Seat belts and Helmets, why force people to wear them?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I don't get it why people are still giving lots of different reasons. The vidoe posted at the near start of the thread pretty much ends all need for further conversation.

Because I would much rather you be alive to be pissed at me rather than me having to clean your remains off of the highway?

Selfish of me, I know.

Taxes pays for stupid people who don't wear seatbelt and helmets, and have to pick up their remains, and hospital payments. Wear seatbelts and helmets and less taxes would be spent on picking up stupid people. That's why.

The illusion of safety is compelling.

Because the effects of a crash without a seatbelt are so horrific that it must be the law. When you crash a car at 80 km/h without a seatbelt you will end up flying through the windscreen at 80 km/h

Xan Krieger:
Nanny state has to tell all of it's children to be safe, that's all it is. If you don't want to wear a helmet or seatbelt then you accept full responsibility for when you inevitably die horribly.

vonmanstein:

mattttherman3:
Within reason, children up to I'll say the age of 16 should be forced to wear them because they are not at the top of their cognitive game. You feel me? Good.
[...]
Edit: Well that was fast, my opinion on seat belts has changed. Still nothing on the helmet issue though!

This sounds like nanny state socialism to me(children can make their own choices).

A child's guardian is legally responsible for that child's safety.
In addition to that the cost of medical attention for someone seriously injured is massive compared to someone with lesser injuries. Also, as previously stated, resources might be used on someone too selfish or ignorant to appreciate the effect of their own lack of consideration on the wider population e.g. A surgeon might be busy keeping a crash victim alive at the expense of someone else, blood stocks might be depleted by a pile-up which could be used for others' transfusions.

While that may not be such a concern for society in the US, for the rest of the industrialized nations where universal healthcare is the norm it makes a lot of sense.

catalyst8:
A child's guardian is legally responsible for that child's safety.
In addition to that the cost of medical attention for someone seriously injured is massive compared to someone with lesser injuries. Also, as previously stated, resources might be used on someone too selfish or ignorant to appreciate the effect of their own lack of consideration on the wider population e.g. A surgeon might be busy keeping a crash victim alive at the expense of someone else, blood stocks might be depleted by a pile-up which could be used for others' transfusions.

While that may not be such a concern for society in the US, for the rest of the industrialized nations where universal healthcare is the norm it makes a lot of sense.

Even in the US, your examples of tying up the time of doctors or resources like blood or organs should a crash victim suffer injuries requiring eventual transplantation and entirely relevant and real potential costs on society. Someones right to be an idiot ends when it endangers the lives of others. Directly or otherwise.

mattttherman3:
If someone can't be bothered to care about themselves, why should we?

Because if they have an accident, someone else has to scrape their brains off the pavement, and making someone do that is a major dickmove.

Also the unnecessary healthcare costs caused by additional injuries due to not wearing a helmet aren't covered by the irresponsible person, thus making it the business of the rest of society.

Also, the government is charged with safeguarding public health and it's thus their job to set safety regulations.


To be honest the suggestion that one could abolish necessary safety regulations strikes me as extremely weird.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked