And people shouldn’t raise definition issues when they don’t understand what was said. “Statistically insignificant means that the deviation is so small, that it is inside the limits of natural deviations or fluctuations that are inevitable in the real life.” cite I used the term in reference to two groups: one whose lives were saved by other people wearing seat belts and one whose deaths were caused by wearing seat belts. And my point was that neither group was large enough to justify a claim that seat belt use is a net positive if you eliminate the larger group of people whose lives were saved by their own seat belt use.
If most people were going to wear seat belts anyway then what was the point of passing the law? Presumedly some people were affected by this. And even if nobody was forced to alter their behavior as a result of this law, it’s still a bad precedent in that it allowed the government to legislate on an issue it shouldn’t have. Every curtailment of liberty is serious as a matter of principle.
You still clearly don’t understand the definition. It does not mean, as you seem to take it to mean, proportionally small in comparison to some other phenomenon.* When you assert that something is “statistically significant,” you are asserting that the difference or the correlation inferred from the sample is unlikely enough to justify ruling out chance/coincidence as the explanation of the difference or the correlation.
ETA: “Insignificant” means this! But I guess that doesn’t sound impressively “science” enough for you. Too bad, though, because science kind of thrives on precision.
You’ve been rightfully taken to task for this assertion. It may even be that this law will generate revenue, which will be spent making police resources less scarce so that they can actually do more against violent crime. Though I’ll believe that when I see it.
As for manditory seat belt laws, I have three reactions, which I fully admit are mutually inconsistent:
(1) shrug I already always wear my seatbelt, as everyone should. The law isn’t going to affect me one way or the other, so why should I care?
(2) As a result of this law, people are going to buckle up who otherwise wouldn’t. Lives will be saved and injuries prevented, at hardly any cost to anyone except those who choose to disregard the law. Sounds like a good thing all around.
(3) It’s an example of the ever-expanding nanny state, a law that really only exists to, as the OP points out, protect people from themselves. Loss of personal freedom is a bad thing. Adults should be able to decide for themselves what risks are worth taking, as long as they themselves are the ones to face the consequences.
Like I said, I realize these reactions are incompatible. And since the death or serious injury of one person really does have effects on the other people around them, I lean more towards #2 than #3.
I don’t have a horse in the nanny state versus the respect-mah-personal-authoriaay crowd, but I firmly believe making seatbelt violations a primary offense is solely designed to sidestep 4th amendment probable cause/reasonable suspicion issues.
Around the Bay Area the enforcement of seat belt laws I see is a cop glancing over to see if you are wearing one as he passes you on the freeway. If any cops have been put on seatbelt duty, it seems to have escaped Mr. Roadshow. (Cops do get put on carpool lane enforcement duty.) so I doubt very much if any cops are pulled from nun protection duty for seat belts.
Long time ago, there was talk of various mandatory seat belt laws.
Various people exercised their rights to dissent, and as a result the Fed passed laws mandating a Supplemental Restraint System, which is a complicated, heavy and expensive addition to cars. (aka the air-bag).
So now we’re passing seatbelt laws across the country, Does this mean that I can take the SRS out of my car and/or import a car that doesn’t have SRS?
No? Why not? If I have to wear a seatbelt, then let me make my car safer/cheaper/lighter/better.
My first car crash (yes there’ve been a few) involved seatbelts. I thought we were going to burn alive (upside down) and I couldn’t unfasten the damn thing. For years I never buckled up. Today, I do it all the time. It’s the law (in my state) Mom has always been an advocate. Of course YMMV.
Just hope your state doesn’t start putting “Click it or Ticket” on the electronic freeway signs that are supposed to be used to warn of traffic problems ahead. People just have to slow down to read it and cause traffic jams.
Unlikely. I don’t think that states are going to assign extra police officers to seatbelt patrol duty, do you? So I don’t buy the scenario of a police officer being pulled from one assignment and put in a place where he can check on seatbelt use. The highway patrol will simply have one more thing for which they can write a ticket.
Also, in many states, there is no “primary enforcement” of seatbelt laws. That is, you can’t be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, but if you’re pulled over for something else, and you’re not wearing your seatbelt, you’ll get the ticket.
My home state of New York, for example, is a primary enforcement state. My neighboring state of Pennsylvania is not.
That’s 220 a day. How many cops do you have down there? I suspect more than 200. Less than one ticket per cop per day is unlikely to contribute to a crime wave. Probably is positive in the long run, because investigating a fatal accident seems to take forever, at least around here.
So is it now ok to pass a law banning people from eating over 2000 calories per day? We could have cops outside of McDonalds, checking orders and administering BMI tests, because we can’t trust people to do whats right… Gotta save them from themselves. And think of the millions/billions we’d save in health care costs!
You are equating medical treatment for car injuries with problems due to obesity? :rolleyes: :smack:
There are over 3,000,000 people kiled or injured in car accidents every year in the US.
Anything that reduces that saves money and time (of vital people like police, ambulance drivers and hospital staff).
Why do we have traffic lights?
Why do we drive on one side of the road?
Because we can’t trust people to do what’s right!