Click It or Ticket

[zanket]

You do something wrong (rearend someone) and want them to pay ahead of time just in case you mess up?

I did something wrong but I am not fully responsible for the outcome. If I step on your driveway and a tripwire you put there detonates a bomb in your house, I might be responsible for trespassing but not for the loss of your house. If the courts were clear on that then seatbelt laws would not be as necessary.

 

[Repo Man]

Zanket, your argument really makes the case for less public funding of education, health and safety. Especially if we have to give up as much of our freedom as you seem to feel is necessary.

Probably only of interest to those who don't feel they know what is best for others.

But why waste cops' time with seatbelt laws? After all, laws shouldn't protect careless people from themselves, they should protect the peaceful from the dangerous. CIOT supporters figure that since so many people die because they refuse to wear seatbelts, the government could save many lives by strapping them in with laws. The implicit rationale is that all of last year's 43,220 highway deaths were equally tragic.

But if an adult does something risky—like tightrope walking, smoking or driving without a seatbelt—that person alone is responsible for the consequences. And since drivers who don't buckle up aren't making anyone else less safe, laws that bear down on these people don't make other motorists any safer either. We should be allowed to ruin our own lives, but we shouldn't be allowed to ruin the lives of others. So, yes, it's tragic when someone dies because he refused to wear a seatbelt, but it's much more tragic when a reckless driver kills innocent people. Public policy should not concern itself with decreasing all highway deaths, but with decreasing the deaths of innocents.

Even though fans of individual liberty often (and rightly) decry the paternalism embedded in seatbelt laws, most Americans take little offense at such state-sponsored nannying. However, nannying does not just make us less free; when it distracts law enforcement from its proper role, it can also make us less safe. When government assumes many duties, it's tougher to do the important ones right.

Government officials are more on the mark when they call for enforcement of drunk driving laws. But here again law should focus on recklessness, whether it's encouraged by alcohol, fatigue, general stupidity or high-speed lipstick application.

Forty-nine states have seatbelt laws , and in many cases, the laws allow officers to pull over motorists whose only crime is not wearing a seatbelt. While the officer takes time to give the seatbelt scofflaw a scolding and a ticket, plenty of other drivers embark on the kind of harebrained maneuvering that often ends with a reckless driver colliding into a good driver. It's these red-light-running , left-turn-at-any-cost daredevils who enrage and endanger good drivers.

And seat belt laws come with their own set of unintended consequences, which further complicates the principle that policy should protect the peaceful people from the dangerous. Seat belt laws may make drivers and children safer, but economists such as Christopher Garbacz suggest that greater safety can make drivers more comfortable with dangerous driving, which puts the lives of more innocents—like pedestrians, cyclists and other passengers—in jeopardy. Risk assessment researchers have long pondered this paradox, and some have even suggested (only half jokingly) that the best way to promote cautious driving would be to attach a twelve-inch buck knife to all steering wheels.

More... http://www.reason.com/hod/tb052704.shtml

 

[Persol]

I did something wrong but I am not fully responsible for the outcome. If I step on your driveway and a tripwire you put there detonates a bomb in your house, I might be responsible for trespassing but not for the loss of your house. If the courts were clear on that then seatbelt laws would not be as necessary.

Very basic problem there. One requires an ation (placement of a bomb). One requires an inaction (not using a seatbelt/buying fire insurance). The law treats these fundamentally differently, with good cause.

 

[zanket]

Very basic problem there. One requires an ation (placement of a bomb). One requires an inaction (not using a seatbelt/buying fire insurance). The law treats these fundamentally differently, with good cause.

I thought you might say that. Instead of a tripwire let the driveway & house be located over a sinkhole that you ignored. When I step on the driveway your house falls into the hole. Then you sue me for the loss of your house that would have been fine had you taken action.

 

[zanket]

From Repo Man’s post:
But why waste cops' time with seatbelt laws? After all, laws shouldn't protect careless people from themselves, they should protect the peaceful from the dangerous.

The seatbelt law protects careless people from harming not only themselves but also others, as I have described, thus it does protect the peaceful from the dangerous.

 

[Repo Man]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[zanket]

The right to be seatbelt-less without consequence does not seem to me to be an essential liberty.

 

[Repo Man]

That is a subjective judgement. That right may be very important to others. Who are you to tell them what they may do?
I always wear my seatbelt, why should I care if those who don't get a fine?
I don't smoke, why should I care if it were banned?
I'm not gay, why should I care if they all get rounded up in the name of the greater good (preventing the spread of AIDS)?

I read about a case in Playboy magazine years ago where a man committed suicide because California had made it illegal for him to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That was the only way he would/could ride, and it was the only thing that he really enjoyed. So in order to save him from himself, they took away the only thing he felt he to live for.

If money is that big of an issue, fine. Work for a law where the state won't have to pay for peoples bad judgement. But don't infantilize the general public.

 

[zanket]

Work for a law where the state won't have to pay for peoples bad judgement.

The seatbelt law is such a law. So are non-smoking laws and the helmet law. So are laws requiring fish & game licenses and driver’s licenses. And so on.

I always wear my seatbelt but I pay for those who don’t.
I don't smoke except when smokers spew smoke on me, which they often do.
I'm not promiscuous but I pay for the costs of AIDS.

In a society nobody is an island. The guy who wanted to ride his motorcycle without a helmet also would have expected me--had I bumped his motorcycle--to pay to fix his broken head or reimburse his survivors for the wages he won’t earn when he’s dead. We live in a litigious society where people who are only partially at fault are made to bear full responsibility. The seatbelt law and helmet law mitigate that by shifting responsibility to where the public feels it belongs.

 

[Persol]

The seatbelt law is such a law. So are non-smoking laws and the helmet law. So are laws requiring fish & game licenses and driver’s licenses.

Actually, no... it isn't. If I don't wear a seatbelt, crash my car, and have no insurance... I am no less likely to be treated.

 

[zanket]

As I explained, if you don’t wear your seatbelt then I have to pay greater damages when I rear-end you. Alternatively I have to carry excess insurance coverage. Why should 90% of the public pay for extra coverage so that 10% can avoid seatbelts? Much easier to ticket the 10% for not wearing one. Also when you die the taxpayers will not be fully reimbursed for funding your public education. And if you have a spouse and/or kids then my taxes will pay for their survivor’s benefits. And if your kids become criminals due to having no father figure, I pay for that too. So I pay in many ways when you do not wear your seatbelt.

 

[Persol]

We should also all wear bullet proof vests... for when you decide to shoot us. Then you only have attempted murder, not murder.

Why should 90% of the public pay for extra coverage so that 10% can avoid seatbelts?

If you are the idiot that rear-ends someone, its YOU'RE fault.

There are plenty of things which we could all do to protect ourselves. When is the last time you had McDonalds, soda, meat, a cig, didn't take mass transit, etc? Probably today. Yet we have to pay because you decide to do all or some of these things.

I say we outlaw them.

 

[zanket]

If you are the idiot that rear-ends someone, its YOU'RE fault.

For your excessive injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt, I am no more at fault than I am for your house imploding into that sinkhole when I stepped on your driveway. I notice you didn't address the other costs I do have to pay for when people don't wear seatbelts. Face it--you just want me to share the cost of your whims.

If the majority of people are doing something that incurs a cost to others, like eating at McDonald’s, then there’s no need for a law, because the average cost per person is roughly the same with or without a law. When a minority of the population does something that affects the rest, however, like smoking, laws help keep the minority accountable rather than them spreading their burden to the rest.

 

[Persol]

If the majority of people are doing something that incurs a cost to others, like eating at McDonald’s, then there’s no need for a law, because the average cost per person is roughly the same with or without a law.

Newsflash: the majority of people did NOT wear seatbelts until it became law.

If we outlawed fastfood today the average cost should as hell would go down. You seem to be very confisude with your argument. Saying "if the majority of people are doing something that incurs a cost to others... then there’s no need for a law" is very simply just wrong.

If you don't want to help someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt, fine... darwanism in action. The government should not however be saying 'you MUST do this because it is good for you'. Only 'you must not do this because it hurts someone else'.

Compared to fast food and cigs, the cost of people not wearing seatbelts is minor.

 

[zanket]

Newsflash: the majority of people did NOT wear seatbelts until it became law.

Maybe not in Kentucky. In my state the majority did. I doubt that in any state in the last decade the majority of people did not wear seatbelts.

If we outlawed fastfood today the average cost should as hell would go down.

Of course it would. But the majority doesn’t want that. The majority rules.

You seem to be very confisude with your argument.

What does "confisude" mean?

Saying "if the majority of people are doing something that incurs a cost to others... then there’s no need for a law" is very simply just wrong.

Why? I’m talking about cases where the cost is incurring to a majority. It’s reflecting back on the same people on average. A law would just complicate the distribution of cost.

If you don't want to help someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt, fine... darwanism in action. The government should not however be saying 'you MUST do this because it is good for you'. Only 'you must not do this because it hurts someone else'.

The government is saying “you must do this because it’s fair to the majority (not doing it is unfair).”

Compared to fast food and cigs, the cost of people not wearing seatbelts is minor.

That may well be. That would explain the numerous laws regarding cigarettes. Expect little to happen against junk food until the majority rejects it. Someday it is possible that the majority will be vegetarians. You can bet that when 75% are vegetarian, the eating of meat will be outlawed.

 

[Repo Man]

If you seriously believe that the majority rules in all circumstances, then there is certainly no need for any of us to read any of your posts anymore.

Should minority religions be outlawed?

The constitution of the US certainly places some sharp limits on the tyranny of the majority. There is a good chance that seatbelt laws could be found unconstitutional if challenged.

It (thankfully) protects the right of non believers such as myself from the majority of theists.

Gays have been oppressed by the fact that they are a minority, is that ok with you?

Picking at typos is a sure sign of a weak argument.

 

[zanket]

If you seriously believe that the majority rules in all circumstances, then there is certainly no need for any of us to read any of your posts anymore.

You prefer minority rule? There are only 2 types.

Should minority religions be outlawed?

Not unless they’re a burden on the majority and outlawing them is the best way to remove the burden.

The constitution of the US certainly places some sharp limits on the tyranny of the majority. There is a good chance that seatbelt laws could be found unconstitutional if challenged.

That’s laughable. Your life is ruled by the majority in thousands of ways. The seatbelt law is only one of them.

It (thankfully) protects the right of non believers such as myself from the majority of theists.

The Bill of Rights does give rights to individuals. But since we are all individuals to whom these rights apply, these are really majority rights. That is, the majority wants these rights for themselves.

Gays have been oppressed by the fact that they are a minority, is that ok with you?

It’s not okay with me when a minority is oppressed, which implies no good reason. When there’s good reason it’s not oppression.

Picking at typos is a sure sign of a weak argument.

I really don’t know what the word is meant to be. Had I figured it out I wouldn’t have asked.

 

[Repo Man]

To use cigarette smoking as an example. They are a minority, and using your definition, if all tobacco products were outlawed by the will of the majority, it would not be oppression (it's for their own good). I guarantee you that millions of tobacco users would perceive it as very real oppression.

And who are you to decide that the pleasure of tobacco isn't worth the health consequences? That is an individuals right to decide for themselves, I can't make it any plainer.

What sort of ideal world do you envision? It sems an awful lot like Winston Smith's world, where you were told when to where up and start doing your exercises as your patriotic duty.

Do you feel that the prohibiotion of alcohol was justified? Or is that an exception since it was obviously passed by vocal minority?

I certainly hope that you are not an elected official, and have no intention of seeking office where you could start to impose your will upon us unsafe slobs.

I'm done with this thread. Go and regulate in peace. I will fight you every step of the way.

 

[zanket]

To use cigarette smoking as an example. They are a minority, and using your definition, if all tobacco products were outlawed by the will of the majority, it would not be oppression (it's for their own good).

It has nothing to do with their good, but with the good of the majority. Smoking hurts non-smokers, hence the laws.

And who are you to decide that the pleasure of tobacco isn't worth the health consequences?

A non-smoker involuntarily affected by smokers’ smoke.

That is an individuals right to decide for themselves, I can't make it any plainer.

Their decision affects me. Why shouldn’t I have a say in it?

What sort of ideal world do you envision? It sems an awful lot like Winston Smith's world, where you were told when to where up and start doing your exercises as your patriotic duty.

I consider it likely that if all people were as responsible as I am, then we could all take an extra day off per year. We could have a new national holiday and still have the same standard of living. Not to mention the world would be a lot more pleasant to look at because there wouldn’t be 8.5 trillion cigarette butts littering the ground. But all I ask of people is that they pay their fair share of their vices. Generally the majority demands only that the minority pay their fair share.

Do you feel that the prohibiotion of alcohol was justified? Or is that an exception since it was obviously passed by vocal minority?

It was not passed by a minority. The majority changed its mind and decided to repeal it. Prohibition is justified if the majority is harmed by alcohol.

I certainly hope that you are not an elected official, and have no intention of seeking office where you could start to impose your will upon us unsafe slobs.

I have explained here primarily the way things are. The majority regulates even the filler material in your pillow. There are lots of majority decisions that I think stink. For the most part I live with them because there is no better form of government.

I'm done with this thread. Go and regulate in peace. I will fight you every step of the way.

You’re fighting for minority rule, for dictatorship.

 

[alain]

"You’re fighting for minority rule, for dictatorship."
funnily enough, its a dictatorship that could eradicate smoking easier, a dictator doesnt have to be popular, a president does