Should seatbelts be mandatory?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 41 - 60 of total 75 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

May 21, 2007 - 10:08pm PT

Better yet have a mandatory intelligence test in order to start the vehicle like those drunk drivers' cars.

Off the Couch

Trad climber

May 22, 2007 - 12:21am PT

How about we have implied consent with seatbelts? You know, like we do with breath or blood tests?

I mean, at least in some states, when you get a driver's license you give consent to a blood or breath test (usually for alcohol, or other suspected drugs) to determine whether you're impaired.

So how about you die-hard sans-a-seatbelt personal libertarian holdout resistors merely accept the same thing: you crack your melon driving without a seatbelt and you have given implied consent - which can even be noted on your driver's license like an organ donor, to show your dedication to the idea - to having the State dump your damaged body into an unsupervised vegetable bin if reasonable efforts won't revive you.

Just a thought.

Wow, Wild Bill - I just viewed that video. There's no gore, but you're right - he DOES quickly bounce off the dashboard before his head goes out the window. That man did indeed need a helmet.

Darnell

Big Wall climber

Chicago

May 22, 2007 - 12:53am PT

I think there are 30 states that do not havea helmet law if you are 21 or over, some, like Texas require insurance to obtain a motorcycle lic.
I don't liketo wear a helmet,but sometimes I do, I think it should be a matter of choice.
Helmets are a lot lighter in weight than they used to be, the older ones pose a danger for neck due to the massive whiplash because of the weight.
But if we have to wear a helmet then I think that there should be a law to limit the intake of trans fats, and smokers who start homefires should foot the bill for the fire dept.

injurieshttp://home.tampabay.rr.com/ourplace/Biker/facts.htm

quartziteflight

climber

May 22, 2007 - 12:55am PT

umm hell naw!!!!!

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

May 22, 2007 - 12:58am PT

It is common sense that wearing a seat belt improves you chances of surviving car crashes. So doing it is a good thing and being compelled to do it really isn't objectionable.

As for the statistical evidence to support the "common sense," well that is really much more complicated... apparently.

Check out this analysis... http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PDFs/SAE%20seatbelts.pdf

and the interesting quote: "That the use of safety equipment can influence the behavior of the user is obvious. Rock climbers with their safety ropes, ... all attempt manoeuvres with their safety equipment that they would not attempt without it."

Adams' hypothesis is that "Protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving." In other words, if you use a seat belt, then you drive more aggressively, and get into more accidents at a rate that seems to compensate the good effects of wearing a seat belt.

So if we had no safety equipment in rock climbing, the hypothesis would predict that the accident rates would be uneffected because we would all climb a lot safer, knowing that any mistake would be fatal.

In some sense, it is a reflection of our personal liberty... that is, inspite of the fact that we utilize equipment to protect us, we behave in a way that puts us at risk, compensating for the protection.

Smeed's law is an empirical observation that the rate of auto fatalities depends only on the population and the number of cars... from Freeman Dyson's interesting memoir of his early days (http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17847/page1/ see page5):

"Smeed also had a fatalistic view of traffic accidents. He collected statistics on traffic deaths from many countries, all the way back to the invention of the automobile. He found that under an enormous range of conditions, the number of deaths in a country per year is given by a simple formula: number of deaths equals .0003 times the two-thirds power of the number of people times the one-third power of the number of cars. This formula is known as Smeed's Law. He published it in 1949, and it is still valid 57 years later. It is, of course, not exact, but it holds within a factor of two for almost all countries at almost all times. It is remarkable that the number of deaths does not depend strongly on the size of the country, the quality of the roads, the rules and regulations governing traffic, or the safety equipment installed in cars. Smeed interpreted his law as a law of human nature. The number of deaths is determined mainly by psychological factors that are independent of material circumstances. People will drive recklessly until the number of deaths reaches the maximum they can tolerate. When the number exceeds that limit, they drive more carefully. Smeed's Law merely defines the number of deaths that we find psychologically tolerable."

So don't worry about the law, you will be able to kill yourself if you want inspite of it.

WBraun

climber

May 22, 2007 - 01:00am PT

You know what pisses me off.

Is that dumb ass law they made that you can't ride in the back of a pick up truck. Who are these guys that come up with all these rules?

In the third world people are riding on top of trains. I like up there. Just duck when tunnel comes. Why ride inside when sun shines? When rain comes then inside and play chess.

America everything goes too fast and no time.

Stupid .....

Anastasia

Trad climber

California

May 22, 2007 - 01:06am PT

I think seatbelts should be mandatory because I am alive because of one.
In the same accident my wonderful friend who wasn't wearing his had been severally injured. I had the experience of holding him as he died. After that I can't, it is impossible for me to imagine it not being mandatory.
In my own world, I can't drive out of the driveway without everyone being buckled in.
AF

P.S.
In Greece I saw a car accident that included five people who were riding in the bed of a truck. The accident was only an impact of 35 kilometers per hour. The impact killed everyone who had been riding in the bed of the truck. The cab passengers didn't even get whiplash. Sadly, the cab passengers were the parents and the five victims in the bed were their children. Witnessing such a scene isn't something you want to see.
(That is why we have that law. )
Anastasia

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

May 22, 2007 - 04:22am PT

Ed, this isn't directed at you, but your argument very nicely sums up the thinking of one side of this debate. Particularly one line really encapsulates the basic intuition driving the idea that seatbelts, helmets, etc. should be legally required. So, again, not bashing on you personally. Just using your nicely put lines as exemplars of a mode of thinking with which I do strongly disagree.

I will preface everything here by saying that protecting kids is a different story. Parents are amazingly stupid when it comes to basic and reasonable protections. So, I am much more sympathetic to enforcing BASIC protections for kids. How far that should intrude into our lives will raise constant tensions, and I remain far more afraid of governmental interventions than almost any other "threats" to us or our kids. But I will grant the need for BASIC child protections, while denying the government's right/duty/need to protect me in my personal sphere.

Ed's best line is: "It is common sense that wearing a seat belt improves you [sic] chances of surviving car crashes. So doing it is a good thing and being compelled to do it really isn't objectionable." The corollary is, of course, the (paraphrased) idea that has been oft expressed on this thread: "When you splatter your face against your windshield, we all pay."

Both ideas need to be dismantled in this supposed "land of the free" (yeah, right) and "home of the brave" (oh, give me a break!).

First, a brief list of really outrageous things that kill orders of magnitude more people each year than ALL roadway fatalities from ALL causes, showing how "common sense" it is to enforce against them. I will put each item in the form of Ed's well-crafted line (and there are countless more that I don't take the space to list here).

1) Meat eating. It's common sense that a low fat diet saves lives, so being a vegetarian is a good thing, and being compelled to be a vegetarian really isn't objectionable. (It's not; I have been one for decades, and compelling vegetarianism would have huge, sweeping, and entirely positive global consequences.)

2) Going unprotected in the sun. It's common sense that wearing sunscreen saves lives, so wearing sunscreen is a good thing, and being compelled to wear sunscreen really isn't objectionable. (It's not; I wear it most of the time when I'm outdoors.)

3) Smoking. It's common sense that disallowing smoking saves lives, so disallowing smoking is a good thing, and being compelled to never smoke really isn't objectionable. (It's not; I have never smoked, can't imagine missing it, needing it, or even wanting it; and disallowing smoking would save more lives than just those of the smokers.)

4) Alcohol drinking. It's common sense that disallowing alcohol drinking saves lives, so disallowing alcohol drinking is a good thing, and being compelled to never drink alcohol really isn't objectionable. (It's not; I have only rarely imbibed and don't miss it, and disallowing drinking would save more lives than just those of the drinkers.)

5) Individual driving. It's common sense that mass transit (in all its forms) saves lives, so disallowing individual driving is a good thing, and being compelled to never drive really isn't objectionable. (It's not; changing our perspectives and economic emphasis in this country could have sweeping and positive economic changes, and we would eliminate virtually all roadway fatalities. We should all walk more anyway, and individual driving is an outrageously expensive convenience.)

Obviously I am not advocating that we SHOULD have government "save" us in these various ways. I'm pointing out that the risk/reward ratios are even more skewed in many other settings, yet we somehow view the supposedly "minor" invasions of our lives as minor indeed rather than to recognize the ever-creeping governmental invasions into our personal spheres!

The above points are even more compelling when cast as merely improving overall odds, as Ed's line does, rather than flat-out saving lives. If merely improving odds is all we need to justify compulsion in this country, then a whole HOST of things we take for granted, but that we can easily do without, should be outlawed!

But wait. This is the "home of the brave," right? Being "free" (as we like to lie to ourselves that we are) actually does take some bravery. Instead, we sit around wringing our hands and crying out for the government (forever in history the bastard to be MOST feared) to save us from (again, a minimal list):

Terrorists (even though the astounding loss of personal freedoms over the last six years seems to cause little concern), as we run scared from a "threat" that has virtually no statistical significance. (No fingernail clippers or un-tasted breast milk on a plane?! "The home of the brave?!" Why do we tolerate such obviously INANE crap as this???) And we should be MOST afraid of the fact that by definition now, virtually anybody can be classified as a terrorist; and our (perpetually) "war-time" president has assumed "war-time" powers to "deal" with "suspected" terrorists.

Economic hardship (even though the creeping socialism in this country is THE basis behind the "affects us all" arguments that justify more and more loss of freedoms).

Each other (as though getting rid of guns, knives, and even fingernail clippers will eliminate or even reduce the danger we are to each other), as though the biggest threat we face (as it has always been) is not the government itself!

Getting even our feelings hurt (as though being "free" means that we must be "free" from people saying anything, even in public, that hurts our feelings or offends us in any way), when the very NATURE of a free society is that there must be (in the words of an old supreme court ruling that seems little believed today) "no prior restraint."

We are SO far from being either free or brave in this country today. We plead for government to protect us from the slightest discomfort and from every conceivable threat, and we fall all over ourselves to throw away the very IDEA of liberty in exchange for protections that the government cannot in principle ever really provide! How did it ever get into anybody's mind that we need protection from OURSELVES (seat belt laws, etc.)? Simply the twisted idea that has limitless extensions: "If it can save even one life...."

Ridiculous! We ALLOW such stupid, willy-nilly arguments to affect our core attitudes and to influence legislation, and we continually become less free and less brave.

So, I must respectfully disagree with Ed's final line: "So, don't worry about the law...." NO! The thing we should always be MOST worried about IS the law! It defines us and enslaves us! And, the trend of decades of legislation demonstrates that BY DEFINITION we are NOT free and we are NOT brave.

Let economic factors and education encourage reasonable behaviors, protect your kids and yourselves, and keep legislation out of our personal spheres absolutely as much as possible!

(I know that this falls on mostly deaf ears; so entrenched is the increasingly socialistic, comfort-seeking complacency of the vast majority. But, I can't resist one small stab at changing the overriding popular perspective.)

Degaine

climber

May 22, 2007 - 04:51am PT

Ed wrote : Adams' hypothesis is that "Protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving." In other words, if you use a seat belt, then you drive more aggressively, and get into more accidents at a rate that seems to compensate the good effects of wearing a seat belt.

That really only takes into account the driver, doesn’t it? What if I’m the passenger? I certainly can’t drive more aggressively if I’m the passenger.

What about wearing seatbelts to protect you from other drivers’ mistakes?

Moof,

Read up on your rescue stats, mountain/rock climbing represent something like 1% or less of all rescues in the mountains/wilderness. Hikers are the recreational group using up most of the rescue resources.

jstan

climber

May 22, 2007 - 09:55am PT

No. Actually you can ride in the back of a pickup. You just have to be on a leash.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

May 22, 2007 - 09:59am PT

I thought about the passenger issue also... many things come into play there, if the accident rate is dominated by a personal calculation of risk, that calculation may change when passengers are present, especially if the most likely passengers are family members. Don't know.

As for the long discussion by madbolter1, it essentially says that individual freedom, liberty is more important than societies needs... and pulls the "socialism" card (oh my, we don't want that!). It is typical knee jerk reaction, but hey, we all live in a society and we supress individual needs for the societal needs. This is not just a philosophy, it is probably an evolutionary adaptation... living alone in a preditor filled world is not as likely as living together. So while you might want to let your innner independent self free, you derive a great benefit in living in a society.

Certainly there is a balance. But the bullshit about "give me liberty or give me death" is hard to take sometime. Bottom line is that we want and need to be social, and we are.

It is fashionable to be negative about the government as an instruement which denies us our "unalienable rights," but this happens in the private sector too, the difference being that the government is accountable, where as business is immune except through the enforcement of law. So while law may inhibit some expression of "freedom and liberty," it ensures it in other cases. Of course we could just overthrow all social constructs that deny us our individual liberty. What a mess that would be!

Gee, it seems to be about balance...
...to take a metaphore from climbing, don't try to muscle the arguement about personal liberty, climb like a girl, in balance, and with good technique and nuance.

I think I'm going climbing today...

Wild Bill

climber

May 22, 2007 - 11:38am PT

In addition to Off the Couch's 'implied consent' all you non-belted folks also hereby give up the right to sue anyone after a wreck. Whether it was your fault or not.

That's the difference between driving and all the other examples cited of 'dangerous behavior' (eating meat, sun exposure). These latter examples are dissimilar because they are things you do to yourself. Whereas getting wrecked while driving is something that may be done to you.

So how about it, all you he-men arguing that belts should not be mandatory? Step up, and give up your rights. THEN you can go unbelted all you want.

Tahoe climber

Trad climber

a dark-green forester out west

May 22, 2007 - 11:40am PT

Thank you, so much, Madbolter1, for that post.
I agree, whole-heartedly.

Though Ed's posts are usually quite wise and insightful, the phrase that being compelled to do something isn't objectionable - because it's "common sense" - frankly, makes me want to vomit.

Can't anyone look further than the immediate and realize that the loss of ALL of our personal liberty starts with the teeny-tiny loss of a small piece of our personal liberty that "makes common sense?"

Ed's answer is that "we're a society, hmph, and that means that we have to lose some freedom! And you're just being trendy to talk about the government as if it wanted to get rid of our civil liberties!"

Frankly, I don't buy it.

Hey Piton Ron - Hey Sport - how many dollars have you spent, specifically on fixing up people who didn't buckle up or have medical insurance and had an accident?
And how is forcing people to buckle up going to prevent minimum skill licensing for climbing and other sports, like in Scuba diving (your example)? That's BS, sport.

TIG - I did read your post, and I still don't buy it. Pretty damn improbable that in an accident, where struck from any direction, a seatbelt on could help you maintain control of an accident enough to pull out of a spin or uncontrolled push. Don't know if you've ever been in a serious accident, but usually it happens so fast that there's no time for any steering or braking - usually just a squeal of breaks and impact. Pretty thin. Still not anywhere close to being as dangerous to others as someone driving drunk.

Again, I want to make clear that I am all for everyone in the car buckling up every time the car's started. Absolutely.
But I am super opposed to the government requiring it and punishing people for it.

-A

Wild Bill

climber

May 22, 2007 - 11:43am PT

Tahoe Climber, go upthread and view that video link I posted.

He would have been able to maintain control if he'd been belted. And had both hands on the wheel, of course.

TradIsGood

Happy and Healthy climber

the Gunks end of the country

May 22, 2007 - 12:43pm PT

Tahoe - improbable is not impossible. Sure they happen fast. And our reaction times are about 3/4 of a second typically. We may even see it coming 0.7 seconds before it happens.

So when the improbable occurs, it is ok to lose control.

It is actually quite improbable that a drunk will get in an accident, in any given trip, if he does not have far to drive. Way more probable perhaps than if he is not, but still very improbable.

So your probability-based arguments are not working very well, especially if you would argue that DWI should be against the law (as most would).

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

May 22, 2007 - 04:55pm PT

Ed, this time I will respond directly to you.

Actually, nowhere do I express or imply that “individual freedom, liberty [sic] is more important than societies [sic] needs.” In fact, my post suggests that there are qualitative differences between these (supposedly competing) demands, and that, thus, they are not actually in competition at all. As I will explain in this post, the very idea of a “competition” of interests already grants a “communitarian” ideal that is opposed to the founding ideal of this nation.

Take the example about enforced sunscreen use. For your “liberty vs. needs competition” idea to get traction, you would first have to demonstrate that society DOES have a NEED that I wear sunscreen. You would next have to demonstrate that my prima facie liberty from coercion directly impinges on this need. However, as I suggested above, this entire casting of the issue is a mistake.

To see the QUALITATIVE difference between the two supposedly-in-tension factors (my personal liberties and “society’s needs”) we must first get clear about the sort of “society” we actually live in. Here your statement “…bullshit about 'give me liberty or give me death'…” indicates that you THINK we live in a very different sort of society than we do (or, at least, than it was conceived and founded to be, which is the crucial issue). As an aside, I both laugh and cry at the constant “Proud to be an American” bumper stickers I see, because most of the people sporting them have no idea anymore what “being an American” IS.

So, let’s contrast “being an American” with, say, “being a Somalian.” If I live in Somalia today, what expectations can I have based upon that form of government? Well, first and foremost, I can be confident that my rights and liberties are NOT viewed as “inalienable,” since they are entirely subject to the whims of some warlord. I can be confident that there is NO recognition of my “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” except insofar as these are not explicitly in conflict with the interests of the warlord. In short, all that I AM is taken to be a MEANS to the ends of “society,” where in this case “society” is defined by the whims of the warlord.

By contrast, the Founders recognized that the entire warlord FORM of government was a mistake, whether that “warlord” be a king, a general, or a totalitarian majority (called “majority faction” in the Federalist Papers). So, this “bullshit” to which you refer was really the radically new (in the history of the world’s governments) concept that personal liberty MUST prima facie trump all “warlord” sorts of claims. In this new ideal of a society, I must NEVER be taken to be a MEANS to society’s ends; instead I must ALWAYS be treated as an end-in-myself, with “inalienable” rights and liberties that NO “interests of society” could trump.

So, while it is true that my INTERESTS can come into conflict with the INTERESTS of society, and thus there can be a tension between them (and the need for the 'balance' to which you refer); it is not true that my LIBERTIES and RIGHTS can come into conflict with the INTERESTS of society. My liberties and rights on the one hand are completely different species of things than the interests of society on the other hand. Whether you like it or not, whether you call it “bullshit” or not, THIS was the founding ideal of our present society, and accepting (defending, etc.) THIS basic ideal is what distinguishes “Americans” from all other people that do not hold it.

Now you will probably immediately respond that, even if this lofty ideal were true, we CONSTANTLY see pragmatic reality overriding this ideal (insofar as anybody even recognizes or agrees with the ideal anymore). So, you might say that being an idealist is fine and good “as far as it goes,” but we live in a “real world” where people DO (and rightly so) have their rights and liberties trampled for the sake of the “greater good.”

But this sort of response is precisely the difference between the two mindsets: “American” vs. “Socialistic.” My employment of the term “socialistic” is no mere “playing the socialistic card,” as you state. In political philosophy the two can be cast as “libertarian” vs. “communitarian.” In a nutshell, communitarians believe that it makes no sense to talk about individual rights/liberties/interests apart from those of the community; those of the community are logically prior to those of the individual. Exactly the reverse defines the libertarian perspective: individual rights/liberties/interests are logically prior to those of a society, and society derives its rights/interests from those of individuals.

Now, again, like it or not, you were born into what was explicitly cast as a libertarian society (and here I don’t mean libertarian as a political party). When Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death,” he had VERY good reason to think that he would enjoy the latter rather than the former, yet his audacious “bullshit” was the rallying cry resounding around an entirely new IDEAL of a society. This society was founded to be expressly libertarian rather than communitarian/socialistic.

It is of significant note here that the Federalists were profoundly opposed to the introduction of the “Bill of Rights” into the Constitution. They feared that the Bill of Rights would be taken to have implications that would undermine the entire fabric of the Constitution, and those implications are exactly what have occurred over the years, just as they feared. The Federalists argued as follows: The enumeration of powers granted the government in the Constitution expresses that the federal government has NO powers not thereby explicitly enumerated. ALL other powers not granted by the Constitution are by definition retained by the States and the People. Thus, a bill of rights is WORSE than redundant; a bill of rights implies that the rights of the People must themselves be enumerated, which implies that any of them that fail to get enumerated are actually held by the government, which is exactly the OPPOSITE claim as that made in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights was supposed to solve this problem, by in effect reiterating the intention of the preceding Constitutional clauses: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet, in fact, the Tenth Amendment, which is the famous “Limitation of Powers” clause in the Bill of Rights could not undo the damage wrought by the Bill of Rights itself. The presumption feared by the Founders has been in action for so long before any of us were born that none of us can imagine what this nation was like before that presumption began to underlie legislation and court opinion.

That bit of political theorizing is CRITICAL today, because in fact and in practice the government DOES assume all sorts of powers that it was NOT granted in the Constitution, yet that are also not explicitly guarded against in the Bill of Rights. The Limitation of Powers clause is effectively ignored, and the government invades our lives in a myriad of ways the Founders sought to protect us against.

Imagine the huge difference there would be in, for example, the gun control debate if there were no Bill of Rights. Instead of debating the meaning of the exact verbiage of the Second Amendment, and, of course, always with that fearsome presumption that the government DOES have the right to control gun ownership unless it can be PROVED that it doesn’t, the burden of proof would be exactly reversed. The argument against gun control would be very simple: “Show me among the enumerated powers of the government exactly where gun control is enumerated as a power held by the government. Hmmm… I see nothing like it there, and the government has NO power not listed there. Therefore, the government has NO power regarding gun control.” End of story. Any rebuttal argument on the part of the government, to the effect that gun control is part and parcel of one of its enumerated powers, would be an argument where the government bore the burden of proof. From a legal point of view, such a burden of proof would be huge and arguably insurmountable.

Perversely, the People themselves have bought into such widespread governmental invasions AS they have become more and more communitarian in their thinking (coupled with the pervasive "Save me! Save me!" mindset). A symbiosis between invasive/tyrannical government and communitarian/socialistic/"Save me!" thinking has emerged, and this present society bears almost no remaining marks of the genuinely libertarian society that was founded as “American.” So, “Proud to be an American” is actually an ironic slap in the face to the few libertarian-minded among us that remain, those few of us who understand the political theory behind the founding of this society and who continue to decry the inevitable slide into socialism/communitarianism.

The idea that government HAS NO POWER to invade my personal sphere except in FEW, LIMITED, and EXPLICITLY CONSTRAINED ways is now viewed as quaint, and all sorts of rationalizations are invented to interpose a bastardized communitarian mindset upon the libertarian ideal of this nation. Our “need and want to be social,” as you put it, is the very conflation of “social” with “socialistic” that most people believe today. Yet, being “social” in the sense intended by the Founders bears NO resemblance to socialism or communitarianism as it is held and practiced by “Americans” today!

The very fact that we even offer the sorts of arguments against seatbelt laws (and their ilk) that we do is evidence of how far we have fallen. We argue that in this case (and other similar cases) my personal “interests” should trump those of society (or not); when this entire FORM of argument is a huge mistake! There is NO “conflict of interests” here. By our libertarian ideal the government simply has NO POWER here. “Society” (now recognized in all its pretentious warlord glory) CANNOT trump my personal liberties/rights because by our libertarian ideal “society” is unmasked as the power-grubbing, invasive tyrant that it is.

Preservation of individual life is neither the primary interest nor even a function of the government. Individual protection is simply not its role on any level. Its role is always and only national in scope, and the greatest fear of both the Federalists AND the Anti-Federalists was that the government would turn its sights inward, that it would begin to assume more and more powers over the individual. Not only has this happened at the state level (with states turning their sights inward instead of toward state interests), but the federal government has usurped many state powers and has largely turned its sights inward and upon the individual.

Now, just as the Founders feared, we DO have to defend our every action against the PRESUMPTION that it MUST be defended from the overarching “interests” of “society.” The crucial question in the adoption of the Bill of Rights was where the burden of proof would lie. Those opposed to the Bill of Rights recognized that it would shift the burden of proof to the individual; he or she would now have to defend previously assumed liberties against the governmental claim that such liberties were not granted in the Bill of Rights. And so it is today: the burden of proof falls on ME to defend my liberty to NOT wear a seatbelt, to eat meat, to go boldly and unprotected into the sun, to drink, to smoke, to put my life in danger in a host of unpredictable ways AS I PURSUE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS UNFETTERED BY “SOCIETAL” PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT THE “GOODNESS” OF THOSE PURSUITS. Now, instead of the powers of the government being limited and exclusive, it is presumed that the government HAS powers/interests/rights regarding ALL aspects of my life; and I have the burden to demonstrate why ANY of my rights/liberties/interests should EVER trump the merely presumed/expressed ones of “society.”

I say again, we are no longer the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” We move ever closer to a hive mind, as we become more and more drone bees serving the interests of the hive. Perhaps this is what you want. Perhaps this is what you honestly think is best for people. Perhaps, in fact, "Americans" in general share your view. Fine. Then at least have the decency to call it something other than "American," because the "American" form of government IS libertarian rather than communitarian, and what we have become and are becoming is less and less "American!"

Wild Bill

climber

May 22, 2007 - 05:03pm PT

*Whew* - THAT was a mouthful.

So . . . I guess you didn't view the video?

Seems there no point in trying to talk sense around here.

Wonder if there's a climbing thread going on I can check out?

Tahoe climber

Trad climber

a dark-green forester out west

May 22, 2007 - 05:32pm PT

I did view the video.
I still don't think that the driver would have had time and/or coordination and/or physical ability to drive his car after impact, thereby purposely avoiding any pedestrians nearby.

I do still think that TIG is full of it - you're just trying to win an argument, without giving any thought to whether you're actually right. You're not being honest with yourself, my friend.
Chances of a drunk driver hitting someone or having an accident(which you had to qualify as "Not dangerous as long as they're not going far") is possibly improbable, though that's still a stretch, if you ask me.
Chances of an un-seat-belted driver having any ability to alter the course of a vehicle already physically involved in an ongoing accident = negligible = very, very, very, very improbable.
So the probablility argument stands.

But madbolter1 has trumped us all - his argument that the government technically has no power to govern this part of an individual's life is what I've been incompetently trying to articulate throughout this thread. And seatbelt laws are examples of the government abusing/ignoring that lack of power. And people who scream about how it'll make everything safer, and how we have to protect the children (as if a child's life has more value than an adult's) are the ones who've made it possible through extreme short-sightedness.

As far as society's "needs": society consists of a group of individuals, and no society's needs can negate/contradict the needs or rights of one of it's individuals.
Be careful here, philosophically - it's easy but incorrect to define society as everyone and everything but the person (individual) in question, and that's just not fair. Then no one is society in any given case.

-Aaron