# Whats the logic behind "click it or ticket?" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 29, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995 "2009-05-29T03:33:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/102 "2009-05-31T01:49:29Z")
So, having read through all three pages of this, has anyone in the US got a compelling argument for _NOT_ wearing a seatbelt besides “BUT I DON’T WANNA! YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME! WAAAH!”? Because that’s what the anti-seatbelt arguments boil down to. Most of the rest of the civilised world has had compulsory seatbelt laws since the 1980s and IMHO they’re a good and necessary thing. Personally, I’d wear one even if it wasn’t a legal requirement and I can’t understand how come any sensible person would feel differently about it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/103 "2009-05-31T02:37:53Z")
I would be interested in seeing anything in the constitution that mandates government valuation of personal risk and how that translates to enforced public policy. What are the standards? Without a mandate and a set of guidlines there is no limit to the level of safety that can be forced on people who wish to take risks. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/104 "2009-05-31T02:45:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It can also prevent a collision. I spun my car out on ice once, and was zipping around at a pretty nice rate. Thanks to my wearing a seatbelt I was able to get back in control without hitting anyone or anything. > > If we could schedule our accidents, I’d be fine with a law saying that you’d only have to wear belts just before the accident. Given that we can’t… I don’t see how spinning on ice requires a seatbelt to stay in your seat. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/105 "2009-05-31T02:48:18Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > So, having read through all three pages of this, has anyone in the US got a compelling argument for _NOT_ wearing a seatbelt besides “BUT I DON’T WANNA! YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME! WAAAH!”? It boils down to laws enacted “for our benefit” without mandate or guidlines. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/106 "2009-05-31T02:57:58Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I would be interested in seeing anything in the constitution that mandates government valuation of personal risk and how that translates to enforced public policy. What are the standards? Without a mandate and a set of guidlines there is no limit to the level of safety that can be forced on people who wish to take risks. That’s what we elect legislators and executives to do - decide what policies make sense, and what policies don’t. You seem to be demanding that there be some sort of pre-existing formulas to figure it out. There aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/107 "2009-05-31T02:59:11Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > So, having read through all three pages of this, has anyone in the US got a compelling argument for _NOT_ wearing a seatbelt besides “BUT I DON’T WANNA! YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME! WAAAH!”? > > Because that’s what the anti-seatbelt arguments boil down to. I expect better from you. There’s no compelling reason for eating oleander leaves, but that doesn’t mean we need a law banning eating oleander is there? ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/108 "2009-05-31T03:22:29Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Personally, I’d wear one even if it wasn’t a legal requirement and I can’t understand how come any sensible person would feel differently about it. How do you feel about wearing a helmet in your car? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/109 "2009-05-31T03:25:16Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > How do you feel about wearing a helmet in your car? I’d be OK with it, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Junior\_Spaceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Junior\_Spaceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Junior_Spaceman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/110 "2009-05-31T03:29:08Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > So, having read through all three pages of this, has anyone in the US got a compelling argument for _NOT_ wearing a seatbelt besides “BUT I DON’T WANNA! YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME! WAAAH!”? > > Because that’s what the anti-seatbelt arguments boil down to. This thread has been a fascinating insight into just how different many Americans are in their thinking about personal freedoms than people in the rest of the world. And I’m someone who would be thought of as Libertarian, by Australian standards, in many ways. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/111 "2009-05-31T03:54:24Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > That’s what we elect legislators and executives to do - decide what policies make sense, and what policies don’t. You seem to be demanding that there be some sort of pre-existing formulas to figure it out. There aren’t. We have a constitution that gives them guidlines regarding our freedoms. And yes, I’m demanding a constitutional reason/mandate with guidlines. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/112 "2009-05-31T04:02:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Personally I believe that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they make stupid decisions, as long as they alone are directly effected by the consequences. I always wear a seatbelt because I’m not an idiot. But I shouldn’t be legally required to wear one. I agree to an extent, the one really direct issue with seat belts other than some dumbass spending my money to keep his vegetable ass alive is that in a crash the seatbelt keeps you in the drivers seat, not say in the back seat or out the window. so you can still operate your moving vehicle with whatever level of control you have left. one more thing, driving isnt a “Right” so forcing you to wear a seat belt isn’t exactly infringing on anything you have a right to do. > [@Isamu](#): > > I can’t remember the exact details but a few years ago there was the case of the anti-seatbelt campaigner from some US college somewhere who was tragically killed in a car crash. He died young but at least he died free. Derek Kieper > **[Was an Anti-Seat Belt Law Advocate Killed in an Automobile Accident?](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seat-belt-advocate-killed/)** > > Anti-seat belt law advocate is killed in automobile accident. even had a published article on the subject, and you will note that his friends walked away from the crash he died in. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/113 "2009-05-31T05:11:22Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > one more thing, driving isnt a “Right” so forcing you to wear a seat belt isn’t exactly infringing on anything you have a right to do. Driving is absolutely a right in that it represents any other activity in the pursuit of life. The “privilege” side of it is derived from the certification process and in no way reflects a grant to be doled out by a governing body. Seat belt laws have no basis in origin regarding government authority over an individual. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a nanny state and I would put forth most of the laws are designed to restrict government interference in our lives. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/114 "2009-05-31T05:19:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Driving is absolutely a right in that it represents any other activity in the pursuit of life. The “privilege” side of it is derived from the certification process and in no way reflects a grant to be doled out by a governing body. Reality begs to differ. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. No matter how many posts you make about it on the internet, it’s still a privilege, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the appropriate statutes. > [@](#): > > Seat belt laws have no basis in origin regarding government authority over an individual. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a nanny state and I would put forth most of the laws are designed to restrict government interference in our lives. Feel free to show me something in the Constitution that talks about this “absolute” right to drive you seem to believe exists. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/115 "2009-05-31T05:50:08Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Reality begs to differ. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. No matter how many posts you make about it on the internet, it’s still a privilege, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the appropriate statutes. > > Feel free to show me something in the Constitution that talks about this “absolute” right to drive you seem to believe exists. It’s right next to the right to eat tacos at 2am. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/116 "2009-05-31T06:21:47Z")
I’d say that driving is indeed a right and not a privilege. The Constitution guarantees a right of liberty, which includes my liberty to drive a car if I so choose. There is no law making driving a “privilege” granted by the state. The idea that driving is a privilege and not a right is just wrong. However, the state has to power in infringe upon my liberty under the general state police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by due process of law. The state has chosen to regulate driving under the general police power by enacting driving laws. If it went to court, the court would have to reconcile my right of liberty against the police power of the state. The court, in a case like this, would probably say the law restricting and regulating driving does not infringe on a \*fundamental \*right to drive and so the law is presumed constitutional as long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This is known as the “rational basis test.” So, the question is whether seat belt laws can pass the rational basis test. In sum, driving is indeed a right, under the right of liberty, and not a privilege, but the state has the power to restrict that right by the state’s general police power, provided the restriction is simply rational. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/117 "2009-05-31T06:48:26Z")
So, based on that argument, you object to the concept of a driver’s licence and think that absolutely anyone should be able to get behind the wheel of a car? After all, driving is a right, apparently. It’s not. If the State says “You can’t be trusted with a car anymore”, you lose your drivers licence and you don’t get to drive anymore. It’s clearly not a right. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/118 "2009-05-31T07:09:47Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > So, based on that argument, you object to the concept of a driver’s licence and think that absolutely anyone should be able to get behind the wheel of a car? After all, driving is a right, apparently. > > It’s not. If the State says “You can’t be trusted with a car anymore”, you lose your drivers licence and you don’t get to drive anymore. It’s clearly not a right. Driving is a right, subject to valid restrictions imposed by the state, such as a license. ETA … but the state then has total control over the “right” and could probably even ban driving cars for everyone completely if it wanted to, which really makes it not a right at all. I see where you are going. Sorry I’m tired. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/119 "2009-05-31T07:10:53Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Driving is a right, subject to valid restrictions imposed by the state, such as a license. Anything you need a licence for is not a “right”, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/120 "2009-05-31T07:33:31Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Anything you need a licence for is not a “right”, I’m afraid. So being allowed to have a non-bigamist marriage to someone of the opposite sex, of concentual age, and in a non-consanguinous relationship is not a right? Hmmmm . . . interesting considering the ONLY reasonable arguement I’ve ever heard of why the government should ban SSM is that the government should stay out of marriage completely EXCEPT that the type of marriage I described would be considered a fundamental right under the Ninth Amendment to the Founding Fathers. So what would that say about common law marriages? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/121 "2009-05-31T07:52:49Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > So being allowed to have a non-bigamist marriage to someone of the opposite sex, of concentual age, and in a non-consanguinous relationship is not a right? A “Marriage Licence” isn’t a licence in the traditional sense in that A) obtaining it is now a mere formality (You don’t actually have to _do_ anything to get one in most places, just sign a form and it gets rubber stamped) and B) The government can’t revoke your marriage licence once issued. FWIW, there are no “Marriage Licences” here. You provide the government with a Notice Of Intention To Marry, but it’s free (or near enough to it) and they can’t actually stop you from getting married (unless you’re marrying a relative or an underage person or committing bigamy). You say “I’m going to get married to This Person” and the Government says “Fair enough then. Sign here, and have a lovely wedding.” You’re not asking their permission to do it, as you are with a driver’s licence. In short, getting married in Australia _is_ a right, and, in Queensland at least, you don’t need a licence for it. > [@](#): > > So what would that say about common law marriages? What about them? At least here, they’re legally pretty much the same as actually being married, but a lot cheaper. So yeah, you have the legal right to live, in a relationship, with a member of the opposite sex for a certain period of time (six months or so, IIRC) and hey presto, you’re a de facto couple and might as well be married for all intents and purposes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995.md?page=7)