Maine weighs revoking seat belt law days after 75-car pileup

[Countryford]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

So how about consuming alcoholic beverages before or during and using handheld phone, texting and so on? Can there be limits imposed at all on personal freedom when it impacts the well being or life of others?

Unless you want to sound like Rand Paul.

Oh, you are so right. Not wearing a seat belt is just as bad as drinking while driving.

Someone who drinks while intoxicated is a danger, not only to themselves but to others. Their abaility to drive is impaired and the risk of being involved in an accident goes up. Also someone being distracted, talking on a phone or texting, is also impaired while they are trying to drive. However, how is one impaired not wearing their seat belt. The risk of being involved in an accident is the same, weather or not the driver is wearing their seat belt.

[Countryford]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There are harms done to others when a person doesn't wear a seatbelt. As mentioned, it's very possible that others will have to contribute to expensive medical care, and perhaps long-term disability maintenance. Also, at the time of the accident, you can lose control of the vehicle due to not being restrained in the driving position, which could lead to a further collision that injures others.

It's all a matter of what the government is requiring citizens to do, and what sanctions are threatened. in this case, if someone is too stupid or defiant to wear a seatbelt, I'm not going to feel much outrage over a minor-misdemeanor level of sanction.

People have died while wearing their seat belt. People have become disabled while wearing their seat belt. People receive expensive medical care even though they wore their seat belt.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Countryford

People have died while wearing their seat belt. People have become disabled while wearing their seat belt. People receive expensive medical care even though they wore their seat belt.

All true, but all much less likely than the chances of bad outcomes when not wearing the belts. So I must see these objections as simply rationalizations of a basic resentment of being told to do something. Given the level of potential harm, I don't see that the government should respect such resentment.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Countryford

My post wasn't to debate weather or not seat belts are a good idea or if they should be worn. What I was trying to get across is, I don't think the government should be telling us that we have to wear them.

I know.

What you fail to recognize is that your "personal choice" has potential societal consequences. In other words, your decision to take that risk places others at risk and also risks financial costs which would be borne by society as a whole.

But that doesn't matter because FREEDOM!

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Countryford

Their abaility to drive is impaired and the risk of being involved in an accident goes up. Also someone being distracted, talking on a phone or texting, is also impaired while they are trying to drive.

So, you believe it's okay to place others in jeopardy in some ways but not in others because you believe the degree of risk is the relevant criterion?

However, how is one impaired not wearing their seat belt. The risk of being involved in an accident is the same, weather or not the driver is wearing their seat belt.

The potential consequences of that accident to others is not the same.

It's whether.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Countryford

People have died while wearing their seat belt. People have become disabled while wearing their seat belt. People receive expensive medical care even though they wore their seat belt.

It's about mitigation of risk, not elimination of risk.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Countryford

My post wasn't to debate weather or not seat belts are a good idea or if they should be worn. What I was trying to get across is, I don't think the government should be telling us that we have to wear them.

You're just confused about the difference between libery and license.

[Countryford]

What you fail to recognize is that your "personal choice" has potential societal consequences. In other words, your decision to take that risk places others at risk and also risks financial costs which would be borne by society as a whole.

While we are at it, why don't we outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, trans fat, soda, etc... They are all bad for us and leads to medical problems with expensive bills, that the tax payers have to pay.

So I must see these objections as simply rationalizations of a basic resentment of being told to do something. Given the level of potential harm, I don't see that the government should respect such resentment.

I'm not resentful. I wear my seat belt without griping. If it weren't for this thread, I wouldn't have brought the subject up. Someone else started it, I posted to it that I agreed with it, and then explained why I agreed with it. I have my opinion and you have yours.

[Countryford]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

You're just confused about the difference between libery and license.

I am confused about libery

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by noonereal

If I see one more dumb, fat, middle aged republican's say "nanny state" one more time I am gonna pee myself.

Way funny Palin types.

Funny how when it comes to drug testing welfare recipients, or denying women an abortion, or requiring a government issued picture ID to vote, or telling people who they can and can not marry, they are some nanny statin motherfuckers.