[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I don't like the government comeing in to tell you what to do, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt fine, darwin will take care of you soon enough.

that said I am obsesive about wearing a seat belt. I won't even turn the key untill I've herd as many clicks as I have people in the car, and if someone takes there belt off they had better have a damned good reason, like a protal to hell has opened up in there abdomen and somehow takeing the belt off will help, or I'll go fock'n balistic, you'll have about four seconds to but it back on before I pull over and slam on the brakes.

I like you.

Seriously, a younger relative of mine got in the back seat one day and didn't bother buckling up.  I gave her plenty of time to reach for the seatbelt and buckle up, but she just sat there waiting for me to get under way.  I decided to give her a little lesson in physics.  I pulled out of the driveway, and goosed it a little and then very quickly slammed on the brakes.  All she got was a face full of seat, but she definitely learned her lesson.  Especially after I showed her pictures of people that were, lets just say less than fortunate after flying through the windshield.

Hell, I even saw someone that didn't bother wearing a seatbelt knock a softball sized hole in the windshield of someone else's car (idiot was a passenger) after the driver rear-ended someone at a stoplight.  Needless to say, the moron had a major gash in his forehead and his face was covered in blood.

[Setekh]

Seatbelts are law in Australia - every passenger in the car. If you get caught without 'em on, the offending passenger gets fined $200 - and the driver too.

[Rictor]

I am deeply and fundamentally opposed to a law requiring seatbelts. Its my life, I can do what I want, same goes for any other passengers (except very small children). Unfortunately, the government of Canada disagrees.

Now personall, I do put on my seatbelt most of the time, its just force of habit, but I don't see how the government has any right to force such an issue. If I want to take the risk, thats my thing.

[Flipside]

To a degree I see your point Rictor, but, the thing is that people not wearing seatbelts are not only a risk to themselves, if they were, then I'd agree, but someone in the back being thrown forward by the strength of a crash or emergency stop can ram the driver, whether they are wearing a seatbelt or not, into the dashboard, thus increasing the injury or possibly killing them.

When they are a risk to other people, I suppose that's what governments exist for as it where?

[karajorma]

As flipside says you're not just a danger to yourself. You're not even just a danger to the other people in your car. When your broken and bruised body flies through the windscreen of the car you could very easily injure someone else.

[Tiara]

Wearing a seatbelt is a law here. Get caught without one and you get fined. The passenger is also required to wear a seatbelt but that is his responsibility. The driver cannot be fined, etc because the passenger wasn't wearing one, only the passenger itself can receive a fine.

Sure, people are responsible for their own lives, but study by a third party has proven that people that DON'T wear seatbelt are less responsible in traffic then the people who DO wear them. It was also shown that a greater percentage of the less responsible people drove more safely after they started wearing the belt.

On top of that, wearing a seatbelt allows the driver to possess a longer reaction time in the case of a crash because their heads aren't immediatly smashed into the steering wheel. These fractions of a second can save lives.

So, in essence it isn't only their own lives but also that of innocent bystanders. I am totally for it.

[Rictor]

Thats dubious at best.

Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold. And those with a cold are likely to infect others. And in a small number of cases, catching a cold can lead to serious health problems or even death. Therefore, to protect people from your horrible diesase, you are required by law to wear a jacket outside during winter. Some people may complain that this infringes on their personal rights, but those poor fools obviously don't see the catastrophic implications of their careless actions.
________________________________

As for the passengers, whether or not they want to wear a seatbelt and whether or not they endanger anyone else in the car by doing so/not doing so is a matter between the passenger and the driver. The government has no business interfering in arrangements made between grown adults.

Of course, the government always knows whats best for everyone, far more than mere people do, right?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold.

Sounds like a load of Bollocks. Find me that study.

If you're going to take things to that degree the government shouldn't interfere with people building live nuclear weapons as long as it doesn't look like they are going to use them. After all what business does the government have interfering in the right of an adult to own live nuclear weapons?

[kasperl]

I almost always wear a seatbelt, the only exclusion is when I can't find the bugger, or when you're trying to transport 5 people, plus luggage for three, in something ha bit smaller than a Fiat Panda. There was no way in hell I could even move, nevermind fly forward in case of a crash. Trying to put the thing on would've cost me a sprained shoulder.

Seriously though, it should be law. For the safety of others too.

[vyper]

I wear a seatbelt every time I drive because I don't fancy the 100 odd quid fine for not wearing one, but if I had the choice I'd probably leave it off for things like reversing/parking.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Rictor
Thats dubious at best.

Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold. And those with a cold are likely to infect others. And in a small number of cases, catching a cold can lead to serious health problems or even death. Therefore, to protect people from your horrible diesase, you are required by law to wear a jacket outside during winter. Some people may complain that this infringes on their personal rights, but those poor fools obviously don't see the catastrophic implications of their careless actions.

[/b]
Yeah, ofcourse that's the same

Driving without a seatbelt has been shown to be a hazard to other people then the driver him- or herself. If not because of the study then because of the plain fact that it limits your reaction time in the event of an accident when you DON'T wear one.

As for the passengers, whether or not they want to wear a seatbelt and whether or not they endanger anyone else in the car by doing so/not doing so is a matter between the passenger and the driver. The government has no business interfering in arrangements made between grown adults.

Of course, the government always knows whats best for everyone, far more than mere people do, right?

Dude, I live in Holland. We are practically all about about personal freedom and stuff like that. Nevertheless, it is no longer your own right when you endanger another person. And that's EXACTLY what you are doing if you don't wear a seatbelt.

If you want to harm yourself, I couldn't give a crap because that's YOUR descision and it doesn't hurt others.

And sorry, but sometimes the government DOES know better then you, me or that guy on the street. If you think otherwise you can go live on the moon or something because you are already stuck in your own little 'pretend world'.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong.

[karajorma]

Remember when talking to Rictor that you're dealing with someone who thinks that the governments activities to prevent people from owning child pornography is an infringment of civil liberties. This thing with seatbelts is actually quite mild for him.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma


Sounds like a load of Bollocks. Find me that study.

I was trying to make a point. Obviously, there is no study.

As for nuclear weapons, those are specifically designed to inflict harm. They serve no other possible purpose. And given the potential for harm, they can hardly be compared to not wearing a seatbelt. If a nuclear bomb had the potential to kill one person or a few at most, it would be a different matter. But it's not, so there you go.

Originally posted by Tiara

Dude, I live in Holland. We are practically all about about personal freedom and stuff like that. Nevertheless, it is no longer your own right when you endanger another person. And that's EXACTLY what you are doing if you don't wear a seatbelt.

If you want to harm yourself, I couldn't give a crap because that's YOUR descision and it doesn't hurt others.
[/B]

Here's a scenario. Me and my friend agree to play Russian Roullete. We are both grown adults, and we both know the risks involved. Should the government have the power to come in and say "don't point that gun around, you might hurt your friend"?

If a back-seat passenger choose not to wear a seatbelt, he is also endangering the saftey of others in the car, that what you're saying right? But if the other people in the car ackowledge that risk and accept it, what you essentially have is an agreement between grown adults.* And adults don't need to be nannied and supervised, they can handle their own ****.

He is waving a loaded gun around, to overstate the danger significantly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the other passengers have agreed to take that risk. Its their choice to make. If they don't agree with him, then he either buckles up or he's walking. Simple as that.

*obviously if there is a small child present, the situation changes and so does my stance on seatbelts.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Thats dubious at best.

Studies have shown that people who don't wear a jacket outside during winter are more likely to catch a cold. And those with a cold are likely to infect others. And in a small number of cases, catching a cold can lead to serious health problems or even death. Therefore, to protect people from your horrible diesase, you are required by law to wear a jacket outside during winter. Some people may complain that this infringes on their personal rights, but those poor fools obviously don't see the catastrophic implications of their careless actions.

I'm guessing you're against the prosecution of people who knowingly/deliberately infect others with AIDs, then?

[Rictor]

oh for ****s sake, stop acting like not wearing a seatbelt will single-handedly bring about the destruction of the human race!

If that someone agrees to be infected with AIDS, its no business of mine.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
oh for ****s sake, stop acting like not wearing a seatbelt will single-handedly bring about the destruction of the human race!

If that someone agrees to be infected with AIDS, its no business of mine.

Agrees? What has this got to do with agreeing?  Lets say I'm driving down the motorway, and the passenger behind me unbuckles their seatbelt.  

Now, I can't and indeed shouldn't be able to see that, because I need to control the car, not the passenger.  And then there is a crash, and rear-seat numpty crashes into the back of my head and kills me.

EDIt; or is catapulted out into the road, causing a further accident.  which is another possibility.

[Rictor]

The people in your car are presumably your friends and family. It stands to reason that you can reach some sort of agreement without outside supervision. If you're genuinly concerned about seatbelt safety, then either the passangers in your car put them on or get the hell out of the car. If however, you adopt an "ah screw it" attitude, then you are conciously accepting the risks, and any consequences that may result.

The people you are likely to be driving around are probably not strangers, nor are they assholes. If you insist upon them buckling up, then I'm sure they will oblige you. If that doesn't work, and you feel threatened by their non-seatbelt wearing, as I said, kick them out.

[Janos]

i always wore a seatbelt but now you sai that i should and because i am a rebel i won't be wearing it from now on

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
The people in your car are presumably your friends and family. It stands to reason that you can reach some sort of agreement without outside supervision. If you're genuinly concerned about seatbelt safety, then either the passangers in your car put them on or get the hell out of the car. If however, you adopt an "ah screw it" attitude, then you are conciously accepting the risks, and any consequences that may result.

The people you are likely to be driving around are probably not strangers, nor are they assholes. If you insist upon them buckling up, then I'm sure they will oblige you. If that doesn't work, and you feel threatened by their non-seatbelt wearing, as I said, kick them out.

So, basically, you're happy to put your life in their hands with no real control, rather than risk there being a law that does the same thing?
(I see we are apparently ignoring other road users here)

Ok, how about another question; in what way is legally requiring people to buckle up a bad thing?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Rictor

Here's a scenario. Me and my friend agree to play Russian Roullete. We are both grown adults, and we both know the risks involved. Should the government have the power to come in and say "don't point that gun around, you might hurt your friend"?

Guns are illigal here so that scenario pretty much is a f'ed up example.

And even if guns are legal, it is illigal to use 'm against Humans unless you are threatened IIRC. therefor even in that scenario your whole point is moot.

If a back-seat passenger choose not to wear a seatbelt, he is also endangering the saftey of others in the car, that what you're saying right? But if the other people in the car ackowledge that risk and accept it, what you essentially have is an agreement between grown adults.* And adults don't need to be nannied and supervised, they can handle their own ****.

Back-seat passengers don't have to wear seatbelts here hell, seatbelts in the backseats don't even have to be built in

And crash-dummy tests have shown that back-seat passengers aren't a threat to others unless you are speeding. And in that case you are already breaking the law and endangering others.

He is waving a loaded gun around, to overstate the danger significantly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the other passengers have agreed to take that risk. Its their choice to make. If they don't agree with him, then he either buckles up or he's walking. Simple as that.

You make absolutely NO sense whatsoever in this paragraph.

*obviously if there is a small child present, the situation changes and so does my stance on seatbelts.

So, children are now something else then grown up Human beings? Why protect a baby and not yourself? If you are so adament that babies should be protected, why not a law to protect EVERYONE?

Seriously, you are just being weird.

Freedom of choice only goes so far. If it reaches a point WHERE IT ENDANGERS OTHER, it is no longer 'free' choice. And it DOES endanger others by not wearing them.