I’m sure that you have cites to actual situations that support your opinion, right?
I don’t think you can compare bicycles and motor vehicles in terms in the social costs of traffic accidents and fatalities involved. NHTSA stats say that in 2011 there were 677 bicycle fatatlities (pedacycles, more exactly, including unicycles and such), about 2% of all traffic fatalites, as well as about 38,000 injuries. That same year there were 32,367 fatalities from motor vehicle accidents; I’m not sure of the number of injuries that particular year but it was about 2.3 million ER trips in 2009. The economic costs of fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle crashes from 2005 were estimated at $70 billion. The economic and societal impact of bicycle accidents is pretty insignificant compared to that of motor vehicles.
You made the orignial assertion, you provide the cite.
And considering that a great deal of the studies that were used when proposing the legislation dealt with crash test dummies, I think its safe to say that the primary reasons behind the push for seat belt laws was to protect the occupant of the car from harm during a collision. If you don’t believe that, then I don’t really care.
That’s a much better argument.
It is? Sweet! 
I never wore a seatbelt in my old car, unless the kids were with me. I’m just that lazy. Never, ever got a ticket or a warning or even a stern look.
My new car dings annoyingly if I don’t wear the belt. So I put the thing on.
Which is really resticing my freedom, the government or the car makers?
Nobody chooses not to wear a seat belt because of safety. That there is a tiny chance that it could be better to not wear one in rare situations is irrelevant, since you can’t predict the kind of crash you might be involved in. That would be kind of like starting smoking because then you might end up with more medical attention which might happen to catch something that otherwise wouldn’t have been caught in time.
Well, that’s kind of interesting. There could be some effect there, but overall, I think people from societies with very lax car safety rules tend to be extremely lax with car safety.
Holy mother of god, this has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve read in months, and I’ve even been reading Pit threads.
The Man already generates revenue from your driving by way of registration fees and fuel taxes. Fines are a disincentive for law-breaking. Period. You can test this by not breaking laws and then tallying the total cost in fines imposed on you during that time frame.
And are you honestly saying the reason DUI is illegal and accompanied by restricted freedoms and financial penalties is to provide money for the municipality and, presumably, stuff to keep the gaolor busy? Here’s a newsflash: drunks cause some pretty horrific injuries to themselves and others, as do speeders, red-light runners, and tailgaters. In other news: seatbelts, even the uncomfortable ones, not only just save lives, they minimize the injuries you receive in a crash. That frees up substantial manpower and materiel in emergency rooms all over the country. I’d be all for rolling back seatbelt (and helmet) laws if those who choose to abstain can be bound to an implied consent of waiving all emergency medical care resulting from their decisions. We’d have to convince the doctors to let some folks bleed out in the parking lot but it seems an equitable solution.
Well ok, on reread, my post is a little stupider because I forgot to spell out the laws that earn you fines when you break 'em also happen to be the ones that, when obeyed, noticably reduce the severity & frequency of injury and property damage.
Thank God I wasn’t drinking any liquids when I read that post. It would have shot out of my nose all over the keyboard.
The last community I lived in ended up incorporating into a city and the first thing they did was drop all the speed limits in town to generate tickets. You will be riding your brakes down every single hill within their limits if you don’t want a ticket. There was nothing subtle about it.
The city I live in now installed various camera traps and went from $70,000 in 2010 to $625,000 in revenue the following year.
Fair enough, but the speed limits were posted, right? The fines were avoidable, yes?
When you factor in that bicycles only account for 1% of all trips. The fatalities are disproportionately high. They should be illegal, for everyone’s safety.
My state requires seat belts, but not motorcycle helmets.
I wear seat belts at all times, because I believe the stats, and because it’s the law.
I live in a very sparsely populated area of a national forest. Last night I counted 3 cars go by over 4 hours, including rush hour. So when I tour the forest on my Harley, I don’t wear a helmet. However, if I go to a big city, like Indy, or when I go on a long, unfamiliar trip, I wear it.
If the law changes, and they require helmets in the state, I will oblige. It is interesting that my insurance doesn’t ask if I wear one, yet they ask if I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, and an alarm system …both worth discounts. And they will refuse to pay for claims related to pit bulls or trampolines, but crack your noggin on a guard rail and they pay. Go figure.
In an insane world its the sane who appear crazy.
yes they were, generally. Not too many people can drive without busting a speed limit from time to time. I’m very good about coming to a complete stop at an intersection but knowing the speed limit on all roads and keeping to that number is a lot harder.
The problem I have with the seatbelt law is that it has no constitutional basis. And, this I can’t stress enough, without a constitutional basis there is no criteria for such laws.
New York City is a great example. Or more to the point, the Mayor of NYC is a great example. He’s gone after a host of items we shouldn’t be allowed to indulge in including transfats, salt, large drink cups, cigarettes etc…
There is no mandate for this and as such no way of limiting it. You may agree with him on his choice of windmills to chase but eventually he will chase one of yours.
.J
Yeah I heard about the soda size thing. That’s over the top. Not sure exactly where the top is when it comes to legislating personal safety, but that struck me as over it by a good bit. It’d be a fun discussion but I really only have two points:
-
Legislating mandatory actions to save us from ourselves is intrusive, but worth it if it substantially improves the quality of life of the affected person and those who depend on him; and bonus points for reducing injury severity and keeping insurance and emergency costs down, and resources available.
-
Speed ticket/red light cameras are not some kind of dirty trick, as is so often claimed. They’re cheap and highly effective cops who don’t get all smarmy with you. You do the crime, you get your fine (several days later), and you’re not inconvenienced with an actual traffic stop. Meanwhile the fleshy cops can ostensibly monitor the parks for hooligans, resolve domestic disputes, beat minorities, and shoot up the occupants of the house next door to the meth lab they meant to bust.
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
[/QUOTE]
In the absence of anything in the Constitution forbidding the states from regulating automotive safety devices, it is clear that the states have the authority to do so.
And I think if you read through your state’s constitution you’ll find something empowering the legislature to regulate the roads and the vehicles that travel upon them.
I agree it is bullshit, the law should be overturned. We also need to let accident victims lie in the street and bleed out unless they can prove they have insurance. I for one am tired of carrying everyone when it comes to their medical bills.
Driving a car is within the bounds of regulating traffic on the road. Seat belts do not serve a function in this regard.
I think if you read your state’s constitution there is nothing in there about eliminating risk.