Conquer Club

Cattle who are involved in an auto-accident and are wearing their seat belt return to the task of producing tax-milk far sooner than the cattle who do not wear their seatbelts. Therefore, in order to protect our cattle and make sure they produce as much tax-milk as possible, we make it a law that the cattle wear a seat belt at all times, and those cattle who dont, we take the creamy layer off the top of that bucket of milk.

Phatscotty wrote:Cattle who are involved in an auto-accident and are wearing their seat belt return to the task of producing tax-milk far sooner than the cattle who do not wear their seatbelts. Therefore, in order to protect our cattle and make sure they produce as much tax-milk as possible, we make it a law that the cattle wear a seat belt at all times, and those cattle who dont, we take the creamy layer off the top of that bucket of milk.

Surely all the seat-belt wearers are libs and thus jobless and living off the state anyhoo?

jonesthecurl wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Cattle who are involved in an auto-accident and are wearing their seat belt return to the task of producing tax-milk far sooner than the cattle who do not wear their seatbelts. Therefore, in order to protect our cattle and make sure they produce as much tax-milk as possible, we make it a law that the cattle wear a seat belt at all times, and those cattle who dont, we take the creamy layer off the top of that bucket of milk.

Surely all the seat-belt wearers are libs and thus jobless and living off the state anyhoo?

I dont think that and never said that. Both parties are equally interested in news ways to get money. I dont even see an opening for politics to enter this discussion. JA has

jonesthecurl wrote:
Surely all the seat-belt wearers are libs and thus jobless and living off the state anyhoo?

I'm a seat belt wearer and as far as you can get from liberal.


Thank you very much.

I think a case has been made in this thread that not wearing a seat belt can actually endanger others.

Now the question is, if the government steps out of it, are people smart enough to realize the risks themselves, and put on a seat belt (since if they don't, they could be responsible for manslaughter)? It's the same reason we have a law against drinking and driving...

I and most people here are smart enough to not get into fatal accidents EDIT: Now that Sultan is here this no longer applies and would probably do fine driving a seat belt, while slightly drunk. But people in general are not that smart.

The more I realize just how stupid people are, the less libertarian I become.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

Actually, you're wrong. You not wearing a seatbelt effects other people.

Let's say someone runs a red and slams into your car. Since you weren't wearing a seatbelt, let's just say you die. Then the perpetrators charges will be even more severe, but had you been wearing your seatbelt, you'd have most likely lived and the punishments for others wouldn't be as severe.

Of course, one can say that that guy shouldn't have run the red, but accidents happen, so wear your seatbelt. It does effect other people's lives.

lol is that supposed to be an argument? That's like saying you shouldn't keep cash at home because a thief might break in, steal it, and get more jail time than if you had only had a few small items for him to steal from the house. It's ludicrous!

Jay, although he is getting overexcited here, does have a point--it's his car, his vehicle, and his life if he gets killed or severely injured. Yes, the state might have to pay for some more rescue workers in the event of a crash. However that's still not a valid argument, in my opinion. It's like saying
1) People who drive ATVs get injured more frequently than those who don't.
2) The state has to pay for some rescue services in the case of an accident/hospital time.
3) Therefore all ATVers must wear full body armor to protect themselves while riding.

Btw, I never used to wear my seatbelt until I happened to be the first upon the scene of an rollover where both people where uninjured thanks to seatbelt use. Now I wear my seatbelt all the time. However I too resent the fact that the government is making laws forcing me to do certain things which it has no business meddling in. Part of the government's job is protect the average citizen both from other citizens and from foreign nations; however the government's job is not to protect the average citizen from himself.

john9blue wrote:I think a case has been made in this thread that not wearing a seat belt can actually endanger others.

Actually the case has failed miserably.

john9blue wrote:Now the question is, if the government steps out of it, are people smart enough to realize the risks themselves, and put on a seat belt (since if they don't, they could be responsible for manslaughter)? It's the same reason we have a law against drinking and driving...

Manslaughter against themselves for dying because of failing to use a seatbelt?? That's like implementing a punishment for anyone who commits suicide lol Drinking and driving obviously effects everyone else nearby on the road; that is a totally different issue.

john9blue wrote:The more I realize just how stupid people are, the less libertarian I become.

Don't lose faith! Every democracy has been built on faith in the common man.

john9blue wrote:I and most people here are smart enough to not get into fatal accidents

hahahahahahaha

Ray, you can't say "this case fails" without reason, and then go on to ignore the case for the rest of my post.

I think it's kind of ridiculous how the seat belt laws are enforced, but the principle behind it isn't a bad one.

Also I'm still largely libertarian so no worries.

Timminz wrote:
Build me some roads, and quit tellin' me how I can behave on them.

Ah, the classic, conservative entitlement complex.

"Look at me. I deserve everything I want. Ladida!"

Now don't be painting us all with the same brush there Tim...not very nice

Ray Rider wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

Actually, you're wrong. You not wearing a seatbelt effects other people.

Let's say someone runs a red and slams into your car. Since you weren't wearing a seatbelt, let's just say you die. Then the perpetrators charges will be even more severe, but had you been wearing your seatbelt, you'd have most likely lived and the punishments for others wouldn't be as severe.

Of course, one can say that that guy shouldn't have run the red, but accidents happen, so wear your seatbelt. It does effect other people's lives.

lol is that supposed to be an argument? That's like saying you shouldn't keep cash at home because a thief might break in, steal it, and get more jail time than if you had only had a few small items for him to steal from the house. It's ludicrous!

Jay, although he is getting overexcited here, does have a point--it's his car, his vehicle, and his life if he gets killed or severely injured. Yes, the state might have to pay for some more rescue workers in the event of a crash. However that's still not a valid argument, in my opinion. It's like saying
1) People who drive ATVs get injured more frequently than those who don't.
2) The state has to pay for some rescue services in the case of an accident/hospital time.
3) Therefore all ATVers must wear full body armor to protect themselves while riding.

Btw, I never used to wear my seatbelt until I happened to be the first upon the scene of an rollover where both people where uninjured thanks to seatbelt use. Now I wear my seatbelt all the time. However I too resent the fact that the government is making laws forcing me to do certain things which it has no business meddling in. Part of the government's job is protect the average citizen both from other citizens and from foreign nations; however the government's job is not to protect the average citizen from himself.

Are you having trouble understanding what's going on here? Need some directions? I'll simplify:

To paraphrase Jay: "My not wearing a seatbelt does not effect other people."

I retort with: "No you're wrong. Your wearing a seatbelt decreases the chances of your death in an accident, thereby decreasing the chances of the person at fault being charged with manslaughter. Therefore, not wearing your seatbelt DOES effect other people.


After reading my argument and then saying, "... the government's job to protect the average citizen from himself" is a clear case of EPIC FAIL.

Ray Rider wrote:
Jay, although he is getting overexcited here, does have a point--it's his car, his vehicle, and his life if he gets killed or severely injured. Yes, the state might have to pay for some more rescue workers in the event of a crash. However that's still not a valid argument, in my opinion. It's like saying
1) People who drive ATVs get injured more frequently than those who don't.
2) The state has to pay for some rescue services in the case of an accident/hospital time.
3) Therefore all ATVers must wear full body armor to protect themselves while riding.

1) ATVs are mostly driven in remote areas where there is little traffice and other hazards. Cars on major highway are in one of the most dangerous place on the planet (no exaggeration!).

2) if you are talking about an ATV that winds up 1/2 way down a cliff, in fact there is a lot of discussion about the risk to rescuers and the cost to taxpayers to perform such rescues. A very similar discussion comes up regarding mountain climbers. At some point, your right to be stupid means YOU and no one else, accepts the responsibility for problems.

3) ATVers do have to stay off most public highways, must stay on specific trails within public lands (not just for safety, also to limit damage to the areas). However, the injury rate for ATVers is actually much less than that for unseatbelted drivers. Also, wearing full body armour is itself a hazard, which wearing a seatbelt is not really.

I believe it's a requirement that cars be in roadworthy condition in most places.
How dare they tell us what sort of car to drive?

jonesthecurl wrote:I believe it's a requirement that cars be in roadworthy condition in most places.
How dare they tell us what sort of car to drive?

I know! Bastards! That's what they are!!

I DEMAND LIBERTY, AND INDEPENDENCE, AND FREEDOM, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS NOW.

jonesthecurl wrote:I believe it's a requirement that cars be in roadworthy condition in most places.
How dare they tell us what sort of car to drive?

AGAIN, safety of OTHER PEOPLE. I know, I know... hard to grasp isn't it?

In an emergency situation (and otherwise), a driver wearing their seatbelt will be better able to control their vehicle. There are a lot of ac/deceleration forces at play in a vehicle that is swerving, or braking very hard. If you are not strapped to your seat, you will be required to exert much more force, focus, and attention just to keep yourself properly in your seat (if you are able). This will obviously leave you with much less control of your car, at the exact moment that you need more control than any other time. This makes you a danger TO OTHER PEOPLE.

Timminz wrote:In an emergency situation (and otherwise), a driver wearing their seatbelt will be better able to control their vehicle. There are a lot of ac/deceleration forces at play in a vehicle that is swerving, or braking very hard. If you are not strapped to your seat, you will be required to exert much more force, focus, and attention just to keep yourself properly in your seat (if you are able). This will obviously leave you with much less control of your car, at the exact moment that you need more control than any other time. This makes you a danger TO OTHER PEOPLE.

A source would be nice, but generally I agree. Seat belt laws (like I said earlier) operate on the same principle as drinking/driving laws. It doesn't affect just you jay!

Timminz wrote:In an emergency situation (and otherwise), a driver wearing their seatbelt will be better able to control their vehicle. There are a lot of ac/deceleration forces at play in a vehicle that is swerving, or braking very hard. If you are not strapped to your seat, you will be required to exert much more force, focus, and attention just to keep yourself properly in your seat (if you are able). This will obviously leave you with much less control of your car, at the exact moment that you need more control than any other time. This makes you a danger TO OTHER PEOPLE.

You can not use ASSUMPTIONS. Epic fail. If your vehicle is out of control, you are a danger to other people WHETHER OR NOT you are wearing a seat belt.


Ease on down, ease on down the road....

jay_a2j wrote:

Timminz wrote:In an emergency situation (and otherwise), a driver wearing their seatbelt will be better able to control their vehicle. There are a lot of ac/deceleration forces at play in a vehicle that is swerving, or braking very hard. If you are not strapped to your seat, you will be required to exert much more force, focus, and attention just to keep yourself properly in your seat (if you are able). This will obviously leave you with much less control of your car, at the exact moment that you need more control than any other time. This makes you a danger TO OTHER PEOPLE.

You can not use ASSUMPTIONS. Epic fail. If your vehicle is out of control, you are a danger to other people WHETHER OR NOT you are wearing a seat belt.


Ease on down, ease on down the road....

Yes, when you decide that anything but your view has to be wrong, you tend to think you are constantly "winning".

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, when you decide that anything but your view has to be wrong, you tend to think you are constantly "winning".

odd

stop

speaking

just dance


Furthermore , don't you all love how she puts words in others mouths? How does it feel to look down on everyone else from that high pedistool you sit upon?

jay_a2j wrote:

Timminz wrote:In an emergency situation (and otherwise), a driver wearing their seatbelt will be better able to control their vehicle. There are a lot of ac/deceleration forces at play in a vehicle that is swerving, or braking very hard. If you are not strapped to your seat, you will be required to exert much more force, focus, and attention just to keep yourself properly in your seat (if you are able). This will obviously leave you with much less control of your car, at the exact moment that you need more control than any other time. This makes you a danger TO OTHER PEOPLE.

You can not use ASSUMPTIONS. Epic fail. If your vehicle is out of control, you are a danger to other people WHETHER OR NOT you are wearing a seat belt.

Absolutely correct, but when you're wearing a seatbelt, you're LESS LIKELY TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR VEHICLE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.

Despite how awesome, and safe you are as a driver, things beyond your control can cause you to require the use of emergency steering, and/or braking. Have you ever had to swerve to miss hitting a child who darts out from behind a parked car? Hit a patch of black ice? Have a transport truck blow over in front of you?

You are a menace to society.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

john9blue wrote:I and most people here are smart enough to not get into fatal accidents

hahahahahahaha

i just want to draw attention to this again because it went unnoticed the first time around. apparently john9bue thinks that he's so intelligent he has transcended into invincibility.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i just want to draw attention to this again because it went unnoticed the first time around. apparently john9bue thinks that he's so intelligent he has transcended into invincibility.

Gimme a break. It's called hyperbole. The risk is there for all of us, but the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to do dumb shit and get yourself killed.

john9blue wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i just want to draw attention to this again because it went unnoticed the first time around. apparently john9bue thinks that he's so intelligent he has transcended into invincibility.

Gimme a break. It's called hyperbole. The risk is there for all of us, but the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to do dumb shit and get yourself killed.

so even assuming that you can avoid an at-fault accident 100% of the time (which is total bullshit) you admit that you have no control over, say, getting hit by a drunk semi driver, or a billion other accidents that aren't your fault (some of which aren't anyone's fault).

so you're really not looking at much better odds than the average driver here, and all you've managed to bring to this debate is a relatively dubious claim that you're a good driver. okay!

I do karting and some car racing.

I can say without a doubt that most accidents in racing are far less dangerous than accidents on the road. Yes, no amount of safety equipment will save you from certain death in the worst racing accidents, but you are a fucking dumbass of major proportions if you don't wear a seat belt on the road. You don't have drunk drivers, or super tired drivers, or people texting on a race track and you have people who generally know that changing the angle of impact by 15-25 degrees can result in massive differences in G forces. Also you have people that usually always have some measure a little skill called car control. Every race driver with more than 5 races under their belt has been in a spin. I've spun hundreds of times. How many drivers have spun their cars and can have some control during a spin? Most drivers on the road flat panic in an accident.

Also you don't have black ice in racing. No amount of skill can save you from black ice. You can get better at driving in rain, or snow, or on visable ice, but when you go into a turn expecting it to be dry pavement and its ice you are in trouble, especially if you are accelerating or using cruise control. That's my lesson for the day. Never, ever use cruise control in rain, or snow or when there may be black ice.

All that being said, most traffic laws are enforced as revenue generators. The problem is we are far too generous in giving out driver's licenses. 20-40% of the drivers on the road have no business driving. If they didn't have licenses not only would the roads be less crowded but the rest of us could go 100+ mph on highways all the time.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:so even assuming that you can avoid an at-fault accident 100% of the time (which is total bullshit) you admit that you have no control over, say, getting hit by a drunk semi driver, or a billion other accidents that aren't your fault (some of which aren't anyone's fault).

so you're really not looking at much better odds than the average driver here, and all you've managed to bring to this debate is a relatively dubious claim that you're a good driver. okay!

If I was a perfect driver (I'm not) as opposed to a normal driver, I could erase all accidents that were my fault and prevent, say, 50% of accidents caused by other drivers (through practices like not clumping into groups, not tailgating, signaling, etc.). Even though I'm not perfect, that reduces my odds quite a bit.