The 'bystander' might be a person in the same car. I don't know if there has ever been a reported instance or not, but the fact remain that an object flying out of a car can cause damage to another object. Do you deny that?
I don't deny that. But to say that people should wear their seatbelts in vehicles so they don't fly out and kill another person is one of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard. Again, a motorcyclist is practically a missile waiting to happen under the right circumstances. Should we ban motorcycles too? By your logic, yes we should.
There are plenty of other reasons for folks to buckle up. I was simply pointing out that a person ejected from a car could be a danger to someone/something else.
Never said that. I was simply pointing out that a person ejected from a car could be a danger to someone/something else. Do you deny that? In addition, a person not wearing a seat belt is a potential danger to everyone else in the car. Do you deny that?
Of course there are plenty of reasons to buckle up, that's why everyone in my vehicle does so. You say you simply point out that a person ejected from a car could be a danger to another person. The odds of that happening have to be somewhere in the sub .01% area. I've been looking all over google for any account of something like this happening and have yet to find anything. You also ignore my question. By your logic, we should ban motorcycles b/c they are a danger to others if they fly off of their bikes. Something that happens all the time. As far as a passenger hurting another passenger due to lack of restraints, that's the decision of those individuals to risk their safety like that. Much like it is the decision of a motorcyclist and any passenger they may have to ride on one of those death contraptions.
Even if you take the nanny-state safety aspect out of the equation, there are a number of compelling public policy arguments for having a seatbelt law.
So I read up on it, and I have your answer to this: The advertising is paid for by Federal grants to the State. The State gets to advertise it for "free", and then the state, cities, and counties get the money from tickets written in their jurisdiction.
There's an interest of public safety for everyone on the road, not just of "others on the road." Just because seat belt laws may not involve the safety of others on the road as much as speeding, stop signs, etc...it doesn't mean it is any less valid IMO. Seat belts saves lives, I'm sure its the main reason why you buckle up and require your passengers to do the same. But it kinda sounds like you're perfectly fine with making sure everyone in your vehicle wears a seatbelt but you're not okay with police personnel doing the same.
You do, of course, realize that it is legitimate function of government to increase the odds that its citizenry remains alive, right?
Including the Republicans that support seat belt laws. Your definition of "nanny-stating liberals" is a bit...peculiar.
I would certainly prefer that all objects in the car that weigh in the range 100-300 pounds (like people) be secured to the vehicle in some way. I don't think anyone is going to get seriously injured if my water bottle goes flying out the window during an accident.
If that were the case, then why don't we ban motorcycles? Nobody is answering this question. Hell, we don't even require HELMETS! Motorcycles are extremely dangerous to the rider, yet they are legal b/c we give that right and decision to them as adults in this free country. That's EXACTLY right. I'm all for personal freedoms.
You guys are focusing too much on the safety incentives of seatbelt laws and not enough on the financial aspects (to both the state and other motorists/taxpayers).
Interesting. That addresses the cost side of it. But it still hinders their efforts at collecting revenues. The more people are aware of the Click-It-Or-Ticket campaign, the fewer potential violators they have to give tickets to.
Which means they can continue to collect taxes on alive citizens for longer! Spoiler http://twistedsifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/guinness-brilliant.jpg
To answer your question, we don't ban motorcycles because it would not be feasible, however, requiring seat belts is. Please do not neglect the feasibility/financial aspect of laws along because they are definite factors along with the interest of public safety. While I firmly believe that helmets should be required for motorcyclists, I don't think the absence of that law should have anything to do with the validity of seat belt laws. BTW, Texas does have a helmet requirement for riders 20 and younger. All but 3 states have some type of helmet requirement while 20 states have a helmet requirement for all riders. You're obviously not all for personal freedoms since you don't allow your own passengers to enjoy their's.
No you shouldn't because safety isn't the primary driving force behind enacting these laws, though it is the reason politicians give lip-service to.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Me, I don't really care how much money the state is making because people are stupid enough to not wear seatbelts. I just don't get this belief that seatbelt laws are some deep dark conspiracy designed to make the government cash tills ring and really have NOTHING to do with public safety. If you want to make that argument about speed limits in certain areas, etc. I'm willing to listen. But seatbelts? Not so much. I mean, where does it stop? Is every single law punishable by a fine just a cash grab? Do none of these laws have anything whatsoever to do with public safety?
