• jackoneill@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Drivers licenses protect folks from each other, not only do we need them we need to be more selective about who gets them

    Seat belts protect you, so it should be your choice. If we had socialized healthcare, not wearing a seatbelt is a greater social cost, and then I would be ok with enforcing it. However, since we don’t have real healthcare in America and it’s all out of pocket, I don’t think we should enforce seat belt laws here. It’s hypocritical.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If your dumb corpse flies out of your windshield it could hurt me or my property. Restrain yourself FFS, people. It doesn’t impinge on the driver at all.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean body leaving the car is like least of your problems, if someone sits behind you and you crash and they are not buckled in, they will fucking crush you to death.

        I mean, just do the math. a 60 kg weight hits you from behind with all the speed the car has gathered.

        here is a video with Crashtest dummies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeTs-6xksIk

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If your dumb corpse flies out of your windshield it could hurt me or my property.

        This is a fair point. I hadn’t considered that.

    • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not wearing a seatbelt can harm your passengers in an accident. Based on that alone it’s reasonable imo

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It could then be argued that it would only be required under the circumstances in which the lack of a seatbelt would create a situation where the safety of others is threatened, and those affected do not consent to the risk.

          • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I would say that such a law, when being written, should maintain the original mindset as described in this comment of mine. What I mean by this is to say “whenever you are driving” does not cover the situations in which there would never be (or, at least, extremely unlikely to be) any harm to another except yourself, or those consenting. An example of this woud be offroading – perhaps you were implying for such laws to only apply when driving on public roads, but this wasn’t specified explicitly, so I’m making assumptions.

            • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, you are correct in both statements. I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios, I meant specifically public roads.

              • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios

                Unfortunately, the contention around many laws lies within the gray rather than the black, and white.

                • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are correct, though I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker. I’m a guy on the Internet with opinions, and I don’t always immediately think of gray areas.

    • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not just healthcare costs, but also the costs of first responders finding meat crayons who died unneccesarily, and the social cost of the trauma for those who witness conpletely avoidable deaths. And the emotional cost of the family of the dead idiots.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not just healthcare costs

        This depends on whether the healthcare system in question is privately, or publicly run.

        • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment. but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.

          • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment

            Agreed.

            but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.

            I’m not overly convinced that a law should exist solely because of such reasoning. At the very least, if such a law must exist in some capacity, I believe that it should be enacted as some form of local law, or bylaw.

            • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Differing local laws just make things more complicated.

              Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?

              • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Differing local laws just make things more complicated.

                Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?

                Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?

                I don’t believe that the purpose of a law is to ensure the comfort of the public, but instead laws should be enacted to ensure one’s ability to freely pursue their life, and happiness.

                I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.

                • Thomas Jefferson
    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Someone without a seat belt becomes a 185 lb projectile in an accident.

    • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I say this in the most cordial and respectful manner possible: Wear your fucking seatbelt, you blithering ape.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you on seatbelts, but drivers licenses shouldn’t exist. You should be inherently able to drive and vote once you reach the appropriate age, and driving should be taught in school. The privilege to drive should be revoked only when you prove you can’t drive properly or safely.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m with you on seatbelts, but drivers licenses shouldn’t exist.

        Driver’s licenses are actually an interesting issue. I am inclined to agree that they have no need to exist. All that matters is that people follow the laws surrounding the operation of motor-vehicles on public roads – I’m rather convinced that licensing has no effect on this whatsoever – after all, Ignorantia juris non excusat.