https://www.businessinsider.com/whe...06Zu3WRTghYUVbJums530a8dpHXEjJ0tkoRObPKOCcjAE [qoute] Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts Daniel Ackerman May 26, 2020, 10:03 AM Backlash against public-health safeguards has plenty of precedents: When the influenza pandemic swept through San Francisco in 1919, hundreds of "mask slackers" disobeyed the law and were arrested. Even the seat belt, one of the most ubiquitous safety devices in modern history, faced a contentious battle for acceptance. The long road to seat-belt safety As cars became increasingly popular through the 20th century, vehicular fatalities skyrocketed. Between 1920 and 1960, the rate of auto deaths doubled, from 11 people per 100,000 to 22 people. SNIP VISIT SITE Then came Ralph Nader. In 1965, Nader, 31, penned "Unsafe at Any Speed," a best-selling exposé that claimed car manufacturers were sacrificing lives for style and profit. Nader argued that Detroit willfully neglected advances in auto safety, like roll bars and seat belts, to keep costs down. His investigation spurred Congress to create what eventually became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in 1968. VISIT SITE But using them was strictly voluntary. And many Americans didn't want to. As late as 1983, fewer than 15% of Americans said they used seat belts consistently. New York became the first state to pass a mandatory seat-belt law, in 1984. Other states soon followed. Ralph Nader before a Senate subcommittee in 1966. Bettmann While there was already clear evidence seat belts saved lives, these measures faced stiff opposition. A Gallup poll from July 1984 showed that 65% of Americans opposed mandatory belt laws, according to the Los Angeles Times. In a survey one year later, drivers said they thought the restraints were "ineffective, inconvenient, and uncomfortable." Some argued — incorrectly — that it was safer to be thrown clear from a wreck than trapped inside one. [/quote] more at site Rocket River
Even in the late 1990's there were conservatives/libertarians that were against mandatory seat belt laws.
I don't care for the law because it protects the person making the choice, whereas the mask protects everybody.
Count me on this list. My belief: It should be mandatory for the manufacturers to include seat belts but allow the drivers to choose whether to wear it or not. If you (the driver/passenger) want to risk flying through the windshield, then so be it. I take a different stance on masks. No seat belt impacts the individual. Going without a mask will impact others around you. This seems more akin to driving drunk.
Its not the same as not wearing a mask. Being dumb and not wearing a seatbelt only affects you. Not wearing a mask is a risk to everyone else.
I wear my seat-belt and I would even if it weren't a law, but if people don't want to wear them.... That's honestly their choice and won't hurt anyone other than them/their family. This is most likely in the end not so much about our safety but overall money impact. I mean maybe it did help better safety regulations, but I'd rather police officers spend time on more important stuff than writing tickets for this. Again, I'm not against seat-belts, I just think wasting time on tickets is stupid. With that said, on the subjects of masks, if they help everyone for the time being from spreading this I'll wear one (and I have been), and if it's a law I'll still wear one. I mean that's something that possibly helps the whole population based on someone's simple choice. But honestly the same could be said about vaccines (for the population that can get them), that should have been a law a long time ago - ie if no underlying health conditions get the important vaccines for your kids/you.
I don't like the seat belt law because I do believe it is a personal responsibility. However, in reality, if you don't wear one and go flying through the windshield, we as a society also pay a price (medical bills, disability payments, lost investment in the public education we paid for you - though I guess that is negligible if you decided not to wear a seat belt).
Been ticketed twice for no seatbelt. Most recent was last year while I was a passenger in a car. My friend was driving and we were in a rush, so we got in the car and made it to the main road. Usually I put my seatbelt on after a minute of being in the car, but a cop pulled us over right away. Ironically, the copper didn't even give the driver a ticket for the expired inspection/registration. Both of us got the no seatbelt ticket. Usually, I always wear the seatbelt but it's mainly since the car keeps nagging me to put the seatbelt on. Imo, a seat belt law is similar to a hypothetical law governing motorbikes. Driving a motorbike is likely more dangerous in general as is not wearing a seatbelt, but yet they allow folks to drive motorbikes.
I have libertarian leanings, but I understand that it is not realistic in the systems integrated in our society. Even if every law abiding citizen had uninsured motorist insurance, those who don't wear seatbelts, those who speed, and those who are generally haphazard with their driving responsibilities negatively affect insurance rates for everyone else. So some level of motorist regulation is mandated - I hate it, but I get it. Similarly, individual health is something that impacts society as a whole because medical practitioners take the Hippocratic oath and are obligated to treat everyone who is sick. The a-hole in me hates it, but understands that is our system, and that regulation should be implemented. The debate should be left to how much regulation and the success/impact of each law - it should be studied and implemented based on data and facts. I try to be caring and not an a-hole, but I'm an a-hole at heart - if I had the power to start society over, I'm very much a hands-off, let everyone fend for themselves and only work together voluntarily type person. But that is not our world, but practically, that world is difficult to make work. There is a legitimate argument for the anti-face mask side, but for me that is more about quarantining everyone who is old and immune compromised and letting this virus spread everywhere fast because that policy is easier to implement because most people are selfish a-holes, so let's just get this over with. You make the cost-benefit and practicality arguments for both sides (masks mandated vs not). I don't agree with the "my constitutional rights" bs that many spew, since most I believe are very unfamiliar with the history of the constitution, how rights have developed, and how even fundamental rights aren't 100% absolute.
You said it more succinctly than me. I think society has valued the increase in joy/freedom of choice to buy a motorcycle over the societal cost and even though it is more costly than seat belt implementation (let's just assume so for this argument), the cost of freedom of having to wear a seat belt is not considered less important than the societal health savings/societal safety improvement. That is the debate that should be occurring with masks, not an absolutist debate about "freedom!" vs "we're all going to die!" I think it should be about incremental cost mixed in with values, but understanding that nothing is absolute.
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of how seatbelt laws affect society. As someone mentioned earlier, those injuries and ER visits are a financial burden on everyone else in society. Besides actual health care care costs, they also raise the cost of auto insurance, liability insurance, etc. Beyond that, there's a mental burden that the seatbelt-wearing driver faces in an accident if the other person is seriously injured, regardless of fault. That has a potential cost to them for the rest of their lives, especially if the other person dies. There was also a study that wearing seatbelts subconciously increases safe driving by putting safety on people's minds - so seatbelt laws don't just reduce injuries - they also help reduce wrecks. Seatbelt laws go far beyond protecting the person wearing it. It's not as simple as "who cares about the stupid person that doesn't wear a seatbelt."
That's a great, well-explained point. But you can also go down this general rabbit hole with so many things... you could similarly argue that we need to limit daily sugar intake by law.
The difference being that driving is licensed by the state and is therefore a privilege and not a right. They can impose whatever restrictions they chose in order to provide that license. You have no inherent human right to get behind a wheel and drive.
Oh I agree with you (and also didn't bring this up in my comment to make it simple), but your point about the financial burden coming out of the family/our tax payer pockets for their Healthcare - ie someone with no insurance/family then it can impact us, but at the same time when we can print fed money like we've seen recently, it's just another spot we'd be bleeding money and probably wouldn't amount to much. People who abuse their body (not calling anyone out) are also funded by us - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210121403.htm both legal and illegal drugs - sugar/nicotine/real drugs etc etc. So I see it as a drop in the bucket, feds can just start up the printers. I'm not trying to be joking here but I wonder what actual impact this would have. I mean take smoking for example, we know it's bad but people still smoke.
This. Seems pretty obvious to me but I guess not so much to others. I'm so incredibly tired of the "if you take away or mandate X...what's next?" argument, too.
