Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Apr '16 13:13
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvCh3EQv1Q&nohtml5=False
  2. 08 Apr '16 13:41
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvCh3EQv1Q

    Same link but without the site breaking no html5 tag
  3. 08 Apr '16 16:06 / 1 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    09 Apr '16 08:05
    I actually agree with Norm on this one.
    Sestbelts should be advised, not enforced.
  10. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    09 Apr '16 08:15 / 2 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. 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. 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. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    09 Apr '16 10:53 / 1 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?