I agree with requiring childern to wear seat belts. But shouldn't adult have to right to wear a seat belt or not. How is not wearing a seat belt affecting other peoples freedom?
2006-06-13 00:15:10 · 16 answers · asked by Brad25 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
These answers are so shallow. You have a lot better chance of hurting yourself on a bullet bike then not wearing a seat belt. Should we make riding bullet bikes against the law. Someone said, it is for your safety. Is it safe to rock climb or go sky diving? Probably not, so should the governement deem it unsafe and out law it. I believe you should wear a seat belt but to make it a law is going to far.
2006-06-13 00:26:26 · update #1
I am not agruing the point if a seat belt is good or not. OF COURSE it is. You might see a story that because some one didn't wear a seat belt they lived, but there are thousands of stories where the person lived because of the seat belt to the one where the person lived because they didn't. The point is should the government control this?
2006-06-13 00:29:43 · update #2
The government seems to think that they have to protect everyone from themselves. Personally, I disagree with that philosophy. But nevertheless it is a fact. There are times when I do not wear my seat belt, especially when I am looking for birds. And if the government does not like it then they can try to catch me.
But think about this. If the government were really concerned about people's safety, they would ban semis from the nation's hiways. They account for a much larger proportion of deaths and injuries than their numbers. They also account for 90% of the destruction of the hiways but pay for only 10% of the cost of the hiways.
Nice to have a powerful lobby. We have the best government money can buy.
2006-06-13 00:29:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am all for there being more freedom. I actually had a conversation about this this morning. In PA, it is the law that you wear a seatbealt while driving a car, but you do not have to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Personally I don't care if people where a helmet or not, and it should be the same way for seatbelts. Yes, they do help if you are in an accident, but if you dont wear one it really doesn't affect anyone but yourself. From what I hear on the news the only reason there is a seatbelt law is because the insurance companies lobbied for it.
2006-06-13 10:04:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. I'm inclined to agree with you on this and here's why...
2 young adults from the Twin Cities left a party on New Years Eve & got in a bad car wreck. 1 had a seatbelt on and 1 did not. The one that did not bounced around the car a lot and got banged up, but survived. The one that had his belt on was held in place by his seat belt (which just so happened to be the side they were struck on) and died on the scene. If he hadn't had it on, he may have bounced to the other side of the car and not been stuck in the 'impact zone' (For lack of a better term.)
Anyways, that's one case where it did not pay to have a seatbelt on at all. He died because of it & the other guy lived because he wasn't wearing one.
Sorry, I can't really answer your question, but it's because I agree with you. Seatbelts for adults should be optional.
2006-06-13 07:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by The Proof Is In The Pudding 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You absolutely have the right. A free society is based on the simple, but profound, premise that "everyone has the right to do whatever they want". Now, in any given situation you must ask yourself whether the parties involved in any given action are doing whatever they want to see if they are truly free or not. Quick example: if I shoot someone, is everyone doing whatever they want? Well, I may be (depending on how ticked I am). But, the shootee is probably not wanting to be shot. Thus, the shootee's rights are being violated. Transfer this to the seat belt question. If driving down the road and I choose to have mine off, but the law says I can't, then there are two options. It isn't a free society or my rights are being violated. However, since rights are rights no matter what society you are in (i.e. murder is wrong even if you are in a country where it is legal), there is actually only one answer. It isn't a free society.
2006-06-13 09:53:02 · answer #4 · answered by Gault 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It actually comes down to "do you have the right to drive a car?"
You don't have the "right" to drive a car, therefore you are subject to any restrictions placed on the "priviledge" of driving a car that you have earned by passing tests, drivers ed, attaining a certain age and not doing anything criminal in said car.
The government really doesn't care of you are dead or cruelly mauled if you get in an accident without a seat belt. The public has an interest in keeping insurance costs down and not loosing a large segment of society to preventable injuries. The goverment doesn't want to pay for your uninsured injuries so they support active and passive restraints in cars.
2006-06-13 10:46:23 · answer #5 · answered by Rosemary A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. I never understood the seat belt law. Yes, it saves lives, but if you want to run the risk of dying in an accident because you didn't wear your seat belt that's your prerogative. Just like if you wanted to go skydiving without a parachute. You have every right to do it but when you die don't blame anyone else.
2006-06-13 12:06:58 · answer #6 · answered by irishharpist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of money. If a person wears a belt it lessens the chances of going through the windscreen and therefore medical bills. People are too stupid to wear them because they are a good idea, so it was made an enforcable law to stop idiots.
2006-06-13 07:37:31 · answer #7 · answered by wejut 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's funny how the Government cares about our saftey when it doesnt make them money. It's perfectly legal to consume heavily taxed ciggerates or alcohol, which cause some pretty bad diseases like cancer. But yet you HAVE to wear your seat belt to protect you from the CHANCE that you get in an accident. Seems a little hypocritical to me.
2006-06-18 22:14:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the government should NOT control this and it technically crosses the line of acceptability by our Constitution. However, since the "great" FDR, the government thinks that it is responsible for making us make responsible decisions. Just as it isn't the governments job to control drugs, alcohol, income tax, speed limits, abortions, and any number of other things... and yet they do it anyway.
BTW, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, go to New Hampshire. Over 18 it is your choice (LIVE FREE OR DIE!).
2006-06-13 10:18:29 · answer #9 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the laws of the state you live in, in Michigan you have the right not to wear it and pay a fine. You are right it should be a personal choice, however the insurance company's (powerful lobby) got laws passed in most states that you have to wear it. I veiw insurance company's as organized crime.
2006-06-13 07:21:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋