Seat Belt Laws

But, does the fact that the seat belt law is inconsistent in one way, mean that it is not a good idea to have a seat belt law?

The inconsistency is either an oversight or evidence that in different contexts people can recognize the injustice in telling other people what they may or may not do with their own bodies, even if it costs the taxpayers extra health care dollars.

Well, I'm not sure if we can use that argument - that it is injustice to tell people what they may or may not do with their bodies. That's very common in law, if not the basis for many laws. I mean, murder, in a way, is an enforcement of what people may not do with their bodies (and otherwise). I can't, for instance, strangle someone with my hands without having legal ramifications. And what about driving drunk? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to drive (doing something with my body) while drunk? What about sexual harassment? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to grab a stranger's ass whilst walking down the street?

With all due respect, I think this might be a bit of a distraction. As the old adage goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other fellow's nose." Assuming, for a moment, that we can agree that at least one (and possibly the only) role of government is the preservation of rights, then your points, Zetherin, are irrelevant. Each of the examples you listed above is an example of one person abusing their rights to tread on those of others. Admittedly, perhaps Night Ripper should have included the clause "when it doesn't hurt anyone else" after he wrote the bit about telling people what to do with their bodies, but still... your cases don't meet the proper criteria for "laws that regulate what individuals may or may not do with their bodies," really. Of course, even if they did, I suppose it wouldn't matter. There's always the possibility that a law is unjust.

Well, I'm not sure if we can use that argument - that it is injustice to tell people what they may or may not do with their bodies. That's very common in law, if not the basis for many laws. I mean, murder, in a way, is an enforcement of what people may not do with their bodies (and otherwise). I can't, for instance, strangle someone with my hands without having legal ramifications. And what about driving drunk? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to drive (doing something with my body) while drunk? What about sexual harassment? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to grab a stranger's ass whilst walking down the street?

How does someone not wearing a seat belt fit with the above? Perhaps after their lifeless body is ejected from a moving vehicle it could be a safety hazard to others? Of course, that still means the laws regarding motorcycles are inconsistent. We better outlaw those too.

Well, I think, in some cases, it has to do with that the fact that others may be held responsible, at least legally, for your death. For instance, a car company may be held responsible for a death, if it can be proven that a car had a faulty seatbelt (this is but one example). This is why it is required to fasten your seatbelt on airplanes (when the fasten seatbelt light is on). There is a fiduciary responsibility to keep you safe.

The seat belts on airplanes are there in case of turbulence but any accidents caused by turbulance are considered acts of God and therefore the airlines aren't responsible. You can't sue them for that even if you don't wear a seat belt.

Can someone explain to me what gives us the right to tell other adults they have to protect themselves?

why do they make me have have to have 2 headlights....or headlights at all when I drive?

Oh, I didn't know that. I thought there were instances where you could sue them, depending if there was negligence.

Then let us go back to the car example. Fiduciary responsible in some cases.

You can sue based on negligence, if the flight attendant runs you over with a drink cart for example. As for product failures of seat belts, I'm not sure what that has to do with actually wearing a seat belt. Surely you can't sue them over your choice not to wear a seat belt?

Yes, I suppose the only responsibility they have, is making sure the safety precautions are there and in working order.

So, you're right, and I can't think of any other reason why it is illegal to not wear a seatbelt. It is some sort of humanitarian/moral hybrid law

Maybe someone else can offer up some better reasons.

A common example is one of the damaged bridge. A man who only speaks Japanese is about to walk out onto the bridge, and you (knowing a lot about bridges) can see that he is about to fall to his death when it collapses. Are you morally justified in using physical force to prevent him from stepping out onto the bridge?

A man who only speaks Japanese is about to walk out onto the bridge, and you (knowing a lot about bridges) can see that he is about to fall to his death when it collapses

Yes, but this is not analogous, since people know about the repercussions of not wearing a seat belt. It isn't as if people don't understand what the dangers are, like the Japanese man didn't. If you communicated that the bridge is damaged, he understands, and yet he still goes over, you're no longer morally responsible.

But people don't know the repercussions of not wearing a seat belt.

Can you tell me what it is like to be in a car accident? We have a blind spot for future events. Can you tell me what it is like to be addicted to heroin? I doubt it.

We have age laws because we admit that, before a certain age, people cannot responsibly make certain decisions. But there isn't always an age where they become capable of making certain decisions.

They don't? I thought it was common knowledge.

Sure I can. That I have never experienced something, does not mean that I cannot know what it is like to experience said thing. I've never placed my foot in molten steel before, but I believe that it would cause my foot great pain. And though I've never been addicted to heroin either, I can research what withdrawal would feel like.

Well, there is another issue. Age. Maybe we can get into that one.

No, I think this is false.

So, you have absolutely no idea how a human would feel if he/she stuck their foot in molten steel?

We have the ability to vicariously experience, and understand, what others' experiences are like, Jeb. How do you think empathy is possible? We're able to share the feelings of another, even if we aren't going through what that person is going through.