I think that seat belts should be mandated by law, because we all (society) ends up bearing the brunt of the cost for people who fail to wear their seatbelts. In fact, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration It has been proven that seat belt laws increase the use of seat belts. Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually. We all pay for those who do not wear seat belts. The higher health care and insurance costs that result from unbelted drivers and passengers involved in crashes get passed along to everyone. For example, the costs of hospital care for an unbelted driver are 50 percent higher than those for a driver who was wearing a safety belt. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved. Thus, seat belt use should be mandatory. Posted 115 days ago
|
Seat belts serve a few purposes: to keep us fastened to our seats in a relatively comfortable position, to protect us during vehicle accidents, and to protect others during the same accidents. One of the primary functions of a government - as a part of the social contract - is to protect people from themselves. And this is why we have policies like helmet and seat belt laws (in America). Posted 115 days ago
|
I agree with what you're saying here, and a lot of what is being said here in favor of this. Seat belt laws do save lives because there is always that group of people who aren't intelligent enough to think wearing a seat belt could save their life and they won't do it. Be it personal reasons, the fact that wearing a seat belt is cool or whatever, some people need to be instructed in what they can and can't do. Not everyone in the world is a leader. Posted 115 days ago
|
I completely agree. Why should we pay for other people deciding to play roulette with their own lives by not wearing a seat belt. It's pretty stupid that by law children under a certain age must wear a seat belt and then not enforce that for an adult person. Posted 113 days ago
|
Agreed. An individual's rights end where other's begin. You cannot take a "personal liberty" or make a "personal choice" if you are putting others at danger. While seatbelts don't save lives 100% of the time [a friend of my fell unconscious while driving and was thrown out the door, and his car then crashed through a drainage pipe and was instantly crushed, he would've been killed no doubt about it], it is a very rare occasion that they are counter-productive. The crux of the argument is that by wearing a seatbelt, you are less likely to lose control of the vehicle, putting others at risk, and since US laws aren't meant to restrict the individual but to help the group, they are a necessity at either the state or federal level. By adding a seatbelt law, you give people a heavy incentive to wear a seatbelt and protect themselves, but more importantly, others. Posted 112 days ago
|
US laws are not meant to "help the group". The government is not a shepherd and we are not sheep. The Constitution and the laws of the United States set up government as a servant, and places individual liberty as its highest priority. This is not an argument of whether seatbelts are beneficial or not. We all pretty much accept that as fact. We also all pretty much accept that eating well and exercising regularly is a fact (one which, when neglected, ends up costing a lot of taxpayer money in medical bills), but we don't consider passing laws to send you to the gym or to force you to have a salad instead of cheesecake. The argument is whether the force of the government should be used to regulate what is little more than a personal safety decision, and an excuse for those who wish to violate our civil rights even more (if not wearing a seatbelt is a primary offense in your state, then it is cause for pulling someone over and trying to find other things to harass them about). Posted 97 days ago
|
A seatbelt would have saved one of my cousins a couple years ago... I agree completely. Posted 36 days ago
|
Higher health care and insurance costs are due to the abundance of malpractice suits and insurance fraud cases brought forth by this "get rich quick," "sue happy" society. To say that society pays 85 percent of the medical care for unbelted drivers is ridiculous, because if that was really the case our insurance rates would be rising faster than gas prices. And considering there are approximately 304,106,367 people in the United States, the point of 5,536 estimated lives saved per year hardly seems like a reason to mandate a whole nation. Posted 112 days ago
|
Yes, we need laws to protect everyone (or at least as many people as we can) from as many dangers as possible. We need to protect the human race at all cost. This can be facilitated getting people off the planet so that we don't have all of our eggs in one basket. And as we ship them up into space, we need to make sure that they are wearing their seat belts just in case they slam into a meteor heading towards Earth. That way they will survive and make it towards Mars to start anew. Since Mars is cold, they will have to start generating green house gasses to warm up the planet (but we're already pretty good at that). We need to spread humanity to the outer reaches of space and time. Since our television signals (especially today's news) would have preceded us, the universe will no doubt welcome us with open arms. It is our Manifest Destiny! Posted 114 days ago
|
does anyone realize how many lives have been, are, and will be saved by wearing a seatbelt. with the decisions that people make....drinking and driving.... it would be stupid not to wear them. our country is trying to keep us all safe by giving us these laws. its a personal choice to obey the law or not, so if its a law you can still choose whether you want to wear them or not. Posted 115 days ago
|
The choice not to wear a seat belt does not only affect the life of the individual choosing not to wear one, but also the lives of others. Increased costs to society through subsidized health care and emotional burdens on the family members of those killed in car crashes outweighs the individual's right to choose whether or not to wear a seat belt. The consequences of an individual's choice are not confined only to that person, thus the requirement to wear a seat belt serves to protect other people from one person's error in judgment. Posted 113 days ago
|
My sister was in a car accident a few months ago and died instantly... if she had been wearing a seatbelt she would still be alive and my nephew would still have a mother. The seatbelt law is one law that should be enforced everywhere. How hard is it to put on a seatbelt? Just by doing that small thing you could save your life. No one ever plans on getting in a fatal accident but it happens. And when it does you're not only paying the price with your life, your relatives and friends also have to deal with the loss of someone they loved and cared about. Posted 85 days ago
|
Seatbelts have reduced the number of vehicle-related deaths. The statistics speak for themselves. Posted 114 days ago
|
It could keep the driver in his/her seat when the driving gets very rough (like right before and during an accident). That fact means that the driver has more control over the car (because he remains in his seat). That could protect others on the road , or in the car , or anywhere else, from getting hurt. IF IT ONLY AFFECTED THE DRIVER, i would say it doesnt matter. But belts could help the driver stay driving. So theyre required Posted 113 days ago
|
hell yah brotha!! Posted 73 days ago
|
seatbelts ARE in cars to save lifes Posted 25 days ago
|
Why would anyone be against wearing a seatbelt? Yes you can go on and on about the intellectual right to self determine if you are going to wear one, but in this instance, there is no reason at all for someone to NOT wear a seatbelt. It's a proven fact that they save lives and that they are not an inconvenience when driving. With that in mind, this law is not a violation of liberty, it simply makes sense in the same way that mandating car manufacturers to follow safety guidelines makes sense. Posted 114 days ago
|
It is a proven fact that smoking is harmful. But i am free to make a choice wether to smoke or not unless i am bothering others with my smoke. It is a proven fact that drinking alcohol is harmful. But once again i am free to drink as much as i want unless i start acting criminally. It is a proven fact that cliffhanging is dangerous. But noone starts a law against cliffhanging ye? It is a proven fact that sportsmen get lots of injuries in tough tackles or doing hard tricks - are we going to deny that too?? Posted 114 days ago
|
You get utility (enjoyment) from smoking. You get utility from drinking. You get utility from dangerous sports. Do you get utility from not wearing a seatbelt? No you don't. That's why it is fundamentally different from those freedoms. By making those other activities illegal, there will be people who stand to lose a lot of happiness by not being able to enjoy those activities. In comparison, no one is truly bothered by wearing a seatbelt. If you are, then you are quite a unique individual. Posted 114 days ago
|
Majority of people do not get any enjoyment from dangerous sports. Those who do - are quite unique individuals too. I am free to enjoy whatever i want. Driving without a seatbelt, peeing into the sink, drinking alcohol free beer, banging my head over a wall - it does not matter. Perhaps a person gets utiliti from not wearing a seatbelt... E.g: he thinks that the seatbelt does too much pressure and he feels uncomfortable. Feeling comfortable is an utility right? Or even a person just doesnt want to give a damn about wearing it. He just doesn't want to think about it - a utility eh? And just to clarify things - i do wear a seatbelt, first of all cos' the risk to my health for me is much more important than not wearing a seatbelt. But i did this choice myself. And i am quite sure that every person should have a possibility to do it too. Posted 113 days ago
|
Utility is the poorest justification I've ever seen. It's ends justifies the means. The question is, which set of persons is so elevated that we must concede all our decisions to their judgment on matters of personal choice? We "get" something out of everything we do, altruistic or not. Eitehr way, your argument is silly. The only reason skydiving, bungee-jumping and lots of other things are exciting is because of the risk and the rush. Some people may enjoy living their daily lives a little closer to the edge than others. Forcing them to buckle in would take away a lot of happiness from them. Posted 97 days ago
|
The government has a moral responsibility to protect its people. End of debate. Posted 112 days ago
|
|
