REMINDER - Wear your Seat-Belt

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Trav
Laws like this are just another nanny State cash grab by people who think they know what's better for you than you do and by God they are going to pass laws to prove it.


While I agree with the sentiment it took an act of Congress to put seatbelts into cars--the auto makers cried about how it'd bankrupt them. It took years before people started accepting seatbelts: it's nice to believe that one would not let their opinions be swayed by others, but we know how pervasive peer pressure is. If "no one" wears their seatbelt would you? [Not aimed at you Trav, a question for the general audience.] If you automatically answer yes, try to think about how many loved ones would make that same decision, then think about those who can't make that decision (underaged persons).


No, that's wrong. Ford offered belts in the 50's. In fact, they offered a complete "safety package" with belts, padded dash, dished steering wheel, and a few other things. It bombed and was dropped after one year because nobody cared!

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Trav

IMHO with mandatory passive systems like air bags seat belt use should be optional at the drivers discretion, course that would be setting fire to the money tree.



You do know that air bags are designed to work with seat belt instead of without, right?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Neither proof or data but just another point of view. One might say the pro seat belt gang has ginned up their "proof" also.

Who can say with any amount of certainty how many of the people who died with no seat belt would have been saved or those who died with a seat belt wouldn't have died if they were not wearing one.
There is no real data or even if there is some ginned up data how would you prove it?



A good friend of mine is a retired statistician who spent his career at NHTSA. While he could answer this question pretty definitively, it really wouldn't matter. After all, he's simply a tool of The Man, bent on social engineering people into slave-like government compliance, and any information he'd provide is simply "ginned up" government propaganda to steal people's freedoms.

Which, of course, is hilarious to me since I actually know him--and he's completely unlike what I read about him on the interwebs... He's like every egghead statistician I've ever met: apolitical, and obsessed with numbers. He described the seatbelt deniers as being akin to the flat earth society folks (his words, not mine). There are no numbers that will change the seatbelt deniers' minds, so I won't provide any. As a matter of fact, the more evidence that is provided, the more the flat earthers will dig in their heels.

Thinking like this is why polio is going to make a comeback.

 

[TrevorS]

Nice link JOD. Can't wait to see the response to it!

I was thinking that this is yet another topic where there are experts who look at the issue dispassionately but a certain section of society will never accept their methods or conclusions, if they even acknowledge they exist. Then you came along and made the point way better!

 

[Trav]

Just what is your problem?
Originally Posted By: JOD
A good friend of mine is a retired statistician who spent his career at NHTSA. While he could answer this question pretty definitively, it really wouldn't matter. After all, he's simply a tool of The Man, bent on social engineering people into slave-like government compliance, and any information he'd provide is simply "ginned up" government propaganda to steal people's freedoms.


Really? What is the problem with letting people make their own decisions?

Seat belt fines

So much for the NHTSA not being into socially engineering. Your friend just may be everything you said he isn't after all. Nuff said.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Just what is your problem?
Originally Posted By: JOD
A good friend of mine is a retired statistician who spent his career at NHTSA. While he could answer this question pretty definitively, it really wouldn't matter. After all, he's simply a tool of The Man, bent on social engineering people into slave-like government compliance, and any information he'd provide is simply "ginned up" government propaganda to steal people's freedoms.


Really? What is the problem with letting people make their own decisions?

Seat belt fines

So much for the NHTSA not being into socially engineering. Your friend just may be everything you said he isn't after all. Nuff said.




I'm actually fine with letting people make their own decisions when it doesn't affect me; however, it does affect me-mainly my wallet--in the form of insurance rates and health insurance premiums. So, fining people for not wearing seatbelts makes perfect sense for me, unless there were a workable solution for charging these folks more.

So, what do you prefer--seat belt fines or in-car devices to keep track of your seatbelt usage? Either one works for me.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: JOD
it does affect me-mainly my wallet--in the form of insurance rates and health insurance premiums


That is a specious argument and we both know it. Do you really want to go down that road?

 

[JOD]

I don't think it's a specious argument, at all. Actually, I think it's a very sound argument, and analogous to motorcycle helmet laws. Repealing motorcycle helmet laws cost all motorcyclists money: http://freakonomics.com/2013/06/13/fewer-helmets-higher-healthcare-costs/.

There's no equivocation on this one--it's cold, hard fact however you want to dice it up. I'm not sure why you'd consider this a specious argument? Costs go up when occupants aren't wearing seatbelts. Someone has to pay for it?

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: Trav
What is the problem with letting people make their own decisions?


Because the public, in general, is stupid. They DO need to be protected from themselves.


Here's a quick, simple way to save lives - why would you argue against that? -and expend so much energy in doing so?

Fatality rates for miles driven are at the lowest level ever, and you want to say "*&%#ing Nanny State!!!" and complain about it.
Want to drive without seat belts, air bags, ESC, crumple zones, and take your chances? Buy a classic car and have fun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Trav
Just what is your problem?
Originally Posted By: JOD
A good friend of mine is a retired statistician who spent his career at NHTSA. While he could answer this question pretty definitively, it really wouldn't matter. After all, he's simply a tool of The Man, bent on social engineering people into slave-like government compliance, and any information he'd provide is simply "ginned up" government propaganda to steal people's freedoms.


Really? What is the problem with letting people make their own decisions?

Seat belt fines

So much for the NHTSA not being into socially engineering. Your friend just may be everything you said he isn't after all. Nuff said.




I'm actually fine with letting people make their own decisions when it doesn't affect me; however, it does affect me-mainly my wallet--in the form of insurance rates and health insurance premiums. So, fining people for not wearing seatbelts makes perfect sense for me, unless there were a workable solution for charging these folks more.

So, what do you prefer--seat belt fines or in-car devices to keep track of your seatbelt usage? Either one works for me.


So, when do you start pushing to require all cars to have roll cages, 5-point harnesses, onboard fire suppression systems, and require all drivers to wear a helmet and fire suit?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: Trav
What is the problem with letting people make their own decisions?


Because the public, in general, is stupid. They DO need to be protected from themselves.


Here's a quick, simple way to save lives - why would you argue against that? -and expend so much energy in doing so?

Fatality rates for miles driven are at the lowest level ever, and you want to say "*&%#ing Nanny State!!!" and complain about it.
Want to drive without seat belts, air bags, ESC, crumple zones, and take your chances? Buy a classic car and have fun.


Following that logic, you MUST support the banning of motorcycles from all public roads.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Following that logic, you MUST support the banning of motorcycles from all public roads.


Sure! Along with gas-guzzlers, etc. Everyone must drive a white Prius.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
So, when do you start pushing to require all cars to have roll cages, 5-point harnesses, onboard fire suppression systems, and require all drivers to wear a helmet and fire suit?


When the cost/benefit ratio of the above reaches that of seat belts.

I understand that deteriorating to ridiculous strawman arguments is a natural part of the illogic tree, but I do have a hard time with it when it comes to something as benign as seat belts. What exactly is the big objection, again? "I want the freedom to fly through my windshield", or something along those lines?

As I said, if people want to pay for that freedom, that's fine--but I don't think I should have to pay for it. It would be like me paying the same insurance rates and health premiums as someone who chooses to smoke.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
So, when do you start pushing to require all cars to have roll cages, 5-point harnesses, onboard fire suppression systems, and require all drivers to wear a helmet and fire suit?


When the cost/benefit ratio of the above reaches that of seat belts.

I understand that deteriorating to ridiculous strawman arguments is a natural part of the illogic tree, but I do have a hard time with it when it comes to something as benign as seat belts. What exactly is the big objection, again? "I want the freedom to fly through my windshield", or something along those lines?

As I said, if people want to pay for that freedom, that's fine--but I don't think I should have to pay for it. It would be like me paying the same insurance rates and health premiums as someone who chooses to smoke.




5-point harnesses are pretty much required for young children these days. I do wonder about the effectiveness of the sholder portions that are held together with a plastic clip, but at least their legs are firmly strapped in.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
So, when do you start pushing to require all cars to have roll cages, 5-point harnesses, onboard fire suppression systems, and require all drivers to wear a helmet and fire suit?


When the cost/benefit ratio of the above reaches that of seat belts.

I understand that deteriorating to ridiculous strawman arguments is a natural part of the illogic tree, but I do have a hard time with it when it comes to something as benign as seat belts. What exactly is the big objection, again? "I want the freedom to fly through my windshield", or something along those lines?

As I said, if people want to pay for that freedom, that's fine--but I don't think I should have to pay for it. It would be like me paying the same insurance rates and health premiums as someone who chooses to smoke.


So, when do you push to ban motorcycles?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


So, when do you push to ban motorcycles?


I'm sorry. I still don't understand the strawman and slippery slope arguments? What do motorcycles have to do with seat belts?

Why is this even a discussion? Cars in the U.S. have had seat belts since the 60's. Putting on a seat belt isn't a hardship to anyone, unless you're 400 lbs or something. I can see people being upset about stuff that actually impinges on their liberties (like, say, the choice to ride a motorcycle). But there's no real downside to wearing a seat belt, unless you're a flat earther who's going to grab anecdotes are treat them as "evidence" that seatbelts are actually dangerous--because there's really no real debate on the subject of seat belts among rational individuals.

It's all about cost/benefit to society. There's no real cost to requiring seat belts, and there's a well-established benefit. If people want to ignore facts and pretend otherwise, that's their problem. But lets stop demonizing absolutely every single thing that is a collective decision in the interest of public safety. So, I'm going to ask--what are the downsides again?

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: JOD
It's all about cost/benefit to society. There's no real cost to requiring seat belts, and there's a well-established benefit. If people want to ignore facts and pretend otherwise, that's their problem. But lets stop demonizing absolutely every single thing that is a collective decision in the interest of public safety.


When are you going to get it through your head that it is not a collective decision of the people?
It was put into law in MA by Gubernatorial edict (hardly a bloody collective decision) and promptly repealed by a vote of the people!
Quote:
In November 1986, the Massachusetts mandatory seat belt use law was repealed in a referendum by a 53 per cent to 47 per cent vote

Now that's a collective decision!
That was a majority of the people saying no we don't want it. It doesn't matter if you or the kook fringe likes it or not, or if its good or not good for them, they said NO!
It was again forced down their throats again years later only when threatened with the loss of Federal Highway funds.

So no lets not stop demonizing what a Government out of control tries to push everything down our throats for our own good!
I remember when this was free country not what it is today and its getting worse by the day.

When you start saying things "It's all about like cost/benefit to society" and "collective decisions" we are pretty much done, I know what that kind of thinking is and I want no part of it.
I see no point in further discussion.

 

[pandus13]

I know a family that both still got their heads because of NOT wearing the belts.

I still use it.

P.S.
how about them girls with feet on dashboard/out the window....
what's an airbag do to them?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Trav


When you start saying things "It's all about like cost/benefit to society" and "collective decisions" we are pretty much done, I know what that kind of thinking is and I want no part of it.



If you really feel that way, you should buy yourself 40 acres and erect a fence; but no cheating, ordering stuff on Amazon and using the roads I pay for to get it there!

I'm sorry, but this irrational fear of the word "collective" by a radical, vocal minority has just gone off the deep end. As functioning societies, there are some things that are "collective" by definition. It's not a dirty word, nor is looking at cost/benefit ratios to society as whole. If you really feel otherwise, I suggest you get workin' on that fence (but plan on building it with tools you mine from your own property and beat into hand-made chisels...).

Alternatively, you can move to the Congo or something, where there are very lax societal rules.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: pandus13
I know a family that both still got their heads because of NOT wearing the belts.

I still use it.


Yeah, there's no question that there are instances where a seat belt causes damage. Your decision to use one just reinforces the difference between anecdote and data... Unless, of course, someone is really good at predicting what kind of accident they're going to encounter...

Originally Posted By: pandus13
P.S.
how about them girls with feet on dashboard/out the window....
what's an airbag do to them?


I cringe whenever I see that--but then again, I still remember that slasher movie "The Hand" from the drive-in when I was a little kid. Keep those arms inside the car, kids!