ski@jaypeak2
Active member
Uhh when they get the accident report that says "flew though windshield, wasnt wearing seatbelt" They say insurance rates go up.
Seatbelt law?
- Thread starter Logey.
- Start date
Mr.Panda
Active member
I beat you to new page sir. HA!!!!!!!
But in a backwards way you sorta do don't you? Like, if you don't show up to work cause you choose to not drive to work you won't get paid for that day.
And the government arrests people for "being themselves" and smoking, dealing, and making crack, heroine, and meth.
But in a backwards way you sorta do don't you? Like, if you don't show up to work cause you choose to not drive to work you won't get paid for that day.
And the government arrests people for "being themselves" and smoking, dealing, and making crack, heroine, and meth.
SteezyOhio
Active member
what if driving is your job? taxi? semi driver? police still drive. its not that your necessarily unsafe to yourself, as the govt/insurance/police caring for you general well being. you can not wear a seat belt, please by all means feel free to not, but if your in a accident and you shatter you hips cause you didnt have one on, whos fault is it? not the car companys, whatever caused the accident, its yours cause you didnt wear your safetly restraint as required by law.
Tasche
Active member
I agree. And I also agree with you, to a certain extent.
I think everyone should be able to do anything to themselves as long as it does not negatively affect (effect? someone clear up this difference for me) anyone else.
However I also think that people should have to take care of themselves because of the high cost of treating preventable illnesses. Just the simple act of not wearing a seatbelt could cost an insurance company thousands of dollars and raise my premiums.
So there is a line somewhere but I think that the seatbelt law is still on the OK side. I love the anti smoking laws we have in CO. It is terrible to travel and go into a bar that smokes now.
So is it ok to put a tax on soda? Meh I could argue it either way.
As for the social contract issue I don't think it really applies to self preservation. You agree to live by a set of rules in exchange for stability and production, as well as other government services. I don't think the social contract includes a clause about being healthy and not taking physical risks. (I know there is not an actual contract)
I think everyone should be able to do anything to themselves as long as it does not negatively affect (effect? someone clear up this difference for me) anyone else.
However I also think that people should have to take care of themselves because of the high cost of treating preventable illnesses. Just the simple act of not wearing a seatbelt could cost an insurance company thousands of dollars and raise my premiums.
So there is a line somewhere but I think that the seatbelt law is still on the OK side. I love the anti smoking laws we have in CO. It is terrible to travel and go into a bar that smokes now.
So is it ok to put a tax on soda? Meh I could argue it either way.
As for the social contract issue I don't think it really applies to self preservation. You agree to live by a set of rules in exchange for stability and production, as well as other government services. I don't think the social contract includes a clause about being healthy and not taking physical risks. (I know there is not an actual contract)
ski@jaypeak2
Active member
But people that deal crack and buy heroine are hurting others. Me not being straped into my volvo with side curtain air bags, anti lock brakes, and full roll cage doesnt hurt my community. Unless you bring up hospital fees, in that case tax the fatties
Tasche
Active member
Ya I guess to an extent. But then skiing would violate the social contract...
Man I just had a debate in my head about skiing being a job and an art form and freedom of expression and that having nothing to do with wearing a seat belt...
Whatever it is time for me to GTFOH, I look forward to seeing where this thread is at on Monday.
Man I just had a debate in my head about skiing being a job and an art form and freedom of expression and that having nothing to do with wearing a seat belt...
Whatever it is time for me to GTFOH, I look forward to seeing where this thread is at on Monday.
ski@jaypeak2
Active member
If your job is to drive for a living i would hope an employer is smart enough to require seatbelts. But the government is not my employer, and they should not mandate i wear a safty restraint.
Can someone please agree with me that we should be taxing fat poeple?? They drain every aspect of our society except for the candy industry and potato chip industry.
Can someone please agree with me that we should be taxing fat poeple?? They drain every aspect of our society except for the candy industry and potato chip industry.
rhcp
Active member
It's actually been suggested that mandatory seat belt laws have cost more lives than they have saved due to a moral hazard issue.
When people wear seat belts, they feel safer. As a result, they drive slightly more recklessly and put themselves at a greater risk of injury. I remember reading in The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg that automobile accident deaths remained pretty constant despite the introduction of seatbelt laws. The problem is that the number of those killed who were not in a vehicle as a result of being struck by a vehicle increased in the same period (the book was written in 1993).
I'm definitely not advocating not wearing a seatbelt (I always wear one), but the viewpoint that the introduction of seat belt laws may have had an overall negative effect is an interesting one.
When people wear seat belts, they feel safer. As a result, they drive slightly more recklessly and put themselves at a greater risk of injury. I remember reading in The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg that automobile accident deaths remained pretty constant despite the introduction of seatbelt laws. The problem is that the number of those killed who were not in a vehicle as a result of being struck by a vehicle increased in the same period (the book was written in 1993).
I'm definitely not advocating not wearing a seatbelt (I always wear one), but the viewpoint that the introduction of seat belt laws may have had an overall negative effect is an interesting one.
skiminnesota
Active member
i agree the employer can not put his employees in certain instances that do have eminent harm. although who defines whats dangerous? cleaning windows on a sky scraper? should that be gone? or what about Alaskan grab fishing?
however, i personally do not see smoking as crossing this line. and OSHA. believe me i work for the government and we follow it to a T and honestly even my ultra safe government boss thinks some of their stuff is absolute bullshit.
have you honestly ever washed your hands just because it was a law? i know when i wash my hands before serving food, my mind track is not "well i better follow the laws down to the letter so im going to wash my hands" no actually i think, hey i dont want to get germs and whatever else might be on my hands all over someone elses food. not to mention the market has a way of ridding itself of establishments that do not offer a good product. I.e. people getting uber sick at Applebees from the cooks not washing their hands. people will simply not support a business that does not meet their standards.
if you dont like that job working as a bar tender, than dont apply for it, and if you dont have the skills to get a better job, than i have some advice, its called community college, getting your GED or even go dig ditches, they are always looking for ditch diggers. quit your bitching and look for a different job. i know im a hard ass. but thats how i feel, if you dont like what youre doing, either quit, deal with it if you choose. (thats the beautiful thing, no one says i have to do X or Y, just like i dont tell you to work at Z)
not that i am calling you a liar, but i would like to see these stats. especially because these stats seem as though they would be incredibly easy to skew. for instance a simple google search? what state are you talking about? i dont even know how many states have a state wide smoking ban like MN does. (you literally can not light up ANYWHERE)
besides its not as though smoking is the only cause of heart attacks. all i am saying is saying is that "banning smoking cuts heart attacks X amount" is a stat that is pretty mold-able. were people more active that year? did they drink less soda? population ages, more effective blood pressure and cholesterol medication?
i know the arguments for having public roads, and its my opinion that they are a good thing, they facilitate the movement of the free market.
i do in fact pay for that ambulance service, so i would like prompt service, just like i expect good service in other things i pay for. just like i pay for police, fire departments and a dysfunctional at times public school system. im not saying the free market is the solution for every problem america faces. i am saying there is a place for the government to do its thing, and there is a place for laissez faire.
for gods sake, if we are so concerned with saving the population from itself, than lets just flat outlaw booze. prohibition all over again. lets ban soda. no more big mac value meals. its a slippery slope we are venturing down when the government starts protecting me from myself.
wow, i just wrote an essay
however, i personally do not see smoking as crossing this line. and OSHA. believe me i work for the government and we follow it to a T and honestly even my ultra safe government boss thinks some of their stuff is absolute bullshit.
have you honestly ever washed your hands just because it was a law? i know when i wash my hands before serving food, my mind track is not "well i better follow the laws down to the letter so im going to wash my hands" no actually i think, hey i dont want to get germs and whatever else might be on my hands all over someone elses food. not to mention the market has a way of ridding itself of establishments that do not offer a good product. I.e. people getting uber sick at Applebees from the cooks not washing their hands. people will simply not support a business that does not meet their standards.
if you dont like that job working as a bar tender, than dont apply for it, and if you dont have the skills to get a better job, than i have some advice, its called community college, getting your GED or even go dig ditches, they are always looking for ditch diggers. quit your bitching and look for a different job. i know im a hard ass. but thats how i feel, if you dont like what youre doing, either quit, deal with it if you choose. (thats the beautiful thing, no one says i have to do X or Y, just like i dont tell you to work at Z)
not that i am calling you a liar, but i would like to see these stats. especially because these stats seem as though they would be incredibly easy to skew. for instance a simple google search? what state are you talking about? i dont even know how many states have a state wide smoking ban like MN does. (you literally can not light up ANYWHERE)
besides its not as though smoking is the only cause of heart attacks. all i am saying is saying is that "banning smoking cuts heart attacks X amount" is a stat that is pretty mold-able. were people more active that year? did they drink less soda? population ages, more effective blood pressure and cholesterol medication?
i know the arguments for having public roads, and its my opinion that they are a good thing, they facilitate the movement of the free market.
i do in fact pay for that ambulance service, so i would like prompt service, just like i expect good service in other things i pay for. just like i pay for police, fire departments and a dysfunctional at times public school system. im not saying the free market is the solution for every problem america faces. i am saying there is a place for the government to do its thing, and there is a place for laissez faire.
for gods sake, if we are so concerned with saving the population from itself, than lets just flat outlaw booze. prohibition all over again. lets ban soda. no more big mac value meals. its a slippery slope we are venturing down when the government starts protecting me from myself.
wow, i just wrote an essay
SteezyOhio
Active member
Obese* people would be a better way to put it.
pmills
Active member
i appreciate the effort of the essay, but a few things justin,
1. a simple google search means you just have to type in smoking ban and heart attack, there will be links to all sorts of news articles and you can tell me what you find-- i know they are out there, i've read them already. If it's something that you haven't heard about it's probably atleast worth your while to do a little research on it, hell, if you want the peer reviewed shit, just search it in scholar, probably can find the JAMA article, if not, at the very least the AHA will have something published.
the whole point of statistical significance is to help rule out factors like variations of life style changes, and we know correlation does not prove causation, but it is out there, something to look at and consider. It's not a fucking mystery that second hand smoke is detrimental to people's health.
2. I think you're being ridiculous saying that any sort of protectionist policy will result in a fall down a slippery slope where we just have mass prohibition of everything. We probably should stop making the unhealthy foods as cheep as they are, and we should start subsidizing healthy alternatives instead, but that's another debate we don't need to have. We already tax alcohol and we tax tobacco, when you get a seat belt ticket, you don't go to jail, you get a small fine (i guess someone said $100, i've seen $25 fines). It's not an infringement on your rights to have a law that requires you to buckle up, any more than it is to have a speed limit.
1. a simple google search means you just have to type in smoking ban and heart attack, there will be links to all sorts of news articles and you can tell me what you find-- i know they are out there, i've read them already. If it's something that you haven't heard about it's probably atleast worth your while to do a little research on it, hell, if you want the peer reviewed shit, just search it in scholar, probably can find the JAMA article, if not, at the very least the AHA will have something published.
the whole point of statistical significance is to help rule out factors like variations of life style changes, and we know correlation does not prove causation, but it is out there, something to look at and consider. It's not a fucking mystery that second hand smoke is detrimental to people's health.
2. I think you're being ridiculous saying that any sort of protectionist policy will result in a fall down a slippery slope where we just have mass prohibition of everything. We probably should stop making the unhealthy foods as cheep as they are, and we should start subsidizing healthy alternatives instead, but that's another debate we don't need to have. We already tax alcohol and we tax tobacco, when you get a seat belt ticket, you don't go to jail, you get a small fine (i guess someone said $100, i've seen $25 fines). It's not an infringement on your rights to have a law that requires you to buckle up, any more than it is to have a speed limit.
saucybiscuits
Active member
when i had to take my permit test, one of the questions was "what is the seatbelt law in Colorado?" and i just said that all persons in the car must have a seatbelt on. and they marked it wrong. i think thats stupid. i think i shoulda got half credit for bein safe.
