Seat Belt Use & Personal Freedom (choices, choice, point of view, Articles)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Continuing a tangential discussion from another thread...

Originally Posted by Mestemia

i am in no way claiming that wearing a seat belt is a bad idea.
I know several people who would have died if thay had not been wearing one and there are countless stories in the media about people who have died because they were not wearing one.

I am stating that it should be my choice as to whether I wear it or not.
I have truck tags on my van so that I am not required to wear a seat belt.
Why?
Because I do not want to wear one.

At the risk of offending you, I feel that seat belt use is so overwhelmingly positive that if a person refuses to wear one, they are demonstrating that, at least in some regard, they aren't capable of exercising the rational decision-making skills that I believe are inherently assumed in the whole idea of personal freedom as it is reflected in the law.

Personal freedom requires some basic level of functionality. For example, as a society, we wouldn't accept it if someone took advantage of a 40-year-old developmentally delayed man in a business transaction ("he signed the contract; he's got to live with the consequences!") or if we left a suicidally disturbed person to kill themselves; we recognize special legal protections - and also special legal restrictions - in those sorts of cases. While seatbelt choices are a less extreme example, I think the same principles apply: a person who does not have the wherewithal to put on a seatbelt demonstrates through their actions that (at least in this one respect) they are operating below the basic level required to function as a normal member of society in a "danger to themselves or others" sort of way. Because of this, certain protections are appropriate, as are the restrictions on personal freedom associated with them (i.e. forcing them to wear seatbelts).

[doppelgänger]

From the cosmic irony files:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...9784029686.txt

Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time.

In a column written for the Daily Nebraskan in September, Derek attacked seat belt laws as intrusions on individual liberties and expensive to enforce.

"It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take," he wrote.

"There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group."

That out of the way . . . I generally follow the notion that adults should have the prerogative of doing stupid things that don't clearly endanger someone else.

Not wearing a seatbelt does impose some dangers on others. The force of an unrestrained human body flying around the occupant space during a high speed rollover could very easily kill other people. And of course, their stupidity has effects on their family and friends. I don't think that's enough to justify the force of law behind buckling up. But not doing it is still very stupid.

[Wandered Off]

Here's a slightly different angle: People who go without seat belts sometimes end up needing expensive medical care beyond the coverage of their own insurance (assuming they're covered). Taxpayers pick up the tab. Since they are putting my freedom to spend my own money at risk, I claim a say in their freedom on that basis.

If I could be freed from any fiscal responsibility for another's actions, then I side with freedom to wear or not.

[doppelgänger]

That's a slippery slope for government intrusion into individual privacy though, Jerry. You could use that as a framework to dictate diet, exercise, even things that have to do with stress on the grounds that the cost of treating preventable illness justifies the intervention of the state.

[kadzbiz]

There is another point of view as well. Sure people should have the choice to exercise free will, but does it set a bad example sometimes? If a parent doesn't want to wear a seat belt, should they still make their kids wear one? No kids? Well what about the kids that see you without a seatbelt? The same thing goes with bike helmets, which are mandatory in this state (not sure if it's country wide), adults should set the example for the little ones. Could you live with yourself if a child got hurt or killed because they followed your example?

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

You could use that as a framework to dictate diet, exercise, even things that have to do with stress on the grounds that the cost of treating preventable illness justifies the intervention of the state.

It's a good point as usual, Dopp. People want the government to intrude to pay their bills. I'd like to see that scaled back too. IMO, we expect way too much responsibility from our government, but that's another thread.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

At the risk of offending you, I feel that seat belt use is so overwhelmingly positive that if a person refuses to wear one, they are demonstrating that, at least in some regard, they aren't capable of exercising the rational decision-making skills that I believe are inherently assumed in the whole idea of personal freedom as it is reflected in the law.

And you are completely entitled to that opinion regardless of how ridiculous I think it is.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Personal freedom requires some basic level of functionality. For example, as a society, we wouldn't accept it if someone took advantage of a 40-year-old developmentally delayed man in a business transaction ("he signed the contract; he's got to live with the consequences!") or if we left a suicidally disturbed person to kill themselves; we recognize special legal protections - and also special legal restrictions - in those sorts of cases. While seatbelt choices are a less extreme example, I think the same principles apply: a person who does not have the wherewithal to put on a seatbelt demonstrates through their actions that (at least in this one respect) they are operating below the basic level required to function as a normal member of society in a "danger to themselves or others" sort of way. Because of this, certain protections are appropriate, as are the restrictions on personal freedom associated with them (i.e. forcing them to wear seatbelts).

Again, you are entitled to your opinion.
I just happen to disagree with it.

My decision to legally not wear a seat belt is not within the realms you have described above.
Why?
Because I am LEGALLY not wearing my seatbelt.

In situations where I cannot legally refuse to buckle up, I buckle up.