In some countries it is required by law to wear your seatbelt when driving.
I am not going to debate the usefulness of the seatbelt here. Wearing the seatbelt during a crash dramatically increases your chances of surviving. But is this law right? Someone not wearing the seatbelt is only inflicting damage to himself (let’s ignore the case where the rear passengers fall on the front seats). Is such a law moral?
Nope. The government has no business protecting people from their own stupidity.
Maybe they want to reduce traffic blocks that come from accidents or they want less accidents to clean up. 
In a country that has such laws there is probably some extent of socialized medicine. Thus the government has to pick up the bill for the folks who suffered additional injuries because they did not wear seatbelts. It’s like people forbidding their kids to do something because the parents carry the responsibility when it’s done.
So yes, it’s quite morally reprehensible, but inevitable as a result of excessive (in this Doper’s eyes) government.
Well, seat belts don’t prevent accidents.
Do they make accidents less messy? Perhaps. But IMO, that’s a pretty poor reason to take the choice away from drivers.
I don’t believe that laws that protect one from ones self belong in a free society.
There are some good arguements about the costs on society, but overall I don’t like the slippery slope it tempts.
Not only that, mandatory seat belts and helmets are a violation of Gods master plan: eleminating idiots from the gene pool!
I’m not trying to hijack here, but for those of you who feel seatbelt laws are too intrusive: What do you think of laws requiring infants/toddlers to be in car seats? Is it an infringement on parental rights? After all, when I was a child, my parents put me in a portacrib on long car trips and I’m still here. The kids would be happier and the government wouldn’t be telling me how to parent if I wasn’t required to use a car seat; I might still use one, though, if I’m smart.* Or does society have an obligation to protect children, even against the wishes of the parent?
*Note: I buckle my son up and would never think of letting him ride in a car unbuckled or in an insufficiently secured car seat. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate above.
No, because the infant can’t make his own decision. The law isn’t protecting a person from his own stupidity in this case; it’s protecting someone who can’t protect himself from the stupidity of someone who can.
By the same token, I would say that even though the driver shouldn’t be required to wear a belt, he still must make sure that infants and children are in car seats or seat belts, as appropriate. He can risk his own life, but not theirs.
Out of curiosity: what happens when someone doesn’t buckle up, gets into a serious accident, and can’t pay for his/her emergency care? Are they financially ruined by the hospitals and/or insurance companies? IOW, is there something in place that would keep people from doing this, apart from the existing laws?
Sorry if I’m not being clear; I’ve tried to do my best to express my question.
Roads are government property. That’s why they can make us wear seatbelts, have a liscense to drive, forbid us from driving over certain speeds, or any other crazy thing they want us to do before they alllow us to use their roads. Required seat belts are hardly too much of a tradeoff to use public roads. And if they are, boycott roads and drive around on your own land at 200mph with no seatbelt and no liscense to your hearts content.
I’m inclined to agree with you. But on the other hand, there are some reasons I kind of like the manditory seatbelt law:
[ol]
[li]I’d rather that people be required by law to wear a seatbelt, than that car manufacturers be required to add expensive and/or inconvenient safety features to their cars just to protect unbelted motorists. I’ve ridden in cars that have “automatic” shoulder straps that sort of put themselves on you when you close the car door, and I find them to be a real PITA. Just let me buckle myself up, okay?[/li]
[li]If I’m driving in an area with a strictly enforced seatbelt law, presumably my insurance company can assume that I, and anyone I might be in an accident with, must be wearing a seatbelt and therefore keep my insurance rates low.[/li]
[li]Around here, the seatbelt law has been criticized as nothing but a way for the state to raise some extra money by fining unbelted motorists. I say, if they have to raise some extra money, I’d much rather have a “voluntary tax” like this that I can easily avoid paying than for them to do something like raising sales taxes, income taxes, license fees, etc. that I’d have no choice but to pay.[/li]
[li]When The Government passes laws like this to protect people from their own stupidity, they’re treating people like children who can’t be trusted to behave responsibly. But enough people act like children who can’t be trusted to behave responsibly that I sometimes wonder if The Government doesn’t have a point there.[/li][/ol]
I’m confused. Please explain how seat belts reduce accidents.
Suppose you have a collision of given severity. Would you suffer harm if the person in the other car was killed rather than injured because they didn’t wear a seat belt?
The only serious accident I have been in would have resulted in my death if I had been wearing a seatbelt. Another driver ploughed through the driver’s door and although the door penetrated my side, I ended up sitting in the passenger’s lap with a large wound rather than being impaled on the door.
However I have attended accidents since and believe that the odds are in favour of wearing a seatbelt. I’m just glad it wasn’t law 30 odd years ago.
They don’t reduce accidents. They have however been shown to reduce injuries.
Hypothetically.
Less injuries=less medical costs=lower insurance rates.
I didn’t say they reduce accidents I said they reduce the traffic blocks that come from accidents. Because there’s less gore to clean up.
Well, you can argue the “only hurt themselves” point. Suppose I get in an accident with you, you’re not wearing a seatbelt, and your face gets rearranged in dramatic ways against the windshield. What might have been a minor fender bender turns into a world of legal and medical hurt for everyone. Depending on the assignment of liability (which is often pretty much a crapshoot), I could end up getting sued for 100’s of thousands of dollars, and my plea that you weren’t wearing a seatbelt would likely get ignored by a jury. If you don’t survive, then I get to walk around with * that * on my conscience.
And let’s consider your next of kin, if any. The explanation, “Daddy (or Mommy) made a choice not to wear a seatbelt.” is going to be a comfort to them growing up, I’m sure.
Fatalities and serious injuries cost municipalities quite a bit. Emergency vehicles. Paperwork. People suing people. Not to mention the somewhat more intangible costs of losing a possibly productive member of society.
So unless you’re a well-insured bachelor/orphan who only intends to die in a single car wreck, other people * will * be affected by your untimely and unnecessary demise.
That said, I think society does have a right to protect itself and its citizens against unnecessary costs, particularly when the prescribed behavior is so trivially easy. Let’s face it, this isn’t even an argument on the level of whether motorcyclists should wear helmets — putting on a seat belt doesn’t prevent you from feeling the wind in your face or hearing other cars. About the worst it will do is wrinkle your suit.
I take it those of you against seatbelt laws are also against things like the suicide laws?
Hey! Let’s legalize income tax evasion while we’re at it. I mean, aside from the financial burden on the rest of society, it doesn’t actually harm anyone else, does it?
Dani
There are no “suicide” laws in the US.