by lowering spending and taxes, abolishing government agencies, and by cutting regulation.

Of course the massive subsidies from the EU probably helped a bit as well!

[michaellee]

originally posted by Malachi151

Nineteen students died at the accident scene, and two died later in the hospital. The 21 fatalities were the result of drowning or complications related to the submersion. Furthermore, 3 students sustained serious injuries, 46 others sustained minor injuries, and 11 students were not injured.

...Occupant Crash Protection, to include a requirement that lap shoulder belt systems for the driver position be installed in all newly manufactured buses....

Nowhere is it recommended that seatbelts be used for passengers.


You posted this to back up what?

Seems to me that according to the above, 21 kids died-- and they were NOT wearing seat belts. So their deaths had nothing to do WITH wearing a seat belt. Are you going to suggest that if the 60 survivors had been wearing seat belts, they would not have been able to escape?

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that of the survivors, 3 had serious injuries and 49 had minor injuries, while the report implies that all who died, died due to drowning or submersion complications?

Were the 49 injuries related to submersion complications? What is a submersion complication, other than drowning?

I bet that the 49 injuries were not due to submersion complications, but instead due to the impact suffered when the kids were smashing against seats, railings, windows, metal or other kids because they were NOT wearing seat belts. And not for a minute do I believe all 21 who died were completely uninjured prior to drowning or being submerged. If that were so then you would have to believe that:

52 injured survivors did not drown, and their injuries were most likely from trauma suffered before the bus became submerged, yet they ALL managed to escape.

But the 21 who did drown were not injured one bit prior to the submersion, but they ALL could not escape?

And isn't it typical- the official response is to mandate seat belt use for the DRIVER of the bus, and not for the kids! Why does the driver need a seat belt more so than the children. I believe the driver enjoys much more protection than the kids simply from the fact of being able to foresee trouble coming, and prepare for the impact. The kids on the other hand, are completely unaware of any inherent danger.

I will try and find some information on school bus collisions, injury and death rates, etc..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I am getting sick and tired of this insinuations that just because I don't want the government to force me to buckle-up I also hate laws and want anarchy to overturn the government. This is absurd logic that only a person who has nothing good to add to the debate would say.

Oh? Don't like my conclusion? Well I am just using your logic in this.

It is just as crazy as saying you think that having seat belt laws is akin to wanting Adolf Hitler in power.