Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    08 Apr '16 13:13
    YouTube&nohtml5=False
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    08 Apr '16 13:41
    YouTube

    Same link but without the site breaking no html5 tag
  3. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    08 Apr '16 16:061 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvCh3EQv1Q

    Same link but without the site breaking no html5 tag
    Until recently, I thought seatbelt malfunction was a tempest in a teapot. My seatbelts always worked. Then one day last summer, I got to the golf course, and started to get out, but my belt was locked. I finally got it to work (15 min later) , and didn't miss my tee time, but it got me thinking, if I had to leave in an emergency, this would have been critical.

    Since seatbelt use is mandated by law, are State and Federal authorities responsible if death or injury occur because of seatbelt use? It seems they would bear some liability.

    This principle becomes all the more important, the more that nanny government forces "safety" on us.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    08 Apr '16 19:51
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Until recently, I thought seatbelt malfunction was a tempest in a teapot. My seatbelts always worked. Then one day last summer, I got to the golf course, and started to get out, but my belt was locked. I finally got it to work (15 min later) , and didn't miss my tee time, but it got me thinking, if I had to leave in an emergency, this would have been c ...[text shortened]... principle becomes all the more important, the more that nanny government forces "safety" on us.
    Do the authorities mandate malfunctioning seat belts?
  5. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    08 Apr '16 20:09
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Do the authorities mandate malfunctioning seat belts?
    Of course not. Who said they did? They do mandate seat belts, and obviously some of them don't work. Are they at least partially liable for mandating items that could cause death?
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Apr '16 20:15
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Of course not. Who said they did? They do mandate seat belts, and obviously some of them don't work. Are they at least partially liable for mandating items that could cause death?
    So if you are in a traffic accident and you were on the correct side of the road at the time, you will sue the government for making you drive on the right, thus partially being the cause of your accident?
  7. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    08 Apr '16 20:26
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So if you are in a traffic accident and you were on the correct side of the road at the time, you will sue the government for making you drive on the right, thus partially being the cause of your accident?
    No, and stop being absurd. Deciding basic rules of the road is a legitimate government function. Mandating safety equipment that sometime isn't so safe is not. It is do-gooders in government enforcing their risk tolerances on me.

    Nobody questions driving on one side of the road, left or right depending on where you're driving. There have always been questioners of seat belt, some saying they can result in fatalities, and others just asserting they lead to complacency and over security which may cause people to be risk takers.

    The difference between one rule and the other, is that dictating the side of the road, applies to all drivers, and everyone's safety. Driving without a seat belt is a risk to only the driver not wearing one. It is a personal decision, not a societal one. Taken to the extreme, can you imagine other personal decisions that might be made for you? How about deciding that abortion is too risky? One will die, both may!
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    08 Apr '16 22:36
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Of course not. Who said they did? They do mandate seat belts, and obviously some of them don't work. Are they at least partially liable for mandating items that could cause death?
    Seatbelts save vastly more lives than they cost.

    So no, they are not at all liable.

    The manufacturer might be if the defect was due to their being at fault.
  9. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    09 Apr '16 08:05
    I actually agree with Norm on this one.
    Sestbelts should be advised, not enforced.
  10. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65545
    09 Apr '16 08:152 edits
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I actually agree with Norm on this one.
    Sestbelts should be advised, not enforced.
    Wooohooo, freedom Shav, I like it.

    First corpse I helped haul from a car was a young guy, hardly a mark on him, drove into a tree, cracked his head onto the windscreen, no seat belt, they do work, they should be a personal choice.

    If you're in the back seat and the person in front of you is wearing one then you should too, at least out of consideration for the fellow in front, you're going to fly forwards and nut him in the back of the head.

    Rather than the scare adverts IMO treat people as adults and explain the physics of a sudden stop. Think you can brace yourself with the steering wheel? Uh uh, no way unless you can bench press 1000kgs. I imagine your thumbs just fold straight back as you continue your forward momentum.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Apr '16 10:03
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I actually agree with Norm on this one.
    Sestbelts should be advised, not enforced.
    I would be inclined to agree if people who don't wear seat belts only endanger themselves, but this is not the case as someone might also have passengers. and they are not the only person involved in traffic. Furthermore, not everyone might be too happy about scraping someone's brains from their windshield.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Apr '16 10:24
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Nobody questions driving on one side of the road, left or right depending on where you're driving.
    Until your post, I thought that nobody questioned the safety of seatbelts. I thought that those that don't wear seatbelts were just too lazy to worry about their own safety.

    There have always been questioners of seat belt, some saying they can result in fatalities, and others just asserting they lead to complacency and over security which may cause people to be risk takers.
    I did not know that. But then I guess there are stupid people everywhere. There are probably some who question driving on a consistent side of the road.

    The difference between one rule and the other, is that dictating the side of the road, applies to all drivers, and everyone's safety. Driving without a seat belt is a risk to only the driver not wearing one. It is a personal decision, not a societal one.
    So would you agree that talking on a cellphone while driving falls in the same category as driving on a consistent side of the road as it endangers everyone?
    I do agree that seatbelt wearing is a personal safety issue and I do not know to what extent it should be enforced. I do not think that arguing that it is dangerous is a sensible way to excuse taking risks. If the truth is that you simply don't like being told to look after your own life, then say so. Making up ridiculous claims about the safety of seatbelts just makes you look like a nut case.
  13. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65545
    09 Apr '16 10:531 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    I did not know that. But then I guess there are stupid people everywhere. There are probably some who question driving on a consistent side of the road[/b]
    I'm in Cambodia right now, and driving on both sides of the road is accepted, generally you should drive on the right-hand side, but often enough you'll find yourself with traffic streaming towards you on both sides, the authorities have tried putting in median strips but if the alternative is driving 100m to find a u turn point it just encourages people to drive straight at the oncoming traffic.

    Are you saying Cambodian people are stupid?
Back to Top