Seat Belts, Health Care

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='25 March 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1269543756' post='2079838']
Based on that it would seem that people being sedentary, smoking or eating junk food costs you and me money. Where does one draw the line in terms of legislating behavior and private lives? I find the "[i]no seat belt is a danger to others[/i]" argument to be somewhat compelling, but its force depends entirely on its factuality, which I'm inclined to question. When reading your statement my first impulse was to question the system, and second to consider the rampant popularity of statistical fallacy. Thirdly, I was prompted to remember my own radical asininity and wonder why I'm even compelled to taint this thread with my sophomoric thoughts.
[/quote]
I'm pretty much 110% on board with this post. With a margin of error of 0.05%.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='25 March 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1269543756' post='2079838']
Based on that it would seem that people being sedentary, smoking or eating junk food costs you and me money. Where does one draw the line in terms of legislating behavior and private lives? I find the "[i]no seat belt is a danger to others[/i]" argument to be somewhat compelling, but its force depends entirely on its factuality, which I'm inclined to question. When reading your statement my first impulse was to question the system, and second to consider the rampant popularity of statistical fallacy. Thirdly, I was prompted to remember my own radical asininity and wonder why I'm even compelled to taint this thread with my sophomoric thoughts.
[/quote]

+1 If I still had it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Covered.

[Winchester]

I'm not inclined to douibt it because I've seen it in action.

An ejected person exacerbates the wreck and is a hazard to others. In the case of a passenger vehicle, this can be removed by seatbelts.

And driving a car is not a right, but a privilege and the state is within its rights to set reasonable standards.

And those who elect to now wear seatbelts are idiots.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='25 March 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1269543756' post='2079838']
Based on that it would seem that people being sedentary, smoking or eating junk food costs you and me money. Where does one draw the line in terms of legislating behavior and private lives? I find the "[i]no seat belt is a danger to others[/i]" argument to be somewhat compelling, but its force depends entirely on its factuality, which I'm inclined to question. When reading your statement my first impulse was to question the system, and second to consider the rampant popularity of statistical fallacy. Thirdly, I was prompted to remember my own radical asininity and wonder why I'm even compelled to taint this thread with my sophomoric thoughts.
[/quote]
You not wearing a seat belt makes riding on the road dangerous and costly (injuries, etc.) for me and others (Risk goes up for all except those in hovercrafts.). Chomping down on those Twinkies is a health risk for you but not me unless you plan on throwing it at me.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 March 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1269544640' post='2079855']
You not wearing a seat belt makes riding on the road dangerous and costly (injuries, etc.) for me and others (Risk goes up for all except those in hovercrafts.). Chomping down on those Twinkies is a health risk for you but not me unless you plan on throwing it at me.
[/quote]
What if you get so fat that when you fall, you squish people?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 March 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1269544538' post='2079852']
An ejected person exacerbates the wreck and is a hazard to others.
[/quote]
[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 March 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1269544640' post='2079855']
You not wearing a seat belt makes riding on the road dangerous and costly (injuries, etc.) for me and others[/quote]
I was aware that this is your belief, but without scientific evidence it is just that. Not just a few isolated incidents or anecdotal stories, but legitimate studies would be phat. I'm quite open to being convinced of your pov on this, but at the moment the point strikes me as an exaggeration. I mean, some dude's bling rims might have killed someone in a crash one time but that doesn't mean I think the choice to pimp your ride ought to be criminal.

[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 March 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1269544640' post='2079855']Chomping down on those Twinkies is a health risk for you but not me unless you plan on throwing it at me.[/quote]
No one has asserted that junk food is a health risk to [i]others[/i], my thing was obviously a response to claims about costs, not health risks. If there was a broader point to my mention of junk food perhaps it was to say that the calculation of risk alone is not a sufficient basis for legislation. Just stating the obvious of course. Civil liberties and all that good stuff are important considerations. If there is in fact credible evidence suggesting that failing to wear a seat belt puts other drivers in danger then there is the common good to consider, but even this would not convince me in itself. I'm sure passengers on a bus or train pose more of a danger to others than a lone driver of a car with an airbag going 25 mph.

And winnie, whether or not it is unwise, or positively idiotic, to go without a seat belt is not decisive imo. What principles limit the creation of more and more legislation down to the level of what hand you wipe your butt with? All I mean is that there is a balance between protecting the common good and respecting civil liberties. I think the case for a law punishing private choices ought to be very compelling. Maybe it is in this case, I admit ignorance.

Are you assuming that a lack of seat belt legislation means that everyone (or most people) would just stop wearing them? Like many things I believe that the wise choice to wear a seat belt could be dealt with adequately by the culture without the need to involve punishments and policemen. New Hampshire has no seat belt laws and yet 70% of drivers still wear seat belts. This is comparable to the statistics in some states that have strict seat belt laws. A dumb example: condoms have been greatly popularized among practitioners of casual sex without any punitive legislation.

Again, some hard evidence behind the "danger to others" belief would be sweeeet. Maybe I'll surf the net on this later. Yes, I'm absolutely and utterly unqualified to discuss this topic and am just spouting uninformed opinion. I'm prepared to be pwned so don't worry.

[Jesus_lol]

the only reason i can think of to repeal the seatbelts law, would be to stop restricting Darwinism, so that those both stupid enough to not wear seatbelts, uncaring enough to not follow the rules of the road, and incompetant enough to turn their vehicles into fiery wrecks, will eventually stop being there to change lanes into me without signaling or otherwise making driving sketchy for the rest of us.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Winchester]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='25 March 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1269547468' post='2079914']
I was aware that this is your belief, but without scientific evidence it is just that. Not just a few isolated incidents or anecdotal stories, but legitimate studies would be phat. I'm quite open to being convinced of your pov on this, but at the moment the point strikes me as an exaggeration. I mean, some dude's bling rims might have killed someone in a crash one time but that doesn't mean I think the choice to pimp your ride ought to be criminal.

[/quote]
I don't depend on studies to tell me what's common sense or to to evaluate my experience. An unrestrained passenger is a hazard to those in the car. Debris on a road is a hazard to other vehicles. More debris from an accident causes a greater problem and creates more of a hazard to other drivers that aren't involved, an an ejected body is debris. The longer a freeway is shut down for an accident, the more likely there will be other wrecks and the more likely those working the wreck will be struck by someone.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='25 March 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1269565385' post='2080195']
the only reason i can think of to repeal the seatbelts law, would be to stop restricting Darwinism, so that those both stupid enough to not wear seatbelts, uncaring enough to not follow the rules of the road, and incompetent enough to turn their vehicles into fiery wrecks, will eventually stop being there to change lanes into me without signaling or otherwise making driving sketchy for the rest of us.
[/quote]
There is evidence that things such as drunk driving, talking on the cell phone, listening to loud music, and aggressive driving contribute significantly to traffic fatalities. Simply failing to wear one's seat belt does not create a situation that may result in an accident. Your statement is based upon a fallacy.

I believe that the problem isn't people who fail to wear their seat belt, the problem is people who tailgate, speed, cut people off, use the cell phone and/or text, put on makeup, drive drunk, goof off, use driving as an occasion to bully others, and otherwise drive like toolbags. I believe there is some evidence that seat belts and airbags can make such people more comfortable in their aggressive and reckless driving behavior. Even something as benign as listening to music can make one a greater hazard on the road, but failing to wear a seat belt is not even in the same category as these things, and the assumption that the non-seat belt driver is also the aggressive driver or the drunk driver is a non sequitur. Your charged language -- e.g., uncaring, stupid, fiery wreck, and "making driving sketchy for the rest of us" -- suggests an illogical appeal to emotion.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='25 March 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1269547468' post='2079914']
I was aware that this is your belief, but without scientific evidence it is just that. Not just a few isolated incidents or anecdotal stories, but legitimate studies would be phat. I'm quite open to being convinced of your pov on this, but at the moment the point strikes me as an exaggeration. I mean, some dude's bling rims might have killed someone in a crash one time but that doesn't mean I think the choice to pimp your ride ought to be criminal.[/quote]
Quite frankly, I don't need scientific evidence. If the auto insurance industry says their payouts are lower in areas where there are seatbelt laws, then I'm fine with that. Of course, there are [url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seat+belt+saves+lives"]plenty of sources[/url] validating the effectiveness of restraints.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 March 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1269567375' post='2080211']
I don't depend on studies to tell me what's common sense or to to evaluate my experience. An unrestrained passenger is a hazard to those in the car. Debris on a road is a hazard to other vehicles. More debris from an accident causes a greater problem and creates more of a hazard to other drivers that aren't involved, an an ejected body is debris. The longer a freeway is shut down for an accident, the more likely there will be other wrecks and the more likely those working the wreck will be struck by someone.
[/quote]
The thing is, we both agree that wearing a seat belt is wise, and a driver would surely be within his right to demand that a passenger wear their belt. What I don't agree with is that seat belt laws are particularly important or appropriate. There are much more pertinent ways to address driving safety and attaching a monetary fine to seat belt behavior is just more punitive excess from my pov. Also, you don't make a very convincing case. The potential consequences of not wearing the belt are trivial compared to the real cause of those scenarios, namely the leading factors that contribute to serious car crashes in the first place. Seat belts are great, but focusing on seat belt "laws" as if their saving us all from ourselves is to cheapen the issue of road safety imo.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='25 March 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1269567642' post='2080213']
Quite frankly, I don't need scientific evidence. If the auto insurance industry says their payouts are lower in areas where there are seatbelt laws, then I'm fine with that. Of course, there are [url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seat+belt+saves+lives"]plenty of sources[/url] validating the effectiveness of restraints.
[/quote]
The applicability and logic (in the Vulcan sense) of post eludes me. I don't recall anyone claiming that seat belts do not save lives. Of course it is wise to wear a seat belt. Of course there are a great many scenarios in which wearing a seat belt could save your life. What is in question (and has yet to be substantiated although I welcome this), is whether or not failing to wear a seat belt does in fact create a notable hazard for [i]others[/i], and secondly, whether or not punitive seat belt legislation is really the most desirable way to encourage people to use wisdom on the road.

[Winchester]

I agree. Those stupid enough to not wear seatbelts without a law shouldn't be driving in the first place. Unfortunately, we won't easily discern those people once they realize that they won't get their licences if they admit just how stupid they are. I would focus on tailgating. I would attach a steep fine and month long license suspension for tailgaters. But there is an unfortunate focus on speed.

And driving is still not a right. The state is perfectly within its rights to set such a law.

I can't make a better case than simple physics and driving reality. The case is made, you're just being stubborn.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 March 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1269569833' post='2080238']
I agree. Those stupid enough to not wear seatbelts without a law shouldn't be driving in the first place. Unfortunately, we won't easily discern those people once they realize that they won't get their licences if they admit just how stupid they are. I would focus on tailgating. I would attach a steep fine and month long license suspension for tailgaters. But there is an unfortunate focus on speed.

And driving is still not a right. The state is perfectly within its rights to set such a law.

I can't make a better case than simple physics and driving reality. The case is made, you're just being stubborn.
[/quote]
Haha, iawtp. Except the last part, especially the thing that I'm just being stubborn. I think I'm done debating seat belts, in a way I don't care that much. The seat belt law is what it is, and its not like it's making our lives miserable or anything. In general I believe that modern society includes far too many little punitive laws meant to regulate peoples' behavior in ways that sometimes strike me as invasive or domineering. Also, the emphasis on money as a form of punishment seems excessive based on my ideas. For these and similar reasons I tend to be critical towards such things by default. But again, I've been merely speculating on this thread and I believe there is a reasonable probability that I'm wrong on this one.

Maybe I'll just defer to your wisdom sir. [IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/banana_rawk.gif[/IMG]