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

[donquixote99]

1. You lose control of your car more easily, possibly injuring others.
2. More indirectly, society bears higher costs if you are injured, or injured more seriously.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Countryford

I dont quite see how not wearing a seatbelt can harm someone else.

Re-read the thread. Several of the ways in which this is true have been discussed.

John

[Countryford]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

1. You lose control of your car more easily, possibly injuring others.
2. More indirectly, society bears higher costs if you are injured, or injured more seriously.

Ok. I can see your point about the first one. However on the second one, there are many things we as Americans do that society bears the cost, related to the health care.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Countryford

I dont quite see how not wearing a seatbelt can harm someone else.

Front seat drivers and passengers have been seriously injured and killed by unbelted back seat passengers slamming into them from behind in a head-on crash.

The odds of death for a belted driver seated directly in front of an unrestrained passenger in a serious head-on crash was 2.27 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94 to 2.66) than if seated in front of a restrained passenger.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15692133

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Countryford

Ok. I can see your point about the first one. However on the second one, there are many things we as Americans do that society bears the cost, related to the health care.

So, it's okay to "push the envelope"? If society is prepared to be on the hook anyway, why not really set the hook? Sorry, but I think that's a profoundly selfish attitude. So is the fact that DQ's first point isn't sufficient for you to re-think your position.

John

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Countryford

Ok. I can see your point about the first one. However on the second one, there are many things we as Americans do that society bears the cost, related to the health care.

Many things like drinking, smoking, and eating bacon by the pound? With maple syrup?

These things are personally gratifying, and our culture recognizes personal gratification as the 'stuff of life.' People say 'sure I could live 10 years longer if I stop drinking and smoking, but what would be the point?' We seem to respect this feeling, and to privilege it, in some ways.

The privilege of smoking is eroding, of course--lots of folks, for one thing, see that it's a cheat--the 'gratification' is only the abatement of the addictive urge that it instills.

Anyway, we're less willing to privilege 'not wearing seat belts,' as fewer can identify with the pure pleasure of the act. Such enjoyment strikes people as too close to crankiness. So we're a lot more ready to believe that the downside way outweighs the upside, in this case.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Countryford

Ok. I can see your point about the first one. However on the second one, there are many things we as Americans do that society bears the cost, related to the health care.

So, why should something that is largely preventable be yet another costly public burden.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Countryford

Ok. I can see your point about the first one. However on the second one, there are many things we as Americans do that society bears the cost, related to the health care.

And with poorly considered human behavior or not, due to the moronic healthcare system we have, society is bearing twice the cost necessary.